[HideousKojima]

>I have the opposite though: perhaps I need to not to have kids to stop the cycle of creating meaning through procreation.

You won't stop the cycle though, others who do actually have kids will simply continue it, and the single biggest way in which you could have had and influence on the future of the world and the human race will have been eliminated.

And that's before you get into any religious implications of having and raising children.

[skinnymuch]

Being wealthy or powerful probably has more influence on the world and humans than having kids.

[HideousKojima]

Nonsense, on a long enough timescale your descendents will intermarry with other people, and the wealthy and powerful of future generations will be your descendents. Dave Thomas may have had a major influence on the US with his restaurants and charitable foundations, but if he had never been born in the first place he wouldn't have been able to accomplish any of that. I chose Thomas as an example because he's a literal orphan and his adoptive family wasn't particularly wealthy either as far as I can tell.

[skinnymuch]

I agree maybe that’ll happen. Maybe it won’t. OTOH, as society is now, being rich and/or powerful can definitely influence things and almost all influences of society happen by the rich and powerful.

In my pov, saying having kids is the most important way to influence the world unfortunately provides an excuse to prop up the status quo of incredibly imbalanced power and wealth structures.

It also seems a bit mean to posit having children is the way to most influence society. Not every one can responsibly and properly raise children. Or have the financial foundation

[Defitio]

At least I would stop it for my gen pool.

I'm not responsible for potential suffering of others.