quality of life or life for life's sake

[Anomalocaris]

Ok fair enough, allow me to revisit.

No.  Life has no goal anymore than a random rock does.  Just as for rocks to continue to exist, rocks must have certain properties, such as hardness, resistance to chemical processes that would break it down, etc, so for life to continue, it too must have certain properties, such the ability and propensity to make copies of the information and mechanisms that channels biochemical processes to assembles available minerals and amino acids into functioning organism similar to itself.  These are necessary traits for life to continue to be.  But these are traits, and should not be confused with goals.

Rocks have properties, people have properties we call them traits. I agree
The ability and propensity to biochemically process to assemble functioning organisms we call reproduction. No argument here.
It is a trait of life to continue to be. I agree
Tack is confused. yes I am sometimes, but not about the definition of a trait and a goal. I think that touched everything and is just as pointless and doesn't move the conversation forward at all BECAUSE it's not what I asked.

And now that all that craps is revisited could we move those goalposts back to my question: What is the goal of life OR what is the goal of living?
As it correlates to the OP:  Should their be a purpose to bettering quality of life  OR  Is life for just life's sake enough of a reason to support and encourage it?

Again, what is the need that you are trying to consciously address in setting the purpose for life?

If you are happy when other people are happy, and you need to be happy, then it seems a poor choice of goals to make other people less happy just so,there will be more other people.

If you are happy when other people are desperate, and you need to be happy, then it would seem to be a good choice of goals to encourage the making of more of other people because too many other people makes them mostly more desperate.