To the man who does nothing

[MarcosZeitola]

Abraham Lincoln, the most venerated president in US history, has no living direct descendents today. They'd all past away, the last one some 30 years ago. But yet, Lincoln's remembered for his actions and is thus, immortal in the annals of American history. No one seems to have cared about his descendants very much.

There's actually a bit of uncertainty as to Lincoln's descendants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Lincoln_Beckwith

One Timothy Lincoln Beckwith, born in 1968, could potentially be a remaining heir.

Nikola Tesla also had no children but yet, he's the most venerated inventor of the prior century. Much of the modern age of electronics owes him.

Tesla is an awesome guy no matter what. Based on what I read about the man he probably had a very low sex drive and was driven more by his scientific ambitions. He did however expressed his doubts over never getting married, near the end of his life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Te ... ationships

..toward the end of his life, he told a reporter, "Sometimes I feel that by not marrying, I made too great a sacrifice to my work ..."

That makes it sound a bit as if Tesla, a man capable of forming good friendships with a wide variety of interesting people, would have liked some companionship in his life but for whatever reasons was so focused on his work that he never got around to finding someone. As both Einstein and Edison were married, (as was Lincoln, for that matter) I doubt it would have made him any less of a great scientist.

Marcus Aurelius, the last great Roman Emperor (of the Pax Romana era) had a child and made him successor whereas the four emperors before him, appointed the most capable leader of his time period, as Imperial successor. The end result ... a revolution, as the son, Commodus, was an idiot. The first decline of the empire had commenced forward.

Marcus Aurelius' bloodline, however, lives on as he had eleven children in total. Several of his descendants were ultimately killed by Commodus but brutal as his reign may have been, it could not wipe out the genetic lineage of emperor Marcus Aurelius. As several of his other children and grandchildren married into Rome's most prominent noble families it is safe to say his bloodline likely exists to this very day, although the family ultimately lost its prominent place in history and sunk into obscurity in the decades and centuries that followed. The male line probably died out and with it the family name as I believe most grandchildren were from Aurelius' daughters.

A better example would have been Julius Caesar, who's only daughter died in childbirth and who's son with Cleopatra was murdered as a teenager. His legitimate bloodline was therefore wiped out soon after his death, although he is known to have slept around famously much and fathered several bastard children among one the father (or grandfather?) of a future Gaul general.

Wolfgang Amadeus would be the best example, as of his six children only two sons survived adulthood and neither of them ever married or had any children, to my knowledge.

Mozart, Caesar and Marcus Aurelius all married however and Mozart is the only one who's bloodline definitely ended with him (although once more, as he was quite a charming man and the morals around the court were quite loose those days, chances are even "Rock Me Amadeus" had some affairs and who knows?).

None of them but Tesla, however, died alone or without ever finding a companion in their lives. And all were driven by their instincts to reproduce, and did exactly that. That their children were less fertile was not something they had a lot of control over, though it no doubt must be hard living in the shadow of a great man for these poor sons.

So yeah, of your examples only one we know for sure has no living descendants, and only one died unmarried but he regretted it eventually. All of them, one way or another, craved human contact and companionship.

[NorthAmericanguy]

Children are the only way for any man or woman to achieve true immortality, through the survival of your bloodline and your genetic lineage. Why live in a world where others spread theirs and have your own die out over concerns others never even bother to think of? You can give your children the life many others could only dream of in this world.

Well, the 2 or 3 children that we can have today is really insignificant in the grand scheme of things because the very few men in the past who were able to have a sexual monopoly with all the women infused more of their genes into the gene pool then we ever could.

In modern times, Austrian physiologist, Berthold P. Wiesner, ran a artificial fertilization clinic with his wife and used his own sperm for the process. So as a result, it's said that he's the father of around 1,000 children.

[MarcosZeitola]

Well, the 2 or 3 children that we can have today is really insignificant in the grand scheme of things because the very few men in the past who were able to have a sexual monopoly with all the women infused more of their genes into the gene pool then we ever could.

In modern times, Austrian physiologist, Berthold P. Wiesner, ran a artificial fertilization clinic with his wife and used his own sperm for the process. So as a result, it's said that he's the father of around 1,000 children.

I actually have three biological children myself already. One with my wife and two in my capacity as a sperm donor to another woman. My wife and I intend to have more children, eight to be precise. Assuming our children follow in our footsteps and have larger then average families themselves, chances are the genetic impact I have on the human gene pool would be quite a bit larger then your average person.

It would, of course, be nowhere near as large as Wiesner's. Assuming several of his clients lived in roughly the same area, chances are some of his 1000 children ended up running into one another. Genetic sexual attraction does the rest. To have too many offspring in one area greatly increases the chances of incest, which is why such numbers would be irresponsible. Best would be for a bloodline to spread over a much larger area. Much more safe, too. The healthiest offspring is often born to people who live far apart. You get a nice Inuit lady and a European or African man together chances are they'll have healthier offspring then, say, two Orthodox Jews in New York or an Afghan couple from born and raised in the same village.

The men who do best genetically tend to be celebrities in this day and age. The actors Anthony Quinn and Marlon Brando are good examples; Quinn had twelve children, Brando sixteen. The same can be said for many rappers and sports players. All men with a certain talent, charisma and status. Not Wiesner level, again, but significant.

One man can definitely make a difference genetically even in this day and age, though as the earth's population is now much smaller then in earlier times, statistically speaking the impact is less in most cases. It's a very interesting subject to think about, regardless.

[NorthAmericanguy]

Well, the 2 or 3 children that we can have today is really insignificant in the grand scheme of things because the very few men in the past who were able to have a sexual monopoly with all the women infused more of their genes into the gene pool then we ever could.

In modern times, Austrian physiologist, Berthold P. Wiesner, ran a artificial fertilization clinic with his wife and used his own sperm for the process. So as a result, it's said that he's the father of around 1,000 children.

I actually have three biological children myself already. One with my wife and two in my capacity as a sperm donor to another woman. My wife and I intend to have more children, eight to be precise. Assuming our children follow in our footsteps and have larger then average families themselves, chances are the genetic impact I have on the human gene pool would be quite a bit larger then your average person.

It would, of course, be nowhere near as large as Wiesner's. Assuming several of his clients lived in roughly the same area, chances are some of his 1000 children ended up running into one another. Genetic sexual attraction does the rest. To have too many offspring in one area greatly increases the chances of incest, which is why such numbers would be irresponsible. Best would be for a bloodline to spread over a much larger area. Much more safe, too. The healthiest offspring is often born to people who live far apart. You get a nice Inuit lady and a European or African man together chances are they'll have healthier offspring then, say, two Orthodox Jews in New York or an Afghan couple from born and raised in the same village.

The men who do best genetically tend to be celebrities in this day and age. The actors Anthony Quinn and Marlon Brando are good examples; Quinn had twelve children, Brando sixteen. The same can be said for many rappers and sports players. All men with a certain talent, charisma and status. Not Wiesner level, again, but significant.

One man can definitely make a difference genetically even in this day and age, though as the earth's population is now much smaller then in earlier times, statistically speaking the impact is less in most cases. It's a very interesting subject to think about, regardless.

Yes, it certainly is an interesting subject. The other day I was looking at the list of men and women who had the most children that we know of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... t_children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pe ... en#Fathers

As for myself, I don't have any children, but I do have half brothers and sisters, so my dad's DNA will live on even if I don't have any children myself. My half sister is in her 20's, and she's Chinese and African mix. She looks like the girl in my avatar, but a bit darker with more Asian facial features. She is modeling urban type clothing at the moment.

That said, we are living in different and troubling times to the point where it's not really smart to be going around having sex unprotected these days. I know for me, African women are the most women I have within my reach for sex, so if I wanted to have lots of kids, I would be s*** out of luck anyway because so many African women are infected with HIV.

[S_Parc]

Abraham Lincoln, the most venerated president in US history, has no living direct descendents today. They'd all past away, the last one some 30 years ago. But yet, Lincoln's remembered for his actions and is thus, immortal in the annals of American history. No one seems to have cared about his descendants very much.

There's actually a bit of uncertainty as to Lincoln's descendants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Lincoln_Beckwith

One Timothy Lincoln Beckwith, born in 1968, could potentially be a remaining heir.

And once again, who cares? We're all more impressed with Abe than with some wayward offspring, if he's even an offspring. Plus, Abe's wife Mary, was an alcoholic (plus an opium user) who drove him nuts, from time to time.

Nikola Tesla also had no children but yet, he's the most venerated inventor of the prior century. Much of the modern age of electronics owes him.

Tesla is an awesome guy no matter what. Based on what I read about the man he probably had a very low sex drive and was driven more by his scientific ambitions. He did however expressed his doubts over never getting married, near the end of his life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Te ... ationships

..toward the end of his life, he told a reporter, "Sometimes I feel that by not marrying, I made too great a sacrifice to my work ..."

That makes it sound a bit as if Tesla, a man capable of forming good friendships with a wide variety of interesting people, would have liked some companionship in his life but for whatever reasons was so focused on his work that he never got around to finding someone. As both Einstein and Edison were married, (as was Lincoln, for that matter) I doubt it would have made him any less of a great scientist.

It was a sacrifice worth making, as it's not clear whether or that his kid could have advanced his work over anyone else out there. Tesla lives on through his contributions.

Marcus Aurelius, the last great Roman Emperor (of the Pax Romana era) had a child and made him successor whereas the four emperors before him, appointed the most capable leader of his time period, as Imperial successor. The end result ... a revolution, as the son, Commodus, was an idiot. The first decline of the empire had commenced forward.

Marcus Aurelius' bloodline, however, lives on as he had eleven children in total. Several of his descendants were ultimately killed by Commodus but brutal as his reign may have been, it could not wipe out the genetic lineage of emperor Marcus Aurelius. As several of his other children and grandchildren married into Rome's most prominent noble families it is safe to say his bloodline likely exists to this very day, although the family ultimately lost its prominent place in history and sunk into obscurity in the decades and centuries that followed. The male line probably died out and with it the family name as I believe most grandchildren were from Aurelius' daughters.

A better example would have been Julius Caesar, who's only daughter died in childbirth and who's son with Cleopatra was murdered as a teenager. His legitimate bloodline was therefore wiped out soon after his death, although he is known to have slept around famously much and fathered several bastard children among one the father (or grandfather?) of a future Gaul general.

Wolfgang Amadeus would be the best example, as of his six children only two sons survived adulthood and neither of them ever married or had any children, to my knowledge.

Mozart, Caesar and Marcus Aurelius all married however and Mozart is the only one who's bloodline definitely ended with him (although once more, as he was quite a charming man and the morals around the court were quite loose those days, chances are even "Rock Me Amadeus" had some affairs and who knows?).

None of them but Tesla, however, died alone or without ever finding a companion in their lives. And all were driven by their instincts to reproduce, and did exactly that. That their children were less fertile was not something they had a lot of control over, though it no doubt must be hard living in the shadow of a great man for these poor sons.

So yeah, of your examples only one we know for sure has no living descendants, and only one died unmarried but he regretted it eventually. All of them, one way or another, craved human contact and companionship.

Still, having a wacko like Commodus rise up in power, doomed Aurelius's legacy and that was the maintenance of the Pax Romana. If Commodus had died and Marcus simply picked an heir, No not Russell Crowe in the movie , much of Marcus's family would not have been murdered & his legacy would have been terrific.

The point is that not every man needs children. I do not believe that parents own the souls of their offsprings. Apparently, you do seem to believe in something like that but through some genetic power trip.

And I'm sure that when my own dad passes away, he would have regretted having me and my sister, as he fancies himself a wise person (with great worldly aspirations) but whose children were a bunch of communist sympathizers who'd wasted his good years. So this isn't some universal dictum as you so put out.

I'll do fine with or without them.