comment: >
  
  As Bart Simpson once said, “this cycle of jerks has to end”
context: My parents have special genes!
  They passed on history of heart problems, epilepsy, stroke, twins (both sides - doesn't skip a generation), anxiety, depression, breast cancer, leukaemia, arthritis, psoriasis... I mean there's more but I can't remember them off the top of my head. 
  I love to sit around and wonder which number on the hereditary lottery I will get next. >
  
  The heart problems, epilepsy, cancers and tricky mental health sound like a really rough game of russian roulette. Is the psoriasis a big deal? Just curious- I have it and it doesn't phase me, I never thought about whether any kids I have would feel differently >
  
  With the psoriasis my mum and sister have it extremely badly. I have a small amount but don't really mind it. My nieces full on freaked out when I told them I had it - for them it's a cosmetic thing. I'm just hoping I don't get it in my hair or like groin etc which would be the worrrrrst in terms of pain and annoyance. >
  
  Yeah, can confirm, those are a proper nuisance! Hope you never experience them >
  
  It's nice to see someone on the internet that has the honesty to say 'I'm not special'. >
  
  But you are special.  If you do the math, the probability that you even exist is infinitesimally small, next to zero.  And to get here, your ancestors needed to survive unfathomably difficult circumstances.  So you are the improbable product of generations after generation of the most bad ass survivors on the planet. >
  
  Just like everyone else >
  
  You are a unique and different snowflake... like everyone else. >
  
  Some of us choose to enjoy it instead of whining about it on the internet >
  
  can't tell if this post is whining or enjoying >
  
  Definitely enjoying,  sick of the reddit nihilistic loser mentality.   Everyone looking for a reason to be a victim and it is so gos damn annoying. Life isn't about being fair, it's about living. >
  
  Continuing a bloodline isn’t unique but ending one is! >
  
  Found itachi uchiha >
  
  What makes life remarkable or unremarkable. Is it material wealth, fame and socially constructed measures of success? >
  
  On an individual level? Nothing.
  I think life as a whole can be appreciated through how living things have formed and scientifically work.
  And they can be appreciated by how their societies operate. In particular, I think human life can be appreciated through what we have accomplished, i.e. medicine, art, engineering, music, architecture.
  Individuals should strive to contribute to the ongoing remarkability of humanity.
  But everything has a time limit. We'll die, and at some point sooner or later, no one will remember who we were. At some very distant point, even the accomplishments of humanity will be erased, most likely due to the sun dying out. I think humanity will be gone by that point, though. >
  
  You mentioned most people live unremarkable lives. So who exactly, is living this remarkable life that should be reproducing? >
  
  No one will live a remarkable life, in the grand scheme of things.
  Even Isaac Newton's name will be lost, given enough time.
  We shouldn't do things because we want to be well-known for future generations. Because I could choose a period of time in which your name will be forgotten.
  We shouldn't be motivated because we want to avenge something that happened in the past. Again, I could choose a period of time in which almost no life existed.
  We should be motivated only through our desire to contribute to the present status of humanity.
  I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to the past or future. We need to study both in order to make more rational decisions, but the study of the past and future should solely be a tool that helps us in our goal.
  I think everyone who is living at this exact moment is participating in both remarkability (our collective achievements) and unremarkability (our collective mistakes).
  Let me give you an example:
  Let's say that someone killed my great-aunt 31 years ago. I should be motivated to find her killer, because he could presently be harming society by killing people. If he's dead, then I shouldn't seek further retribution because he is incapable of harming anyone else. I should only be motivated towards stopping people who could be presently harming others or planning to. >
  
  This can get quite cloudy and ambiguous because there’s a very blurry line between how much we should prioritize the present society and the future. Just take climate change for example and being environmentally friendly. >
  
  I would argue that the human causes of climate change are present unremarkable behaviors.
  Certainly, there are issues that may arise in the future, but those issues have roots in the present. If I'm presently doing something that will harm others in the future, I'm committing an unremarkable act in the present.
  We should be motivated to commit as many remarkable acts as we can in the present and the least amount of unremarkable acts. >
  
  It makes sense. Korean culture today is extremely superficial. Almost everything is about looks and how other people perceive you.
  Adopting a child would be an embarrassment, to them and many in this post, you’re a loser if your genes aren’t propagated.
  I was like this too before I decided none of it matters, there’s a great video on it about a man in the future working for an ancestry service and how he has to delete a database entry for a man who hasn’t been viewed in 30 years.
  Before deleting it, he thought to himself how he’d live his life differently knowing full well that no one would remember him. >
  
  Do you know what that video is called or can you please share it? >
  
  Why didn’t she just adopt? Adoption isn’t that simple >
  
  Neither is conception and birth but both can be done. I’m tired of that argument against adoption. As well as the whole IT TAKES SO MUCH MONEY TO ADOPT. 
  It takes a lot of money to have a child and take care of it too. One just has more of an upfront cost That’s then given back to you in time. Everyone just always wants to make an excuse as to why they won’t adopt but will make their own kid in a heartbeat without thinking at all. >
  
  
  As well as the whole IT TAKES SO MUCH MONEY TO ADOPT. It takes a lot of money to have a child and take care of it too.
  
  Yeah but nobody checks if you can afford the baby if you're giving birth lol >
  
  Yeah I know. Why do you think some end up in the system.  They should start checking. >
  
  I mean I like it on the "children must eat well" side but I don't love the "government gets to weigh in on your personal decisions" side >
  
  I could see that but I don’t think people should be so easily allowed to have children. Especially when they’re struggling already by themselves. And let’s be real people don’t need to be having 6 kids when they can’t even give a single one the attention they deserve. I don’t think it’s possible to give the attention and love all the kids need plus take care of yourself and your home when there’s that many. So you know how that takes a toll on the mom then she turns into a bitter Betty and then her kids come out shitty lol I’ve seen it so many times. >
  
  Biology allows people to have children. It's a bodily function and therefore a human right. We can't ethically regulate it. Look at the disaster China's one child policy was. >
  
  Human bodies are biologically capable of violence and theft, should these be human rights as well?
  China's one child policy was only unsuccessful because across the world, pension systems are set up like Ponzi schemes. They are fundamentally unsustainable without indefinite growth, and unfair to the younger generation. >
  
  Those are behaviors, not functions >
  
  
  why do people feel their genes to be special?
  
  Natural selection. Nature has selected against specimens that don't feel the need/want to reproduce. Or rather they selected against themselves. >
  
  like op >
  
  yes, obviously >
  
  Ok Snape >
  
  It's especially annoying when people have kids who have a high chance of genetic defects and are aware of it. >
  
  Darwin would like to have a word. >
  
  Evolution is more about a group or species than individuals. If every member of a group successfully procreates at the same rate, evolution won't occur. >
  
  Evolution aka. natural and sexual selection happens completely on the level of the individual. But the effects are seen on the species level. >
  
  What’s scary is how his post has more upvotes than yours currently. >
  
  My genes are terrible, so for that reason, I would never “continue my bloodline.” My bloodline has suffered enough, genetics are terrible in my family. We all have the same health issues that just keep happening over and over again, from generation to generation. I don’t value my genes at all, and if I ever wanted a child, I would adopt (assuming I could afford to do so). Reality is, it’s cheaper and easier to birth a child than it is to adopt one, that’s also a barrier when it comes to adoption. Not everyone can afford the process. >
  
  Yeah same, my genes are better out of the pool than in. Stopping generational suffering by refusing to pass this shit on ftw. >
  
  Same here. Fuck my genes. They feel like a curse sometimes. Mainly mental illness. My brother has major depressive disorder and is not functioning. My dad had bipolar disorder and was one of the saddest people I've ever known along with my brother. Alcoholism on my mom's side. Alzheimer's, parkinson's, cancer. I personally have Bipolar 1 disorder. I have not had a good time being alive and I certainly don't want to even possibly risk giving some other poor soul this same shit deal. My bloodline ends with me. >
  
  I think it’s kind of a genetic behavior that we are just programmed for. I overcame that programming lol. 
  However, what blows my mind is when people who have literal genetic disorders that cause fertility problems, but undergo tens of thousands in fertility treatment just to conceive their own biological child- who has a very good chance of inheriting those same shitty genes. That makes NO sense to me, but I’m an evil bitch if I ever say that to anyone. >
  
  I wonder what the eugenicists take would be on that? On one hand this person is literally unfit, they can’t produce viable offspring without help, eugenics should say that this person cannot/should not breed, right? But on the other hand, you have to spend a lot of money on those types of treatments, it’s not something most people can afford, so I guess it wouldn’t matter because wealth is “fitness” in modern society? 
  It’s interesting bc that’s probably the justification on their end. “I have worked hard enough, i need to pass on my legacy by any means, so I will pay copious amounts of money to ensure I can have viable offspring” bc as far as they’re concerned the objective truth that they can’t create viable offspring is offset by the wealth and success they’ve accumulated. 
  I guess ultimately the question is: what’s more unethical? an impoverished couple having healthy children or wealthy folks having children with fertility issues/other genetic disabilities? Who is actually the most fit? >
  
  I didn't sleep last night and only have a normal person's grasp of eugenics, so I feel I'm the right person to respond. 
  If we're talking survival of the species, then the genetically healthy offspring is better off. Regardless of life quality, they're more likely to create more genetically healthy offspring. If we're talking social fitness, I think either. the rich person will likely have a better life quality, but the the poor person will potentially provide more benefit in terms of labor. The rich often hoard wealth so unless they're generous they're not contributing a lot financially (this is, of course, at a certain level of wealth. Middle class would be just as if not more benefit than the poor). >
  
  Speak for yourself peasant! I'll have you know I've slain three dragons, and a wizard.  My bloodline needs to continue otherwise a certain klan might try to gain more power in the south. >
  
  Why would you slay a wizard? >
  
  Because dragons, and wizards are both  fantasy characters AND ranks in the kkk. So initially it looks like I'm living in a fantasy world when really I'm insinuating that I am killing klan members. >
  
  Dragons? I didn't know that was a KKK thing too. TIL. >
  
  I sometimes think people in the KKK would be better off playing DnD with some good friends instead of being racist, they'd get to keep the company and the cool fantasy names too, win-win, no? >
  
  Instinct son. We are just slightly more advanced animals. >
  
  Yeah, we're animals that are being carried by the achievements of a couple thousand people across all of humanity's existance.
  Because wayyy too many of us are just as shallow, tribal and dumb as the first motherfuckers who probably stoned the first person who rubbed sticks together. >
  
  There’s a wealth of anthropological data suggesting prior to the dawn of “civilisation” our ancestors were far more egalitarian. Obviously not perfect, but the human savagery we think of today is a relatively recent development in our history, worsening most of all in the last century or so. >
  
  There's that old meme quote that goes "you're the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success, act like it". I think it's cool to think about that.
  It's worth bearing in mind that you have millions of grandparents who may well have fought tooth and claw so they could have children and raise them successfully to "further their bloodline". And now it ends with you, you'll never be anyone's parent or great grandparent or hundredth ancestor.
  I'm not some weirdo who thinks it's a human neccesssity to have children and reproduce. There's nothing wrong with not doing that. But the idea of having kids and passing on your genetics certainly isn't silly. >
  
  That's one of my favorite part about The Doctor's personality in modern Doctor Who, and it's summed up in one quote:
  “Nobody important? Blimey, that's amazing. You know, nine hundred years of time and space and I've never met anybody who wasn't important before.” >
  
  One of My favorite doctor who quotes!!! >
  
  Probably because it's natural instinct to reproduce? That's how all of us got here. >
  
  I dunno about the rest of ya'll but I'm here because of my parents' "natural instinct" to have sex. I was an accident. An after thought. >
  
  The natural instinct to have sex is the natural instinct to reproduce. Just because a person doesn't consciously want to have babies doesn't mean that their body doesn't. That's what makes it an instinct. >
  
  That’s why I’m getting a vasectomy. >
  
  You and me both, brother. Do you think they do package deals? >
  
  Every vasectomy is a package deal. >
  
  Had an uncle ask me to un-change my name back to the family name to keep it going. Lol, why. Declined >
  
  I'm 18 and is that an argument againts my post? >
  
  Hell, I'm damn near 50 and I agree with your post.  I have never had any biological urge to have children whatsoever and have never had a problem with that fact.  Societal forces and incentives have developed throughout history to put a lot of pressure on people to get married and reproduce. >
  
  You're arguing against millions of years of biology. >
  
  She’s arguing against instincts. But we are humans and can control our instincts with our intelligence >
  
  Even then intelligence and conciousness is a byproduct of our biology... so it is natural to want to have children at some point >
  
  No because it's natural not to. Plenty of is have zero interest in it and find it to be idiotic. >
  
  
  No because it's natural not to.
  
  Those things can both be true. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean that it necessarily happens. >
  
  The specific notion of your bloodline is silly, but to answer your question generally...  
  As someone who is not particularly religious, the only real purpose of life is to keep life going. All biological creatures recognize the importance of breeding and having offspring. It is ingrained in us. Some species have mechanisms built in to protect the gene pool; social hierchies where only the "best" among them pass along their genes (usually expressed through strength and fighting ability, which also implies fewer health issues). It's not unreasonable that humans also seek out mates who can fulfill certain roles when it comes to offspring and providing, and its just that "providing" looks different than it did and does for other species.  
  We don't hunt, we don't gather, most dont build our shelter. We go to work and pay for it, and those skills now make us attractive mates. But the biological imperative is still there for most of us. I'm often more fascinated by those who DON'T  want to, and not in the "oh my God you're missing out by not having kids!" Bullshit. I just want to know. Does the constant existential crisis of watching the world fall apart around you override the drive? Is it something biological to implicitly protect the gene pool? >
  
  To your last point - yes. It takes a lot of work to develop, birth, and raise offspring to adulthood and sometimes it's better to hold out and wait for a less stressful time to reproduce. Some animals can delay pregnancy and even intentionally abort if times aren't good enough to make healthy offspring. >
  
  Abort implies during pregnancy, but they will also kill off progeny if resources are scarce. Survival of the species is number one. >
  
  Yes this too but I was more talking about how amazing it is that other species have developed reproductive mechanisms to ensure they will have offspring at an ideal time >
  
  Self preservation. Pretty primal instinct. Every living thing is fighting to pass down its genetics. We’re animals, bud. >
  
  I wish more people understood this. we are still animals, say it out loud if you have to. >
  
  Killing, eating, shitting, humping wildly while grunting, licking ass. 
  Disgusting animals! >
  
  The royals weren’t special either. Just rich people who tricked uneducated people that god chose them to exploit the poor and hoard the wealth. Nothing special to pass down and in most cases leads to inbred freaks. Fuck the aristocracy. >
  
  Yep, it's funny and stupid how OP goes on "raging" against continuing your bloodline and then throws in "you're not royal". >
  
  Depending on the country, adoption processes are long and intrusive, they rip everything apart, your finances, your family life, policing checks on you and all close family and house checks (all for good reason). You just don't have to do any of that when having your own child and I think it's a big factor, pepole get rejected for petty crimes in early life or even crimes othernpepole close to them have committed. The whole "it's not the same" is bs, if you raise a child, that child will love you back regardless of whether they have your genes. >
  
  If you think about it this way, then attempting to continue your bloodline does make sense. Every single living thing on this earth comes from an unbroken line that stretches back billions of years. Your ancestors continued their bloodline through every single disaster, every war, every ice age, every mass extinction…. If you don’t continue your bloodline, you will be the first of your lineage that ever does that >
  
  I like being unique 😎 >
  
  Another example of how just 2 or 3 generations in the bleak modern world absolutely killed the human will to survive. >
  
  Children were a necessity up until relatively recently. Now because of the modern world they are a significant drain for most people. >
  
  I 100% agree with the premise that no one is particularly unique but I think it could also be argued that at least in today’s world the desire to “continue the bloodline” is a subconscious way of coping with impending mortality >
  
  This. Also I think since as you said most of us aren’t that special and won’t be remembered for what we did in our lives, having kids is the “easiest” way to have some kind of legacy after we die. >
  
  Some people do have objectively better genes than others, though. >
  
  What I'm saying is that it's silly to not adopt, due to the weird fixation on bloodlines. We're all just humans, and bloodlines don't mean anything. >
  
  Just from a purely practical perspective: Adopting is hard and expensive. Having your own kids is way cheaper and faster (in most cases). >
  
  I believe having children in general is very expensive, and if it's about money, then you can just not have kids. Now with inflation and people struggling to even afford a house, you kinda need a lot of money, as it's downhill from here. >
  
  I mean just having kids, not raising them. A private adoption will cost you like $10,000+ where I live and it can take years. If you go through a public adoption (no fees involved) the wait is even longer, closer to a decade in some places. >
  
  Here's the thing. People often ask "what's the point of life" and the answer is "legacy".
  You don't have to pass on your genes, instead you can cure cancer, win an award, start a charity, grow a successful business, or die in battle and end up on a memorial.
  It's just that nutting inside some woman is much easier than anything I just listed. >
  
  The concept of giving the slightest fuck about my ancestors is silly. >
  
  It's just a fascination with "if they didn't fuck, I wouldn't be here". That should be the slogan for ancestry.com >
  
  Agreed 100%. Humanity itself is my bloodline, I don't need to have children. I'm not that special and even if I was I don't want any to begin with. >
  
  A lot of people get excited about genealogy but I find it only mildly interesting. There are too many people in my genetic history to worry about what they did. 
  By the same token it is just as silly to worry about my genes in the future. My descendants could do great to horrid things, or not have any children ending the line, but I will have no knowledge of that so what does it matter? >
  
  If I wasn't already gay I wouldn't have children because I will not continue on the genetics of the family that I'm from >
  
  It's animal instinct, but the idea of "continuing the line of my ancestors so they didn't struggle in vain" doesn't make any sense because at this point you have so many distant cousins that you really are insignificant to the legacy of your ancestry.
  That's not to say you aren't important. Live your life the way you want to live it, and only have kids if you're sure you can give them the love they deserve. >
  
  I sooo agree with you! Humans generally are so egotistical and self-centered species but the truth is we're all from the same gene pool, the people we love, the ones we hate, the ones we parented and the ones that parented is, we're all just a soup of good and bad! >
  
  Exactly. I decided years ago this thinking was messed up. It’s just selfish honestly. >
  
  Yet somehow it's the sole purpose of every single organism in this planet. Which I find interesting. What's the point of it. What's the end goal of breeding >
  
  I don't think there's a point tbh. Just an endless cycle. For humans, maybe it's that they think we will someday become technologically advanced enough to all live happily. >
  
  This is an existential question and you're bringing logic and judgement to it. Good luck. >
  
  There is a difference between what OP said, and simply wanting to have a child.
  There are going to be a lot of edgy redditors in these comments talking about how having a child of your own makes you selfish, with a paragraph of nonsense pathologizing the basic choice to have one. 
  Listen, to those of you like this: just because you hate yourself and/or your parents, or just because you have some ill-inspired hatred of humans and how we're "parasites," doesn't mean you can treat other humans like parasites or like they're inherently evil.
  Let people have their own children without you projecting some weirdass "it's selfish and weird to create life in your own image" bs
  Edit: a clarification I should make is that people are perfectly within their right and sound logic to see a cruel world and decide not to bring a child into it. My main issue comes with projecting this belief onto others, as well as classifying someone as somehow cruel/parasitic/stupid to make their own choice to have a child. Another is that I do know a selfish act isn't inherently bad, but when did you ever see a reddit comment stating something is selfish, followed by anything other than condemnation? >
  
  Some people think that having their own child is selfish because they are bringing a child into a world that honestly sucks. If someone thinks that where they live is going to decline even more they might not want to raise a child in that environment. >
  
  If everyone thought like you OP then there wouldn't be any kids to adopt as we'd all be waiting around for someone else to birth them.
  Similarly, if that act of procreation was entirely about valuing your bloodline, the people wouldn't be putting their progeny up for adoption in the first place.  
  The fact of the matter is that in most cases* the easiest way to get a child is to get one home-baked. So much so that people have them entirely on accident or during circumstances where they don't want/can't take care of the child. That's why adoption exists.   
  When you get people who are struggling to conceive and don't want to adopt, it's usually a mixture of emotions driving them; from frustration that something so natural is seemingly so difficult, despair that they are somehow defective, anger that others have it so easy, fear that alternatives such as adoption will lead to further heartache, optimism that surely /this time/ it'll work, reluctance to turn an expression of love in having a child into a long bureaucratic nightmare....and yes, some few will also have a sense of pride in wanting to ensure that their genes/culture/family traditions etc are what's sent into the future. But to think that is the only or primary reason for most people is overly simplistic and betrays a lack of life experience on your part. >
  
  Honestly it’s better my families bloodline ends with me. We all kinda fucked up. >
  
  Who will take the throne? >
  
  My cat. Not the current one assuming 15 years per cat probably number 3-4 from now. I shall leave all the fortunate I amass to a care giver to pamper it. >
  
  Nothing wrong with wanting natural-born children, nothing wrong with thinking it would be more appropriate to adopt. You do you. My only gripe is with the Nick Cannons of the world. >
  
  To be fair, it is literally built into our minds to reproduce >
  
  Not mine haha >
  
  The instinct is still there, it's just with how our society has developed, it has become more and more suppressed in some people. (Nothing wrong with it though) >
  
  hahaha. 
  It's it funny how the higher the education level of the woman, the less children she has? 
  It's almost as if,  given the option, most women will chose just about any option other than parenthood. 
  It's an 'instinct' that is not being supressed so much as called into question altogether.  
  do we ALL really need to have children.  is it a requirement for a complete life?   many people are deciding that it is not. 
  they are actively making that choice.  they are not suppressing a natural urge. >
  
  Yeah, but that's only possible thanks to contraceptives and abortion. 
  The base instinct to have sex is still there.
  They still want the sex but not the offspring, so I guess it's up for debate how much "instinct" is being suppressed here.
  It's really our clever contraptions and medical advancements that allow us to both give into our instincts and not have it result into offspring >
  
  I'm Child Free. My family is like you need someone to take care of you in your old age. 
  Nope. That's exactly what I dont want to burden someone with
  You need someone to carry on your name 
  Don't care about that at all
  Who'll pass on your wealth to?
  The dog shelter >
  
  So I have a kid but omg I cannot Stand when people say “who will take care of you when you’re old” that’s not my kids responsibility. >
  
  Yeah. It's the responsibility of other's people children unfortunately >
  
  I mean. They’re getting paid for that and choose that profession so yea. >
  
  Why do you think the bloodline of  “royal families” is more important than yours?   
  That last line makes you come off incredibly strange. >
  
  Literal centuries of social constructs i’d imagine
  Honestly the wealthy elites in today’s society may as well also be called royalty with the amount of wealth hoarding there is lol 
  They’re like fat dragons sitting in their dwarf mine full of gold >
  
  It isn’t necessarily about preserving bloodlines. Parenting a child who bears a family resemblance to you and the rest of your family is an experience that can make you think differently about yourself, your family, and even about broad philosophical questions like nature/nurture. Not that adoption isn’t equally valid as a way to become a parent. But there is an element of genetics that is different. It’s as much or more about the past than the future. >
  
  I just don't understand why it matters, and I feel like it's just an ego thing. If your kid resembling you makes them view differently. Not sure about the nature/nurture thing, as to what it means. >
  
  We just like those who are similar to us. >
  
  I know and I'm challenging that belief >
  
  It's interesting to observe how mini copies of us are growing. Then you can notice some things about yourself that you haven't seen before. I don't think similar experience can be achieved with adopted kids.
  But to the main point: We like those who a similar to us probably because of some subconscious brain responses. That must be how we used to stick each other to survive and now is just a feature of our bodies. So, is it a belief? >
  
  My mother did a research project and found out we had a very noble and amazing ancestral history. 
  And I just had to fucking laugh because those poor suckers ruled countries and murdered thousands for the sake of heirs and here I am, with my asthma and allergies, my gay relationship, no intention of being a parent to anything except a dog. 
  Here for a good time, not a long time mate. Choosing not to have children does more for the environment than a lifetime of recycling, that's my contribution to society. >
  
  Howdy interesting stranger. I come from a long and storied line of crazy people. Happy to share this space of time with you. 
  To my logic (please refer to my own ancestral heritage listed above) it looks like you might be doing exactly what your ancestors might have. They knew their circumstances and did what they thought was appropriate for their world. You’re making the same wise choices for the world you occupy now. There’s some kind of beautiful constancy to that. 
  Plus you get to obviously have a lot more fun. At least one of the magnificent people traced in your blood must be thinking that’s pretty dope ✌️ >
  
  Wholesome. Damn, I'd give you an award for this >
  
  Agreed. My bloodline is fucking trash, if any of my genetic predispositions are anything to go on. 
  Child free for me, please! >
  
  
  I asked my mom why she hadn't adopted instead of having me, and it was the typical "it's just not the same." Now I've seen a lot of people not adopt due to it not being their genes, but why do we value our genes above others?
  
  I'm all for adoption but it's not the same, maybe for trivial reasons but still not the same. Kids make life new again, and they bring about an inherent sense of purpose and love in parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles that can rarely be brought out in any other way. My grandma, a devout Catholic, used to tell me that she didn't care what happened when she died because she'd already been to Heaven every time she was with her grandchildren. 
  There are genetic mannerisms, behaviors, personality traits, etc. that stoke the love and purpose that I mentioned above that an adopted child might not bring out to the same degree, but it really depends on the specific situation.
  I'm personally all for adoption and I think my parents would be into it too. Ideally I could both adopt and have a biologically child but the clock is ticking so...we'll see. >
  
  I agree. There's not a lot in my genes that I'd like to pass on. >
  
  Upvote for actual unpopular opinion. Last time I saw this, someone said water was better than milk for cereal. >
  
  People need to knock it off with thinking they’re bound to continue a blood line.  there is no guarantee your genes will even be around in the future. You can only give half your dna to each kid. And they only give half. And so on and so forth. So after a certain number of generations, just by chance most of your genes might have never get passed on. Or the few genes that do manage to survive 30 generations are just stupid useless genes that code for nothing and no one cares about. Ooh yay your great great great great great great great great great great great grand daughter will get your mutation for the “trypsin alpha proxy boom chicka bow wow dehydrogenistikase enzyme ? Hooray for you. Sure your legacy on earth has been forgotten but one person in the year 2200  has your kidney cell receptors >
  
  In Spain: Friends wanted a kid. He’s in his mid 40s, she’s  in her late 40s. They tried forever, did all the whatever you call it with the doctors. Finally gets pregnant. Due date comes and goes, baby dies before its born. Guess what they’re doing this year? The exact same shit. Hopefully not the last part, obv. It’s all about the bloodline for them. Smh. >
  
  See, this is why "the bloodline ends with me" is more fun to say than "I don't want kids." The people who care about you having kids are the same people who give a damn about bloodlines. >
  
  Everybody is the hero in their own story.
  It's not necessarily rational, but human beings aren't rational creatures. >
  
  Biological programming. Also who is " special" in your opinion?