The self-destruct countdown began...quando?

The self-destruct countdown began...quando? — Agent Smith

The beginning of man. The self-destruct was there from the start. When man first demanded something and needed a supply of it. When someone supplied the demand and demanded other people's labor which could be sold to the supplier so that their own demands can be satisfied. Again, it's Will playing out, embodied in the real world transactions of the labor force and the marketplace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have a point but work has, in a sense, been decoupled, much to my satisfaction I might add, from food (a need). Gone are the days when work meant walking/running/leaping/hurling spears/weaving nets/setting traps which I consider activites directly related to nutrition. In the modern world, of course this going back at least 5-6 kiloyears ago, we can now earn our bread by doing things like writing/painting/solving problems/even plain thinking/etc., these kinda professions being only indirectly related to feeding. I consider this a significant improvement and we should be thankful for it.

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

Anyway, true it is that the system we currently operate under leaves much to be desired - it be cold-hearted, it fails to address our emotional needs of which there are many. However, as I see it, this ain't a done deal with zero options for improvement. Conditions could be bettered and we may begin to, at some point, appreciate life as gift, worth it, enjoyable, and so on.

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

Homer explains it best:


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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, decoupling is the wrong concept to use here; what I actually meant was how work transformed into something more than, not just, gathering/hunting/farming; there was a time when work meant just that - sensu amplo, foraging.

Post-agricultural revolution, things changed, in my humble opinion for the better, and we could engage in activities that had no direct nutritional payoffs, things like painting/music/philosophy/etc.

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

Capitalism, the money trick, the manipulation of supply and demand are all methods used by the nefarious to make themselves rich and powerful and create a low status / powerless majority poor. The cycle then continues from generation to generation by capitalism so that the few can leech from the poor to maintain their power and status. Socialists/humanists etc have been fighting against all doctrines which help to maintain this imbalance since we came out of the wilds. The answer to this imbalance is to work towards balance and dismantle and prevent systems which produce rich and poor people and powerful and powerless people. The answer to such human problems is not and never has been to support notions of anti-life as that means you have become part of the problem and have become every bit as imbalanced, destructive and as much a part of the problem as a capitalist/autocrat/plutocrat/aristocrat/monarchist/totalitarian/evanhellical etc etc. We need to alleviate and eventually cure/prevent the suffering not vote for making all patients extinct.

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

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

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

In my humble opinoion, I addressed your concern to the degree required. Work is, let's just say, mutating - what it's now is orders of magnitude better than it was 30kya, and what it'll become, if all goes well, may have people falling over each other to be given the opportunity to, well, work.

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

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

Nothing about what I was talking about though.

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

HAHAHHAHA :rofl: Why?

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

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

HAHAHHAHA — schopenhauer1

:rofl: I don't need to embarrass myself further!

Life really does suck!

I worked in education for 30+ years. I also served a 4 year apprenticeship as a painter and decorator.
Teaching was as much of a vocation as it was a job. Painting and decorating was more of a job but I got a lot of personal satisfaction/joy out of converting old dirty, decaying rooms into fresh, maintained, preserved, sanitised, pretty rooms. I cannot begin to express to you the incredible moments I had in my teaching career when I managed to inspire kids and enhanced their interest in and enjoyment of learning.

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

I think you are absolutely correct. Hopefully, in the future, most of the mundane repetitive jobs will be automated. I also think that personal maintenance may take less and less time in the future as well.
We used to have to wash clothes in the river so washing machines definitely do help.
If more people can access more meaningful, purposeful activities that are based on what people are actually interested in then I think you are correct, people will want to work.
A Universal basic income for all, would make this more feasible.
If we can automate agriculture, manufacturing, recycling etc etc then 'your daily job' can become less about earning money to sustain your existence and more about living a fulfilling life and leaving a legacy which adds to human progress. Such a society can be achieved and its creation would be helped if the anti-life people would help to make it happen and stop being the misanthropes they are.
Maybe a future job title will be 'discussion site contributor,' sounds valid to me!

Well I’m in my early thirties, and i’m really looking for a compelling reason/argument to live (and how to live) that would at least work for me. Suicide has been on my mind for a quite some time, but I really don’t want to cause suffering to people around me. That’s why the search for a reason to live or argument why not suicide. — rossii

I feel like everything used to justify the will to keep going is more just our survival instinct trying to rationalize things. — Darkneos

I'd question this desire for something more than survival instincts. Our attachment to life isn't "just" survival instinct, it's a complex of attachments and emotions and history and future and present and...

A complex, I think, is a good description -- leaving open what precisely makes us tick, while noting that it's not simple.

So coming to understand how or why we might come to desire death -- while still being alive! -- will also be complicated.


To the refrain "but this is not enough to justify going on":

Whether it is or isn't enough really is up to you. It's your relationship to the world, to yourself, to your emotions and needs and people. There is no "reason" someone can give you to make you feel any differently about those. The unjust thing about this world is that it's probably not even your fault you feel this way -- but because it's your life, your emotions, your desire, well... it still falls to you to learn how to live with it.

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

No, it has to do with the belief that you are your body; and it has to do with the belief that when the body dies, "it's all over".

Note: These beliefs are dogmatic, axiomatic. We're not supposed to question them.

Yet every day, we also act in ways that show that we don't hold those beliefs consistently. — baker

Not really, so far they are facts not beliefs. Anything saying you are not the body hasn't held up very well

I'd question this desire for something more than survival instincts. Our attachment to life isn't "just" survival instinct, it's a complex of attachments and emotions and history and future and present and...

A complex, I think, is a good description -- leaving open what precisely makes us tick, while noting that it's not simple.

So coming to understand how or why we might come to desire death -- while still being alive! -- will also be complicated. — Moliere

It is some variation of survival instinct or another. Meaning is just another invention we make to trick ourselves into believing life is worthwhile.

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.". --Camus

Did someone post that already? I didn't look.

Just a random related question: approximately what percent of people in this forum are onboard with antinatalism or related sentiments? It seems like most are against it, although kind of convinced me long ago that it makes perfect sense, even though it's not something I'd actually practice, which must mean I'm a monster. I guess I'm just surprised not as many others were convinced as well.

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

As Schopenhauer once said:

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

I think he was onto something.

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

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

Indeed, I wonder if it is a post-facto excuse for justifying the fact that life entails work, and thus if work isn't meaningful then much of what sustains life isn't meaningful, and thus procreation is putting upon people not a benefit but a burden simply to "deal with". In other words, people MUST find meaning in work, otherwise implications are not good. — schopenhauer1

Well, frankly, it would be amazing if we didn't have to work at all and still have our needs & wants met to our satisfaction. This sentiment (something for nothing) has been associated with "kids these days!", as if to say the notion is puerile, a cardinal sign of an immature mind. However, what about the adult obsession with efficiency, making things easier, etc.? Such concepts, taken to their natural endpoint, imply that even adults want something for nothing. We wanna do magic! I suppose I would advocate for natalism of some kind, a toned-down version of it, just to see what happens...in the end? Do we succeed/fail? Mind you I'm working outside the domain of ethics here! Mighty interesting, oui?

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

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

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

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

You may have something there...

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

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

It's anti-suffering. — schopenhauer1

Also anti-joy and anti-life.

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

Just dressed up nihilism.

Why anyone chooses to go on and on about this — to fight THIS battle — is an interesting psychological fact about them. But nothing more.

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

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

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

Just dressed up nihilism. — Xtrix

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

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

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

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

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

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