I think he's saying non-existence is the natural state and the decision to live and expend energy gathering resources just to survive needs to be justified, rather than be expected to justify your wish to stop existing.

I think the counter to that is the idea that human life is inherently valuable and doesn't need to be justified.

You shouldn't make this argument without supporting it in any way. Why does it have inherent value? Life doesn't have inherent value to us as a collective society. Look at livestock. We've had countless pointless wars where people die horrible deaths. Abortion is legal in many parts of the world. Humans have made tons of negative impacts on our planet like tossing literal tons of plastic in the ocean.

I agree that human life is valuable, but you have to support your claim in some way. If you can't find a way to support it, then maybe the claim is wrong.