The verse makes a shocking comparison: a stillborn child is 'better off' than this man. Why would Solomon deem non-existence superior to a long, prolific, yet empty life?
This is the crushing conclusion of the passage. Solomon declares that a stillborn child—one that never experienced life's joys or sorrows, never saw the light, and never made its mark—is preferable to a man who has 'many years' and 'a hundred children' but no soul satisfaction and no burial. The stillborn child entered with 'vanity' (meaning 'nothingness' or 'emptiness') and departed in darkness, experiencing neither the good nor the bad of life. The man, however, experienced the potential for good but failed to grasp it, accumulating years and lineage without true fulfillment, ultimately ending in ignominy. This comparison drives home the point: a life lived without experiencing God's goodness and leaving a meaningful, honored legacy is, in a profound sense, worse than never having lived at all.