If you could have absolutely anything you wanted in all of its possible variety, all of it good, and yet you would still be bored and so displeased eventually, then there is still something you don’t have: interest, an internal quality, the opposite of boredom. It’s like if all the sex you could possibly want were available but you had no libido and that made you unhappy: the solution isn’t some weird new kind of sex, it’s the restoration of your libido.

If you could be of a mental state where everything around you is perceived either as a delightful pleasure (however small some of them may be) or an interesting challenge (however daunting some of them may be), then you could be happy all the time, in any circumstance. And feeling like that, life would seem worth living, and perpetuating. If life doesn’t seem worth living or perpetuating, perhaps the problem is not with the world (though it undoubtedly has plenty of problems too), but with you. — Pfhorrest

Again, Schopenhauer expounded upon and predicted all that you bring up. He really did know what he was talking about:

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.] — Schopenhauer

There's a pill for the malfunctioning soul. 'It's not our problem, it's yours.' So here's advice and maybe a pill. I'm no better in this regard. I've been around desperate people and mostly I just clutched my valuables and guarded my own fragile happiness. I've regurgitated my philosophers to those with more chance of pulling through, but my strategy is more about meeting pessimism or despair half-way. The world is disgusting and absurd. That's not an illusion. But there are nice things too. I'm not necessarily correct when I give advice from my fragile happiness to their despair. It's just what people do when they are less troubled than those they are talking with, which is reach for the platitudes or profundities or black humor and demonstrate concern --which is stuff that may not help at all, since it's all deeper than mere thoughts. — jjAmEs

So if society perpetuates its dictates based on enculturating tricks, one of the more cunning ones is to make sure that the pessimist "knows" it is THEIR fault the foundations of existence have a negative value. See, by turning it on the experiencer as just their lack of participation in the good parts of existence, then existence itself can never get the bad rap. It's a clever meme that it's YOUR fault and thus the system is sound, the system is good, it is just your "malfunctioning" view. If we were to all see it for what it was, the Schopenhauer's suffering of the internal-psychological, external suffering of all the things that we encounter, then we would rebel. The rebellion would take the form of communal pessimism- knowing this isn't right to perpetuate unto the next generation.

You cannot lecture me on heaven as that would be obviously as repetitively absurd as what we have now. If you haven't gotten it already, NO experiential scenario avoids this outside of basically non-existence. Sensual delights become repetitive, all of it. We just try to rush to novelty so as to outrun the pessimism that actually exists- that this world is just a weary tedium sameness, that goals we perceive as good only look good because they are distant and give us something to cling to. It doesn't matter how many countries you go to, how many sexual adventures you have, foods you taste, mountains you climb, how many new books you read, people you know, products you produce, things you learn, or new experiences you purport to have. It is all repetitive again and again. It is all the fishbowl. Add to this negative experiences of pains and tragedies of all sorts. This just doesn't need to be continued for more people. Keep working. Keep enduring. Keep existing. That is the theme of the common man (informally optimistic) people. They don't question why. It is too sad for them to face reality so they keep running after the goals and are indignant if some see them for what they are.. consuming time, waiting.

If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. — schopenhauer1

What I’m saying is that that can be and sometimes is the case — it’s a state of mind, not a state of the world. I’ve had that state of mind before. I’ve also had its opposite, which I’m convinced is behind a lot of authors like Schopenhauer’s worldview.

IOW life is meaningful if and only if someone finds it meaningful. There is no more that there could conceivably be to "meaning" than someone finding meaning in something. There are awful, dread- and angst-ridden states of mind in which everything seems meaningless, and so to a person in such a state of mind everything is meaningless, because the meaning lies in the state of mind. I expect that Schopie et al found themselves all too often in that state of mind. I've been there too. But I've also been in the opposite state of mind, the kind that religious folks and magical thinkers call a "religious" or "mystical" experience, which to me for a lot of my life was a common and thereby sort of "mundane" albeit still awesome experience, unlike the existential angst which only ever really hit me in force last year.

In that positive state, that I call "ontophilia" (love of being), I love just... being. But also, dying doesn't seem so awful. I'd love to live forever, I'll do what I can to keep living, but also it's okay if I don't. Dying is fine, but living is great and so preferable. But while in the negative state, "ontophobia", I'm constantly terrified of the horrific meat-grinder that is all of existence, and yet the very thing that terrifies me is the potential loss of that existence. Living is awful, because dying is awful, but dying seems (when in that state) like it might be the less awful option.

I've since concluded that, reflexively, the meaning-as-in-purpose of life is precisely to cultivate and spread that meaningful feeling, that love of being, ontophilia. To make life feel worth living, and to aid people to continue doing so.

Wants and needs are not even necessary sans being born. What would communal pessimism look like? Again, as I told @jjAmEs, and I've heard this before, so this isn't my first rodeo:

So if society perpetuates its dictates based on enculturating tricks, one of the more cunning ones is to make sure that the pessimist "knows" it is THEIR fault the foundations of existence have a negative value. See, by turning it on the experiencer as just their lack of participation in the good parts of existence, then existence itself can never get the bad rap. It's a clever meme that it's YOUR fault and thus the system is sound, the system is good, it is just your "malfunctioning" view. If we were to all see it for what it was, the Schopenhauer's suffering of the internal-psychological, external suffering of all the things that we encounter, then we would rebel. The rebellion would take the form of communal pessimism- knowing this isn't right to perpetuate unto the next generation. — schopenhauer1

As Schopenhauer stated, people like to have something to struggle for- I suspect the "interests deeply embedded" part. — schopenhauer1

And prior to that, Hegel pointed out that the species cannot evolve without struggle. He explains it in terms of the lord and bondsman, world historic figures, and the slaughterbench of history. But, even though he's an awesome philosopher, fuck Hegel.

It's an illusion, to just keep the merry-go-round. — schopenhauer1

Yes indeed, the merry-go-round for retards. And I, foolishy thought that the rabble who ate up the lies that incited the war in Iraq was bad - it pales in comparison.

It's a clever meme that it's YOUR fault and thus the system is sound, the system is good, it is just your "malfunctioning" view. — schopenhauer1

I agree, but then the system is also just relatively happy people protecting their relative happiness. IMV we are a fairly selfish species. We don't want our party interrupted. We don't think of the homeless as we initiate sex with a new partner or open our latest package from Amazon. We just don't generally feel the suffering or the pleasure of others. So 'suffering is your problem' is not just metaphysics but simply us all being in different bodies at different levels of health in different environments.

Sensual delights become repetitive, all of it. — schopenhauer1

I'd like to find this out the hard way. To me what sucks is getting old and the scarcity in cruelty involved in ecstatic experiences. Plug me up to a soma-drip and a variety of lucid dreams (many of them sexual, with exactly the partner I'd choose) and I doubt I'd get bored. One just varies the dreams. I'd even agree to an hour of intense pain every week for a life or virtual life like that. I'd know rationally that non-existence was painless, but I'd avoid it if possible to keep the orgy-porgy going.

One of the reasons we learn to die is because we are forced to do so by aging. Our stupid bodies slowly fail us, and we slowly learn to let go. Another reason is a perception of the cruelty and injustice in the world, though I think that maybe it's only personal suffering that tenderizes us and makes us aware of and disturbed by the suffering of strangers.

It doesn't matter how many countries you go to, how many sexual adventures you have, foods you taste, mountains you climb, how many new books you read, people you know, products you produce, things you learn, or new experiences you purport to have. It is all repetitive again and again. It is all the fishbowl. — schopenhauer1

But it does matter. The whole system of envy and resentment is based on the perception that others are having a better time. Give people a variety of good experiences with lots of novelty. Give them health, beauty, self-esteem. Minimize their frustration and humiliation. They'll be happy. Maybe in thousands of years they'll get bored. Who knows? I'll be the guinea pig, but no one will let me. The hard part is fooling a body that is meant to reproduce and die. Perhaps we'll invent VR so good that we'll only come out to maintain the machines reluctantly.

IOW life is meaningful if and only if someone finds it meaningful. There is no more that there could conceivably be to "meaning" than someone finding meaning in something. There are awful, dread- and angst-ridden states of mind in which everything seems meaningless, and so to a person in such a state of mind everything is meaningless, because the meaning lies in the state of mind. I expect that Schopie et al found themselves all too often in that state of mind. I've been there too. But I've also been in the opposite state of mind, the kind that religious folks and magical thinkers call a "religious" or "mystical" experience, which to me for a lot of my life was a common and thereby sort of "mundane" albeit still awesome experience, unlike the existential angst which only ever really hit me in force last year. — Pfhorrest

I agree with this. Life is justified or rejected on the level of feeling. We always speak from some mood. And I know what you mean (I think) by 'mystical' or joyful/transcendent experience. And I've walked through the black fires of hell. The world can seem like a screeching idiotic meat-grinder, 'a tale told by an idiot, etc.' Pangloss wants to ignore the suffering vision and others want to ignore that the garden of delights is also down here in the meat grinder. The temptation is to elevate a mood to a metaphysical principle, while the alternative is to understand it all as dialogue within a play. Different states of mind being each spout their own metaphysics.

It is all repetitive again and again. It is all the fishbowl. Add to this negative experiences of pains and tragedies of all sorts. This just doesn't need to be continued for more people. Keep working. Keep enduring. Keep existing. That is the theme of the common man (informally optimistic) people. They don't question why. It is too sad for them to face reality so they keep running after the goals and are indignant if some see them for what they are.. consuming time, waiting. — schopenhauer1

:up: the unconscious march towards oblivion - very nicely put.

system is sound, the system is good — schopenhauer1

Ah, "the system". What an ineffably awe inspiring edifice. The system does not fit into you, you fit into the system, REMEMBER THAT.

My ultimate goal with the philosophical endeavor is to devise tactics and stratagems that obliterate systems. I credit Socratic Ignorance for aiding me with this.

It's not a choice between rebelling against the system or accepting it how it is. I'm not saying everything is fine and to accept it how it is, and I'm definitely not saying that people who are unhappy are at fault for that. I'm saying, and I think this is best phrased in the first person, that when I am in a certain state of mind, nothing seems worth living for and all problems seem absolutely intolerable for existing at all in the first place, while in another state of mind, the same little things that seemed worthless next to those problems seem like gems of joy I'd never want to lose, and the same problems seem like interesting challenges to tackle. That's not a difference between states of the world, it's a difference between states of my mind; and having quite recently vacillated between them quite frequently and for quite a long time, I can say that from the pessimistic state of mind the memory of the recent optimistic state of mind seems like a half-forgotten solution to all those intolerable insurmountable problems that I just can't quite remember what it was, and from the optimistic state of mind, the recent pessimistic state seems like a spate of wholly unproductive irrationality. In other words, from both states of mind, the optimistic one seems superior, so long as I can recall that the same states of the world looked differently between them. It's only when I was in the pessimistic state of mind anew, feeling like something about the world had prompted it, that it seemed like trying to feel good again was irrationally ignoring those problems. From the optimistic state of mind, it's clear that the intractable problems were always illusory, and the remaining problems are in principle tractable, and something we need to get to working on.

People will see the opposite. Many have suffered the most difficult of suffering and have no less had children, families, grand children, as they have since time immemorial. Life entails risk, certainly, but when I weigh the scales of life vs. no life I see no contest. It’s something or nothing. It’s being or nothing. The world is a scary place, I’ll give you that, but maybe it isn’t the world that has become too hard; maybe it is you who has become too soft.

Nice. I'll just add that for me, in a certain dark mood, that there's maybe a sick love affair with 'The Dark Truth.' It's like self-Crucifixion, self-mutilation, some kind of role play. 'Only the damned are grand.' But at some point a person just really wants the pain and horror to stop. One fears that the holy truth is just a black-fire-thought-crime virus that should be cast into the memory hole.

Perhaps you are missing the subtle machismo in pessimism. It's all about gazing at the abyss, the terrible truth. The pessimist faces the black dragon of the ugliest and most profound truth. From his perspective (the abstract pessimist), your criticism is involved in comforting self-deceit.

As you may know, Nietzsche thought that noble natures were slow to admit they were suffering in the first place. Because suffering is something that happens to losers. But self-deceit and an flattering misperception of status are also associated with losers. I'm a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, for instance. (Candace Owens on victim culture. She has a point, but...)

I can't play the cards of the pessimist, but there's some genuine profundity in the position. It's not this or that institution that's all fucked up. It's the wheel of life itself. It's Buddhism without the incense. Maybe it has two feet in the grave when just one would do.

But how does all of this connect to the glory of war? And young men running at machine guns?

My ultimate goal with the philosophical endeavor is to devise tactics and stratagems that obliterate systems. I credit Socratic Ignorance for aiding me with this. — Merkwurdichliebe

The ultimate system is our own condition for survival, comfort, and entertainment, followed closely by social institutions that, by feeding individuals needs, grows its own epiphenomenal needs to survive and maintain itself.

From the optimistic state of mind, it's clear that the intractable problems were always illusory, and the remaining problems are in principle tractable, and something we need to get to working on. — Pfhorrest

Need to get working on is the slogan of the system. Rather, need to get working. Working. Throwing more people into the grist. What is wrong with letting the "slumber" of non-existence stay that way.. I'm being poetic more than literal here.. I know non-existence doesn't "slumber" obviously. But we cherish deep sleep, yet what is wrong with a deep sleep that one doesn't have to awake from or better, NEVER had to awake from in the first place? Why bring more people out of "sleep" and into the working, becoming world of the temporal, disturbing the non-being? I call it the "dealing with" of the conscious, waking life. Somehow this is valorized. Again, I ask you, what would communal pessimism look like to you, not just individual dispositions for pessimism?

Life entails risk, certainly, but when I weigh the scales of life vs. no life I see no contest. It’s something or nothing. It’s being or nothing. — NOS4A2

And what's wrong with nothing? Nothing never hurt nothing. More to the point, why does there need to be something or somebody in the first place? What is your/their goal? I predict your answer, and I raise you the absurd repetition that I mention pretty repetitively. Why keep that going? The goods of existence MUST be experienced by yet a new person? Is this some sort of game and there needs to be players who play the game and move the pieces? Experience is something that needs to be gained by yet more people?

The ultimate system is our own condition for survival, comfort, and entertainment, followed closely by social institutions that, by feeding individuals needs, grows its own epiphenomenal needs to survive and maintain itself. — schopenhauer1

The ultimate system sounds like a great target for annihilation.

And what's wrong with nothing? Nothing never hurt nothing. More to the point, why does there need to be something or somebody in the first place? What is your/their goal? — schopenhauer1

I love your philosophy!!!!

I agree, but then the system is also just relatively happy people protecting their relative happiness. IMV we are a fairly selfish species. We don't want our party interrupted. We don't think of the homeless as we initiate sex with a new partner or open our latest package from Amazon. We just don't generally feel the suffering or the pleasure of others. So 'suffering is your problem' is not just metaphysics but simply us all being in different bodies at different levels of health in different environments. — jjAmEs

Again, what would collective pessimism look like rather than individual dispositions for pessimism? What of the fact that having new humans affects OTHERS. And how about of the fact that your putting them into the world, is a political statement that society/life is something someone ELSE should live? What does it mean to know that now a new person will "deal with" life, and that is deemed ok to do for someone else? What is it that HAS to be continued so that MORE people yet again, have to deal? If the answer to this is no particular good reason, then of course, start from square one. Why put more people into the world? It's just a bunch of needs and wants continued, absurdly, repetitiously, thrown to the system/community that needs more workers, sustainers, and contributors to keep IT going as well. More people who use and more importantly, will be used. But why do this to someone? We know of the struggles of the ever present striving will of wants and needs (pace the perennial philosophies of Schopenhauer, Ecclesiastes, Buddhism, and the like). We know of the near endless externally imposed sufferings of the world on the individual (pace our negative encounters with the world). To say that the goods of life are why we have and need more people, is to not recognize the alternative clearly enough. The alternative is no one needs anything prior to birth. If no new humans scares you, then perhaps THAT is something to examine- the fear of nothing. But the alternative is the stress and dealing with of living that more new people will endure- brought about from the previous generation through their fear of nothing and of childishly pinning one's own hopes to be lived out THROUGH the experiences of the said child.

Rather humans can discontinue the suffering. We can discontinue the absurdity of repetitious survival, maintenance, and entertainment. Your thought experiment of a paradise machine that is only novel, pleasurable experiences are just that- a thought experiment. No people are there, or will get there. Certainly using current generations to try to get there is using them and causing more harm in the name of some distant cause. If Schopenhauer was correct, human nature doesn't even work that way to begin with. Rather, absurdity will be brought to an umpteenth degree of absurditude in your laughable scenario of worldly delights.

Certainly I can think of a thought experiment too.. I can be outdo you.. Rather I can imagine a world where everything can be completely dialed in.. You can choose how much struggle, suffering, and stress you want. You can choose how much pain you want.. maybe just a little so you can feel you accomplished something, and then if it doesn't work out, or you didn't like that situation, change it at will on command. You can dial up anything to extreme pleasure at all times, or if you get tired of that, go back to a bit more struggle, moderating those dials. But see, that itself is absurd.. just one step removed from the absurdity of your situation which is one step removed from what we have going on in the real world. Rather all scenarios become absurd, even if at the same time more tolerable to endure. It becomes absurd entertainment-only repetition rather than the trifecta of survival, maintenance, and entertainment conditions we all actually experience in the real world. Why want any of it? What makes good so good that it means we must endure and continue repetitiously in our condition?

Again, whats's wrong with nothing? Nothing never hurt nothing. More to the point, why does there need to be something or somebody in the first place? What is your/their goal? You want more wills in the world that need and want.. More demands on you from others and you onto others. Why? You can see that one can resign, but you know that not going to happen for most.. Rather it is going to be slogging along into the fray like usual, being pulled, pulling others, and all forced to deal with. But again, why this needs to continue rather than let nothingness take its course, is the question. In this case, it is not the metaphysical question of why something rather than nothing, but the ethical question of why continue instead of discontinue. Why have more fray and not less fray? People genuinely cannot answer this with any satisfactory answer. Rather, only the platitudes of "the good life" that can be had.. if you just followed this or that mindset and set of behaviors or tried to cultivate these experiences or those experiences. It ls a shill to justify, to overshoot the very question of why endure in the first place. Why the need for this need.

So again, what would collective pessimism mean? What would that look like? What would a community dominated by pessimists look like? And no, not the black turtle-necked wearing "sprachter" pessimists of parody, but rather philosophical pessimists- those who see the Schopenhauer and "Buddhist without incense" understanding. I call this the rebellious stance. What would that be in comparison to the default moderate optimism we have now, which is the compliance and acceptance stance?

The ultimate system sounds like a great target for annihilation. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah through discontinuing it, perhaps. Passive resistance, if you will. What does a collective pessimism mean you thin? A society that acknowledges these truths, lets say. Or, if you want to be subjectivist like @Pfhorrest, then who share this "mindset" or point of view?

I love your philosophy!!!! — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, nice! I'm glad you do!

Well, nice! I'm glad you do! — schopenhauer1

I'm glad you're glad about something.

So if society perpetuates its dictates based on enculturating tricks, one of the more cunning ones is to make sure that the pessimist "knows" it is THEIR fault the foundations of existence have a negative value. See, by turning it on the experiencer as just their lack of participation in the good parts of existence, then existence itself can never get the bad rap. It's a clever meme that it's YOUR fault and thus the system is sound, the system is good, it is just your "malfunctioning" view. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. Pessimism is always characterized in this way as a sort of moral failing - a personal weakness on the part of the one espousing it. The pessimist just needs to stop being so soft and weak minded, to stop being so pathetic and just get on with it like the rest of us. It is through this attacking of the pessimists character that the content of his or her arguments or views can just be tossed aside, much like the rantings of a drunk. I suspect it functions as a sort of defense mechanism - far easier to attack someones character than to confront your own pessimistic doubts and niggles buried deep within.

I don't see how these "you're just depressed", "you are deficient", "you are weak-minded", responses are in any way an argument against antinatalism. I would think it's more proof for the opposite - why bring more children into the world when there is a possibility they will be afflicted by a malfunctioning mind that makes them see the entire human project as absurd and pointless? Why have children when they may suffer a deficiency in character that makes life seem a tedious process of bodily and social maintenance? There are zero reasons, for the child's sake, to take this risk. To 'be' unborn is the ultimate peace, why disturb it?

Camus’ ‘The Plague’ may be of interest here.

In brief : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vSYPwX4NPg4

Yes I saw that one. Very appropriate for this discussion. I noticed the major theme there seemed to be to incorporate the lessons of the epidemic. Everything should not be as it was.

Incidentally, I saw this Onion recently. It's an oldie but goody :rofl:
https://local.theonion.com/newborn-loses-faith-in-humanity-after-record-6-days-1819573929


@Inyenzi @jjAmEs @Pfhorrest gotta check that one out.. very funny and unfortunately true!

Exactly. Pessimism is always characterized in this way as a sort of moral failing - a personal weakness on the part of the one espousing it. The pessimist just needs to stop being so soft and weak minded, to stop being so pathetic and just get on with it like the rest of us. It is through this attacking of the pessimists character that the content of his or her arguments or views can just be tossed aside, much like the rantings of a drunk. I suspect it functions as a sort of defense mechanism - far easier to attack someones character than to confront your own pessimistic doubts and niggles buried deep within. — Inyenzi

Yes. Well put.

I don't see how these "you're just depressed", "you are deficient", "you are weak-minded", responses are in any way an argument against antinatalism. I would think it's more proof for the opposite - why bring more children into the world when there is a possibility they will be afflicted by a malfunctioning mind that makes them see the entire human project as absurd and pointless? Why have children when they may suffer a deficiency in character that makes life seem a tedious process of bodily and social maintenance? There are zero reasons, for the child's sake, to take this risk. To 'be' unborn is the ultimate peace, why disturb it? — Inyenzi

Very good points. Well put.

@Pfhorrest @jjAmEs I refer you to Inyenzi's post.

Inyenzi, that is a great response. Most of the times, I am very impressed by how you state more succinctly what takes me a long-winded time to convey. Do you know if you can elaborate in your own words what I am trying to convey about the absurdity bit? It seems this part goes over peoples' heads and they think that I am trying to get at some comparison with permanence or something (like a god or heaven or something), but that is not quite it. They don't understand what I mean by the repetition and how it relates to any act and behavior we perform in our survival (in the West the form of production, consumption, utility of products and service via participation in enculturated institutions), comfort (doing things that keep us more comfortable, not needed for survival), and entertainment pursuits (anything else leftover that keeps our minds occupied and finding flow or meaning in something for a time so as not to turn in on being itself).

I meet you half way. I talked about 'poor people' reproducing, the prolific proles. Their children are cast into the world in an inferior position, owning nothing, starting as wage slaves, if even that.

The main difference in our views is that it's obvious to me that some lives are better than nonexistence, at least for certain stretches. I do note that people tend to reproduce before they face the grim reality of aging. So they don't even know what they are forcing on their children. They don't even know all that life is yet, but they more or less blindly obey the prime directive. We're still here after all of these centuries.

I agree that non-existence is the safe choice, the clean choice. I'm not a parent. To some degree it's because I was conscious of the moral burden. It's an implicit judgment on the world, on my own dysfunctional working class childhood. But if I had been rich and secure when younger, I might have had children. Just about anyone would have to confess that a risk is involved. A child could always be terribly unhappy, suffer a disease, etc. So it's a question (for many) of expected value. And it's indeed a heavy thing to summon another mortal consciousness into this strange world.

I don't object to anti-natalism. I do think it's somewhat futile at this time. We aren't essentially rational creatures. And even the poor people I sometimes pity are often happier than me, since we tend to comfort ourselves with inaccurate visions of our talent, etc.

Here's a problem for your perspective. Most people would decline a clean and painless exit from the world. To be sure, some people do commit suicide. And suicide rates would increase if it was made cleaner and easier and less taboo. But I suggest that most would choose to live. And that's an argument for uncertain life's positive expected value. The more philosophical argument against pessimism is simply to insist that value judgments aren't objective.

Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film) ? Look what some people will do in the short term for an attachment to the apparent promise of a future known to be uncertain. This is why I'm in the tragicomic camp. Life is horrible in many ways but we are mostly in love with it, we poor curious masochists.

They don't understand what I mean by the repetition and how it relates to any act and behavior we perform in our survival — schopenhauer1

I'm guessing this is about boredom, but many of us don't count boredom as a big issue. To me it's aging, disease, accidents, and crime/injustice that speak against existence. I can think of many experiences that I'd love to repeat again and again.

There are zero reasons, for the child's sake, to take this risk. To 'be' unborn is the ultimate peace, why disturb it? — Inyenzi

Even as a non-parent the reasons for the child's sake are obvious. If one sees existence as likely to be a net good, then the parent is giving the gift of life to a new being. It's true that this is always the 'gift' of a certain amount of suffering too. So we're back to a seemingly subjective evaluation of expected value of a existence in particular circumstances. We have rich happy parents who have considered carefully versus poor unhappy parents who just haven't mastered contraception.

'Ultimate peace' is a safe zero, but people will gamble if the expected value is positive, especially if their instincts drive their reasoning toward optimism. To not see this is IMV to tune out a kind of common sense. Question it, of course, but be aware of it. Account for it.

Here's a problem for your perspective. Most people would decline a clean and painless exit from the world. To be sure, some people do commit suicide. And suicide rates would increase if it was made cleaner and easier and less taboo. But I suggest that most would choose to live. And that's an argument for uncertain life's positive expected value. The more philosophical argument against pessimism is simply to insist that value judgments aren't objective.

Have you seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_(1993_film) ? Look what some people will do in the short term for an attachment to the apparent promise of a future known to be uncertain. This is why I'm in the tragicomic camp. Life is horrible in many ways but we are mostly in love with it, we poor curious masochists. — jjAmEs

You are simply not separating a life worth starting vs. a life worth continuing. The logic for a life worth starting is the following: The absence of good is not bad, if there is no actual person who exists to be deprived of this good. The absence of suffering is good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this good.

The logic of those already existing to continue to exist is something along the lines of the following: Even if it was better if they did not exist, now that they exist, the pain and suffering of either the pain or fear of death, along with already-set interests in goals, may be enough to continue living once born. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar for the full argument.

From the Wiki:

1. We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why we think there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that the presence of this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering). By contrast, the reason we think there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although their pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
2. It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create them, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create them. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create them. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason not to create them. If it were the case that the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, then we would have a significant moral reason to create a child and to create as many children as possible. And if it were not the case that the absence of pain is good even if someone does not exist to experience this good, then we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.

3. Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create them – a person will not be deprived of happiness, because he or she will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.

4. We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence in a place where there are happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good.[8]