@Baden
@Bitter Crank
@Wosret
@Metaphysician Undercover
Feel free to weigh in!

Until you address the institution of procreation, everything else is small peanuts ;) .

Well, it is definitely perplexing. Birth is very unusual as it is a preference that affects a whole other life, for a lifetime. Birth is actually a strong political statement. People don't think of it like that, but it is. It is a very politically conservative statement. In a way, it is being beholden to the institutions of one's social setting. It is assenting to the idea that a person needs to go through life's social and institutional settings. This is something that needs to take place. They want little Johnny to be in the world. However, why the need for little Johnny to be in the world in the first place begs the question. They are making a political statement that a state of affairs needs to take place where a person needs to navigate life's historically-developed society with all its institutions and and expend energy for their own survival needs, comfort-seeking needs, and entertainment-seeking needs. They are literally forcing this political statement to take place "in the flesh". Somehow it is a good thing for new people to be born so that they can develop and interact with institutions. Why this needs to take place, I have no idea. Absurdity in the flesh is what is going on.

Maybe so that one day they can sit in their old age in their stone villa in the countryside and drink their morning coffee/tea, garden, and say cheerio to their significant other knowing that they put someone else through the inanities of life and they too can get this oh so delightful feeling.

Relax. It's merely an exercise to annoy Agustino who still believes in natalism. — Bitter Crank

Ah, carry on then. But, in a more specific context, what is it with the need to see people develop and have to interact with institutions, failing and achieving, setting goals etc, that needs to take place? Ah yes, little Johnny needs to interact with the schooling, then little Johnny needs to interact with the workplace. Little Johnny needs to navigate the world. Did more people like Johnny need to experience all this institutional interactions? Why? What does this prove? Having the kid is a statement to the world that someone needs to go through life's institutional interactions for some reason. There needs to be more humans that need to spend energy on maintaining their survival and boredom. That need problems to overcome for some odd reason.

No amount of research, organization, rearranging, or planning, is going to solve any of the problems you mentioned. These problems cannot be solved on that level of thinking. — Aurora

Yep and I advocate not starting the problems in the first place- even the problem ofovercoming the problem through some self-help mentality change. In other words, do not throw more people into the world to give them challenges to overcome (in this case, the very pervasive and necessary evil of work).

I say why make people go through the economic "realities" in the first place?

They might attend church regularly, but they have very little of what I would call a spiritual life. All they know is Monday Night Football, "The Big Bang Theory", trips to Hawaii and other made-for-the-consumer tourism, etc. It feels like the only thing they know how to do is be consumers, to be honest. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yep.

During those times when capitalism does not have a choke hold on you--such as when you are not on the job--discover things that have not been commodified and watered down for mass production and consumption, such as nature; work on projects of your own imagination while you have a break from working on market-researched, McDonaldized, uninspiring projects; learn to appreciate things that capitalism has little or no use for, such as the art of homemaking; etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Nature..hmm, funny you mention look for things that are not "watered down for mass production and consumption". Much of nature has been just that- watered down for mass consumption. People take day trips into national/state/local parks and go on "hiking" or "camping" excursions. They visit beautiful landmarks, etc. This to me is just the commodification of nature just the same. Everything is totalized by the commodification process. Even the "meme" you describe of "going back to nature" in itself is a consumption of nature which is restorative so that you can be productive little workers in the work hours. It is why Frederick Law Olmsted and other landscapers were commissioned to design things like Central Park. But even more "nature-y nature" like Yellowstone is a place to be consumed by travelers.

Ronald Wright points out in A Short History of Progress that hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian and that civilization is hierarchical. He calls civilization "A fool's paradise". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, I think there is something to be said for ways of managing that a more democratic than the vassal-serf model of the "benevolent manager-dictator" trying to squeeze the most productivity out of his/her workers through various sociological and psychological strategies. Besides the fact that workers are often used as a means to an ends (a moral problem), besides the fact that many managers aren't fit for their job due to nepotism, bad personnel choices (a problem of contingent luck that makes a less-ideal model even that much less ideal), besides the fact that many models cannot support continued growth of workers, thus limiting their ability to move "up the corporate chain", it would seem to me humans would inherently value more agency than a vassal-serf model in the first place.

Some people overmanage and that can be to someone who is a self-starter, autotelic, etc. The trick is to learn to appreciate the drive of the person who overmanages. It is easy to appreciate when juxtaposed with the attitude of a manager/supervisor who does not care. Nothing is more deflating than working under the authority of someone who is happy with mediocrity or failure, only cares about doing enough to keep his/her job, and/or favors personal relationships over work performance. I have never heard of poor morale under a manager supervisor who cares or cares too much. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It is when it is abusive power types that care more about delegation and power than development and growth.

I think that often the reason why a person in an organization is hated is because he/she does not practice favoritism, holds everybody accountable, does not tolerate nonsense, etc. I think that people confuse that personal managerial style with an oppressive hierarchy in an oppressive organization. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't see why that person would be hated. It is the managers that cause division, favoritism, keeps only the people that work harder accountable and allow others to slide by, and not just tolerates the nonsense but causes it by talking about other staff, etc. That's a Trump-like managerial environment.

I would say that the stress is not inherent in the structure of the organization but is the result of workers' goals, intentions, attitudes etc. clashing with the organization's goals, intentions, attitudes etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yeah, but much of that clashing is bound to happen when you have fact that jobs without very limiting features (as Bitter Crank has described) are scarce. It says something about the human condition that we cannot think of better things to do than some of the more soul less jobs out there. People are so programmed to have tasks to accomplish, that they will take inanity over boredom. Part of the reason to not throw more people into the world is the inanity of much of the economic sphere. People are forced into a high likelihood of these types of jobs. You can turn it around and blame the worker's attitude, but how do you know that isn't just a "meme" that keeps people turning on each other than the structures itself? In other words, the tables can always be turned on blame.

The latter may be the biggest reason why companies do not hesitate to replace humans with artificial intelligence. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I hope so. I hope there is a better way than the antiquated inanity of the last 100 years give or take of the modern workplace.

Clothing and how it is warn, time and how it is used, work style and how it is governed, toilet breaks, regular breaks, lunch breaks--all rigidly set. What can be said at work is often monitored closely. Free speech does not apply to the workplace. — Bitter Crank

Yep, and what would managers manage then?

Per Agustino and like minds, one can work for one's self. That presupposes that one has skills, interests, and temperament that are conducive to self-employment. It isn't a moral or intellectual failing to either lack these traits or just not wish to work for one's self. — Bitter Crank

If everyone could start their own business and make it, they would. I don't buy into either the idea that it is just a secret that is there for the taking, but people are not trying for it, nor the idea that just good hard work will make a business prosper. There are a lot of factors, including luck involved. Also, not everyone can afford to do this.

If one loathes detail work, highly structured work environments, close supervision, close proximity of too many other people, limited mobility (stay at your desk), etc., they won't do well in that kind of job. For those people, a loosely structured job, minimal supervision, freedom of movement, executive agency, opportunity for creative effort, free expression, a major challenge, etc. will yield very good results. Some people prefer detail work, predictability, regularity, and all that. In that kind of job they really do well.

There simply isn't much variety in work environments for people to self-sort. The exceptions to the rules are too few and far between. — Bitter Crank

Everything needs to be delegated apparently. Hierarchies exist so that people have incentives. But this just perpetuates the system.

Besides the formal constraints of work, there are the informal elements--all the craziness of individuals that are brought into the workplace and cultured in an environment where the worst traits rise to the top. — Bitter Crank

Many times it is the worst personalities that get these managerial positions. Why do you think that is?

This topic is close to another one here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2389/is-the-workplace-primarily-a-place-for-self-fulfillment-or-a-harmful-evil-maybe-necessary#Item_2

Many people find the work they do reasonably satisfying, and many people define who the are by the work they do. — Bitter Crank

Is this just a lack of imagination? Is it just anchoring in something so as not feel the nihilistic void? :D

Why is most human behavior/interaction choreographed ? Why have we relinquished our authenticity and our sincerity ? And, by doing so, is what we have achieved worth it ? — Aurora

You can give any answer you want. Usually people just want to be in and out of the store. If you are truly interested in the clerk's day, ask. If the free sample lady says "Hi, how are you doing today!" and you aren't having a good day, just say "Not great!" and when she says "Sorry to hear that!" say, "just part of being alive" and move on.

1. Someone who was going to be born into a world like this would just be born into a different one, if everyone in this world refused to reproduce. I myself wouldn't want to have a role in bringing someone into this world, but I don't really believe it makes a difference, for the reason expressed in the sentence before this one.

2. A person is born because they want, need, or somehow merit birth. Not because someone reproduced.(In an infinity of possibility-worlds, someone will.) — Michael Ossipoff

With what justification?

The human predicament is one where you are thrown into a life where you are enculturated into a society, inherit genes, encounter epigenetic changes, develop a personality, and then use that personality and interaction with the environment and social systems (that have developed through historical contingencies) in order to survive and entertain your mind. There is a drive, a Will, an angst at the bottom of our efforts in navigating this world, via our respective character/personalities/egos. This Will essentially must put forth energy and satisfy the main imperatives of survival-through-social-means and then keeping away boredom through-social-means. However, what you are realizing is why we do anything at all. I call this understanding "instrumentality". We do to do to do. We survive to survive to survive. We entertain to entertain to entertain. We cannot help but do anything else. We are burdened with surviving and entertaining our minds. We are metaphorically "thrown" into the world and must deal with it. The situation is absurd. We have our needs and wants that are never ending, always trying to be satisfied. The world turns, over and over. We keep moving forward. We keep structures going, we keep throwing more people in the world for no reason, and yet this is seen as good by some. Then, on top of this "structural suffering" of instrumentality is the contingent suffering of the billions of possible circumstances we encounter that cause physical or emotional anguish.

We justify suffering by saying that it is necessary (somehow?) because people need to be born in order to overcome it. This sounds like an absurd justification to me. So we create miserable circumstances and experiences so people can deal with them and learn from them, which didn't need to be encountered in the first place. So do we set ourselves up as some game show producers.. and apparently the newborns are the contestants that must play the game?

So we try to escape our circumstances. Hope is one avenue. Hope keeps us swinging through one goal to the next without trying to see the bigger picture. There is religious doctrine with its mysteries and secrets. There is the idea that we are living for some happiness principle (or variations of this)- there is achievement, flow activities, relationships, physical pleasure, aesthetic pleasure, and learning. Apparently some think that our goal is to experience this, and thus this instrumentality is justified. There is narrowing your thoughts by ignoring the instrumental absurdity, there is anchoring yourself in some sort of role in society, or taking on some mission that society provides as somehow worthwhile. There is sublimating your thoughts in works of art, literature, or creativity. I guess people will say some variant of these things is why more people need to be born. Why the human project is worth it. Are these legitimate or good enough reasons? Is there something to be said about the instrumentality of being? What does this indicate?

Oh and welcome to the forum.

I guess one of my major points is that, what if you want to just pause the whole structural process of surviving and whatnot. You cannot do this without some form of death (eventually). So the structure itself is never good. Once born, you must put forth the energy to maintain in the first place. Why would we want to throw more individuals into this situation? Does the six forms of happiness (or some variation thereof) really worth it? Is that the mission? Is that why individuals must be born to be enculturated into a society, for their own happiness? Do you see how I think this is full of contradictions and circular logic?

I'm with you up to a point. But rather than aim for specifics, which are always very culture laden, I tend to take the more general view that society should facilitate as much variation as possible as much creativity and change as possible while still maintaining itself, i.e. not collapsing into anarchy; in other words take full advantage of its resources, express the full potential of its patterns, the set of relationships that make it up in a sustainable way. As it grows and develops in this way, we cannot but grow too (which emphasises again the point, that to set one against society in the abstract - if not against a particular form of society - is suicide). — Baden

But one can argue, our current society is doing this. "Facilitate as much variation as possible as much creativity and change while maintaining itself" seems to be the Western mode for the last couple centuries. So there can certainly be tweaking and such, but by-and-large, your goals for society are rather conservative. One can argue, the structures are already in place for what you ask. Capitalism provides for the incentives for economic creativity. Universities, government, and non-profits provide the incentives for academic creativity. Bars, social clubs, sports, literature, arts, electronics (which is perhaps too dominant), hobbies, etc. provide for entertainment creativity. Except for micro-changes to certain decision-makers (e.g. politicians, economic or social policy changes), your vision there is pretty much fulfilled. Now, if you look at my 6 variations of happiness, you can try to use that as a backdrop to how well current society is measuring up to a standard. Are we actually forming the best relationships we can and is it being realized for the most people? Are we allowing for the best ways to feel achievement and is it being realized for the most people? Are we allowing for the promotion of aesthetic experiences and is it being realized for the most people? Are allowing for immersive mental/physical activities (or flow activities) and is it being realized for most people? Are we allowing for physical pleasures and is it being realized by most people? Are we allowing for learning and promoting curiosity and is it being realized for most people? Well, if the answer is mediocre to not really, then perhaps society isn't measuring up to basic principles of happiness.

Now, to take the flipside. Perhaps life is more like the structural suffering I often describe. It is more about the temporary sensation of completion which tends to then give way to yet more desires and wants that are neverending, hard to satisfy, and are instrumental in the sense that, there is no final completion. We do to do to do to do. We are burdened with maintaining our bodies, and entertaining our minds, thus putting more energy into the system and generally running about on the stage of the world. Why does this have to take place? What are we trying to achieve here?

Maybe there in the darkness there's the possibility of a glitter of "authenticity" but all it really aspires to is the remaking of the social only at a more coherent level with respect to the "individual". It's almost like we are aiming for our own demise in the perfect society that consumes us with our consent precisely when we see ourselves most at odds with a particular social milieu. — Baden

All our preferences to be "free" are ones that we gathered in our setting- the hall of mirrors. All our longings and goals are ones that are provided in our social context. There is no real individual, pure and Platonic waiting "there". Rather, it is constructed from the outside in, which flows back out. Though there is no way of getting a "pure" individualistic stance or character (as it is constructed at least partly in a socially constructed manner along with contingent experiences of the person encountering circumstances of the world), there can be a sort of "stance" in response to society and how its relations are putting pressures on you as an individual. So the issue is then to understand what goals and priorities we want from society at large and whether society is providing the avenues to obtain these goals. So what are the goals we are looking for society to do? I say, the fact that there are any goals that we perceive humans should be following are quite arbitrary, as there is no objective answer. What makes the human project necessary or even preferred as something that needs to get done?

I'm going to venture to guess most people are going to assent to the idea that society should be providing the 6 variations of happiness (deduced according to my a priori existential investigations of course ;)). That would be: experiencing achievements, physical pleasures, aesthetic pleasures (including, religion, ideology, and humor, oddly enough), relationships, learning, and immersive (killing time) physical/mental activities. So, I guess if you didn't want to be antinatalist about it, society should be setting these up as our main priorities. If you wanted to add a more interesting spin, then perhaps we should question why these 6 variations of happiness need to be carried out in the first place. That is THE structural question of questions.

Really good response- you laid out the reasoning succinctly. Nothing is isolated from its social context being that we are raised in and enculturated in a society. Thus, problems may need to be approached from the standpoint of the structural and macro perspective.

What of the idea though that, even if personalities are shaped by their environment, personalities can clash in major ways which may impact the macro. In other words, perhaps the micro affects the macro in just as powerful a force. I am just providing other perspectives here.

Ah, ostracism by omission. Got it.

Was that responding to my post? I never mentioned authentic consciousness. Are you saying the antinatalist stance presupposes some authentic conscience stance towards life? If so, can you define that term more clearly other than me obviously putting two words together to make my own conclusion? Authenticity in existentialism is defined I guess as being true to one's own character without trying to fit into a role. It is going to a shitty job but not losing yourself in the role of the shitty job. The only value in this existentialist theme, to me, is that it tries to rip you out of taking the roles you play in any sociological event too seriously. However, authenticity itself i part of the system. What better way to make you think that you are the hero of your own destiny than this idea of the "authentic individual" as opposed to those who take their roles in society too seriously. What better types of tropes than movies like the Matrix that pretend like you can free yourself as the authentic individual?

You realize the ultimate move against the incentive structures as a system is for individuals to choose antinatalism. Of course, the goal is not to make a new system that is set up for successful outcomes for antinatalism, but rather it is antinatalism as rebellion against all systems. It is Wall-E moving off his predetermined track, but to its furthest extent. Keep in mind that all systems are instrumental in their own way, and the new system set up by the captain at the end will be instrumental in keeping other paths of least resistance going, but for no reason.

You Kant, handle the truth!!

Ok carry on..

But "below the radar" the place was a mess of passive-aggression, subtle games of isolation and playing staff against each other, favoritism, and so on. — Bitter Crank

This is sadly many office space work environments. You put personality types of various stripes into the same office from various backgrounds, all with various principles, and you have a recipe for an uncomfortable 8 hours +.

It took a while to tease out how this all worked, and it wasn't till after I had left that the patterns of behavior became clearer. — Bitter Crank

You mean, you recovered from your PTSD? ;)

There was no less racism, sexism, gay and straight masculine chauvinism or feminine manipulation, etc. here than anywhere else, it was just deeply submerged. It might have been an easier place to work, and a less toxic one, if people had just come out with ordinary, run of the mill sexism, racism, agism, homophobia, etc. rather than the rococo cuckoo craziness that reigned supreme there. — Bitter Crank

So how is antinatalism not a good option in the face of the fact most newborns are destined for the neon fluorescent lights and dreary interpersonal dynamics of the office space? :D. Places like Google and such try to dress it up a bit, but it's the same wherever humans are coordinating in a managerial-type setting and coworkers of various beliefs and ethics. Also, being that this style has been around for about 100 years, and not much has changed since the child labor and 8-hour workday laws, we are stuck in this unimaginative mode of life for some time to come.

There are details on the radar screen which are addressed in social rules and regulations. It's much more difficult to diagnose and remedy details that are below the radar. It is not impossible, though, and remediation has helped. Putting more women into management positions, for instance, helps. As sex, and race problems work their way up the hierarchy, it isn't only males that do the evaluation. Details matter here too, of course. A ruthless, vindictive authoritarian woman in management is as bad as a ruthless, vindictive authoritarian man -- and yes, both types exist. — Bitter Crank

Yep, any race and sex, any person can be as vindictive and authoritarian as the next.

How wide a range of behavior can the radar screens encompass? How does "radar" detect and display the rococo craziness of individuals and organizations? I don't know. — Bitter Crank

When you dread walking in the door everyday. To walk into a cubicle office space environment and stay glued to an office building for 8 hours is madness. You have to readjust your brain that you are really going to devote your time and energy to this. Of course, the work place BS occurs in work settings of all stripes, not just the cube kind. Schools, hospitals, construction sites, coal mines, universities- you name it, there are probably awful politics, unhealthy interpersonal dynamics, and abusive power relations going on. But I suppose because it isn't subsistence farming and malaria, we should all be appreciative.

Just because Sue is engaging in the same obnoxious behaviour does not suddenly make her equal or the vulgarity justifiable. It just makes her adaptable to a toxic environment. That completely rejects talent, intelligence, capacity because of aggressive men who rise up the ranks not because they are talented, intelligent and capable but because they bully their way up. — TimeLine

Great point. (Y)

Bitter, you didn't respond to the question about the difference between the two statements- one where the boss is swearing in general about circumstances, and one where he directly points it in an aggressive manner to a subordinate. A lot of it is context. Things you mention like certain forms of banter and flirting or whatnot, are usually not thought about as aggressive or alarming. People generally have a common sense understanding of how the interpersonal dynamics work amongst their peers. That is the sentiment I think you are trying to convey, and I agree. People generally have a sense of what is within the boundaries of conduct, and things that are awkwardly or alarmingly outside the norm. In other words, it is when a co-worker/boss repeatedly crosses the barrier into hostile or oddly uncomfortable that things are not right. There are certain aggressive personality types that run roughshod right over civility.
It's doubly bad if it is then defended and allowed to continue. So, just as an ultra PC culture stifling, boring, and allows for no humanness (which we agree on), not addressing what are disturbing (often times operating just below the radar as to not cause too much alarm) behaviors in forced settings of social interaction is also not good practice for a healthy culture or personal welfare.

How about if a boss says, "Don't even mention my wife, sometimes I feel like hitting her". Hmm, that to me sounds like overtones of domestic violence, and a person not on the level- even if the joke was some meant as some sort of "salt of the earth" quip like "One of these days Alice!" from the Honeymooners. Should that be cause for making people uncomfortable? Now its not directed at someone directly in the room but it certainly has the air of aggressive-personality type and for women, can especially be alarming. How about a boss that says "I'm gonna blow my fuckn head off" when he gets frustrated about some minor detail, etc. etc. Does that engender an atmosphere of calm and stability? There are ways to make a workplace hostile, and as I and Baden said earlier, people are essentially forced into workplaces in general. Even though people can quit on a whim, being that this is how first world humans survive, it disrupts people's lives significantly to do something like that. It is when the behavior crosses into that bizarre zone that cannot quite be quantified but somehow feels like an uncomfortable or violating atmosphere. The reason it is hard to distinguish is that it is hard to determine when something is crossing that boundary unless you are the person who thinks it is being crossed.

I sympathize with your views, as a lot of it is context. A manager can say, "This fuckin report is so full of errors, what a bitch this is!". Or he can say to his subordinate, "Get me the FUCKN report NOW!!" in an extremely aggressive tone. Would you say there is a difference there? I would.

That doesn't sound very toxic to me. Why must this culture change, rather than those women who can't hack it? Clearly some women are more than capable. They'd be better suited for the job. Working for The Sun isn't for everyone.

I'm not sure I agree with this attitude that the world around me must change to my liking, rather than adapting myself to better suit my environment. — Sapientia

That's fine that they didn't have a problem with it, but let's say the banter continues, and a third person enters this atmosphere. Instead of taking the joke lightly, the person takes offense. So, maybe the person does have to adapt, but adapt to being less civil than he or she is used to. That is a change for the worse. Professionalism is there usually for a reason.

People are usually forced into work situations by circumstances of economics, not because they want to be buddy buddy with their coworkers. Due to the fact that the market economy forces people into these settings with others they would normally not associate with, professionalism makes sense to try to maintain. Now, I agree that being too "professional" or "corporate-y" is going too far in the other direction (e.g., can't reflect your own personality, forcing people to into group-think points of view regarding the organization, vapidly positive slogans, not able to express political or philosophical views, etc. etc.). That is bullshit, yes. But, trying to maintain an atmosphere of civility amongst people who might otherwise not associate other than the workplace is appropriate.

One Soviet writer and intellectual who was jailed and later exiled for publishing a book of fiction abroad, once quipped: "My disagreement with the Soviet regime is purely esthetic." The first time I heard this, I thought his remark was flippant and paradoxical. Only later did I come to appreciate its truth and apply it to myself. I suspect that such "esthetic" disagreements run deeper than any articulated principles. We can argue circles around each other about policy and such, but if you are not repulsed by Trump's very demeanor, then I know that there is a moral gap between us that no principles can bridge. — SophistiCat

Yep. The problem here is even worse.

1) It's not just aesthetic when you're close up, it's all too real.

2) It's not just aesthetic when you're far away, he's the leader of the "free world"- a state of affairs that affects us all.

3) There are people like him all over, in many many workplaces and industries. Some people call it "the corporate edge" or having a "big personality". Anyone and everything can be justified with a few slogans. Apparently there are some people who like assholes and want them in power.

I'm even skeptical of the role principles have in everyday moral decisions. I think most people have the very same principles - don't hurt other people, don't steal, don't lie, don't break your promises, be a nice person, etc. What makes people disagree on moral issues isn't in terms of principles but in terms of empirical, sometimes metaphysical, reality. Abortion, for instance, is not a question about the principle of harming other people, since almost everyone agrees killing other people is just wrong. Rather it's often a metaphysical debate about the status of the fetus, viz: whether or not the fetus is something that can be killed, and/or if the mother's life is more important than the babies, etc. People like myself who argue that animals have rights that should not be violated are arguing an empirical hypothesis: animals are conscious, they do suffer, and the application of a principle that we all already have (harming others) makes it wrong to manipulate animals in the way we so often do. — darthbarracuda

I am not sure that people necessarily have the same basic everyday principles. What's funny, is it is the day-to-day interactions that are least thought about in the sphere of ethics, but the most relevant to our everyday lives. Look at Trump. There are plenty of people like him and even admire him. His principles as a manager are (to me at least) repulsive and immoral. How he leads from divisiveness and through cruel (and often misleading) ad hominems at his direct reports and people at large is wrong to the point of crossing moral boundaries. He isn't the only one though. Go to many corporate environments, those personality types are out there, stomping over people's dignity and getting away with it- abusing their power, forcing people out of jobs that otherwise could have provided a stable livelihood, etc. etc. There are plenty of daily interactions where there is a difference of opinion. Where does morality end and simple preferences for style begin? That is a really good philosophical question, but no one tries to dig deeper than the biggies (murder, theft, promise-keeping, human rights on a grand scale, etc.).

Again, if there's no real alternative to the current state of affairs, then your post is reduced to a type of value judgment or some emotive, *I don't like this*. Provide some alternative, and the case can be made successfully that the current predicament is undesirable and ought to be changed. I think Marxism has already been tried to no avail. Maybe in the future, we'll all have AI know us better than we know what we want ourselves and the market could be run successfully by an adequately competent enough central manager. — Posty McPostface

There is no real alternative, that is correct. There is an action to take (or not take rather). Don't procreate more people into the world. It's not an alternative for you, but it does prevent any future person from dealing with it. Also, antinatalism can act as a signal to others and for others. By being a community of unprocreators, we are not assenting to what we recognize as an instrumental burden and affair.

I just think you're being unreasonable in your claims to know about human nature in an economy. At the very least, if you live in a democracy, you have some say in the matter about where resources should be diverted. Possible allusion to more social spending and less neo-Keynsian leveraging the economy for persistent growth by making the cogs less thrifty and more docile. — Posty McPostface

If the economy is a sticky gum that surrounds and traps one's whole life affairs, and that cannot be escaped, there is no need to put more people into such a state of affairs where they are burdened with dealing with maintaining their material existence. It is necessary once born, but not necessary to be burdened with in the first place. Now, you will hear slogans of all stripes which don't deal with the issue. That is to say, a new person is burdened with the economic situation, but since the very problem of dealing with an economic situation is not dealt with, there can only be trying to adjust for this and that once born. Instead of the bigger problem, it is trying to make due.

Well, you can't say in advance that they won't be happy, or use you as a measuring stick for what others should or ought to think. — Posty McPostface

It's too late once you throw another person into the world. No one needed to go through the gauntlet of being an economic util.

It would be an undue burden to claim that what we have ought to be ideal, otherwise we shouldn't participate in the superstructure, as you call it.

It is what it is, and that's all that it is. — Posty McPostface

It is what it is, but you don't have to put anyone else in it. There's nothing undue about the stance.

I don't know whether you are an atheist or not, but within atheistic universe, truth itself is only as good as it is useful. — Henri

That is the pragmatist stance actually. What is good = what is useful (very roughly speaking). That's not quite where I was going though related. You are only as good as your economic utility is what I really meant to convey.

I find it hard to equate the professed attitude here, and the actual state of affairs. Isn't this all just an issue with perception or attitude towards a situation and not the problem of the situation or set of circumstances itself. — Posty McPostface

Again, how do you know the whole "interpretation makes the facts" isn't just well-worn slogans to not make you do anything to prevent the situation for others (by having new people)? To make you bear and grin and accept? It isn't perception. You really are a part of an inescapable superstructure that is not ideal. You are used and using others (inadvertently) through it. You are causing others to "deal" because, well, once you are born, you have to or die slowly of starvation and exposure. You are an instrument of labor amongst a plethora of other economic utility. You are as good as that in the grand superstructure of things. You sit there in your room, on your furniture, etc. etc.

This must have been what Adam complained to God after being banished from Eden. Yeah, we do live in a world of scarce resources, and decisions have to be made about what best to spent (disposable income) on. If you're perpetually behind payments, then you still have the option to default on your debt. So, yeah, we're kinda screwed. Best to make the best out of it? — Posty McPostface

That's always what we're doing though. We constantly adjust ideal conditions to shittier ones and plaster this over with being a "realist". Don't be fooled by pragmatic-sounding slogans. None of them mean anything because the people saying them, don't even know why they do such and such. They are following the rituals handed to them to survive, instrumentally. The way of rebellion is simply not allowing others to deal with the burdens that are not necessary to deal with in the first place. Thus antinatalism.

It's all true, once again, but only if one assumes that materialism is true. — Thorongil

Even idealists have to eat.

The good thing about the economy is that those preferences are able to get fulfilled if one is so materialistic. So, it's an issue about how much we value materialism, no? — Posty McPostface

There is no escaping it though. All people rely on the economy- even if for a secondhand DIY economy. Just like the communes and such, all rides on top of a deeper and necessary superstructure. You want a home? You need a job. You have a job? You need transportation. You want transportation? You need this, that, and the other. It's all a cycle that we cannot escape except through slow death by starvation and exposure or some hermit monk type thing which is usually unsustainable.

Yeah, but that's obviously a reductio ad absurdum. People do find happiness in such a predicament despite what the economy demands from us. I mean, I might as well be angry at gravity for not letting me fly around or do cool stuff. — Posty McPostface

Yeah, well, the broader understanding to take from this is we are never born into our ideal preferences. The economy is particularly pernicious as it is inescapable and imbues our whole life's choices.

Isn't that like some form of truism if no alternative is provided? I mean, there really aren't any viable alternatives to the predicament of just being a cog in the economy or a moocher in my case. — Posty McPostface

Exactly. Hence antinatalism. There is no alternative. Why throw more people into it?

You are talking rubbish.
You are talking about what is "GOOD". My utility to others is not relevant to that. — charleton

So you are not subject to the needs of the economy?