[saltcured]

Clearly, the the decision not to reproduce is not going to be lost by following through on it. Anybody who decides not to reproduce is existence proof of the potential for the decision to emerge after countless generations of decisions to the contrary.

I think that very few interesting behavioral traits are so simple as to have a binary presence depending on one mutation. Instead, we inherit complex systems of behavioral tendencies which can be actively expressed or silently carried depending on circumstance. Similarly, epigenetics have been demonstrated to even carry some memory of circumstances requiring trait expression across generations. This further "smears" adaptation over time. Also, these notions of adaptation and evolutionary pressure are statistical concepts applied whole populations, not some morality play embodied by individual actors who evolve or perish.

For nearly every situation where one can worry about valuable traits dying out due to non-reproduction, can we not just as easily imagine that it is expression of well-tested, adaptive traits already present in our broader gene pool? It is quite arbitrary to embrace evolutionary ideas and yet decide that one's impulses and inherited tendencies are somehow maladaptive and must be denied.

The impulses could be a refined adaptive trait which serves to protect the broader gene line of families and communities. Why should one level of meta-analysis be granted a higher value? Perhaps the pure impulse without meta-analysis is the real value. Or perhaps it is two levels: first considering to procreate in spite of the lack of desire, then realizing that this second guessing is unnecessary...