Philosophers hardly agree on anything and there is hardly any consensus on where he is wrong. In philosophy many rebuttals is a badge of honour, it means that it is not something obviously wrong. Not being ignored is good. His technical asymmetry argument has proven difficult to dislodge. It seems like a fundamental truth to me (although insuffient to reach the antinatalist conclusion).

Also remember that philosophers can agree with some of it and reject other parts. In the beginning of Better Never to Have Been he shows how the notorius Non-identity problem can be solved in narrow person affecting terms. He introduces the crucial distinction between the perspective lives worth continuing (an evaluation about an existing person) and lives worth starting (a much more critical evaluation about a potential future person). Lives worth living does not necessarily mean they are worth starting. Isabella Ana-Maria Trifan expands on 'his' distinction in her paper Lives Worth Starting and the Non-identity problem while still disagreeing with antinatalism.

Isabella Trifan