For instance, Nils Holtug holds that the asymmetry is incompatible with a person-affecting solution to the nonidentity problem and, in addition, it is counterintuitive in another case.
Suppose that in the future the last inhabitants of the earth can populate the world again or refrain from procreating and thus bring an end to the human race.
Even if they could bring billions of happy individuals into existence, there would surely be a few of them whose existence would be miserable and, hence, given the asymmetry they should bring about the end of the human race since the happiness of those possible billions of individuals counts for nothing compared to the suffering of those who would have miserable lives.
[13] To avoid this radical separation between happiness and suffering, Holtug appeals instead to the Weak Asymmetry: Everything else being equal, it is better to avoid that a person comes into existence and has a life worth not living (at level –n), than to ensure that a person comes into existence and has a life worth living (at level n).
[14]This allows to give extra weight to the badness of bringing miserable lives into existence but also allows to outweight small quantities by much larger ones when comparing suffering and happiness.