Asklemmy

My point is not that previous people haven't done significant things, it's that they did those things independently of who one of their many ancestors happened to be. Much like an actual ripple, the larger the pond, the less likely any disturbance is to reach the shore, and the more likely it is to be quickly lost to the natural turbulence of any body of water.

If your evidence against that is the existence of significant inventions, there are very few, if any, that wouldn't have been invented by someone else within years. No major invention or discovery, from the light bulb to relativity, has been made while others weren't working on the same problem and making similar, if slightly slower, progress.

That's why they say necessity is the mother of invention, not a person or an institution or anything that could be credited to a single creator.

And if you think humans are still evolving according to selection pressure the way that other species have/do, you just don't understand how evolution actually works. The moment we gained self awareness and created social structures, we drifted so far from biological evolution that it's an entirely moot point in terms of future generations. The least adaptive of us now, on average, still lives through the entirety of our birthing/fertile years, while significant portions of a population dying during or prior to fertility is the only way that natural selection works. That or the existence of bachelor herds that lead to a very slim minority being the only ones to breed. Neither of those are the case with humans.

Ultimately, having kids to ensure your own legacy is possibly the most selfish reason you could create someone and thrust them into 80 years of what should be their own life.