You are right that antinatalism is a garbage philosophy, but amazingly for none of the reasons you stated in this entire blog post. Your economy argument is the only part that has power behind it, but even then you miss what you should really be attacking by bringing it up. Who cares if the economy needs people to function and provide goods that enhance the quality of life of living people and future generations? If we are antinatalist, there won't be an economy because there won't be any people, so who cares? No one would. The real way to argue against antinatalism is by pointing out how you have to somehow meaningfully and effectivley transition to total non-existence without a chaotic and painful intermediary period that could very well fail, which no antinatalist can make an argument for avoiding if people stop having children little by little.

Also consider, what if we reached a post-scarcity AI automated economy and we did not need people anymore? That is when I would admit that the antinatalist have a point. Humans will have made themselves obsolete and a mere liability.