Because an individual biological organism that has the potential to reproduce has a self preservation drive instilled by evolution. Because those of our ancestors who didn't try didn't pass on their genes. Because I enjoy being alive and want to continue life as long as I am viable. The justifiable individual will to live does in no way imply that the behavior of the species as a whole in its homo technologos mutation is a sustainable innovation of nature. All of the widespread social problems of the modern world can be directly traced back to egotistical technological capitalism. Maybe Pol Pot was on to something although he was cruel and brutal in his method so is nature by virtue of necessity.
I'm going to take you seriously. You are advocating for a world where statistically you would not be alive, and without a doubt you would not be able to read or write. I'm going to pay you the respect of honoring your preference. I didn't read what you wrote here, and I'm going to do my best to not remember that you exist.
Mature people realize that statistically everyone dies eventually. The welfare and fitness of the species as a whole is what is important, not the individual life. This is the same reason through out history soliders have willingly died in war. Now I want to be clear for me this is a philosophical exercise. I am not advocating any concrete steps to accelorate the take down technological civilization. I am saying let nature take its course over time. Just as my judgement as an individual matters little so too does yours. I may be right I may be wrong. I suspect the unique and ugly technological civilization of humanity is an unsustainable aberation of evolution. It won't last because its individual members for the most part are not fit. You are soft and dependent on technology.
So why not wrap it up now? If there's no value in not dying of starvation.