What's with this point of view when questions/solutions/hypotheses like the parent comment suggest?

When I propose this idea the usual reaction is: "Are you the next Hitler? Do you want to kill everybody? Maybe you should kill yourself first!".

It's proposal not to proliferate ourselves to extinction, no one is proposing any mass genocide. IMHO [0], we are 2-3 generations from catastrophic survival problems (unfathomable problems due to climate change, lack of resources like drinkable water, etc.).

[0] completely pulling this out of my a, though I think it's reasonable scenario with current increasing rate of consuming ourselves to death.

Well, that is a nasty thing to say, but my whole point was that a single person's reduced consumption doesn't help as much in the grand scheme of things just because of exponential growth.

It's not meant to be nasty at all. For Camus, that was philosophy concentrated down to a single sentence. Why do we keep on living? Especially if one has decided not to breed? What then, is the point of life?

You can ask any number of people who have chosen not to have kids - or any number of gay people, or people who were born sterile, or have otherwise lost the ability to have kids - this question. For many of them, the answer is "to enjoy it, and to be a positive influence in the lives of others".