You'll have to ask a tougher question like "If there is a cat trapped in a house with a button that kills 8 billion people when pressed and the only way to avoid the cat stepping on the button is to let it outside, would you do it?"
why yes, hello fellow leftists, we sure love killing random people for no reason and we are definitely the aggressors 
Stalin killed at least twice that many people, so it's a loss that I'm willing to take
I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE MALTHUS
GET OFF THE INTERNET AND STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO COMMIT OMNICIDE
Absolutely not, why would you even ask such a ridiculous question
Take your two day old account and fuck all the way off
Dreaming of Kissinger being thrown down a mine shaft and respawning at the top for eternity.
If there's any contemporary figure who has earned not just hell, but Super Greek Hell, it's that one.
for future use
I think there's enough more than 8 billion humans that a stable population could recover. It'd take a while though.
Yeah we only need something laughably small like 20k people to bounce back or something. I read somewhere we could have a survivable amount of genetic diversity with just 26 unrelated people but idk if that's true.
I've read conflicting information on that over the years, and it seems entirely possible that the dumb math nerds who figure this stuff out aren't completely certain about it. I've heard that 26 number before, I've also heard other numbers in the low hundreds and low thousands.
Could all be discussions about different stuff that gets misunderstood / misrepresented, though. Like if you've only got 26 people to work with, you'd better hope nobody dies any time soon, especially not for example during childbirth and taking the baby out with them. There might be a certain number in the hundreds that generally minimizes the risks of random deaths and disease dooming humanity.
Also you've gotta keep thorough records for at least a few generations and also enact some kind of tyranny to make people breed according to who is the least closely related. Man, this sounds like a fucking nightmare tbh
Edit: It sounds like it could be a fascinating concept for a game, either like tabletop or video game or whatever, though. You've got a settlement made up of like 30 people, you're the last humans left, don't go extinct. Good luck.
Assuming an average population, the most reasonable estimates I've seen for the "safe" margin are mostly around 1,000. It's definitely possible to get by with fewer than that--there are isolated tribes with fewer than 100 members who have done just fine for long stretches--but it makes everything much riskier. Humans are k-strategists in terms of reproduction: we have small numbers of offspring, but invest a lot of resources into each one. Species like that tend to have higher thresholds for viable population size, because each instance of reproduction has more "significance" to the overall population, so a few suboptimal choices can have drastic impacts. However, unlike many other k-strategy species, we don't tend to spread our populations out very thinly over vast distances, which helps ameliorate that somewhat. If your population were "optimal" (i.e. free of really bad recessive traits, all clustered together, very genetically diverse to start with, making "optimal" mate choices, etc.), you might be able to push the safe margin into the low hundreds. At that level, though, genetic drift starts to become a really big factor in evolution, so while it might be possible to sustain the species, the species might also get weird.
Effective Altruism, amirite? First, you must merely comit the greatest act of evil possible... after which, utopia awaits for infinite future hypothetical people!
It doesn't have to be 8 billion at once right? We can keep deleting 8 billion fascists for centuries with that button, after which we will have communism
8 billion times back to back.Not a goddamn chance. Killing that many people all at once essentially wipes out humanity.