OK, religious ideas are kind of genetic via indoctrination. (Epigenetic? Heh.)
Meanwhile ideas can be "self-removing" due to being bad, but then you'd just say "that's a bad idea" not "that's self-removing", so genetic descent was implied.
I didn't say the Shakers had a bad idea, it just was an idea that led to them removing themselves from further existence that was not genetic. Whether that was a good or bad decision is an entirely separate judgement call.
"Degrowth" is misanthropic, I guess, unless you think the world is overpopulated structurally somehow, as in you'd like more humans but only in due course and under more favorable (global?) circumstances.
But I think looking at this in global terms is wrong-headed anyway, whether you're for or against. The question is whether a specific person should be a parent here and now in specific personal circumstances. So of course it tends to be selfish. It's not entirely selfish since others are involved locally, including the future child. But "the world needs more children" or "the world needs fewer children" is barely relevant at all.
I did not want to come across as misanthropic. I like humanity for the overwhelming part, if not for its unfortunate tendency to go apeshit from time to time or to ruthlessly exploit the most beautiful and conplex machine in this part of the universe. I also don't mean to say it is necessarily desirable for societies to age this fast.
It's a choice I made for myself, that I am ready to bear the consequences of, say paying a greater share for other's childcare/making society more family-friendly/later retirement. I just would not want to add another ~copy of my soul to this pile. Yet I respect those who do.
The extreme mode of 50% of child-bearing age adults going 0 kids is not necessary and will probably end up being disastrous.