Evolution doesn't rationalize optimal choice. Humans can design their own environments which is fairly dangerous because humans have the choice to gamify, but life isn't a competition.
Choosing both, either, or neither of the two options are all valid. And I think that's nice.
Sexual selection and reproduction has always been a competition, both in nature and in humans. Choosing not to play is an option, but your genes won't continue
That would imply winners and losers, but nobody wins or loses either way. Reality goes on regardless of who or what reproduces.
Even if one's genetics aren't passed on, their memetics do which nullifies the proposition of competition to begin with. You play, you don't play, you win!
Does your culture not talk about your ancestors choices and successes, and extrapolate that your current choices affect your great-great-[etc]-grandchildren?
My ancestors are forgotten to time, as I suspect are most peoples'. How many do you think can name all eight (theoretically) of their great-great grandfathers? I certainly cannot. And that is not exactly ancient history.
As far as extrapolating my current choices effect on my descendants, nothing could be simpler; I have none and so there will be no effect on them. This is something that brings me much peace. I do wish that people with or without children would take better care of this planet, since I find the continued degradation of it to be the most depressing aspect of modern life, but I would think that parents in particular would be more future oriented.
Choosing both, either, or neither of the two options are all valid. And I think that's nice.
Memetics are also a consideration.