To make it more succinct:
Having children is essentially pressing more people into the system. Preventing birth is not pressing more people into the system. Why press more people into the system? Is it bad to advocate to potential parents to NOT press more people into the system? Procreators are voting with their gametes. Antinatalists are voting with their persuasion.

To proclaim the rare poster @Inyenzi, antinatalists are in a way "boycotting" the system, and not being complicit in perpetuating it to yet another person who must be laborers, and self-aware of the laboring and may evaluate any given task in their laboring as negative.. and thus don't want to expose yet more laborers to the system.

Then this again goes back to the OP:

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat, but the perpetuation of this package is condoned and praised? Can't there be another point of view? — schopenhauer1

Pretty much addressed in OP:
1) Social structures of economic, political, cultural institutions that de facto need to be entered into in order to survive, find comfort, and fill time with entertainment.

2) Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them.

Why does this package seem justified to perpetuate onto more people born into the world?

Is there a quasi-religious element of some "mission" involved in this?

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat, but the perpetuation of this package is condoned and praised? Can't there be another point of view?

Maslow seems to be the antithesis of Schopenhauer here.. Maslow is buying into the scheme of becoming, in Hegelian fashion (someone Schopenhauer despised, though one of many). Schopenhauer's ideal is Platonic rest or being.

I'm not contradicting your point, I am contributing to your point, just not in full support.

What do you think you are trying to achieve in general terms? — Tom Storm

I am saying that by procreating people, you are willing (or unwitting) participants in perpetuating your socio-economic-cultural institutions (including governments, etc.). You have become oddly, a "political advocate" by adding more workers to the economy, more hands on deck, etc.

The pandemic is subsiding for us. The virus is on its way to becoming endemic on most of the planet.

Your battle has only begun. — frank

How does that negate the 500,000 + people that died though?

For sure, but they may do more than play around on social media - they might work in politics, in unions, in activism, in medical care, in civil rights law, in drug law reform, in a range of subversive activities. — Tom Storm

Not sure how "subversive" that is. It is contributing, just in a different way and would make the country stronger in the long-run. Don't see how that contradicts the point.

Doesn't help when a self-obsessed narcist who knew the extent but purposely downplayed the severity of the situation to bolster his image and Wall Street numbers was in charge. To be fair, both sides were not at a mental place to do what it actually took to prevent it- stop all air travel from all countries immediately. One side would say overreaction and economic reasons, the other side would site xenophobia and also economic reasons.

To be fair again.. it was probably already in many countries prior to when it became considered a "pandemic".

I guess I was just trying to give the best quote to highlight the OP's questions. He likens a sort of unrest/motionless/Platonic realm as a sort of "the" actual realm of paradise of sorts.. It is a negation of all lack, a perpetual stillness likened to nothingness.. and similar to Buddhist ideals, etc.

Thus the OP asking why Jack and Jill scenario is not good enough for a paradise, I think that whole quote kind of gets at Schop's major point. It gives it more context.

I've known a number of parents who are hoping their child becomes an iconoclast who will help bring down the state's structure. Don't underestimate the revolutionary projects of some would be parents. — Tom Storm

Well, I did say "unwitting" participant's too. Most likely they will contribute to the economy in some way, even if they write some "revolutionary" blogposts and social media posts :D.

Getting back to the idea of boredom, we could ask if that is an actual sensation, experienced bodily, because it could be experienced more as an absence. So, really, Shopenhauer's Jack may just be left with a void of craving if he did not have to work to win Jill's love. So, it seems that the presence of craving is seen as worth having as opposed to boredom. The question is whether boredom is really the worst possible scenario. What is boredom exactly? Is it simply a sensation? — Jack Cummins

@Amalac

The whole foundation on which our existence rests is the present—the ever-fleeting present. It lies, then, in the very nature of our existence to take the form ​of constant motion, and to offer no possibility of our ever attaining the rest for which we are always striving. We are like a man running downhill, who cannot keep on his legs unless he runs on, and will inevitably fall if he stops; or, again, like a pole balanced on the tip of one's finger; or like a planet, which would fall into its sun the moment it ceased to hurry forward on its way. Unrest is the mark of existence.

In a world where all is unstable, and nought can endure, but is swept onwards at once in the hurrying whirlpool of change; where a man, if he is to keep erect at all, must always be advancing and moving, like an acrobat on a rope—in such a world, happiness is inconceivable. How can it dwell where, as Plato says, continual Becoming and never Being is the sole form of existence? In the first place, a man never is happy, but spends his whole life in striving after something which he thinks will make him so; he seldom attains his goal, and when he does, it is only to be disappointed; he is mostly shipwrecked in the end, and comes into harbor with masts and rigging gone. And then, it is all one whether he has been happy or miserable; for his life was never anything more than a present moment always vanishing; and now it is over.

At the same time it is a wonderful thing that, in the world of human beings as in that of animals in general, this manifold restless motion is produced and kept up by the agency of two simple impulses—hunger and the sexual instinct; aided a little, perhaps, by the influence of boredom, but by nothing else; and that, in the theatre of life, these suffice to form the ​primum mobile of how complicated a machinery, setting in motion how strange and varied a scene!

On looking a little closer, we find that inorganic matter presents a constant conflict between chemical forces, which eventually works dissolution; and on the other hand, that organic life is impossible without continual change of matter, and cannot exist if it does not receive perpetual help from without. This is the realm of finality; and its opposite would be an infinite existence, exposed to no attack from without, and needing nothing to support it; [Greek: haei hosautos dn], the realm of eternal peace; [Greek: oute giguomenon oute apollumenon], some timeless, changeless state, one and undiversified; the negative knowledge of which forms the dominant note of the Platonic philosophy. It is to some such state as this that the denial of the will to live opens up the way.

The scenes of our life are like pictures done in rough mosaic. Looked at close, they produce no effect. There is nothing beautiful to be found in them, unless you stand some distance off. So, to gain anything we have longed for is only to discover how vain and empty it is; and even though we are always living in expectation of better things, at the same time we often repent and long to have the past back again. We look upon the present as something to be put up with while it lasts, and serving only as the way towards our goal. Hence most people, if they glance back when they come to the end of life, will find that all along they have been living ad interim: they will be surprised to find that the very thing they disregarded and let slip by unenjoyed was just ​the life in the expectation of which they passed all their time. Of how many a man may it not be said that hope made a fool of him until he danced into the arms of death!

Then again, how insatiable a creature is man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire, so that there is no end to the wishes of each individual will. And why is this? The real reason is simply that, taken in itself, Will is the lord of all worlds: everything belongs to it, and therefore no one single thing can ever give it satisfaction, but only the whole, which is endless. For all that, it must rouse our sympathy to think how very little the Will, this lord of the world, really gets when it takes the form of an individual; usually only just enough to keep the body together. This is why man is so very miserable.

Life presents itself chiefly as a task—the task, I mean, of subsisting at all, gagner sa vie. If this is accomplished, life is a burden, and then there comes the second task of doing something with that which has been won—of warding off boredom, which, like a bird of prey, hovers over us, ready to fall wherever it sees a life secure from need. The first task is to win something; the second, to banish the feeling that it has been won; otherwise it is a burden.

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to ​boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.
— Schopenhauer

I mean, I'm fine with lacking that. Is there a reason why we should not lack anything? In that paradise we also lack pain and despair, but it doesn't seem like that's bad in the least. — Amalac

So I think other posters have stated it too, but Schopenhauer's main metaphysics is that of dissatisfaction and unrest. Thus, he was giving a sort of false paradise. What we think is paradise, is actually laying bare the patent unrest that characterizes existence. The boredom and then the self-inflicted injuries that he predicts would ensue would start the suffering cycle all over again.

@Albero@180 Proof@Bitter Crank@norm@Tom Storm

So one of the other main points with the political slant here is that when a parent decides to procreate a new child, they are also becoming a witting (or mostly unwitting) participant in keeping that society/state's structure perpetuating and maintained. They become the literal bearers of their country's/state's progeny and duplication. When you think about it like that, it is a bit odd and seems to be a question of how people are being used in a way for this replication process. It is a political question to decide "Yes!! A new person should be reinforcing and perpetuating the ways of life of this political entity!". One is being complicit with one's government/body politic/institution, etc.

Any pessimists out there who'd like to defend Schopenhauer on this point? — Amalac

You're in luck! I am a full-blooded, card-carrying philosophical pessimist :D.

So you do bring up some interesting points. I think from one perspective, you might be right. If life was a paradise, there would be no negative state, including boredom.

However, Schopenhauer's metaphysics is that of Will, which in its mediated form, is felt in the "lack" (it's always negative and never positive). So, that quote really should go with this quote:

Then again, how insatiable a creature is man! Every satisfaction he attains lays the seeds of some new desire, so that there is no end to the wishes of each individual will. And why is this? The real reason is simply that, taken in itself, Will is the lord of all worlds: everything belongs to it, and therefore no one single thing can ever give it satisfaction, but only the whole, which is endless. For all that, it must rouse our sympathy to think how very little the Will, this lord of the world, really gets when it takes the form of an individual; usually only just enough to keep the body together. This is why man is so very miserable.

Life presents itself chiefly as a task—the task, I mean, of subsisting at all, gagner sa vie. If this is accomplished, life is a burden, and then there comes the second task of doing something with that which has been won—of warding off boredom, which, like a bird of prey, hovers over us, ready to fall wherever it sees a life secure from need. The first task is to win something; the second, to banish the feeling that it has been won; otherwise it is a burden.

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious. — Schopenhauer

Thus paradise can never be obtained in his worldview. Rather, what he sees as equivalent to paradise would be an end of lacking all together. That would mean metaphysically "being" all existence or having no existence at all. So I think his quote about Jack and Jill can only be seen in light of the context of his metaphysics of a world where we can never NOT lack as a manifestation of Will. Even in what we THINK is paradise (like the Jack and Jill scenario you quoted), we would lack something.. even if it is just the bare restlessness of existence itself (i.e. the state of boredom).

True.. But I think there's actually a broader point that oddly @NOS4A2 brought up. One of the simple reasons that AN is a non-starter for most is its bleakness and hopefullness. People like happy things. People like beautiful images. People like roses and sunshine. AN is like this bleak gothic abnormal thing to most people. It's, like, a bummer dude. So, something that makes people feel depressed, will not be a motivation for them to want to engage with it, EVEN if the logic is actually quite good.

This kind of statement would definitely give a second pause to whether this is a good idea.

I guess, if no one is born (yet), other than the parent's personal self-interested reasons, is there any positive reason that someone should necessarily be born? Certainly a negative reason of prevention of suffering can be argued, but I can't see the case for any positive reasons.

Even if it was funny the first time, after countless repetitions it no longer is. I don't understand why the mods allow this sort of thing here. — SophistiCat

Go complain elsewhere. Why are you still talking with me?

It seems that her desire to have a child, even as a single mother by a sperm donor, was driven by her desire to feel validated as a human being, which was to her the second-best option to having a child by a husband.
I can't think of anything that could change that. — baker

But she wasn't presented with this argument. Granted, based on what you said, this would not have convinced her. I think this is a good example of what often happens. What often happens is people only take inventory of their own considerations. Notice how nothing was considered in regards to the future child itself. The assumption is always that obviously the future child will have X, Y, Z positive result. This is a bit Pollyanna at best and fits their own narrative as justifying the personal reasons that they wanted to be the case in the first place.

So I guess if you wanted to curb the personal desire, then it would be hammering home a perspective change from oneself to how it affects the other person. It is all about, "What is this doing to another person?" It shouldn't be about, "How does this create X experience for me?".

Then, when it orients to the other person it becomes a political issue as it affects other people. And then you have to justify your decisions in terms of, "What are you trying to get out of this other person? A laborer for the economy? A being that has to experience X things? But why? If no one was born, no one had to do anything. No one "has to" in the positive sense do anything. But certainly negatives can be prevented for any future person". Hence this isn't just an agnostic issue of people can do or not do.. there are negative fallouts.

A personal desire for having children seems to be a far greater drive than the well-being of said children. No matter how dire the living conditions, wherever there are people, there are people multiplying. So no, I don't think it would make people stop and think. If only. — Tzeentch

Haha, good points. Does having a strong personal desire for something justify it? What would curb an initial personal desire? What kind of argument would it take? Is there something analogous we can look to here for something that will cause great harm, but can be personally desired and one does not go for it due to this?

Like I thought I said: "drunk and aggressive and distracted" fucking/nataling will
persist. :wink: — 180 Proof

Yes, good points.

What the fuck? How many of these copycat antinatalist topics are you going to start? There is no philosophical content here. This is ideological spam. — SophistiCat

What's funny here, is one of my themes is, "What if procreating humans is ideological spam"...ideological cultural continuation perpetuating with each new person over and over.

Also, I find it ironic you are spamming my thread with your spam about this being spam.

Also, I find it interesting you find yourself on such a high horse on what is right forum ettitquete to go out of your way to seek my thread out to grace it with your comment. It's a pretty large forum. Find another thread and move on if you don't like it.

Also, I find it interesting that the comment you did write had no philosophical comment itself.

After thinking about your comment, my response to what makes something real "spam" on a forum is if people just kept creating threads AND NEVER RESPONDED to anyone. If they did not engage or develop or help move along the thread, then indeed, you can say people are just generating things without the intention of developing them. But here I am responding to your non-helpful comment.

Wherever driving licenses are administered people sign forms indicating they've read the materials which explain the hazards of the road (along with guidelines for safe driving, etc) ... and yet drunk and aggressive and distracted driving persist, keeping the roads hazardous. Thus, schop1, auto insurance is always, everywhere, in demand. — 180 Proof

Ha, yes, and what would that look like in this case? And what do you think would be the effect/affect if people actually did read the statement?

Have you ever consistently made an effort to have a pessimistic attitude to life, yet were able to dilligently get up every morning and do your work well? — baker

Much work gets done because it has to be or X will happen. One of the points of the OP is not only do we survive, we can evaluate any given task needed to survive (in the socio-economic-cultural superstructure). That's why I see this situation as a negative. Here we are, being able to negatively evaluate the very tasks needed to survive (and find comfort and survive).

Well but with this legal document we can create something like an insurance to those kids whose parents are not responsible enough. — javi2541997

Interesting.. what would that look like?

people can't even remember to use a condom but you want them to read the fine print of a legal document :lol: — darthbarracuda

Haha, very true.

But if the trends toward "euthanasia" and wrongful life and wrongful living lawsuits become stronger, then this could create the conditions in which people might become more careful about producing children. Ie. when matters of life and death become something that is acceptable to talk about and to routinely threaten people with, it seems people will be more likely to distance themselves from having children altogether. — baker

Cool. Thanks for your thoughts.

It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds. — baker

Again, makes no sense. (and I really want to add fuckn before sense. You have to explain this as it is not evident by just you stating this as fact.

Many people need to have children, in order to produce laborers to help them and to provide a measure of security for when they are unable to work. — baker

I mean there is also a lot of upfront investment in this retirement plan (upbringing, education in business of work, feeding housing, etc.). But I see we are talking about mainly third-world situations here, and in those situations it is not so cut-and-dry. Many people die and the large birth rate leads to other things down the line that lead to negative consequences. Granted, the subsistence farmer isn't thinking about this. I guess then my main argument is that the the "living on a thin line" existence can be ended within one generation rather than its perpetuation. I believe all humans have the capacity to consider various arguments. They simply haven't had exposure to this one. I am not saying they would fully embrace it, but I am sure a subset of people from any subsistence society would consider it logical to them, and refrain from procreation. It's not so "If/then" as you seem to indicate.

Further, in order to endure the hardship of the daily grind, one needs to have a measure of optimism, needs to believe that it's all worth it somehow, that it all somehow makes sense. — baker

I mean, again this is a statement without evidence. People do things for many reasons.. competition, spite, not to get hassled, not to worry about dealing with it in the future, or purely to not lose what they have. It doesn't have to be optimistic reasons.

Many people find this meaning and this optimism in having children: they work hard in order to provide for their children; their children make their hard work seem worthwhile. In contrast, working hard in an effort to pay for one's hedonistic pursuits is seen as empty, worthless, decadent by some (many, if not most?) people. — baker

Although I agree people do see some sort of meaning by having children, this doesn't negate the arguments of antinatalism. It is dealing with other people's lives, so we must tread lightly on how rightful this is. It isn't just, "X circumstance gives my life meaning, thus this is right and good". That is just fastforwarding to what you want to hear. I will give charity to people because birthing a whole new person is really the only thing of its kind. One cannot analogize it to anything else- teaching, caretakers, adoption, etc. Those are people that already exist. So it is hard to explain why this circumstance of procreation, while seeming similar to those, are not because it is creating an new instance from nothingness, and this new instance has implications of suffering far down the line.

First, they would wonder what was wrong with the writer. Second, they would wonder why they are being forced to acknowledge his beliefs. Third, they wouldn’t sign it. — NOS4A2

As I said to previous post, this is just about what affect the statement would have, not the practical considerations of enforcing it. But I do understand that the affect of the statement may be intrinsically tied up with the practical/political implications of having to sign such a statement. But, can you answer the question without considering the actual signing of the statement itself being the sticking point?

Who would control this? A judge or notary? Also imagine they have kids without signing this statement.. which kind of punishment we should consider? Jail or compensation with interests? — javi2541997

So, in no way is this supposed to be about how can this be implemented. I realize this will probably never happen. Rather, this is simply about the affect it would have if it was something that was in place. Although, I can see the position that the affect of the statement would be intrinsically tied up with the practical considerations of having to sign it.

Back again to your question I will say yes. It probably would prevent a lot of births because most of the people tend to have kids without consideration or responsibility. They just don’t care about what can happen to the kid. They are not responsable for the new human being created. Probably if somehow we can read this statement to them they would reconsider it and think more deeply about the topic and circumstances. — javi2541997

Cool. I was wondering if anyone thought this would promote giving more consideration. Thank you for your thoughts.

Apart from the relatively small group of people who have found themselves forced by external circumstances not to have children, antinatalist views are reserved for the privileged who can afford not to have children. — baker

That makes no sense.

It's hard to live with a pessimistic outlook on life if one actually has to work for a living. In contrast, pessimism is the luxury that the privileged can afford. Such as those living off trust funds. — baker

Are you saying antinatalists don't have to work? Did you pull this statistic out of your ass or is your head stuck up there? I've seen several YouTube videos of poorer socioeconomic people and minorities advocating for antinatalism. Frankly, there are AN movements from all over the world, supposedly "third world" and first world. Of course, that doesn't make for statistics- just anecdote. Either way, your statements make no sense. Why would non-privileged people not be able to NOT have children?

I don't think this is weird at all. Why would it be weird? — baker

I was just stating that you need a combination of the three with political arguments. The pure logic of it doesn't seem to usually affect people.

Do you want to be like religious people who rattle down their doctrine and demand people to just believe it?? — baker

No religious people use the same tactics everyone else uses but for ridiculous positions usually. They try to use pathos, logos, ethos, etc. They do rely a lot on ethos though of their position as doctor of the church or something of that nature. The logic is usually of a medieval scholastic nature if at all. The pathos is usually some sort of emotional plea like a television preacher or some more typical carrot-and-stick approach.

Start a "Community of Catharsis" where participants are encouraged to gripe about the negatives of human life and advocate for antinatalism to prevent harm for a future generation.

Still an answer.

If its actually the root of the problem then yeah.

Here is where people will give a litany of why people need to be born to experience life: virtue(wtf?), pleasure, art, music, aesthetics, cause god wants it, cause people just "need" to exist so they can pursue goals and find meaning through struggle, to fill role of X thing, to produce more stuff, technology,laughter, etcetc.

Hey, theres some good news! We should all walk hand-in-hand to collectively decide to end this for the next generation. Why is nothingness so reviled? Nothing did nothing to no one. But somehow the fawning over producing stuff and the mythos of the abstract cause of happiness, or some religious sentiment, keeps the dismal fray and suffering going.

Does anybody see anything on the horizon that might indicate a reversal this incredibly disturbing trend? — synthesis

Antinatalism. One less kid born is one less dependent. Peace.

I wasn't quite sure what the question was pertaining to. Are you asking if I envy animals their thoughtless way of life, or people who don't think about procreation in political terms (e.g. creating more laborers who can evaluate their laboring as negative)?

If the latter, I don't envy them. Rather, I think it as thoughtless actions that create negative consequences for other people. It is bypassing our capacity to examine what is going on and assumes that automatically creating new people is a good thing for that person. It is not sufficiently seeing how we are manipulated by our very animal nature of needing to survive, and specifically the human animal's way of survival through the superstructure and our ability to negatively evaluate any task required of that superstructure. And I'm not even making the AN arguments that are more readily apparent like physical illness, pandemics, disease, disaster and the like.

This is more refined in that it is less obvious. It is about our very ability to understand what we are doing as we are doing it, and seeing it as negative, but still knowing we have to do it to survive.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't see how any argument could change the way both proactive and defensive pronatalists view procreation favorably. — baker

Well the argument and the efficacy of people changing their practices after hearing those arguments are two different things. I agree, just hearing a good argument won't change much for people.

It's not like we could come up with an nifty antinatalist syllogism, and then, boom, people change and stop making new babies. — baker

Granted. But to be fair, have people ever really been presented with antinatalist arguments? Only people on philosophy forums and niche groups probably. So it really hasn't been tested either.

There's a weird thing where not only does the argument have to be good, but the presentation of the argument must be convincing to really make people do something from it. It is a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos.

Are you sure they put that much of this kind of thought into their acts of procreation? Or did they "just do it"? — baker

I guess just focusing on non-accidental birth. Let me then break it down to real basic elements then. Birth means creating more laborers. Is it ethical to create more people who labor? Now combine this with my comments on negative evaluations of that very labor.

I agree with you completely up to this. — norm

What exactly do you disagree with? Do you think it wrong to question putting more laborers with negative evaluations of the laboring into the world?

I agree that we've culturally evolved a notion of ethical rationality, related to something like a universal secular humanism. So one ought to have justification. I've long thought that life is fundamentally immoral. Nature is a box of monsters eating one another. Human beings marry and breed before they even know what life is. It's only when one gets old and disillusioned that one realizes the sin. — norm

But specifically here, I'm talking about the justification related to the superstructure. Let's break it down to a very discrete important part of it.. Work. Every day you decide to work, you have either an explicit or implicit justification for why you do so. You can do otherwise, but the other options are pretty dismal, so you go with the least bad option based on your calculation. If you don't like any given task at work, the people you have to interact with, etc. etc. that doesn't matter. You were born, now you have to "deal" with it. Again, we are the only animal that can evaluate what we are doing as we are doing it. We can say about work- an institution needed for survival "Aww shit.. I don't want to do this right now". Other animals have no capacity for this kind of negative evaluation. So when we put more people into the world, we are putting more people into institutions (like work), and we are not just automatically, Zen-like going through the motions, but are justifying and keeping ourselves "motivated" to keep doing what we do. And to say, "Well, one can find different work" is the wrong sentiment as it is the institution of "work" itself that is unavoidable without other consequences. But apparently, for most people, putting more people into the world as laborers (even if there are choices in what "labor" to do) is something that is considered good, appropriate, or right to bestow on another person. That person's negative evaluations of any given experience with the superstructure (such as institutions like work), are not taken as enough consideration to prevent putting more people into the world who must then deal with it.