I don't think its disagreeable from a moral standpoint - merely that it is not the sole driver behind existence.
Further I think the idea that someone who doesn't directly breed is a wasted effort doesn't address the role that they might play in ensuring the next generation. My daughter's uncle has spent much time with his nephew and niece and has contributed to their upbringing, in a way that probably contributes to their chances of survival (or would have done in times past).
As for the premise itself I think it is open to question. If the function of life is to continue your specific genetic line, and, through that the survival of the species then we have to ask why so many species fail. As I recall some 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Some of those managed just a few tens of thousands of years, some hundreds of millions of years. We might regard those that lasted longer as being more successful but only to a point as they did ultimately go extinct.
Its also worth bearing in mind that of the 2% of species currently alive most of those, if not all, will ultimately go extinct. They will, more than likely, be replaced by other species better suited to the environment at the time.
It might be better to attempt to argue that the function of life is life itself. Whatever happens to the individual, or individual species, life continues. As such this would go beyond the concept of genetic inheritance within a species to a continuation of the process of evolution that leads, ultimately, to "better" species (in terms of being better equipped to survive).
Even there one has to bear in mind that entire groups might go extinct involving multiple species so the genetic information from them might be entirely lost. Their contribution might simply be to create a gap in the ecosystem another, totally unrelated species can then evolve into and occupy.
Basically - its probably more complex than mere genetics.
Further I think the idea that someone who doesn't directly breed is a wasted effort doesn't address the role that they might play in ensuring the next generation. My daughter's uncle has spent much time with his nephew and niece and has contributed to their upbringing, in a way that probably contributes to their chances of survival (or would have done in times past).
As for the premise itself I think it is open to question. If the function of life is to continue your specific genetic line, and, through that the survival of the species then we have to ask why so many species fail. As I recall some 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Some of those managed just a few tens of thousands of years, some hundreds of millions of years. We might regard those that lasted longer as being more successful but only to a point as they did ultimately go extinct.
Its also worth bearing in mind that of the 2% of species currently alive most of those, if not all, will ultimately go extinct. They will, more than likely, be replaced by other species better suited to the environment at the time.
It might be better to attempt to argue that the function of life is life itself. Whatever happens to the individual, or individual species, life continues. As such this would go beyond the concept of genetic inheritance within a species to a continuation of the process of evolution that leads, ultimately, to "better" species (in terms of being better equipped to survive).
Even there one has to bear in mind that entire groups might go extinct involving multiple species so the genetic information from them might be entirely lost. Their contribution might simply be to create a gap in the ecosystem another, totally unrelated species can then evolve into and occupy.
Basically - its probably more complex than mere genetics.
