I disagree with that. I would argue that life has no objective. At best I would say that its purpose is the rather trite "to be what it is". I would call reproduction a function of life. Not a purpose/objective. Because I have a mouth and vocal chords, is my purpose to talk? Because I have the ability to counter the effects of alcoholic consumption, is my objective to drink alcohol? Function, in my view, does not imply or equate to purpose/objective. Further, when you label anything an "objective", would you say that those who have not carried out that objective have somehow failed? Survival is an instinct, not an objective. While we have labelled "life" as something that has the function of reproduction, we have labelled the sun as something that gives us light and heat... but do you honestly think that the purpose of the sun is to give us light and heat? "Purpose" or "Objective" is a purely human concept... one that we assign to our subjective actions: I do X because I want the outcome Y. Sure, some humans want to reproduce for various reasons: the desire to be a parent, the feeling of obligation to procreate, for child-support payments etc. But a personal, subjective purpose is a far cry from saying that life itself has such a purpose, and further away from saying that nature itself has a purpose or intention.