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. — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

Headline for this post reminded me about something related.

You say human life is only as good as it is useful.

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.

You really are a part of an inescapable superstructure that is not ideal. — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

Even idealists have to eat. — schopenhauer1

And thankfully, this fact doesn't exhaustively define me, as it does in your worldview.

Innate — schopenhauer1

Yes, it is innate.

But my main rebuttal is, why create more people in the first place that need to help and also procreate, and help and procreate etc.. — schopenhauer1

>:O - yeah, your question presupposes that there needs to be a reason to procreate and to help. The truth is that no such reason is required, because procreation and help are natural. Your question assumes that procreation and help are not the natural states (which should be not to procreate), and then asks why do we do it? Then the question makes sense. But without assuming this a priori your "rebuttal" has no legs to stand on.

I can likewise ask you why not procreate, why not help? My question is as valid as yours, it just makes the opposite assumption, that procreation and work are natural.

I'm not subject to anything when it comes to the thread question, no.