An Argument for Anti-Natalism

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this argument - if you think there's a flaw in it, please let me know.<br><br>\-------------<br><br>The Happiness and Fulfillment of an individual \[H\] is a function of the satisfaction of their inherent needs \[N\], their ability to derive pleasure from their experiences \[P\], and the consequences of their actions \[A\]: H = f\(\[N\], \[P\], \[A\]\).<br><br>Since humans are a social species, the satisfaction of our needs, the pleasure we derive, and the consequences of our actions are not entirely within our control: the inherent needs of humans are in part satisfied by the natural world and our social structure, we cannot entirely control the pleasure we derive from things, and the consequences of our actions are in part determined by the external world.<br><br>It is therefore true that the happiness and fulfillment of humans are not entirely within their own control.<br><br>Thus, since the happiness and fulfillment of humans is not entirely within their own control, and they must endure hardships, difficulties, and suffering in order to exist, it is morally wrong to create them.<br><br>\--------------<br><br>Note: I know that this is not an entirely new argument but rather a rephrasing of a more traditional anti-natalist argument. I'd love to hear any potential counterarguments or criticisms.