Not really. There are all sorts of advantages for the species to have individuals who don't reproduce. For example:
- Biological population control. Resources are limited, and it's better to have a smaller number of healthy individuals than a large amount of organisms you can't support.
- Childcare. There will always be orphans; individuals who can't have their own children can take care of children without parents. Additionally, they can provide aid to their siblings in raising their nieces and nephews.
- I recall one article I read which indicates that LGBT individuals may have been major contributors to the development of agriculture. Essentially, a man who is more effeminate (because he's gay, or because he's a she, or just because) and isn't interested in "manly" hunter/gatherer activities would be more likely to stay put and work on a farm. I can't remember all the details, but I'll see if I can dig up the article if anyone's interested.