As it really isn't, existence is beyond evil and that's why I'd always see it as better to not exist. There's no beauty in how existing beings have been tormented endlessly all throughout history as a result of the abomination that is existence, instead it's hellish and repulsive, it's beyond tragic how life even exists at all when the absence of everything is perfection.
I'm disgusted by how humans actually choose to procreate even know there is literally no limit as to how much one can be tormented as long as they exist, existence truly is just a harmful, meaningless imposistion that causes nothing but suffering, I cannot stand those who label this as "beautiful" and so cruelly choose to procreate, it's like a virus how they create so much unnecessary suffering, pain and torment by forcing life here.
No matter what I'd prefer to not exist especially as to exist means to suffer so unnecessarily all while risking experiencing much worse suffering, the amount of endless torment and senseless cruelty in this world is simply beyond comprehension, calling existence "beautiful" is an insult to how hellish existence truly is. All that I've ever wished for is the peace of non-existence, my wish to die is a result of becoming aware of how truly undesirable existence is, for me only wanting to die makes sense which is why I'm disgusted by people and their insensitive toxic positivity.
Here's one way I try to see this as a non-expert (alot of this is just me "stream-of-consciousness"-ing so it might be hard to make sense of lol). Not necessarily arguing against you, just providing my own weird angle of perspective:
When you say "existence" and "been tormented endlessly", I think of not only us, but also animals. Even when throwing away meaning and "man-made horrors" that's brought down onto wild animals - nature is literally painful. When animals eat each other, sharp teeth tear into skin and bones, even though only some pain at surface skin level should be needed to tell the animal to GTFO. But biochemical phenomena (the kind that involves DNA mutations and evolution) don't involve moral intelligence, so it doesn't know that too much pain is bad, no matter how much it helps you survive (except for the whole adrenaline and shock phenomena which is interesting).
So even though creatures might've developed too much sensitivity to pain, it had to have at least SOME of it way for it to even survive and eventually evolve towards us (the only living beings smart enough to even conceptualize morality, and to interpret these things as cruel). If life didn't develop nervous systems to feel pain, hunger, and even mental stress, it wouldn't detect (and thus avoid) harm towards itself. And that would drastically decreases it's chances of surviving and eventually evolving to us. I mention mental stress even for other animals, because there's species like birds who required complex social structures to survive as long-distance communicators and travelers. And they feel lots of stress, maybe even more than us when put into brief isolating situations (such as our household cages).
"Cruelty" is an understandably valid interpretation...but we had to have developed a propensity towards feeling pain (and the cognitive stress that it inflicts) in order to at least try to overcome whatever was that source of pain and discomfort. So if we're thinking parallel universes and alternate timelines here...I don't think it's possible for there to be an alternate reality where 1) we exist, and 2) we don't feel pain, fear, etc...but also sentient cognitions of beauty and purpose, etc. as bonus fuel for motivation neurocircuitry.
But I do have to agree that we're sometimes too smart for our own good, and amongst many harms and "evils" that sentience has brought, the overcomplicated state modern society can be one of them. And there's tons of "man-made horrors" throughout all of human history that have taken necessary survival mechanisms and dialed them up in an immoral way. I think what happens is that throughout biological history, each animal in their own, single lifespan is NATURALLY built to handle X amount of pain, Y amounts of mental stress, etc. But our artificial inventions interfere with that because they aren't natural phenomena. So whichever person/group is controlling these phenomena, get to inflict distressing scenarios over and over again to people that are in a position with less leverage (far beyond the amount of times that a snowstorm happens in a penguin's lifespan, for example).
When I say "we're too smart for our own good", it's also because we understand that doing A leads to B, and sometimes "B" is something we all want...but "A" could be an "evil" action that's either easier than a moral one, or stem from abnormal, partly genetic brain circuitry (such as socio and psychopathy) that persisted because violence in the past used to ensure survival more than not. And what survived in the past can often be what exists today.
From all this yapping, my conclusion is sorta like this:
I try to apply this thinking to why we not only have SI, but also have general philosophical perspectives that are usually anti-CTB. With higher intelligence, we naturally form more complex manifestations of innate instincts, and it makes it sound "moral" to the average person. So I wouldn't call them person evil, sadistic, etc. But there are definitely some exploitative people and capitalistic organizations who hide behind masks of virtue-signaling. And sometimes average people might get their moral positions from those in power too...
