Drunken Philosophy: Antinatalism: Is it better never to have been born?

Welcome to Drunken Philosophy, a casual, curious, social discussion club. Come grab a drink and a seat at The Oracle.

Antinatalism: Is it better to have never been born and should we be procreating?
I did not use AI to write this. I actually just learned about this topic after reading a short article in Philosophy Now Magazine which rejected the claims of the well-known proponents of antinatalism: Gary Benatar, Emil Cioran and Peter Zapffe that simply existing is too painful to be worth living, that no one should be having children and even hypothetical utopias do not justify living. Generally, according to the article, these thinkers argue that pleasure and happiness are simply and exclusively a result of an absence of suffering and pain. Cioran wrote that "Not to be born is undoubtedly the best plan of all." The author of the article says that absolutist believers in antinatalism believe that a state of zero suffering can only be reached when humanity goes extinct. Wow, this is pessimism taken to the extreme. So what do you think? Do these thinkers present any views you agree with? See you at the Oracle at 7pm on July 11.
As always the prompt is optional. Come for the conversation, stay for the drinks, and bring your own questions.