Without granting your usual conclusion that "therefore, not having children is the best response", then yes, all this is true.

Marx, for instance, spells this out clearly. One of the tasks of the working class is to reproduce society, so that capitalism can continue. In the heyday of industrial capitalism, most people worked in factories, farms, and allied businesses. Some -- women raising children at home, teachers, religious, doctors, librarians, musicians, volunteers in civic organizations, etc. reproduced society and contributed directly to the transmission of culture.

The working class in Marx's day didn't consume that much (not by choice, but because of their low incomes).

Factory production as a share of work has dwindled, and providing services has greatly enlarged. Also enlarged is the working class's role of consumer. The task of reproducing society is still there, however, and it hasn't changed much. Have children, raise them to be stable, functional, productive people, and transmit the culture.

Various groups have tried to escape the system. Some hippies tried living in communes. Some of them succeeded, a handful of these efforts continue, but they have about zero effect on society. Today, much larger group have escaped the system by becoming destitute and homeless, living under a bridge to escape the hot sun and cold rain. This approach works in warmer climates -- it doesn't work very well in cold, northern climates. A bridge is no protection from sub-zero temperatures.

I tried to escape the system for a while by working as little as possible. That approach works until one runs out of cash, then one has to go back to work.

Without granting your usual conclusion that "therefore, not having children is the best response", then yes, all this is true. — Bitter Crank

But the antinatalism conclusion follows so axiomatically from the premise :D. Do you think that a worker's "utopia" would really solve the problems or would it just bring about new ones or the same ones but in a different way?

Marx, for instance, spells this out clearly. One of the tasks of the working class is to reproduce society, so that capitalism can continue. In the heyday of industrial capitalism, most people worked in factories, farms, and allied businesses. Some -- women raising children at home, teachers, religious, doctors, librarians, musicians, volunteers in civic organizations, etc. reproduced society and contributed directly to the transmission of culture.

The working class in Marx's day didn't consume that much (not by choice, but because of their low incomes).

Factory production as a share of work has dwindled, and providing services has greatly enlarged. Also enlarged is the working class's role of consumer. The task of reproducing society is still there, however, and it hasn't changed much. Have children, raise them to be stable, functional, productive people, and transmit the culture. — Bitter Crank

So I guess a question is, besides not having children (what I think to be the only real solution), how can people not fall into being just a utility for landlords/banks/investors/consumers/employers (emphasis on employers as that is the largest amount of time that most people spend their day in- even if in more white collar jobs)?

Various groups have tried to escape the system. Some hippies tried living in communes. Some of them succeeded, a handful of these efforts continue, but they have about zero effect on society. Today, much larger group have escaped the system by becoming destitute and homeless, living under a bridge to escape the hot sun and cold rain. This approach works in warmer climates -- it doesn't work very well in cold, northern climates. A bridge is no protection from sub-zero temperatures.

I tried to escape the system for a while by working as little as possible. That approach works until one runs out of cash, then one has to go back to work. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. No modern way succeeds. Also, if somehow there was a radical revolution, how do you actually see that playing out? Anarcho-communism only works as far as we know when they can rely on a larger superstructure to really create the networks that they can then ride on top of and find a niche within. Also, as I stated earlier, how would anarcho-communism even solve the problems of just being another worker (this time being a tool for the group instead of a broader economic market structure).

Edit: I see you added a response from my first post, so I'll address that one.

Granted that what you say is true, is there anything that can be done about it? Well... maybe, but probably not.

I don't think that people are inherently, naturally, able to live together in very large groups without developing large scale systems. 25 hunter gatherers, sure. They can live together simply. 250,000? 2.5 million? 7.3 billion? No.

People just aren't that nice, for one thing. They don't just naturally follow the rules that everyone agreed to. There are lots of people who don't see why they should not change the oil in their car over a storm drain that leads to the lake or river everyone gets their water from. There are factory owners who don't see why they shouldn't let toxic sludge drain into the river. There are people who don't see why they shouldn't just slash and burn up the forest so they can plant crops for 2 years, after which the poor soil is exhausted and they have to slash and burn some more. There are people who don't understand why elephants should not be killed for their tusks.

It goes on and on.

People seem to adapt to large scale systems quite well. They have managed this for the last several thousand years. However, "the system" has to work reasonably well.

Periodically, the large scale systems start breaking down, and with it individual behavior starts becoming more destructive, less responsible, and so forth. As it says in a Biblical passage, "In those days, there was no king and every man did as he pleased." The system had broken down.

We seem to be in a time and place where the large scale system is breaking down, besides which, the large scale system was not prepared to deal with world problems like global warming, environmental degradation, extinction of many species, and so on. Human kind appears to be on a consumption gradient that rules out a solution to global warming, adequate food supply, and so forth.

The good news, so to speak, is that Nature bats last, and our current problems will be resolved -- not necessarily in our favor. Nature may reduce our population. Life could once again be nasty, brutish, and short. One way or another, carbon dioxide emissions will be cut way back -- possibly by eliminating a good share of the emitters, which would be us humans with our consuming lifestyles. The wild African elephants will probably disappear before we do.

Should we not reproduce, then, if this is even somewhat true?

Plants and animals reproduce. We all really don't have much choice. It's just set up that way. We can decide not to marry, we can decide not to enter into relationships with the opposite sex, we can do various and sundry things. But often enough, sperm will find an egg and a child will be born. Reproduction happens.

One individual can decide to not reproduce. Actually, there are more functional antinatalists than you might think. Women, for instance, who have decided they just don't want to bring a child into this world. Men, the same thing. Plus, some people just can't get laid, so...

So I guess a question is, besides not having children (what I think to be the only real solution), how can people not fall into being just a utility for landlords/banks/investors/consumers/workers (emphasis on workers as that is the largest amount of time for the most people, even if in more white collar jobs)? — schopenhauer1

They can't. The large scale systems we need to live together in large numbers require us to perform certain roles. We can't have a large scale system that enables people to live as if they were hunter gatherers. Only the folks at the top of the heap can live however they want, which is made possible by their vast wealth accumulation. And even the super rich have to drive on the correct side of the road, not try to defy gravity by stepping off of their 80th floor penthouse balcony, and not antagonizing other people too much. After all, a bullet will go through a rich brain as well as a poor brain.

Hey, I have to attend to a shelter meal, just right now. That will take the rest of the afternoon to get ready. Shelter meals help destitute, homeless people not die under their bridges. People hate it when that happens.

In any kind of society that you'll ever imagine, people will generally be appreciated for their usefulness to others, and this doesn't include just economic usefulness. Helping others is key to being appreciated. Solving your society's problems is likewise key to being appreciated or valued.

They can't. The large scale systems we need to live together in large numbers require us to perform certain roles. We can't have a large scale system that enables people to live as if they were hunter gatherers. Only the folks at the top of the heap can live however they want, which is made possible by their vast wealth accumulation. And even the super rich have to drive on the correct side of the road, not try to defy gravity by stepping off of their 80th floor penthouse balcony, and not antagonizing other people too much. After all, a bullet will go through a rich brain as well as a poor brain. — Bitter Crank

This is true, hence my call for antinatalism. Why would I want to create another util to have to work for and be used by, and create more work for others in a larger economic system? Why give people the "gift" of economic (i.e. work/daily living) burden?

Hey, I have to attend to a shelter meal, just right now. That will take the rest of the afternoon to get ready. Shelter meals help destitute, homeless people not die under their bridges. People hate it when that happens. — Bitter Crank

Very admirable! It is interesting to parse out how many people choose homelessness versus people who desire to get out of that system but have no where else to go. Will there always be structural homelessness?

In any kind of society that you'll ever imagine, people will generally be appreciated for their usefulness to others, and this doesn't include just economic usefulness. Helping others is key to being appreciated. Solving your society's problems is likewise key to being appreciated or valued. — Agustino

I agree, but as is my theme with pessimism, why do we perpetuate any instrumental reason by putting more individuals in the world? In other words, why do people need to be born to help? Why not just not be born? No help needed. Also, what is the use of helping so that we can help to help to help. There is no end goal from this, and if we did have a goal, there would always be another problem. In that case, why make more people who will always need and have problems to overcome in the first place? No reason to perpetuate this whole instrumental affair.

Well, I think your questions start from the wrong presuppositions. You presuppose we must have a positive reason to procreate and to help - but the truth is that we need a positive reason to do the opposite. Procreating and helping is what comes naturally.

For example, what I like most is problem-solving, pretty much regardless of what problem is in question. I enjoy the process, and it comes naturally to me. It's sort of like being an adventurer.

Wasn't Schopenhauer a student of Eastern philosophy?

The Useless Tree

- Chuang Tsu

Shih the carpenter was on his way to the state of Chi. When he got to Chu Yuan, he saw an oak tree by the village shrine. The tree was large enough to shade several thousand oxen and was a hundred spans around. It towered above the hilltops with its lowest branches eighty feet from the ground. More than ten of its branches were big enough to be made into boats. There were crowds of people as in a marketplace. The master carpenter did not even turn his head but walked on without stopping.

His apprentice took a long look then ran after Shih the carpenter and said,'Since I took up my ax and followed you, master, I have never seen timber as beautiful as this. But you do not even bother to look at it and walk on without stopping. Why is this?'

Shih the carpenter replied, 'Stop! Say no more! That tree is useless. A boat made from it would sink, a coffin would soon rot, a tool would split, a door would ooze sap, and a beam would have termites. It is worthless timber and is of no use. That is why it has reached such a ripe old age.'

After Shih the carpenter had returned home, the sacred oak appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'What are you comparing me with? Are you comparing me with useful trees? There are cherry, apple, pear, orange, citron, pomelo, and other fruit trees. As soon as the fruit is ripe, the trees are stripped and abused. Their large branches are split, and the smaller ones torn off. Their life is bitter because of their usefulness. That is why they do not live out their natural lives but are cut off in their prime. They attract the attentions of the common world. This is so for all things. As for me, I have been trying for a long time to be useless. I was almost destroyed several times. Finally I am useless, and this is very useful to me.'

Inherently nonsensical.
"You are only as good as your utility"
I can tell you that I am as good as I want to be, and have no interest in being utilised by anyone, as that is not how I validate myself.
When I am useful it is on my own terms, and my worth is based on my control of my time to utilise as I wish.

Wasn't Schopenhauer a student of Eastern philosophy? — unenlightened

Yes, but not that kind of Eastern philosophy. He preferred the depressed kind ;)

Well, I think your questions start from the wrong presuppositions. You presuppose we must have a positive reason to procreate and to help - but the truth is that we need a positive reason to do the opposite. Procreating and helping is what comes naturally.

For example, what I like most is problem-solving, pretty much regardless of what problem is in question. I enjoy the process, and it comes naturally to me. It's sort of like being an adventurer. — Agustino

Procreating and helping is pretty vague, but it's a pretty big generalization that "procreating and helping comes naturally". Innate? Culture? Both?

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..

As for me, I have been trying for a long time to be useless. I was almost destroyed several times. Finally I am useless, and this is very useful to me. — unenlightened

Yes, all the other trees were used. We are like the other trees- our labor is useful, our money is useful, our consumer decisions are useful, our 401k and tax dollars are useful, our rents/mortgages are useful, our utilities payments are useful, etc. etc. We cannot be like the oak as our economic selves need to be used and use others.

When I am useful it is on my own terms, and my worth is based on my control of my time to utilise as I wish. — charleton

You may think that, but if you try to sustain that in economic terms, you will be homeless or a hermit outlier. Otherwise, you will be used for your economic value. You have no choice. You are "locked in" by your need for a home, your need to consume products to survive, which needs a job, which needs transportation, etc. etc. You can "choose" not to. But is that a choice, or is that just a slow death and life of materially impoverished misery?

In economic theory, Hayek in his epoch The Road to Serfdom, concludes that it only gets worse when the means of production are in the hands of the government. The classic economic theory just says that you have the choice to live a poor life though, with the opportunity of that changing.

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

In economic theory, Hayek in his epoch The Road to Serfdom, concludes that it only gets worse when the means of production are in the hands of the government. The classic economic theory just says that you have the choice to live a poor life though, with the opportunity of that changing. — Posty McPostface

I am not saying that having a different economic system will change things. I am simply explaining how, once born, we are exposed to the de facto economic grips of almost everything we deal with. Our relationships are often defined on our interactions at an economic level. At the end of the day, there is no choice outside of the system except slow death and deprivation. This is connected with the idea of not having more people who are forced (de facto) into this.

I am not saying that having a different economic system will change things. I am simply explaining how, once born, we are exposed to the de facto economic grips of almost everything we deal with. Our relationships are often defined on our interactions at an economic level. — schopenhauer1

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.

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?

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?

Exactly. Hence antinatalism. There is no alternative. Why throw more people into it? — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

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?

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

The good thing about not being materialistic in a materialistic society is that you can spend more time to yourself by not satisfying the never-ending ebb of want's and perceived needs that the economy facilitates. Leaves room for self-edification and more time to do education in the meantime. It's tricky to get there though. You know, truth not being a guided path and all. That's the part that people find most troublesome. We tend to learn from a teacher; but, when you are your own teacher, there's nobody to point out your mistakes. Quite a conundrum.

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.

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

Even idealists have to eat.

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. — schopenhauer1

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?

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.