Find me something living that is not programmed to make more of itself, and I will concede your point. Hell, there are even non-living things that do this (viruses, for example).
There are many examples of individuals that don't reproduce, one prime example of which is gay people. One theory advanced to explain male homosexuality is that the genes encoding for it also encode for higher fertility in women - so essentially gay people might exist as a
byproduct of the process. That is, a higher number of reproductive agents in society being produced at the expense of a certain percentage of non-reproductive agents, to which the "species" is at best indifferent. The point is, not everybody actually has a drive to reproduce (and I would go as far to say that it is to be
expected that not everybody has one), so you can't make a blanket statement saying that we live to do that.
I agree that it's bullshit that someone's success in life be tied to whether or not they've reproduced, but from a purely biological standpoint that may as well be the case.
There is no "biological standpoint" to success or failure. Biology, as any science, is about fact, it doesn't have any basis to make judgements of values, and even if it did, these judgements would be extremely difficult to make. For instance, if we define an agent's success as how well it did at promoting the spread of their genes, a man without children could have more success than a man with a child, if he spent all his time helping his siblings (who share a great percentage of his genes) with their own offspring. It's also hairy to define how successful propagation is - incest, for instance, increases the likelihood that your genes will be transmitted, but that's only a short term gain. If one looks at the species at a whole, inventing bear traps might have a greater impact than having children, and so might giving a hand to people with better genes or even refraining from reproducing if your genes are problematic.
Edit: "biologically speaking", it makes much more sense to speak of the success or failure of a gene than of the success or failure of an individual. An individual is nothing more than a gene carrier. It does whatever it wants. The propagation of an agent's genes is mostly independent of what the agent does, unless it is the only one to have them (unlikely for anything but a very small percentage).