Well, if ending suffering in and of itself is the only goal, then I guess this checks out. It just seems that there must be some additional motive for wanting to end suffering, like so that we can have a better life. If you’re not concerned with valuing life, I don’t understand why you would value ending suffering. I’m also not sure why you would value life less than ending suffering if that is your stance.

By not making a life I am preventing its suffering. It’s like saying if I did not make a sandwich I prevented anyone from eating it.

Someone can come along and say, with equal force, that by preventing life we are preventing joy and love and laughter. But really what we’re talking about is preventing life, period. No suffering, no laughter, no joy, no love, no loss, no death, but life. This is because life is not a one-to-one ratio with suffering, but is much more.

I have a problem with the ethical angle. One cannot claim he is preventing suffering by preventing life because it is impossible to prevent suffering in the not-yet-living, and for the same reason it is impossible to prevent the suffering of the dead—they do not exist. Exactly whose suffering did they prevent? One cannot find them on any plane of existence.

There are many valid reasons why one would not want to have children, but to prevent the suffering of the unborn has to be the worst of them.

I have a problem with the ethical angle. One cannot claim he is preventing suffering by preventing life because it is impossible to prevent suffering in the not-yet-living, and for the same reason it is impossible to prevent the suffering of the dead—they do not exist. Exactly whose suffering did they prevent? One cannot find them on any plane of existence.

There are many valid reasons why one would not want to have children, but to prevent the suffering of the unborn has to be the worst of them. — NOS4A2

This argument is ridiculous. You don't need a person to actually exist to prevent an actual person from suffering. Let's say that instead of the more generalized suffering, it is known that a future person would 99% be guaranteed to be suffering from some chronic genetic-related condition if born. The genetic tests actually prove this would be so. You would still say that one cannot meaningfully talk about a future person's outcomes from this, and preventing it? Feck off.

As long as there are fertile people who can potentially procreate, of course you can talk about future outcomes and preventing them as related to birth.

By not making a life I am preventing its suffering. It’s like saying if I did not make a sandwich I prevented anyone from eating it. — NOS4A2

That is a bad analogy. Preventing people, prevents suffering. Not making a sandwich doesn't prevent anyone from eating.

Someone can come along and say, with equal force, that by preventing life we are preventing joy and love and laughter. But really what we’re talking about is preventing life, period. No suffering, no laughter, no joy, no love, no loss, no death, but life. This is because life is not a one-to-one ratio with suffering, but is much more. — NOS4A2

Well, this is nuanced. Philosophical pessimists would actually refute that and say human nature is inherently suffering. But besides that, you are still not getting the asymmetry argument. If not born, NO ACTUAL person suffers the "loss" of no happiness. However, NO ACTUAL person suffers, which is ALWAYS good, whether someone is actually alive to know this. Before you even answer, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

I like some of the changes caused by the pandemic.
I believe that we should have been doing much more networking.

Children can learn most things by networking without being crowded into classrooms. An effort to create well designed video learning modules would give all children the benefits from teachers who prove to have the best, most interesting way to teach each subject. Half the day at an actual school would be enough, rounded out with home lessons on laptops like college students have.

I think teleconferencing is better for corporations, instead of executives jetting all over at great expense, just to shake hands and talk in person.

The advance in medical technology, like more better ventilators and public detectors for symptoms, is likely the inevitable future fast forwarded to now. This can have benefits beyond covid-19.

The present we were used to is now the past, for the better in some ways.