I can provide you with some insights on the topic.
From a biological standpoint, individuals who fail to reproduce and pass on their genes do not contribute directly to the gene pool of future generations. In that sense, it can be argued that they do not pass on their genetic material and could be considered an evolutionary dead-end in terms of genetic legacy.
However, it's important to note that evolutionary success is not solely determined by passing on genes. Evolutionary fitness can also be influenced by factors such as cooperation, altruism, and the ability to contribute to the survival and well-being of other individuals in a social group. In some cases, individuals who do not have biological offspring may still contribute to society in meaningful ways that indirectly benefit their relatives or the larger community.
Furthermore, humans have complex social and cultural systems that extend beyond biological reproduction. Many people contribute to society through their work, ideas, creativity, and other forms of cultural impact. Their influence can endure even if they do not have biological children.
Ultimately, the concept of evolutionary success and being an "evolutionary dead-end" is primarily relevant from a biological perspective and focuses on the transmission of genetic material. However, it is only one aspect of the broader human experience, and individuals can have meaningful impacts on society and the world in various ways, regardless of their biological reproductive success.