There is no such thing as objective morality.
If that were true than you could easily provide a context where someone being unnecessarily tortured wouldn't be morally wrong.
Morality is a consistent objective framework just like mathemathics is. And even psychopaths understand that, as they know precisely when they act immoral, but that doesn't stop them, but even triggers them.
Everything “suffers”. It’s a part of life.
Exactly, that's why it needs to end, as suffering is inherently bad. But for some reason you apparently don't reach the rather obvious conclusion and it's not clear why.
Doesn’t it make more sense just to leave the universe to do what it’s doing?
We will be gone, humans will not exist one day, so why try to force our ending early?
The sooner the less horrible obviously. And how is that an argument in favor of creating new victims of life as it seems that's what you are trying to say?
Antinatalism is really radical and unthinkable to most people, so getting all of humanity onboard seems like a pointless struggle to get where we’re going to end up anyway.
Most Antinatalists are not Antinatalists because they think they can convince everyone on earth to be one too, and it's not clear why would one think they were. It's simply a moral conclusion after realizing that suffering is inherently bad and life unnecessarily forces suffering on others.
The same applies to other consistent moral conclusions like veganism.
Off topic:
Think about it another way
Trying to give orders in a title wont make the post particularly popular, just sayin.