if you dont have kids, you don't have a use.

Because after humans, his importance is nulled by the eternal twilight that is the cosmos and the vast properties of it and life it has. Here is the issue; if this was the case, then the reproduction of the species as the objective meaning of life completely falls apart. It makes humans only valuable because, while they are around, they must reproduce, something we have over exceeded at the point where there is plenty of us that reproduction isn’t our main goal, or shouldn’t. Upon us vanishing, that goal fades, making it really a non-objective goal. In fact, even right now the goal makes no sense because we are quite fruitful as we speak. That makes almost every human worthless because the human species will keep going even if we had only 1% of the population reproduce.If the meaning is only what people give them, then even the notion of the topic itself would fall under the microscope of a subjective view of meaning to life. For me, the goal is humans, or meaning, is what that individual person wants and stands for. My personal goal is to leave a footprint behind for either humans, or any other intelligent, including artificial intelligence, something to go on that might help them. Something that is there in all the means you might think one might be to be considered a legacy for all life. Newton was important to any intelligent mind that can use his legacy because it allows us to better study the world around us with mathematics. And I feel I can say that before humans go, if we don’t fade within five hundred years, we will be alongside AI’s and they alone will help drive us to further exploration and likely be here even when humans leave the cosmos. Where is the meaning of our life then? Is it to reproduce or just a catalyst to achieve the other means, the creation of a nigh-perfect being?And I do not see the theory of evolution having a negative effect on humans, because, if we take the AI example to heart, it is what lead us to this current point of magnificent proportions we take for granted that eventually lead to the wrought of other beings or things for other intelligent being (dogs, cows, whatever happens to become the next ‘human’ in intelligence) a means of knowledge. Cease to exist or not, humans are without a doubt leaving behind a footprint in the very cosmos for others beings to possible use. So our very presence and drive to improve would be a better meaning of life than simply reproducing which is more of a means to continue to do what we are doing, like breathing is for you to even live. A simply means to an end.Yes, Newton did not pass his genes on as he arguably never even had sex. He is the real life version of the forty year old virgin, but older. What he left, you say, is more a meaning to living and not to life, but him passing his genes are worthless. What he passed for our species is greater than the genes he could have passed. What would have happened should he had kids? He might have a kid who was similar to him or not; a simple vessel to reproduce into a constant line of simply making humans that only exist to have another humans so they can exist to have kids. Giving humans in all zero value but to reproduce like a virus for what? Simply reproducing to exist is not a true meaning but just living. This is why you would have more value than a complete vegetable Tom Cruise who has absolutely no chance of ever recovering; you actually have a chance at shaping the world. Sir Isaac Newton's genes that he passed are that of the brain. He gave us calculus. If you are a Christian, Jesus gave you morals to live by. Instead of simply being a link in a long chain of mundane beings whose only true meaning is to have an offspring to only exist to do what you did and so on, life itself becomes too monotonous that the ‘true meaning’ itself is no meaning. It has no real use. That is why, if we wanted to ,we can argue that species having a meaning of simply reproducing to exist never had true meaning because they do not exist. If their meaning to exist was to be the means to allow our reality to be how it is now, then the same applies to us, making the reproduction of life to be the meaning false and only an illusion.The issue with the source your link is that it applies to very minute amounts of mammals and applies more to fixed life, like plants. Humans are animals, and if you say, and the article, that animals only exist to have sex and die, then it applies to us. The illusion of us making our choices’ is what makes us unique to the type of life that only has sex. They are limited and can’t really go out and solve problems of the universe such as we can. However, we as humans were once arguably the very type of animal that did just as the little critter in that article does. Meet the Darwinius masillae. This is an ancestor we as humans have that we also share with Lemurs. [1]I mean, to be rather blunt, we have no destiny nor a meaning of living or life. The only meaning we have is what we make it. There is no objective true guide or meaning for life or living that humans live to exist and thus any who do not reproduce are useless. Because, as I have explained, that theory that makes others useless becomes, in itself, useless because the very notion is nonsensical to the entity of all I have explained. Humans, with what I have said, have no real meaning for simply reproducing. If there is more than simply reproducing, then the topic itself makes no sense to deem those with no kids or gene passing to be useless.And while yes, evolution says the strongest survive. But they can’t survive without the variables that allowed it. But evolution simply explains the diversity of species and that the ones that survived had the means to adapt to change to survive. But, again, how is just narrowly living through catastrophic events only to reproduce or couch sitting only to simply procreate any meaning? It’s really not. Nor does the universe or anything have to have a meaning. We simply exist and existing doesn’t imply that we have some inherent goal to simply procreate. As I have stated, Newton passed on his very mind and in itself is a benefit to mankind. Science alone has already begun changing genes to prevent kids being born to have these diseases or birth defects that would make them possibly a living from-man, or anencephaly. So a scientist who, like Newton, has no kids or plans on it would have no use or benefit to the species even if he unlocked the capability to even allow people to be born and thus actually reproducing, and in a manner that is actually safe. That would be the premise of the topic. Regardless what you do or have done or will do, unless you have kids, you are absolutely worthless to the species and provide absolutely no benefit.“If procreation isn't the meaning of life as it's only a means to keep the species around then I fail to see how you can't agree that's it's the meaning of life. Without sex there is no more humans.” “If having kids isn’t the meaning of life, how can you disagree it is the meaning of life?” That is what I read, but I could just be slow this morning as I didn’t have my coffee. However, how can simply having sex be a meaning? By definition of the Cambridge University dictionary, meaning would be either “The meaning of something is what it expresses or represents” or “importance or value”. So, life having a meaning, or the meaning of life, isn’t, by what I have all said thus far, be represented by simply creating new life nor is the importance of life having a meaning stemmed via sex/procreation/conception. A meaning of life is, and always will, be what you make it if any. If there is no “what you make it” then there is no inherent meaning as nothing truly needs to have meaning. I have run out of room, so I will extend anything else I need to add in my closing statement.