This video was posted in another sub and got a lot more comments there. Here is one of the opposing comments I found interesting;
There are a couple of arguments in this video that argue that there is more suffering in life than pleasure, but all of them are either narrow-scoped in such a way as to favour suffering, or could just as well be argued the other way around. One example for each is:
All other arguments are based on the premise that life contains more pain than pleasure on the whole. I was also annoyed by how the antinatalist philosophers then argue that we shouldn't commit suicide by claiming that preventing a life is different from ending a life. I'll concede that it is different, but they make no argument as to how that affects the balance between pain and pleasure. I'd argue that the difference is irrelevant. It's something that I see philosophers do quite often: Arguing that it is different, but not specifying how that difference is relevant for the argument.
This video is worded carefully to make clear that the views are those of the antinatalist philosophers, not that of the video author, but the video author did us wrong by not including the criticisms on the philosophy in the video. Refer to Wikipedia's criticisms section for a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Criticism