Robin Hanson supports the Caplan & Glaeser position against Mankiw and Willkinson, because his feelings are important to him no matter what scoffing skeptics say. I tried to post a comment, but it got flagged as spam so I put it here:

I posted about this earlier, but since it’s appropriate I figured I’d notify people who might be interested, Chip Smith has been writing a series of posts in anti-natalism sparked by David Benatar’s book in part one. He shifts from Benatar’s utilitarianism to deontological ethics in part two, arguing that the libertarian non-agression principle and pro-life ethics both imply anti-natalism, and in addition reject genocide that utilitarian anti-natalism would seem to imply. He argues that Andrea Yates was a better follower of Christian dogma than most in part three, given the infinite negative utility of hell and the non-zero probability of being damned if allowed to live. In part four he discusses transhumanist immortalism and how the awfulness of aging and death support the anti-natalist position. He also notes that despite being anti-natalist atheist who sees nothing morally objectionable about abortion he thinks it should be legally prohibited. His most recent post discussed Michael Cook’s review of Benatar’s book at Spiked.

From an egoist perspective, I say nuts to the kids who must suffer because I spawned them. Parents tell their kids “too bad, so sad” and other I’m-the-boss variants all the time, so why not disregard any of their possible objections to conception?