[Nasrudith]

One glaring flaw from the beginning is the assumption of do no harm is viable at all - it is like expecting zero risk an outright impossibility. Even doctors don't follow it absolutely otherwise they would never draw blood let alone amputate the irreparably damaged.

Not taking any risks at all will lead to certain consequences including doom.

[cjbprime]

Yup. You can't take an argument with such a deontological axiom and then criticize it for failing a utilitarian calculation later (about the welfare of the final generations) -- the argument already told you it's not consequentialist. This anti-natalist argument is bad, and so is the article's argument.