E.g.
Step 2. Extremely altruistic people cease reproduction and use the time and energy they would otherwise have spent on their own children to educate and encourage others to become more altruistic.
(The website is down, so I don't know what these people are trying to accomplish--I'm just taking the name literally.)
But then consider what happens when sexual reproducing species experience an extreme population dip: traits suddenly become much more variegated because now there is an overlap of recessive genotypes that used to be hidden. So maybe this won't happen?
I'm not so sure about extinction, but a steady state population (possibly with less people than now) seems pretty attractive to me. At the moment I don't believe we are culturally able to sustain this.
I often wonder what needs to be done to make it happen. Probably a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources is job number one (observing that rich societies have a low fertility rate). Which probably means that it will still be many generations before it can happen.
Step 2. Extremely altruistic people cease reproduction.
Step 3. Humanity goes on. If there was a gene for altruism (or a set of genes and their relationship) it was now removed from the gene pool. Humanity is now less altruistic, probably worst than before Step 2.