In principle I agree, in a darwinian sense the purpose is to pass on genetics. That's not really a matter of opinion I'd say, although perhaps I'd have chosen a different word than 'purpose', I tend to agree.
But what's the point of saying that? What larger point are you making? If I say water is wet, sure you'll agree, but why did I mention it in the first place? I didn't understand your post in that sense yet, perhaps you can expand.
W.r.t. the darwinian 'purpose' though: I also agree with some posters in this thread noting accurately that our darwinian sexual drive can be satisfied without passing on genes. (ample birth control & pornification of just about any sexual niche you can imagine). So while our sexual urges are to support passing on genetics, the world around us can pacify that urge to the point it's satisfied without passing on your genetics.
As such our darwinian instincts aren't effective in the same way as they used to be. Plenty of men are satisfying many of their urges, ultimately dying childless, much more so than in the past.
Second, plenty of parents satisfy their urges with 1 or 2 children instead of 8 in the past, insufficient for replacement-levels, but sufficient to pass on genes.
No need to wait: they've already fried themselves out of the evolution game with STDs. Any child they have will likely be retarded or diseased in some way.
Don't forget to include alcohol as a drug - "fetal alcohol spectrum disorders", FASDs, are a real thing.
Choosing to not have children appears to "swim against the current" of the dominant biological process/context by which one came to be and in which one exists.
Certainly not having children allows one more time to pursue other matters. Mankind in general might gain (or lose) from such behavior, depending on whether one is an Einstein or a Stalin for example. Most anyone who participates in society has some set of interests and pursuit of those interests is nonetheless very real and the results may dominate our perspective.
I see no clear way to judge whether a person contributes more through his/her work or through his/her children. Nor do I think "contributing" (whatever that means) is a known evaluation anyway. And what one man considers useful another might judge detrimental. All the more b/c history is "unfinished business". IMO in summary we simply cannot know.
Aside: there's a T-shirt that shows the sinking bow of a shipwreck through a telescope lens. It's labeled thusly:
"MISTAKES - It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others." Yet another viewpoint.
reply