While true, it's functionally irrelevant. Humans are animals, animals procreate. Telling people not to do it because reasons is going to be about as effective as telling them not to eat or sleep.
What I would like to see is a norm on numbers of children. Personally, I think that having more than the replacement number - i.e. more than 2 - is straightforwardly unethical given the stress our planet is under. But by the same token, 2 or fewer is fine. And it would be nice if those who choose to have none got a little more respect for it.
But humans can actually make conscious choices beyond their base animal pressures. We use prophylactics even though those go against our animal pressure to procreate. We help strangers even if it won't improve our own situation and without any expectation of future reciprocation. We have to eat and sleep to live, we don't have to have children.
We also have cultural pressures, which can shape individual behavior. We could have a culture where the default is not to have kids, but that you should not have kids unless you are stable and secure enough to have then and are prepared to invest sufficiently in raising them.
Worse, than that, if you preach antinatalism it has any chance of catching up with people of some knowledge and reflection, leaving the Earth to the children of those of less knowledge and reflection.
What I would like to see is a norm on numbers of children. Personally, I think that having more than the replacement number - i.e. more than 2 - is straightforwardly unethical given the stress our planet is under. But by the same token, 2 or fewer is fine. And it would be nice if those who choose to have none got a little more respect for it.