Once again, it's about the structure of the argument. The point is that many things which are "good" or neutral in one context would be "bad" if everyone did them. We don't have to even restrict it to reproduction. Fundamentally, that is a bad way to argue, since it doesn't tell us anything about the inherent qualities of anything.
As for "success," that's a very loaded term, and certainly not a scientific one. The idea that the "purpose" of life is to reproduce is not a scientific one when you make it a moral imperative. What scientists mean when they say that (and frankly, it's misleading language, so it's partially their fault) is that it's a strong general tendency that exists within living beings. It's an empirical descriptor of something that happens, not a moral guideline or the basis for morality- something that should happen. So in short, the idea that we should base morals on what hinders the human race can only be subjective, and thus requires consensus, not an objective basis, and furthermore is dangerous insofar as it ends up in potential tyranny.
in here don't think so and believe this could happen.
