Would it be morally permissible to commit an immoral act if the sufferer were to be mildly compensated?

You are saying this with the pretense that the act is immoral. That pretense is what I am disputing. I would equate it with giving somebody dinner each day (dinner being life and each day being a new generation). The first day it is horrid food, maybe even sand. The person is hungry though, and they eat whatever they can. Sometimes this means they eat sand. Sometimes this means eating shit. Sometimes this means eating a bug. The next day, there are a couple berries. Keep going for years and you have a royal dinner. Yeah, in that royal dinner there sometimes still is stuff you don't like eating. Sometimes it has been poisoned by somebody. Or it is simply rotten.

Is it immoral to give somebody dinner even though you don't have much to give them or there is risk of it being poisoned? Is it more moral to not give them anything at all and refuse them?

Nonexistent "beings", however, are not subject to your predicaments. They do not need to experience joy or suffering, nor do they need to learn the necessity of "falling and getting back up", or find the meaning of death. You are projecting your views on the beauty of the universe onto a being that neither experiences nor needs to experience it. There is nothing in it for a nonexistent being.

Death and nonexistence are for the being equivalent. They are the ground state.

Let's imagine a rock. It has been laying still on the ground for hundreds of thousands of years. Suddenly, for a few minutes, some animal/human takes that rock with them, plays with the rock, experiences memories with the rock, good or bad ones, and then gets left behind again, for the eternity of time. It would not mean much to the rock, but to the animal/human it did mean something. It was the peak of meaning for that rock. I would argue that this is why it is better to give somebody life instead of not.

Again, I believe you are conflating existing beings with nonexistent ones. I would consider a child's life utterly valuable once they exist. However, I maintain the view that it would have been in their best interest not to be brought into existence in the first place. Also, the phrase "it would be better if you weren’t alive" is highly ambiguous. "Weren't alive" can imply death, which seems to negate the value of their already existing life. That is not what I am doing here. To someone who would not misconstrue me or be emotionally hurt, I'd rather say something along the lines of "I am so sorry, it would have been in your best interest not to be brought into existence".

Again, nonexistence and death are equivalent for the being themselves in my opinion. Being dead is being nonexistent except as a memory or the physical existence. To me, telling somebody that is suffering from life that it would have been better to not have come into existence at all is equivalent to telling them it would be better if they died this very moment. You are telling them the "ground state" would be preferable for them. That's in essence what you are saying. I do not see how already being alive changes this "preferred" ground state to you.

Regarding humanity as a collective, I somewhat agree with you. Creating the next generation reduces the probability of the current generation dying a miserable death. However, my point regarding this was that "kicking the can down the road" is not a good and permanent solution; it merely increases the collective suffering in the long run.

I personally have a very "biological" stance on the collective meaning of life. Our 'function' is to procreate and persist as a species. That is how our DNA has been trained due to environmental circumstances. That is how all life has been trained. I take this function that has been given to me through the selection of all my predecessors before me very serious. Like some sort of duty. In normal circumstances (historically), we would be too busy surviving and staying alive to even question the meaning of existence. It is when survival is not the primary thing being done when we lose sight of what we are "supposed" to be doing. What we are "made for". Ethics can not come to this conclusion because the universe didnt care about ethics when it created life. It just happened. You can either accept the nature of the universe and play in accordance to its rules or deny it and follow man-made ethics that would ultimately destroy humanity. Or well, "naturally select" the humans that do in fact play in accordance to the rules of the universe.