it was partially cynical hyperbole.

I agree with everything stated here. Another thought is, if it doesn't matter THAT humanity becomes extinct (it is inevitable), why would it matter WHEN it does? It certainly feels wrong to accept that if all were to die instantly and painlessly tomorrow, there would be no issue (in terms of suffering or desire as death is a state of non-existence), but that doesn't mean that it isn't the rational conclusion. While we live, we live and when we don't, we don't.

I'd like to conclude by saying that we live due to intrinsic and subconscious survival instincts, but overtly due to pleasure. Within this life, suffering to all sentient beings must be minimised, and subjective meaning (or essence as Aristotle referred to) should be found, in a strive towards happiness. Although life may end, proceeded by a dreamless sleep, there is no reason not to live, and enjoy life in the present tense, as some existential fears and queries are incomprehensible, and should therefore not lead to permanent means (suicide). Thank you to everyone for a development of my understanding.

I hear you. Antinatalism is what led me to this train of thought, as I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points. An antinatalist, referring to the asymmetry, may say that life is a bad movie, that isn't worth starting but may aswell be finished. This analogy is similar to my unsatisfactory "why not" justification. In addition, the implication of antinatalism is ultimately extinction, which is uncomfortable to think about, but not necessarily a negative outcome. As not having been born and dying are identical states, accepting that not having been born is not a bad thing, in my opinion, leads to questioning whether ending life is a bad thing.

I personally tend to fear negative things :/

I have added to my original post, and believe it to be an interesting dilemma.

I appreciate the discussion; it is deceptively difficult to actually search such a topic without being referred to a suicide hotline.

I agree completely with what you are saying, but feeling as though the only reason to live is "why not?" seems unsatisfactory to me.

if these are the only answers (which I am not disregarding) then my cynical proposition remains as both are unrealistic.

I don't agree. I agree with the sentiment that it is unavoidable and natural, but death is, by definition, the absence of life. I believe your comment not to be applicable to my query.