That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the things that we think of as harms (and I listed a few as examples) actually do interfere with reproduction (with obvious but completely understandable exceptions, such as when they happen to people who have already lost their ability to reproduce),

Most of the things we think of as harms also interfere one's heartbeat, with one's brainwaves, with one's breathing, with one's digestive systems, with one's sleep patterns, etc, since we're our biologies and every biological function is interconnected with the other.

Depending how you define your terms, your whole argument is either obviously false (we don't perceive condoms and contraception to be "harm" though it interferes with reproduction, but we do perceive that being enslaved for breeding purposes is harm, even though it increases the probability of our reproduction) or trivially true (as everything done to us, both good and bad, interferes with every biological function in our bodies).

And for this reason, I fully expect that if we were to do a multi-generational study of meth-heads, we would find that they don't do all that well in the reproduction department in comparison to a control group.

I also don't expect they do well in the life expectancy or health or prosperity department, which is a more customary method of determining well-being and "harm" than "number of descendants" is.