Attribution studies are more difficult in the global south, where reliable climate data are often lacking, and where local research capacities are limited. But these are some of the places most at risk from climate change and the extreme weather that it can spark. Otto hopes that lower-income countries will be able to strengthen their research in these areas in coming years, with support from wealthier countries.
"Lucretius, a disciple of Epicurus’ and thus also an Epicurean, advanced a further argument against death’s being a harm. He argued that since we do not regret the period of non-existence before we came into being, we should not regret the non-existence that follows our lives."
— Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar | Ch: Death and Suicide (Conclusion) | pg. 213
That is to say, it is likely that my version allows for death to be a benefit more often than the usual view. . . In many cultures (including most western cultures), there is immense prejudice against suicide. It is often viewed as cowardly where it is not dismissed as a consequence of mental illness. My view allows the possibility that suicide may more often be rational and may even be more rational than continuing to exist. This is because it may be an irrational love for life that keeps many people alive when their lives have actually become so bad that ceasing to exist would be better.
— Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar | Ch: Death and Suicide (Conclusion) | pg. 219
Pollyannaism leads most people to think that they and their (potential) children will be spared all this. And indeed there are some, although extremely few, who are lucky enough to avoid non-inevitable suffering. But everybody must experience at least some or other of the harms in the above catalogue of misery.
Even if there are some lives that are spared most of this suffering, and those lives are better than I have said they are, those (relatively) high-quality lives are exceedingly uncommon. A charmed life is so rare that for every one such life there are millions of wretched lives. Some know that their baby will be among the unfortunate. Nobody knows, however, that their baby will be one of the allegedly lucky few. Great suffering could await any person that is brought into existence. Even the most privileged people could give birth to a child that will suffer unbearably, be raped, assaulted, or be murdered brutally. The optimist surely bears the burden of justifying this procreational Russian roulette. Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. If we count not only the unusually severe harms that anybody could endure, but also the quite routine ones of ordinary human life, then we find that matters are still worse for cheery procreators. It shows that they play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun—aimed, of course, not at their own heads, but at those of their future offspring.
(via Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence (2006 Oxford University Press USA))
"Creating new people, by having babies, is so much a part of human life that it is rarely thought even to require a justification. Indeed, most people do not even think about whether they should or should not make a baby. They just make one. In other words, procreation is usually the consequence of sex rather than the result of a decision to bring people into existence. Those who do indeed decide to have a child might do so for any number of reasons, but among these reasons cannot be the interests of the potential child. One can never have a child for the child's sake."
— _Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar
Personally I think it comes down to your preference for gradual change over decades or centuries, during which time the systemic harms continue (mass homelessness, climate change, horrendous living conditions in impoverished nations, declining mental health, etc.), but instances of exceptional harm flaring up in (increasingly smaller) privileged populations/regions of the globe are minimized by regulation and policing.
Or for rushing revolutionary change at the cost of greatly increased harm over a comparatively (to the alternative) small time-frame.
Personally my preference is for the latter and for the reasons I've explained I believe that the optimal course of action for activists is to cease any efforts to engage with the existing systems of governance, basically abandoning the fight for regulation, which would as you say result in deregulation.
But far from doing nothing I believe the best course of action is in banding together to form small but co-operative groups that instead "opt-out" of the existing economic system, reducing reliance on it to zero by setting up "off-grid" production of necessities like food, power and housing, focusing on recruitment and growing their population as it becomes an increasingly common/normalized and increasingly attractive alternative to the current global capitalist system as both conditions for everyone but the ruling class and the size of the ruling class itself continue to decline.
Probably whilst simultaneously preparing for escalating (and ultimately violent) conflict with institutions of the existing system.