I’m tired of debating Materialists and aggressive-Atheists, but the anti-life question in the Antinatalist threads interests me, and is worthwhile for discussion, because it’s about our impressions about, how we feel about, how things are. …how it affects us in the most meaningful ways. These Antinatalist threads are about the basics of how we feel about life. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree with your sentiment here. I think thinking about existence itself is of the utmost importance (maybe the most important topic in philosophical inquiry. Everything stems from it- all motivations, all actions, all assumptions of life, thought, and society.

You say we have no right to interfere in the lives of animals, but we are causing extinctions, and if your argument that it is good to end suffering in general by any means is correct, then that could only be a good thing, because it is obvious that, whether they are aware of it or not, animals suffer too. — Janus

I simply hold that ethics is in the realm of making decisions using reasoning and abstract ideas and as far as I know, only humans can do this. I can see your point of view, and do think there is some validity there, but I would hold the more conservative approach to this point and say that unless an animal can reason, it is not our place to make decisions of birth for them. It is bordering on forcing the issue, which I definitely think is wrong for humans to do. It is nothing if it isn't a choice.

I've been thinking about this one for a while and I believe you are right. There is still something to say of his aversion to talking about positives which I think I was trying to get at here. I don't know. — TogetherTurtle

The asymmetry which is a big part of Benatar's antinatalist argument is that absense of "good" is not "bad" unless there is an actual person to be deprived of that good. However, asymmetrically, abscense of bad is good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this good.

Benatar's theory is dependent upon morality being objective, when it isn't. Claiming that some state is either good or bad is subjective. — Harry Hindu

I believe he does not if I remember his book. He takes into account subjective and objective forms of "good". He also takes into account various models like preference-satisfaction and hedonic conceptions of the good.

If the absence of pain is good, then how is it that pleasure (which is the absence of pain) isn't good as well? Benatar says that it isn't bad. How is that different from saying that it is good? If there is some other state besides suffering and pleasure (maybe a "neither" category), and that state doesn't qualify as suffering, then the asymmetry seems to show that suffering isn't a state that is experienced most, or even half the time, and therefore would be irrational to prevent life from being created. — Harry Hindu

This doesn't make sense to me. Clearly pleasure is some positive quality. If pleasure was simply more neutral, then that wouldn't change the argument.

As far as I can see, the entire universe is already interconnected. When we interact with the universe, we develop awareness of this deeper existing connection through our ‘relationships’ - in our physical or emotional interaction with another person, for instance. The relationship is evidence of our awareness of this connection, but it is not the connection itself, anymore than electricity or heat is the energy itself. — Possibility

Well, yes we are having a "meta" conversation, because well, this is a philosophy forum and almost everything is discussed at the abstract "removed" level. That's just the nature of philosophy in general. So I can't help but talk about it in this sort of way given the forum we are in and the topics at hand. Anyways, I don't think relationship connections with other people (specifically romantic/pragmatic connections) can be compared analogously to other interactions. Just because it is a form of interaction, does not mean it gets generalized and loses its unique characteristics. No, rather romantic/pragmatic relationships have certain characteristics that stand out.. I mentioned earlier that loneliness is part of the human condition.. actually it is one step away from the barest of all human emotions (in my opinion anyways) which is boredom...That is to say, I see loneliness as a flavor of boredom manifested in a social species like our own, but I am aware that is arguable. Anyways, the point is loneliness is a real thing.. You can have friends- even good ones, and it still is not the same. I've said this one before. There is something deeply fulfilling with having a "mate" that you "go home to" and "share your day with" and "deal with life together" and "physically connect together with". That is just a type of relationship that has occurred since as far back as we know and happens in every society (though some polygamous I understand..still same principle). It is handled differently in different cultures, but the principle is the same. I am simply not going to let you get away with making this unique type of connection into a generalized idea of "connections" and use it as a type of therapy, and then say that the matter is dissolved or resolved.

@Bitter Crank any thoughts? Do you get what I am trying to say in terms of @Possibility trying to generalize this kind of love to dissolve it away as a real problem- which is to say some people will be a part of these kind of relationships and some won't? That the lack of these experiences for billions of people in the world is a real thing?

what about a work of self-improvement which is independent of an authority? For instance sculpture or experiments of a scientist? — astroarmut

All slogans for work- "Work hard, play hard".. "Work for its own sake".. "Work sets you free".. They all work similarly as propaganda to get humans to do more.. Just like the invisible hand- self-improvement becomes society improvement.. Individuals are simply used by society.. these slogans are more blatant about using people. In this case it is horrible in how it was meant to be ironically cruel. So I would say the slogan is never good in any context. Even outside of its horrible origins.

If something hurts the most rational thing to do is to examine it closely, like a doctor, diagnose the problem/affliction and treat it. For someone with my worldview suffering is a symptom of a faulty Weltanschauung. In a world of lemons it's impossible, ergo unreasonable, to look for anything other than lemonade. Plus life isn't always sour/bitter is it?

Therefore, we need to teach ourselves how to increase and prolong the pleasurable and decrease and shorten the pain in our lives. This seems more reasonable than saying life itself is the disease/affliction and needs to be prevented. — TheMadFool

What happens if there is no way around suffering- if it is intractable from the get-go?

I'm saying that they have. They have lost out on pleasure.

What makes suffering supersede pleasure in that the existence of suffering means that life should be exterminated, yet the existence of pleasure isn't an equal enough reason for propagating it? It seems to me that the existence of pleasure equally counterbalances your reasons for preventing the propagation of life.

If suffering is a good reason to prevent lives from being created, then how is it that pleasure isn't an equally good reason to create lives? — Harry Hindu

Because of the asymmetry that Benatar mapped out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

Prior to birth, there is no actual person to be deprived of anything, which is neither good nor bad. Something that could experience good but does not, is not bad (it is not good either). It is neutral. Something that could experience bad, but does not is always a good thing though. Preventing good- no actual person loses out. Not preventing bad, an actual person would lose out.

I believe Judaka and Schopenhauer1 perhaps should be banned from this forum.

I believe their opinions are an attempt to smear this forum by being very negative and extreme, thus enabling bad actors to point at this forum and say. — xyz-zyx

Wow, this is the most blatant anti-philosophical thing I've seen on here in a while. You don't agree with an opinion, so it should be banned.

Thus I believe Judakas extreme views is not only using a faulty logic, but they end up being bad and dangerous, and also very bad for this forum and it's members. — xyz-zyx

First of all, part of philosophical inquiry is questioning everything- even things we take for granted. Procreation is not immune to philosophical analysis as to its morality. Yes, even procreation can be seen in the light of its ethical implications.

The views from Judaka and Schopenhauer1 lacks all basic philosophical understanding of morality and thus morality and is appalling, they are not representative of any normal person interested in philosophy or any known philosopher, they are the very opposite of any opinion I have ever come across among philosophers and therefore I suspect they are trolling and trying to harm the reputation of the forum and it's members. — xyz-zyx

Excuse me but there are a (small) group of modern philosophers who do indeed write about the view that we should not procreate as procreation creates suffering for new individuals. Please read David Benatar, and the concept of antinatalism in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

Also, some ancient and later philosophers, notably Arthur Schopenhauer were known for their negative views of existence. These more general philosophies that view life with as negative are considered, literally Philosophical Pessimists. Mainlander and Hartmann are two direct descendents of this.. but these ideas also influenced Nietzschean (although as a foil), and later philosophers like the Existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, etc.).

Not everything is unicorns and roses..and those who don't think life is such shouldn't be banned. Look at my own discussions and comments history.. I've put plenty of arguments of various degrees, lengths and perspectives for the negative view of procreation.

No one should have the power to determine the value of someone else's life based on their own subjective perspective of their own suffering. — Harry Hindu

But that is what choosing for someone to be born is all about. No actual human lost out on anything prior to birth. What sort of collateral damage are you willing to inflict? Why create anyone in the first place, cause you think there will be some states of pleasure they will feel at some point, is reason enough to start a life? A whole life of possibly 100 + years is based on these simply weighing of subjective states? Rather, all suffering is prevented in one fell swoop of abstaining from procreation. That is a fact.

It isn't gonna happen - that glorious moment where the final fertile person agrees to forego procreation. It's not a realistic cause - its a fantasy. So what ought the antinalist do in the face of that fact? — csalisbury

I believe the mission is really the most important part- the title of the thread. It's just the fact that some of us know what is going on, and want to do something about it. Perhaps it's not outcome, but what is being recognized as the problem.

Nice poetry there.

Why do you arrive at such a negative view of life? Why so much negation? The root of your analysis is composed of constant negation. — matt

Preventing suffering is the number one priority when it comes to ethics. We suffer and are used. We use others for sure too, but that just goes along with the fact that we are used nonetheless.

You can not choose to be born without being born. Therefore, if you are not born you can not choose to be born. Both ways eliminate free will from the equation. No one will ever have a choice. If you wish to terminate your life after you are born, you can do that. Birth is, therefore, the genesis of choice. It is unreasonable to ask for a choice before you can even have one. Sometimes parents don't choose to have children. There have been plenty of accidents. Even when parents do choose, they are the only ones who could have done it. Essentially, parents give you a chance to exist, therefore giving you a choice. If you wish to go back to nonexistence, you can do it any time. You can not choose to live but you can certainly choose to die. That is your out if you wish for it. Most don't for the reasons I covered above. — TogetherTurtle

Nope. Suicide isn't the same as not existing in the first place. The point with most brands of antinatalism is that precisely because no actual person is deprived of the "good" of life prior to birth. It is a win/win. No person exists to be deprived, no person exists to suffer.

As for these institutions, you have conveniently ignored the benefit of what they produce and maintain. They give pleasure. The movies, amusement parks, foods, all media, the are maintained through our work, and the benefits outweigh the detriments, otherwise, there would be less or even no people. — TogetherTurtle

Tradition really. Keep on doing what we've always done without question. That is what the self-interest and slogans are for. Take on cultural values of production.

And what is the goal of the advertising you see on TV? satisfying desire. You, of course, need to contribute to society and earn money before you can have it. Some contribute by maintaining what we have and some contribute by making new things to satisfy more desire. The ultimate end of such a cycle is everyone having their desires met entirely. Living is an investment in the future. Your children would live a life so much better than yours, assuming you put in the proper effort to build that future for them. More desires met until we have the labor to have everything we need. Children would be born into a world of bliss. They won't need a choice because they won't want one. We can't get there unless we try though. We can't have the infrastructure required to live nice lives unless we live mediocre ones first. — TogetherTurtle

Uptopian fantasies. Also, again, using people in the meantime as debit for future people.

You hurt the past because all of their work has been in vain. Nothing matters not because we were destroyed by some inescapable force of nature, but because we decided it didn't. To put it frankly, we would be the kid in the group project who refused to do their part. the main difference being that without our part the project doesn't exist and everyone fails. — TogetherTurtle

Fails in whose eyes?

His daughter would have never felt the joy she did. That daughter would be in so much pain because the work of her father and herself would be in vain. — TogetherTurtle

The daughter wouldn't even exist to be deprived. There is no "telos" of the work of anyone. There is no work done in vein as there is no thing that needs to receive people's work.

I think that if individuals find their load of suffering to be more than they can handle, they should be helped. If they can find no help, perhaps it is better for them to end it. That is a choice that has to be made on the individual level. If everyone decides that they shouldn't have children and end the human race, then it will be done, however, I doubt that will happen. You are free to do as you choose, but don't expect to be remembered as one of the great heroes that built the world our posterity will be so grateful for. So, help build a future without suffering and only joy, or leave so the rest of us can. That is essentially the idea. I don't think either way is wrong, I just think that you shouldn't force everyone to do one or the other. — TogetherTurtle

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't presume there needs to be a future posterity that needs to be grateful for anything in the first place. If no thing exists to be deprived, then there is no deprivation being had by any actual person.

You may feel that you personally are preventing some suffering by not procreating. But that doesn't do anything about all the other procreating that goes on, and hence does not prevent suffering 'fully'. — andrewk

Ok, let me put this in context. Here is where Smokey the Bear and Uncle Sam posters are pointing at you and saying, YOU can prevent suffering (fully for another person) by simply not procreating another person who would otherwise have inevitably suffered.

:rofl:

I almost always enjoy your comments. Can't really argue with any of this.

That is because their suffering advanced society to the point it could provide that. — TogetherTurtle

Doesn't matter. They were used too. Being born is being used, period.

It is a cycle, what goes around comes around. — TogetherTurtle

Not really. Being that we cannot make a choice to be born, right off the bat you can see who is using who. We are born for our parents, and with the inevitable enculturation process, this means for society's means to be used for labor. As I've said before, values like "family pride" lead to values like "good laborers". Family pride leads to the inevitable sacrifice of the individual for society's means. By society I mean the maintenance and continuation of institutions which produce and maintain what is produced.

I think that looking back at history, the pattern is that suffering has decreased in a linear fashion and pleasure has increased exponentially. I think that relates to the total amount of work we have done as a species, which can be increased by working hard but also inventing things to do the work for us. Yes, you may work more often than you'd like, and yes a child will suffer, but that suffering (at least from my observation) creates so much more pleasure. Following this logic, there may be a day when we can feel only pleasure and have the work automated. Of course, we would never get there (or at least we would get there slower) if we are not willing to make sacrifices in our selves. — TogetherTurtle

That sounds like a terrible interim. Even so, there is built in systemic suffering not related to the usual contingent (read common) notions of suffering. There is the subtle suffering of the human psyche of desire, which is simply inbuilt. There is the contingent suffering of this or that harm of course, too which you are most likely discussing. Anyways, procreating more people so that they can be used, is not good, period. The ends here, don't justify the means, when, someone didn't need to be born to experience any harm in the first place, and no actual person prior to birth exists to be deprived.

I think that while you saw that society used us, you forgot to ask what society was using us for. What other motive is there? Society is made up of us and our collective will. What else do people want other than to feel good? People have certainly gotten the short end of the stick but even now you live on their labor. The least any of us could do is to continue to build the future they worked so hard for, even if they didn't know they were working for it. — TogetherTurtle

I don't see how perpetuating suffering of future people justifies past iniquities. What does society want? It has taken a life of its own. I believe there are social facts- institutions, if you will. Cultural norms perpetuate these institutions at the behest of individuals. Of course the one needs the other, and I don't think there is any way around it. But, individuals can be prevented from suffering, and being used (as is always the case once born). That is to say, to simply not have more individuals.

People aren’t used by society. Society is used by people so there is less suffering and more convenience. — Noah Te Stroete

As I was saying in my last post- people are used by society, not the other way around. We are lead to believe that by pursuing our own self-interests, we are getting the consumptive goods/services we need. Really, it is the pursuit of wealth, and work ethic slogans like "work is its own reward" which society uses to make us work to perpetuate it.

Essentially, the work comes first, then the reward. You have to suffer before there can be pleasure. If we had never decided to live together and farm crops despite the many challenges that kind of living situation created, we would never have invented anything. We would be animals. — TogetherTurtle

First, we are animals.. just saying. I am against all forms of suffering if it can be prevented- even suffering through adversity. Preventing birth prevents all forms of suffering. Also, a major conceit that is a cultural norm in capitalist societies, is that one is always working to gain some reward for oneself. This is simply the invisible hand at work. Working for oneself IS working for society. Having more children to be used as laborers makes no sense to me. Work is not a reward in itself, and I am not rewarding a child by having them so they can feel the "reward" of work and labor. That is poppycock propaganda. The same goes for working for so-called "selfish" reasons of accumulating wealth. Anyone who takes economics 101 knows that working really hard to accumulate wealth means simply producing more output.. output society needs and uses.. In other words- it is really using the person who thinks they are using society, but that is not the case, but the other way around. Yes, does this take the complete opposite view of the common notion? Yes. But doesn't mean it's wrong!

Well, because it's too broad. I'm anti murdering people, anti raping them and various other things, but "suffering" is too general/broad. A lot of things it's applied to by a lot of folks are things that I don't agree are bad, especially not morally bad or bad in a manner that suggests doing any and everything imaginable to avoid it. — Terrapin Station

I think all suffering is bad- be it suffering through adversity (even if it results in making something stronger) or suffering through collateral damage. You probably only find the latter unwarranted.

I'm not categorically anti-suffering. — Terrapin Station

That's too bad.

We are working hard to do a good job of it. Our homeland planet is heating up; insect populations are crashing; big mammals are going extinct. Soon for us the way of the dodo bird. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. Even if we were in a politically green utopia, suffering still stands, and can be prevented.

Who’s going to take care of us when we’re 90 if people stop procreating? Bet you didn’t think of that. — Noah Te Stroete

Not a good excuse to use people. That has been a theme of mine actually. People shouldn't be born to be used by society.

I like life and I'm glad I am alive and the vast majority of humans agree with me, so your argument stops right there. — NKBJ

That's nice. A fact is suffering exists. Another fact is that it can be prevented fully. Another fact is that no one need be "deprived" of good, if no one existed to be deprived.

Actually, if we take Hartmann's idea seriously, the little projects are hastening the bigger project of discontinuation. The little projects will show how illusory pursuing such things are to happiness, and lead to the bigger problem. So go forth and do your little projects little kitten!

Because great projects usually end in disappointment and frustration, whereas small projects are more often successful -- and thereby pleasurable. — Moliere

Nah. Great project of ending suffering for the future and not imposing life onto others, making that choice for them. Karl Rober Eduard von Hartmann thought it a good idea.

Von Hartmann is a pessimist, for no other view of life recognizes that evil necessarily belongs to existence and can cease only with existence itself. But he is not an unmitigated pessimist.[5] The individual's happiness is indeed unattainable either here and now or hereafter and in the future, but he does not despair of ultimately releasing the Unconscious from its sufferings. He differs from Schopenhauer in making salvation collective by the negation of the will to live depend on a collective social effort and not on individualistic asceticism. The conception of a redemption of the Unconscious also supplies the ultimate basis of von Hartmann's ethics. We must provisionally affirm life and devote ourselves to social evolution, instead of striving after a happiness which is impossible; in so doing we shall find that morality renders life less unhappy than it would otherwise be. Suicide, and all other forms of selfishness, are highly reprehensible. His realism enables him to maintain the reality of Time, and so of the process of the world's redemption.[4]

The essential feature of the morality built upon the basis of Hartmann's philosophy is the realization that all is one and that, while every attempt to gain happiness is illusory, yet before deliverance is possible, all forms of the illusion must appear and be tried to the utmost. Even he who recognizes the vanity of life best serves the highest aims by giving himself up to the illusion, and living as eagerly as if he thought life good. It is only through the constant attempt to gain happiness that people can learn the desirability of nothingness; and when this knowledge has become universal, or at least general, deliverance will come and the world will cease. No better proof of the rational nature of the universe is needed than that afforded by the different ways in which men have hoped to find happiness and so have been led unconsciously to work for the final goal. The first of these is the hope of good in the present, the confidence in the pleasures of this world, such as was felt by the Greeks. This is followed by the Christian transference of happiness to another and better life, to which in turn succeeds the illusion that looks for happiness in progress, and dreams of a future made worth while by the achievements of science. All alike are empty promises, and known as such in the final stage, which sees all human desires as equally vain and the only good in the peace of Nirvana.[5] — Wikipedia article

There could be some calculus by which increased suffering of a mass of lives in the short term warrants a quickening of the end of life in the long term. — Nils Loc

I think the the fact that the aim is right in sight and not hidden, is important though.. it isn't just that we are ending suffering. It is that we are in it together, understanding the situation and facing it.

We could, but who wants a great project when there's so much pleasure to be had in small projects? — Moliere

Why not all of humanity on a project together? Life screws us over..time to start turning the tables against the conspiracy!

I think human suffering could be reduced in different ways without total antinatalism and that would be better than the current situation. — Andrew4Handel

This is also about uniting.

I think we have a moral obligation as an intelligent species to end the suffering of the other animals which lack the capacity. — Judaka

I prioritize ethics to our own species first. Also, due to the fact that animals lack the self-awareness, it may be argued that it isn't our job to do anything on behalf of them. It can only be done as a passive movement, in response to one's own understanding. For example, I wouldn't presume to make others not procreate- simply try to convince them. Unless the animal has capacity to debate and reason with, it isn't our place.

Nature just wants us to keep laboring. :wink: — Harry Hindu

Yes, good thing we can actively work against this by passively not having children.

I don't think that's enough because life would still remain on Earth. Perhaps evolution has led to this moment? Earth created life capable of destroying all life so that it could finally be free. We must complete our mission. — Judaka

Not sure about that cryptic one.. but working on our own species is fine with me as far as this ethic of not creating more suffering. Other animals can do this too when or if another species evolves self-awareness.

Pain, after all, is simply awareness that energy/effort/attention is required to adjust to change. Loss or lack is awareness that everything is a process and nothing lasts - that we are dissipative structures who must continually assimilate from the universe and let go of elements of ourselves in order to perpetuate our existence. And humility is awareness that in isolation we are fragile creatures, utterly dependent on our relationships with the universe in order to have any power in it at all. — Possibility

All reasons for my antinatalism. We shouldn't put more people in this situation. Just because we can recognize our situation and adjust sometimes to conditions, doesn't mean we should expose others to the situation in the first place.

None of this is so terrible in itself - it is what it is. It’s only ‘suffering’ when we refuse to accept it, when we misunderstand or are led to believe that life should exist without pain, loss or humility. Or that life shouldn’t exist because of the pain, loss and humility that inevitably comes with it. We’ve been led to believe that some things should last forever, that who or what we are essentially shouldn’t change, and that we should strive to be the most independent, most powerful and most loved. — Possibility

This is just identifying with the tormentor. More of the same. You're not the only one. Society tries to get us to not be antinatlaists by sayings "it's not that bad..it's only your perception" thus perpetuating the conspiracy.

Whenever we deny that pain, loss and humility are a necessary part of life, we perceive the experience as ‘suffering’. And we hide from it. This is what we’ve done with our self-awareness - we have run for cover. And we’ve wasted almost the entire history of humanity so far ‘suffering’ from fear and misunderstanding, striving to avoid pain, loss and humiliation by pushing it onto others - which contributes to more ‘suffering’, and so the vicious cycle continues to escalate and radiate outwards. — Possibility

We push it to others by procreating.

So does that mean life itself is the ‘evil’ we need to eradicate? Or does it mean that there’s something wrong with our concept of ‘evil’ - that we should be doing something other than trying to eliminate pain, loss and humility from the world? — Possibility

More identifying with the tormentor.

I can’t eliminate your experience of ‘suffering’, but I could pity you, perpetuating the illusion that your experience makes you different to me because you suffer, whereas apparently I have a life without pain, loss or humility (at least by comparison), OR I can interact with you in a way that demonstrates how much I also recognise pain, loss and humility as fundamental to my own experience as a human being. This is compassion, literally translated as ‘suffering with’. And I think it’s the first step towards discovering what ‘love’ is, at its core. — Possibility

That's fine.. doesn't negate the fact that some have stuff that others don't- that's just a fact, with or without compassion. I'm not saying to not be compassionate, it just doesn't negate the facts on the ground.

I think maybe what makes it so difficult is that most people don’t really understand what this ‘basic need’ is. It isn’t ‘romantic/pragmatic love’ that we need - that’s just how we’d prefer to have this need met as human beings. We prefer romantic/pragmatic love because it’s always been the easiest form of love to legitimise - I can accumulate proof that I am loved by a real person in a visible way, and this love promises to last. I have a ring on my finger, a signed legal document and witnesses to our solemn vows. I also have two children who can be genetically traced back to a physical ‘union’, and a real person to stand beside me as a physical comfort, support and witness to key moments in my life. Romantic/pragmatic love not only satisfies a deep, spiritual connection, but it also provides objective, material evidence of its existence - evidence that cannot be produced in such ‘lasting’ abundance by any other form of love. — Possibility

I can agree with this framing.

The more our modern lives are built around digital and wireless connection, the less we connect with people physically. It’s no wonder the elusiveness of romantic/pragmatic love is felt as a source of ‘suffering’. But I think it is more the physical, material proof of love that eludes us, and causes us to doubt its existence. Because as much as my love is legitimised for outside observers in all the physical evidence described above, it is only the subjective experience of deep, spiritual connection that constitutes love. Everything else is an imperfect and transient expression. If I lose my ring or the signed document, if death comes to these witnesses or to my children, if this person loses their life or their ability to witness or provide physical comfort or support in my life, then have I ‘lost’ that love? I would say no - but when these things do happen it can certainly feel like it, because we will have lost a key material proof of that love, even as the connection continues to exist. — Possibility

Sure, but it's the lack of connection that I am talking about. A connection between at least one other person.. It's not the trappings of love that you describe. Though I agree some may put weight on the outer manifestations and not the connection.. The facts on the ground are that some people have that connection with another person, and some don't.

What you see as fundamental on a species/animal level in romantic/pragmatic love I see partly as the urge to procreate - and I realise that you don’t recognise it as such right now, but our physiological responses are nevertheless informed by the systematic assimilation from the universe and letting go of elements of ourselves in order to perpetuate our existence. For you, it may be more associated with forming relationships with the universe for the purpose of functionality. It feels so fundamental because it links basic physiological responses on the surface not only with this systematic awareness but with an even deeper connection at a sub-atomic level. I often refer to this as a ‘spiritual’ connection, although I’m conscious of the connotations this term may bring. And this connection exists whether or not we’re aware of it. It informs all ‘other loves’ that might be experienced (not obtained), as well as our sense of wonder about the universe, our courage to experience more from life and our reverence for the overwhelming potential of our interactions with the universe.

I believe that we’re connected to the entire universe in a deeper and more fundamental way than we may ever fully realise, but we’re often hampered from recognising this by fear and misinformation about pain, loss and humility - and about love. — Possibility

Yes, certainly the urge to procreate is part of our species in terms of connecting with others, physical pleasure, and this leading to sex. Culturally, we bolster procreation by instilling the idea of pride in family and creating family bonds, etc. Of course, more people leads to more suffering, and the whole thing continues. As I said before, Society tries to get us to not be antinatlaists by sayings "it's not that bad..it's only your perception" thus perpetuating the more of the same.

@Bitter Crank

Any responses to this?

The exchange of work and rewards in mass society is just a lot more rococo than it is in simple societies, and it's harder to keep track of the simple details. Not working, and being a consumer of goods and services, is a real role in mass industrialized mature capitalism. Children fill that roll for at least 18 to 26 years, depending on how long they are in school. Everyone receiving support for old age and disabilities fits into that group. And of course, the idle rich parasites.

Consuming without working is an absolutely essential function. In a modern economy (like ours currently is) where consumption amounts to 72% of the GDP, buying stuff -- consuming -- is an essential task. Buying stuff is dirty work, but somebody has to do it. — Bitter Crank

Yes consumption is the other end of the production. Economically speaking, it is a physical representation of our wants and needs. Capitalist economies have that whole disconnect thing from workers to their production (cue Marx) so it seems as if the two are detached. Now accumulating wealth is the motivation of the production, and consumption is the ability to use some of the wealth accumulated.

Of course, if we consumed less some people would have to work less. — Bitter Crank

It is our very needs and wants that keep each other enslaved to each other.

Suppose automation took over all work -- from raising food to high fashion. Would being born still be such a bad deal? E. M. Forster wrote a science fiction noel around a century ago, The Machine Stops. In it machines supplied everything we needed. Individuals lived in 6 sided cells (not prison cells, more like bee hive cells) where everything they needed was supplied by The Machine. The function of people was to produce and consume ideas. One had to apply to the directorate to be a parent. That was all fine and dandy for a long time, until The Machine started wearing out and eventually stopped. Bad things happened at that point. — Bitter Crank

Until (if ever) it happens, we are still being used as a source of labor in society. The enculturation process is just taking longer now, but it still stands that it is our labor and consumption that makes us valuable to society. At the end of the day, this is what people are in a political sense- laborers. The choice was not had by the person being born. The choice was made for them- be a good laborer or the whole thing collapses. Besides, why not be, right? The very things you need (shelter/food/water/warmth) can only be had through this means. Your very desires can be tangibly consumed through the products and services that money provides.. Why not go along with the laboring process? Keep throwing more people into the world to be enculturated to labor to get the means to survive and consume to your desires content (or find a better way if you can't!). But is this not coercion par excellence?

My main point though is that ALL political systems need to take into account that birth itself is not for the individual. It never was FROM BIRTH. We are society's little maintainers and developers- each and everyone of us.. brought about through the pride of the family unit, sacrificed to the alter of social continuation and development through the labors we provide (using the trickery of consumption which deceptively keeps us laboring).

@Bitter Crank
What do you think about some of the latest posts?

So, humanity is some 200,000 years old. For the first 190,000 human population peaked at around 5-10 million. Then during the agricultural revolution populations grew to about 1 billion. Finally the industrial revolution we gained another 6 billion people or so.

So we can see across the three ages of human society that only in the last 10,000 years has labor even been an issue.

On the other hand, it is true that any individual born now can be expected to be used by society. The "civilized" world is incredibly harsh in terms of what humans were evolved to deal with. Which is why Zinn reports that over the course of the US Indian wars lots of civilized people joined Indian tribes to live as they do, while no Indian voluntarily gave up their birthright for civilization. Some Indians traveled... mostly as diplomats, but all if given a choice returned to live an "uncivilized" life.

Yes structural pain is a main component of our current politics. No this is not a requirement of the human experience.

Very interesting conversation.

Thanks. — Bloginton Blakley

I do think this is a good conversation. Many times when we reiterate or affirm a value, we are affirming the value of a culture. Most individual's take on some aspects that are shared in the community. One of these aspects is the ethics of laboring and work. It needs to be there for survival's sake. It doesn't matter if it is "uncivilized" tribal societies, or industrial civilizations, there is some values surrounding laboring. Being born is a positive affirmation that the values of laboring needs to be carried on. Most of our life is wrapped up in our use and utility for society. Thus as I see it, choosing for someone to be born, is to bring someone who will try to enculturate and labor for society. I think this is harmful to any individual in any society, tribal, hunter-gatherer, agriculturist, or industrial.

Doesn't come up that way in small groups. For example the plains Indian viewed conflict between tribes as a part of nature... a way of keeping their group strong and weeding out weaknesses. Also as a way of producing genetic diversity as raids were often for "wives". The idea of struggling over territory was very unusual. Such struggles generally start with agriculture. — Bloginton Blakley

Well, still seems to be conflict there, doesn't it? And raiding "wives" in other tribes for more options to mate with and carry on the group's lineage, still pretty harmful, in my opinion. But that isn't the point. I'm asking to bring the foundations of political theory down to the level of being born itself. Being born itself is a political decision done to us. The parent thought a new person (who will labor) should be birthed into the world and be carried out. A decision was made for someone about this. The parent decides for you that you are to be born. This was not a choice for the individual being born. Being born entails being socialized to labor in and for that society. That is the majority of our lives (and for those who don't, they rely on most of the others doing this). We are born with the well-known, certain knowledge that we are to labor for society (any type of society). To have more people be born in order to labor in a society is a harm to the individual, but no political theory puts this in consideration. They just assume that people are going to be (and should be) born, and that they will (and should) continue to be born to labor for society.

Our definition of "I" is also effected by the demands of "civilization"... again mostly through the authority issue. A lot of the Bible is about defining the "I" in terms of authority. Such concepts are generally quite foreign to more cooperative non authoritarian lifestyles.

In fact they are often described as insane. — Bloginton Blakley

I think there is still structural suffering in all human life and lifestyles. We have to be careful not to commit the "noble savage" fallacy. All societies have ways we suffer- hunter-gatherers to post-industrial socioeconomic systems. I also don't think that having people more integrated into the group (pace Durkheim's idea of "anomie) will negate the fact that people were born to labor for the group in the first place. Suffering is also structural vs. only contingent. Because of our species psychological and physical needs, we are harmed. It does not go away due to contingent factors of birth or lifestyle. Life itself is harmful due to the de facto need to survive in the first place. But once we survive, our complex minds look for myriads of ways to try to entertain itself. It is never truly satisfied, and the physical and psychosocial means of survival and dissatisfaction are perpetual.

But the original point here was, even in tribal societies, we are not given a choice whether to enter into existence and go through this survival and inevitable suffering. Thus, any socioeconomic system (even hunter-gatherer) essentially counts us as useful as our labor we provide to the group. Even the very wealthy in industrial-capitalist systems rely on the labor of their fellow citizens for their own ability to non-labor so built upon the laboring of others. Again, we are not born for ourselves, we are born to labor for the group. This I believe to be a harm to the individual that is born.

I say it time and time again on this forum, but your responses are some of the wisest I've seen, on here or anywhere really. Thank you again for your cogent and insightful remarks. They seem to hit the mark, as far as I see it. I will try to respond in more detail at a later point. You get to the heart of the issues I bring up that most gloss over or don't recognize and brilliantly lay out the points in a measured and nuanced way. It also helps that you have a tinge of cynicism that strikes at the heart of the matter. I can't help but smile at that. Be careful though- high praise from schopenhauer1 will probably not get you far on this forum from most posters.