My only suggestion for a 'solution' - if there is one - (and worth no more than 2p I expect), is that people at least try to speak the truth. And for other people not to believe the lies. When people lie and convince other people of the truth of their lies, their model of the world becomes distorted with the inevitable consequence of alienation from the world.

And everyone lies, from politicians to sales people and including moralists, theologians and even philosophers. — A Seagull

Interesting point. So how do you particularly think the lying promotes alienation?

Interesting point. So how do you particularly think the lying promotes alienation? — schopenhauer1

As I said, but perhaps somewhat ambiguously: 'When people convince other people of the truth of their lies, their (The other peoples) model of the world becomes distorted with the inevitable consequence of alienation from the world. If their world does not make sense, they will feel alienated.

Another related theme here is what I call "minutia-mongering". By being brought into the world as a public entity, one is forced into the minutia-mongering business. You may not know a lot about electrical components, voltages, amps, electronic principles, processor chips, atomic charge, etc. but you certainly use the technology that does. Once born, one is dealing with the products of, and participating in a minor aspect of the minutia-mongering business. More people = more people dealing with the minutia-mongering world. There is no escaping it really. One can try to be blissfully ignorant of it, being produced and consumed none-the-less and we have to keep it going. Produce, consume, monger the minutia.

A lot of our "disagreement" comes down to how you describe actions or individuals. It's like we both see a beautiful garden and I say "think of the billions of insects which have died in here and the flowers which were forced to grow by the laws of nature."
— BitconnectCarlos

Yes, there is that too. Accepting it or not.

I think the idea of the laws of nature is an interesting comparison here. Lets say I took the position that if X is subject the laws of nature then it's better off not existing. Just curious, would you personally agree with this? Lets say I argue that the laws of nature impede on the autonomy of the being and probably involve some inevitable degree of suffering. Why do you confine your position only to humans? I wouldn't be surprised if chimpanzees and other forms of primates have some rudimentary society/"public face" that they need to put on.

Lets say I argue that the laws of nature impede on the autonomy of the being and probably involve some inevitable degree of suffering. Why do you confine your position only to humans? I wouldn't be surprised if chimpanzees and other forms of primates have some rudimentary society/"public face" that they need to put on. — BitconnectCarlos

I would agree that they suffer. However, similar to humans not forcing the view on other humans, the same goes for chimps and other animals. There is also the doubling aspect of not only suffering, but understanding our own suffering, "knowing" it via self-reflection and our unique recursive abilities of our mind (we know that we know that we know). If chimps know they are being used as public entities, then they are more than welcome to come to the best conclusion (antinatalism). I suspect they won't- not because they have some other conclusion, but because they do not have the ability to come up with those conclusions in the first place. I am concerned with beings that can self-reflect and form discursive, abstract conceptual thought.

As I said, but perhaps somewhat ambiguously: 'When people convince other people of the truth of their lies, their (The other peoples) model of the world becomes distorted with the inevitable consequence of alienation from the world. If their world does not make sense, they will feel alienated. — A Seagull

I can see this in a sort of mass media sense. For example, Trump says "fake news" and this distorts his follower's trust of media. Then news itself just becomes suspect. Widely accepted facts are ignored, and then that leaves any subjective idea on the subject be viewed as legitimate. One day you can say this. The next you can say that and you can be right on both all at once, somehow. So I can see people being alienated from sources of information and what to do about any X affairs. No one is trustworthy. All politicians lie roughly the same. Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. It all becomes a kaleidoscope that confuses and disorients people. Meanwhile any long-term goals are lost in the chaos.

So one of my questions is whether any socio-economic system is good for the individual, since the individual is essentially used as labor by said system. — schopenhauer1

I would say yes for those individuals who are not opposed to being used for labor. I would further say that the majority of people would fall under this category. If not, then I imagine there would be far more cries for revolting against the system. Also, how exactly do the leaders fit into this system? I’m not sure if the people essentially driving the system can also logically be driven by it. Either way, the leaders of said systems surely feel that the system is good for them, since it enables them to sit at the top and rake in the profits.