Here's an interesting paper on the subject of risk aversion relating to population ethics. Below are the basic questions it addresses-
1. Is it plausible to devaluate the chances of possible children? Is risk-aversion reasonable in the context of population ethics?
2. What is the responsibility of the actual generation? Should long-term scenarios be taken into account?
3. What is the relevance of population ethics on the family level? Is it morally defensible to have children?
Different views are formally addressed, including antinatalism. Benatar is referenced, and philosophical fun is had by all. I'll be commenting on the paper at a later date, mostly regarding what I see as a faulty assumption or two which ultimately affect the conclusion. Until then, please feel free to jump ahead of me and offer up any and all opinions you might have.