So we're on the same page. Great. Now what's wrong with forcing a gamete (a mindless-cell) to do/be anything apart from the consequences? — Isaac

Why does this matter? The gametes are set into motion to be a person.. At the time the person becomes a person THAT is the imposition.. As you said, doesn't matter if it is instantaneous or 9 months..

I mean this goes back to the lava baby yet again.. We agree that bringing a baby into a lava pit is bad..

Antinatalists say the lava pit is the necessary conditions of the world. Don't create that for others unnecessarily if it is not purely utopian, but rather requires burdens of known and unknown kinds/degrees. But you see that is now getting to the argument at hand, which I have been trying to do instead of whether arguing whether something that is caused to be is "forced". It certainly is, even if prior to the "person born" is a non-person.. Because at some point X a person IS born, and THAT is the thing we are discussing. It's simply displacement of time and we have discussed this a while ago.

Creating the soldier..takes time.. Creating the human takes time.. The process by which when that person becomes a soldier/human THAT is when there is something we are discussing.. Well, not even I should say, because it is also the attempt to get them there in that state of affairs and whether that attempt should be done to get them there.. But yeah.

Does it force something to happen to soldiers? is conscription a force which imposes on soldiers? — Isaac

This is as bullshit a sophistry as I've seen in a while...This goes up there with medieval apologetics...
Do you believe that a person can be caused to exist in the world just like the soldier is caused? I'm sure you would say yes.. THAT is the imposition.. The forcing of the civilian to soldier is the force. The forcing from not-person to person is the force. Ironically, both inescapable (in theory) except through punishment in one and death in the other.

From years of discussing antinatalism on this forum, I will say that people only believe in possibility as a condition when it suits them.

If talking about the potential for something to happen based on conditions.. everyone is on board, yay! If it is talking about a possible person, that would be imposed upon had it been born, boo! And the proverbial crowds throw their rotten tomatoes...

Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering. — baker

Not sure why you think that, but ok.

Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept, because for me there’s nothing after death, no “you” to “enjoy” the preferred nothingness :roll: . For now suicide seems irrational. — rossii

That's a lot of E.M. Cioran.. Ever read him?

There you go again. No one is imposing on someone. There is no someone. — Isaac

Does conscription make soldiers into soldiers? — Isaac

It forces something to happen to someone and what is forced is significant, etc. etc.. That's all that matters in this argument.

- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.

- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.

- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.

- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified. — Tzeentch

Excellent points.. I was going to write something similar, but this is better.

I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it.

You then turn to unjust impositions to try and wriggle out of that obvious assessment. — Isaac

I would never wriggle out of that, because I wouldn't claim it. I'm not a utilitarian consequentialist. I don't think "the greatest good" is a good argument, and it ignores the locus of ethics (the individual) and treats them like units in a greater whole that is aggregated in nothing but a calculus. So no, I wouldn't concede anything there. Basically, you don't get to impose on someone because you are sad otherwise.

You then start to claim that it's not fair to impose on someone without their consent. Not effects. Not causes. Impositions without consent..

I then point out that no unjust imposition without consent has taken place because that which was imposed on is a gamete and doesn't care. — Isaac

But we've been through this over and over, so the hissy fit. The fact is consent could not be gotten. That's all that matters. CAN you get consent for this affect on the person you are creating? But see, YOU ant to wriggle out (by way of sophistry) by saying that a "person" is not affected. But that is not true. At time "Z" (we'll" say), when a person "exists" (however you define person).. THAT is the entity that has NOW (time 1 started) been affected, thus.. How? By BEING in existence. Affected thus.

So your argument that it is unjust to 'force' someone into the game of life can be completely ignored then. since "It is unjust to have caused to occur a person in the game of life" is not true. — Isaac

You caused to occur someone to exist who didn’t previously. You proved nothing except you can create lots of sophistic nonsense. While amusing, exhausting.

You equivocate this act of causing with not affecting someone because at some point that person didn’t exist because they were not fully formed, but then they did and so your points are moot.

That's the point. The thing we impose our will on is a gamete. It doesn't care. — Isaac

This is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-US!

What a rhetorical con! I can't believe you have reverted to this argument rather than move forward with whether it is okay to impose conditions on X individual. You are now trying to refute that a parent causes a gamete to become a human by the steps related to procreation. What kind of diagram do I need to draw to show you how this works?

@Tzeentch is absolutely correct in his analogy.. The pulling of the trigger causes the bullet to fire and kill the person. The trigger doesn't fire on its own. The gamete doesn't just "become" a human. You are subtly trying to deny that the gamete becomes a human.. and that things that take time don't count for causation because there is a duration. Gametes + 9 months + birthing into the world = a person born. It is THAT event that is caused by the parents. Generally, for brevity's sake, we just say parents "procreate" the child. We don't need to go into the whole biology to prove the cause.

Now. move the hell on from this red-herring hill and go back to the argument @Jerry, myself, and @Tzeentch are actually making. By not doing so, I think I'm going to have to ignore as you are simply rhetorically stalling.. Get to the argument at hand.. Should parents procreate a person with X conditions?

Oh, and if you mention "FORCE" or anything else that you think can't be used... Then just replace it with caused to occur.. I don't care about the pedantic argument of what word to use. If I recall, I saw you defending Wittgenstein's ideas in his PI. That is to say, there are family resemblances in how words are used in a language game.. In this one, we are simply using "force" as a word for causing someone to exist who wouldn't exist otherwise.. DEAL WITH IT. That is how this particular language game is being used. It makes sense. It doesn't have to precisely correlate to a Platonic "force" but rather resembles how we use it in other ways, even if not exactly the same. BUT here I am indulging your language argument when we have moved away from the question at hand...

It matters intently because you lost the argument about simply causing people to be. Causing people to be has no moral problem. They'll probably be happy enough and its for the good of the already living community. — Isaac

Causing people to be is the moral problem if it leads to X, Y, Z negatives.. That is the argument at hand but you are the one constantly changing it to be about the definition of "force"..

You want to say that some unjust, immoral 'forcing' has taken place against someone's will. But no such forcing has taken place. The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac

Causing it to be is the "force" I am talking about.. There is no strict use of force.. but it usually means in these cases, "imposing your will".. When the person comes to be.. THAT is caused by someone's action. You can pedantically hang your hat on this point all day, and it has no merit to the claim that causing someone to be (forcing, making a life start that entails suffering, it DOESN"T matter the phrasing), is the point at hand.

Doesn't matter. You caused a soldier to be. Without you, no soldier.

The wait time is irrelevant. It could be instantaneous. If I instantaneously make someone a soldier. Did I make a civilian into a soldier, or did I make a soldier into a soldier? — Isaac

It is that there was a state of affairs thus that you made a soldier. It doesn't matter what the previous state was.

One imposed it on a embryo, and there's no moral issue with imposing something on an embryo without its consent. So your counter fails. — Isaac

:rofl: .. Really? This is your argument? That conceiving a child to birth takes 9 months and that there is a period between conception and birth, this thus refutes that the parents imposed? A wait time between the initial action and the outcome (a person) somehow makes the imposition null? How? Why does it have to be the exact immediate effect of conception and not the result 9 months later?

Oh this is pedantic.
An action led to a person existing. That person existing has entailed necessary conditions. It's probably the same argument you are having with tzeentch right now.

Not a refusal to answer, but an inability to answer! — Agent Smith

You haven't thought enough or at all about it? Or have come up with no answer?

I notice you don't answer my questions. Not a great way to dialogue.. and sort of unfair to me who is trying to do one.

1. Life + Happiness
2. Nonexistence

My gut instincts tell me that antinatalists should give their nod of approval for the order, it makes sense to them. Therein lies the rub, oui mes amies? — Agent Smith

I already answered:

If every life was an individualized utopia, you would have solid ground. It obviously isn't. So, yes, you can try to find happiness in life once born, but it doesn't negate that life entails a lot of other stuff as well, to be endured. And this isn't to be ignored. — schopenhauer1

I sympathize with the antinatalist crowd. Suffering tops the list of humanity's and also all life's problems - people seem too distracted to notice their own dukkha, especially in the modern world with cyberspace providing intermittent relief (for folks like myself). Billions are, to use a Matrix analogy, plugged in/jacked into virtual communities; I consider this a symptom of our dissatisfaction with the real world (dukkha manifests in interesting ways). In short antinatalism has a point. — Agent Smith

Good points.

However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life. — Agent Smith

If you like the flow states and the pleasures that come from the obstacle course, that's great.
1) Does it actually last for a lifetime, or is intermittent?
2) Does the fact that there is an obstacle course presented to you (foisted if you will) not give you pause?
3) Whilst the need for happiness? Isn't there a state of lack implied here that we are trying to constantly fulfill?

You had it right with the dukkha.. keep going with that theme.

You can't, as is obvious to you, recommend nonexistence as a solution then, oui? — Agent Smith

Your implication is we need to create people so that they can be happy. If every life was an individualized utopia, you would have solid ground. It obviously isn't. So, yes, you can try to find happiness in life once born, but it doesn't negate that life entails a lot of other stuff as well, to be endured. And this isn't to be ignored.

The natural response is to reify suffering as a necessity for a complete experience. I just don't think it is our job to bring people into the world to suffer and then learn from their suffering. Who are we? How is this NOT a political position for someone else? And of course, besides that this is wrong to want people to suffer because YOU think it is worthwhile for them (making that decision for them), suffering many times goes off the rails.. more than you predicted or expected.

Thanos cared too much. I'm ignoring the "too much" part! — Agent Smith

Look, I'll give you a secret about my antinatalism, that isn't really a secret if you pay attention to my whole corpus (which I don't expect you to :)). Antinatalism isn't just about the principle itself, though it can be debated on its own without any connection to a broader principle... But I do think it is also its implications on the broader life we live.

What are these impositions of life?
Why should they be endured?
How should we treat each other if we must endure them?
What are we perpetuating when we create more people?

So I discuss things like the burdens of survival and striving-after of the human condition.
I discuss what it means to not make others unduly suffer even more than they should.
I discuss the political choice one is making for another by procreating them. There is a system in place, and one wants to keep this system going, and more people to endure it.

Ethics is all about creating/preserving life while attempting to make the experience a memorable (read happy) one. — Agent Smith

Really? I thought it was about right action? You are putting a spin on it such that of course, antinatalism would thus never be "ethical".. If ethics entails procreation, thus antinatalism is not ethical. But of course, the antinatalist would never define ethics so. They would define ethics as principles of right and wrong behavior.

I'll ease off here because at the end you did say:

I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on! — Xtrix

So, in recognition of this, I'll respect that you agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum. Just discounting out of hand and banishing because you think it is distasteful to your mores, doesn't say anything against it. Socrates, Galileo, Bruno, Inquisitions, that's what you get with that kind of thinking.

It's dressed up nihilism. Always has been. — Xtrix

Haha.. What does that even matter? It isn't but why do you think that makes a point? Big Lebowski or something? Great movie, by the way.

There's either the desire to give life or not. — Xtrix

So if you knew that that life would suffer in X amount (for you unreasonably).. Should that not be considered? You would normally say yes (but maybe not cause you want to make a point debating me perhaps)..

ntly creating negatives (impositions, harms) for others that can't be escaped.. That in itself is enough not to do unto another person.

But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude. — Xtrix

You can say that about any position though. What makes any other ethical position immune from someone disagreeing with it? That's like saying.. I don't believe in X ethical position, so the rest is nonsense.. So if you don't believe in Kant's ideas, should it be banished from philosophical debate? Seems ridiculous to me.. You are making unreasonable hoops for antinatalism to jump through as if it is not like any other ethical system one can believe or not believe. I never said you are FORCED to believe it. Now that truly would be hypocritical to impose the view after saying that impositions themselves should be avoided unto others!

Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid view, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. — Xtrix

Oh dear, a philosophical position has a position that is counter to your current belief-system.. Thus it should be violently opposed. Great job advocating for free speech in the confines of a respectable forum. Rather, any position you don't hold should also be banished right? Or no, just this because YOU have opinions on it.

Ok, the point is there seem to be unethical nonethical reasons to advocate for natalism and one appears in my previous post. — Agent Smith

There are reasons people want to procreate.. whether or not they are ethical.. Understood and can agree if stated in those terms. But once you say, THEREFORE people should procreate, that becomes an ethical statement, or at the least, axiological.

Oh and it's not anti-joy. A life full of joy is better than a life bereft of joy. Creating a life, that will definitely impose on someone and create impositions for them, negates the fact that there is joy. Creating joy is not an obligation. Not creating harms where it didn't have to take place is. My wanting to cause joy, does not mean I get to create more harms too for them.

There is an odd religious mania in the pro-procreation view.. One is "spreading joy" (without any thought to the other consequences one is spreading). And somehow THIS is an obligation unto itself.. The Universe needs its experiencers of it?? More like projection of ones own sadness onto the universe.. You are not the universe.. The universe isn't even a proper place for this kind of placement of evaluation.. If not the universe, it's just you being sad about something not happening. An abstraction of future events that will not take place. And thus somehow a justification for more harm to others because people shouldn't feel sad about abstractions somehow, as an absolute fact of ethics.. Odd.

If you’re in favor of not having kids, don’t have any. If you’re making arguing that human beings shouldn’t have kids, then you’re anti-life. The result is the end of the species. That essentially says: ”life is evil.” Evil because suffering exists. — Xtrix

If you believe something is not ethical because of X, Y, and Z, why would that not be something one should have a philosophical position on? Because you disagree with it? Some people think abortion is right or wrong. Some people think eating highly-sentient animals is right or wrong. Some people think that you are obligated to give as much as you can. Some people think you are not obligated to do X, or you are obligated to do Y. Some people think you can never lie. Some people think it is okay to cheat on your wife, steal from a mega-corporation, take something if no one knows, etc. etc. etc. It's all positions people can have and debate. Unfairly targeting a position on the ethics of procreating, is more an anti-anatinatalist problem. I have no problem with good faith debate. I have a problem with people who condemn it out of hand due to their own defenses or whatnot. I rather, them ignore if they aren't going to consider the views and want to twist it as somehow "illogical".. It's logical, just not the logic you want to hear.

As for the end of the species.. You already have the presumption that ethics entails the continuance of the species over creating actual individuals who will be imposed upon. You are jumping to the conclusion without engaging any of the evidence against such a notion. A real creation of someone else's suffering is pitted against someone's sadness from an abstraction.. Yet, the emotional appeal of the abstraction clouds the reasoning of the ethics... so the ethics is violently opposed, as Schopenhauer observed.

Just dressed up nihilism. — Xtrix

Wrong again.. At least get your terms correct. Nihilism in ethics, it he belief in no values. A nihilist wouldn't give a fuck if you procreated or not. They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up.

his sentiment (something for nothing) has been associated with "kids these days!", as if to say the notion is puerile, a cardinal sign of an immature mind. However, what about the adult obsession with efficiency, making things easier, etc.? Such concepts, taken to their natural endpoint, imply that even adults want something for nothing. — Agent Smith

You may have something there...

However, I don't think natalism should THUS be considered as somehow at a future point, these things will be figured out. You don't cause negatives for other in the hopes that at some undefined point, they get something from it. That is done maybe when ameliorating greater with lesser harms (forced schooling for children, etc.) but not an excuse in general to just "do" to people. You don't create immense suffering for generations for some undefined future goal of "humanity".. What else can we "do" to people for a cause? The slippery slope is precipitous with this kind of philosophy.

But sure, if work was abolished, that would be a benefit.. I am not against it. I just wouldn't put people in harms way or to impose my will on them, or create impositions for them to see this happen in some undefined future state. You are creating people who must experience work for generations before (or even if) any of this would take place (if at all).

The reason it isn’t convincing is because the argument is stupid. It’s fundamentally anti-life. That’s more a matter of mood and temperament than sound reasoning. Nietzsche has plenty to say on this— far more articulate than me.

I’m the opposite of you: I don’t have kids, and I’m not convinced in the slightest. — Xtrix

It's anti-suffering. Saving a life in your care, and starting a life are two different things. You are equivocating to make a point.. But it's out-of-hand condemnation without consideration. Efficient, but not fully thought out.

Thanks for the shoutout, Jerry! I'm glad you saw some value there.

As Schopenhauer once said:

All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. — Arthur Schopenhauer

I think he was onto something.

Talking about imposing the necessary conditions of existence is absolute nonsense on stilts. One cannot impose that which is a necessary condition. — Isaac

It is imposing the state of affairs that entails that necessary condition. How is it not?

Indeed, I wonder if it is a post-facto excuse for justifying the fact that life entails work, and thus if work isn't meaningful then much of what sustains life isn't meaningful, and thus procreation is putting upon people not a benefit but a burden simply to "deal with". In other words, people MUST find meaning in work, otherwise implications are not good.

It's a shame that after so many pages of discussion (including those in the other threads) we've essentially not moved beyond this point. — Tzeentch

Absolutely, I was thinking the same thing.

No sane person would act in the way described. No sane person would try to defend someone who acts in the way described, for reasons that are obvious. — Tzeentch

Agreed.

It's just rhetorical. That's why I stopped engaging with this position. What's the point in engaging with ideas that no one applies consistently or genuinely believes in? — Tzeentch

Yes, I think you got at what’s going on here. And I understand your frustration. It does seem like rhetorical ploys to stall the argument. Most of these arguments are of the sort that are totally against what we usually believe..examples like:
“Oh, we can’t talk about impositions since there is not a person existing presently”

“Oh well you can impose on others because you’d be sad not to”.

“Oh you can’t complain about the conditions of life because they are necessary to living/existing” (But why? That’s the very point being made..these conditions are necessary and perhaps not just to impose. They cannot be escaped once set in motion for another without significant harm).

This last point is the one I want to get to but a lot of stalling happens on the first two points.

I haven't even mentioned well-being. — Isaac

Red-herring.. I am talking about the considerations of someone in the future that isn't born yet. Lava pit baby and humans being born in general are all "real considerations". The actual person doesn't have to be born for these considerations to be "about" what could be an actual person born. This is common sense, but you are twisting it with word games.. Odd, based on some of your other positions I've seen in discussions you've had about language and Wittgenstein..

That they'd still have necessary conditions of existence. — Isaac

That is my point too, so I'll move to your next statement...

If what you're saying is that human care about their necessary conditions of existence (whereas rocks don't), then I agree, but that doesn't constitute an argument against procreation. Most humans find those conditions acceptable costs and so it's a reasonable gamble to take for the benefit to society. — Isaac

And this is exactly what I am refuting.. First off, gambling with other people's lives, even if say, 90% of the time got it right, is still wrong. But besides the obvious gambling argument, beyond that, imposing one's will on another and burdening them with impositions is wrong 100% of the time. Significantly making decisions that affect others so greatly is never something we would normally do de novo, without cause other than "We would feel sad if we didn't". Rather, it is only ameliorating a greater for a lesser harm that this would matter. And since no person exists yet to be ameliorated, that isn't the case here. And no, ethics doesn't work like thus: "I feel sad for not being able to harm X person..therefore X person gets to get harmed.. because there MIGHT be good for that person along with the harms".. The "good" doesn't justify doing the harm to that person.. and certainly not because you or others would have negative feelings for not affecting that person so.. Again, only in people like children or mentally handicapped does that make sense because they presumably don't have the decision-making skills (NOW THAT THEY ARE MADE TO BE IN THIS POSITION OF CARE), that it would matter.

Now your natural tendency to then revert BACK to the "but there is no person.. not EVEN a child that is there".. Doesn't make a difference because a person WILL be affected (like the lava pit baby) by your actions and it is THESE very actions that are the ethical issue (causing negatives/ deciding what are the conditions another person should endure) that are in question as to whether it's ethical to decide for someone else. It's not, is the answer.. Never was, never is, never will be. And equivocating governmental actions with ethical actions (like government gets to tax you.. see greater good..) is simply making a category mistake. Your interpersonal actions are not equivalent to how law operates. Not helping the grandma cross the street, whilst possibly unethical, is not necessarily illegal.

Having lost that argument, you now want to make the problem one of unjust imposition — Isaac

Haha, what are you taking a page from Trump's playbook? Declare victory even if you haven't won? Nice try though.

ut you can't because the necessary conditions of existence are not imposed by anyone, they are a fact of the world. No one forced that on me, so no injustice has taken place. All that procreation has done is change the necessary conditions of existence from those of a gamete, to those of an embryo, to those of person. At no point has the mere fact that entities must resist entropic decay been imposed. — Isaac

The mere fact of entropic decay matters not for the previous state of affairs. Once a person, it now "matters" in the way that suffering/negative experiences/values matters to a sentient and self-aware being.

Work is, let's just say, mutating - what it's now is orders of magnitude better than it was 30kya — Agent Smith

Nothing about what I was talking about though.

if all goes well, may have people falling over each other to be given the opportunity to, well, work. — Agent Smith

HAHAHHAHA :rofl: Why?

I believe I've mentioned this before - some ideas tend to be photographs, others videos! — Agent Smith

What is your modus operendi? Why would people ever give up their time for something they have to do? Falling over each other to "work" is simply called doing what you want when you want it because you want to do it, with no contingencies for needing to do it (like for survival). Jobs don't work like that. Jobs are not there for your edification. They are there to produce wealth to buy (as Homer said) goods and services. Or,, for the very rich, to grow their wealth continually and intergenerationally without buying any goods and services beyond more investments to reinvest in.

In a sense food lost its numero uno position in re labor to second place, below other more, let's just say, sublime aforementioned activities. To me this is a significant upgrade to the status of work which should matter, oui? Especially if the downsides of having to look for/hold a job is a key premise in an/any argument. :smile: — Agent Smith

You’re overlooking what I’m saying for a straw man that you want me to say. I’m not taking about reverting to a hunting gathering society simply by criticizing what is going on now. Any economic model whereby we de facto are forced into a situation of work to survive would be thus the target. You are looking at the accidentals when I’m talking of the essentials. And it’s all relative as the next level of his work manifests is the new norm.

Read what I’m actually saying if you want to move this forward.

these kinda professions being only indirectly related to feeding. I consider this a significant improvement and we should be thankful for it. — Agent Smith

Homer explains it best:


You cannot decouple the two. You can do things because you absolutely want to or because it brings the medium for your survival (in this case money- which buys goods and services, you see). So no, this is ANOTHER conceit of the kind/benevolent dictators who provide you these "meaningful" jobs for X hours. Keep 'em coming Agent Smith..

The nightmare scenario that you're claiming life is is I think a severe case of cherry picking aka confirmation bias. — Agent Smith

Are you a capital investor? Sounds like the defense of one me thinks :D.

However, as I see it, this ain't a done deal with zero options for improvement. Conditions could be bettered and we may begin to, at some point, appreciate life as gift, worth it, enjoyable, and so on. — Agent Smith

Get back to work. That minutia isn't going to monger itself! I just don't find anything much in this statement of consolation, or refutation really. More cold-hearted "This is how it is.. stop saying stuff.. the system is good, the system works, the system is all we have". Yadayadayada

And we all monger the minutia.. pay the price.. put our attention on the details. Laud the details. Laud the minutia-mongers.. Counting the beans, creating the electrical signal pulses, measuring this, solving that... Romanticize it (scientism), revile it (ludism), enjoy it (the average consumer), produce it (the average technology/science worker), maintain it (all the supporting jobs).. The capital investors/governments smile as they deign to think they provide "meaning" to the laborers in their fiefdoms.. The laborers buy into the conceit as what else do they do for their adult lives? Production becomes paramount. Work becomes identity. Laboring becomes ritual and sacrament and sacred meaning-maker.

Sounds like a fair deal. What exactly are you complaining about? — Agent Smith

Either you don't know Schopenhauer, or you don't know how I am applying it thusly to the economic sphere. Which is it?

Will in Schop is an insatiable craving at the heart of existence. It strives-but-for-naught, causing its phenomenological manifestations bear the brunt of the thing-in-itself. Humans suffer the most because of our self-awareness of this suffering.

The economic system is a system of striving-after.. In the Schopenhauerian sense, it is striving for survival and entertainment.. A physical representation of our inability to "just be". Our demands and supplies are physico-social manifestations of this endless cycle of willing whereby we cannot just exist, in calmness, non-desireless states, but must work at one end and distract in another. It self-reinforces itself with each demand and supply offered...It tightens the ouroboros.