Let me put it this way:

Fish swim, eat, hide, makes decisions based on some stimuli.

Birds do a more complex version of this.

Many mammals have a complex social structure but the social structure seems more based on innate capabilities. A chimp doesn't decide usually that it will/can start a whole set of new behaviors and start a break off type of society from scratch (that doesn't mean they can't break off from the group, I mean break off their behavior patterns).

But then there is humans. You can choose to leave work in the middle of the day and never come back. You can choose to do any number of things. You are radically free (as the existentialists might say) to do any choice you want. Yet we choose to do what we do.

Now these choices do not come from out of nowhere. We decide to keep working because we are enculturated through social controls and internalizing values from society. We think it will look bad. We lose status. We can't find other ways to survive.

But then there is humans. You can choose to leave work in the middle of the day and never come back. You can choose to do any number of things. You are radically free (as the existentialists might say) to do any choice you want. Yet we choose to do what we do.

Now these choices do not come from out of nowhere. We decide to keep working because we are enculturated through social controls and internalizing values from society. We think it will look bad. We lose status. We can't find other ways to survive.

I cannot just leave work in the middle of the day and never come back. I would be AWOL and subject to arrest. Other people would lose their paychecks and means of buying food or their ability to save. If you lose your job many people wouldn't be able to afford groceries or daycare or car insurance etc.

If you're at a point where you actually have that independence you need to ask yourself "what do you really want to do?" It's not always clear, and it's different for different people so I don't really prescribe. My dad is one example of that type of person - he has his own small business and he could retire and stop working but then he'd be kind of lost. He actually likes what he does and it keeps him occupied. I'm certainly not going to tell him that he needs to stop. His work has become a part of him, and I think that's fine.

1) Are there discernible goals societies want from individuals?
2) What are the social controls in place to make this happen?
3) Are society's goals at odds with the interests/rights of the individual? — schopenhauer1

1. Sometimes, perhaps always if one has the all-seeing eye of God.
2. Bah. Empathy, conformity, coercion, human nature, and mainly, education.
3. Yes, no, maybe.

For example:
A society after your own heart - the Shakers. A goal of the salvation of the members, and possibly of the world. And one presumes that the members share that goal, otherwise they leave. And amongst the subordinate goals, to abstain from reproduction.

Alas, a society that does not reproduce dies out; it is a biological inevitability. Alas or hurrah, I suppose according to your point of view. Anyway Shaker survives only as furniture.

Individuals are the cells of the body-politic. Don't overstrain the analogy, but in the development of the fingers of the human hand, the formation proceeds by a selective dying of the cells 'between' what will become the fingers. Is it in the interest of those cells to die? One cannot speak in these terms to say yes or no. The developing embryo is the cells, the cells are the embryo; the dying is integral with the living.

Anyway Shaker survives only as furniture. — unenlightened

Almost, but: "Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village is a Shaker village near New Gloucester and Poland, Maine, in the United States. It is the last active Shaker community, with three members as of 2017." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbathday_Lake_Shaker_Village

You can visit, and for a few dollars walk through the buildings. From time-to-time interested persons look into joining - becoming - Shakers. I've been there; it's very, very quiet. And very tempting.

As Shakers are celibate, new members cannot be born into the group and must join from the outside. — wiki

This is the significant bit from an antinatalist view. Why I picked them. It's often controversial how a society is delineated, and this has the convenience also of clear definition of membership and explicit covenanted agreement between members as to the goals and expectations of the society. Usually it's all much more vague and unspoken.

I cannot just leave work in the middle of the day and never come back. I would be AWOL and subject to arrest. Other people would lose their paychecks and means of buying food or their ability to save. If you lose your job many people wouldn't be able to afford groceries or daycare or car insurance etc. — BitconnectCarlos

It's still your choice. Yes,this is all social control. Society rewards what it wants out of the individual.

If you're at a point where you actually have that independence you need to ask yourself "what do you really want to do?" It's not always clear, and it's different for different people so I don't really prescribe. My dad is one example of that type of person - he has his own small business and he could retire and stop working but then he'd be kind of lost. He actually likes what he does and it keeps him occupied. I'm certainly not going to tell him that he needs to stop. His work has become a part of him, and I think that's fine. — BitconnectCarlos

So what are we trying to do here?

Sometimes, perhaps always if one has the all-seeing eye of God. — unenlightened

Perhaps the goals are maximize production?

Bah. Empathy, conformity, coercion, human nature, and mainly, education. — unenlightened

Yep. So with these laws, education, exemplars, etc. what is society trying to get out of the individual?

Yes, no, maybe. — unenlightened

How so yes? How so no?

The individual needs society which needs the individual. I believe that's what you're getting at. So we often talk about the free-rider using the system to their advantage without putting any input into it. Does it go the other way most of the time, where the system uses the individual? When someone is born, it is implied they will be a part of society's labor force. They will be stipulated for times to work and times to entertain themselves. They will be sanctioned as to what avenues this will be done. I'm not concerned what is lawful or unlawful, but simply that we are then pushed into markets and production based on our demands in general. This pushes us into certain ways of life. These ways of life are stipulated a certain way and organizes our life. What are we doing here then for this society? What does this society want from us? We are born, we produce to consume. Society deems this good. Why? Why more people to produce to consume? More people, more labor, more production, more consumption.

Perhaps the goals are maximize production? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Or perhaps mere survival. Or perhaps non-survival. An antinatalist society works towards it own demise, no? A worthy goal surely?

Yes. Or perhaps mere survival. Or perhaps non-survival. An antinatalist society works towards it own demise, no? A worthy goal surely? — unenlightened

Yes. No forcing of anything on anyone.

It's still your choice. Yes,this is all social control. Society rewards what it wants out of the individual.

...I guess it depends how you define social control. If someone provides a service for a paycheck and that paycheck allows the one who provides the service to put food on the table and a roof over his head then I'd be more inclined to call that providing basic necessities. If you want to call it social control fine, but then I guess everything is social control.

So what are we trying to do here?

Could you clarify what you're asking?

In general, in any society (so this cannot be specific to a particular country, region, but human societies as a whole), can we distill ultimate "ends" that societies set-up? So basically I'm asking:

1) Are there discernible goals societies want from individuals?
2) What are the social controls in place to make this happen?
3) Are society's goals at odds with the interests/rights of the individual?

This last question obviously has a lot to do with antinatalism. If parent's unwittingly (by their supposed "own" desires) want children, those children will become public entities (they will be used by the community as laborers at the least). Any general thoughts on these ideas and questions? — schopenhauer1

Public education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose of the education is the wish. The students are the genii.

"If we reflect on the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct." William James

In the US in 1958 those who control education changed and they changed the purpose of education, with huge social, economic, and political ramifications.

Yes. No forcing of anything on anyone. — schopenhauer1

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Tocqueville "Democracy in America"

Could you clarify what you're asking? — BitconnectCarlos

Our own needs and wants creates demands of others, and vice versa. Social controls direct this need for survival into a socially defined way.

I was just answering another poster that we are not forcing others into these needs and wants nor the being forced into the survival social control game to begin with if we do not procreate (antinatalist argument). That's one of many benefits of not creating a new person. Of course the prevention of general suffering is the big idea here. This is just one more benefit- not forcing others into the goals of society.

Anyways, the question was, what is society trying to do here? Our goal as a society is to increase production and consumption. Thus, when we are born into the world, we are not just here to "pursue happiness" or any other self-interested act really. As far as the public is concerned, it is how much production and consumption we can provide. Not having children will prevent them from contributing to this goal of being laborers and consumers.

In the US in 1958 those who control education changed and they changed the purpose of education, with huge social, economic, and political ramifications. — Athena

Are you talking about US government's programs to increase programs in math and science?

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Tocqueville "Democracy in America" — Athena

So what is this referencing?

Another example of what I'm saying is looking at reporting on economic activity. To the public- businesses, managers, customers, researchers, reporters, etc. we are all just points of labor or consumption or labor or consumption statistics. Perhaps the ruse is that private life is nothing more but about distractions and blowing off steam in the confines of more labor and consumption in order to enter back into the fray of the labor market.

Your doing crossword puzzles, reading that novel, taking that vacation, going to bars and restaurants, going to that concert, travelling the world are all just ways to distract and blow of steam (and are just elaborate forms of consumption) so that you can go back to thinking about your daily consumption for living and laboring. If this is what we are once born into a society, why not just bypass making new units of labor and consumption and people who have to blow off steam to go back to labor and consumption?

And this goes back to the idea of the absurd. We are here to produce, consume, blow off steam (which amounts to more production and consumption), and repeat. I'm not saying there is a better way than what we have. I'm just saying it is an absurd repetition that is kept perpetuated over and over. We produce and consume and produce and consume so we can produce and consume.. What's the point? Why are we trying to make new people, shape them into more consumption and production? Besides the fact that this is using people, it is silly. Those that don't mind using people, might say that people's efforts towards consumption and production brings technology. And then I would just say, what's the point of science and technology in and of itself? Because you like reading about it and discussing it on a forum? It "benefits man" is only relative as the more technology we have, the more ways we find to produce and consume it, thus simply reiterating the cycle.

production and consumption) — schopenhauer1

We eat, we shit. Our food grows in the shit.

thus simply reiterating the cycle. — schopenhauer1

What's the point, what's the goal?

Why do you think there ought to be a goal? We have established what your personal goal is, and that you would like the rest of life to adopt the same goal, but it looks to me that life in general has no goal, any more than the moon has a goal. A lot of humans like to set goals and achieve them and then set more goals... if you are dissatisfied with the goals you have set yourself, you can abandon them and choose a new goal or no goal. A plant grows towards the light, but it does not have the light as a goal. It produces flower and seed in season, but does not have a goal to reproduce, it does not complain if it doesn't.

The moon is absurd, going round and round like that and never getting anywhere. This is the absurdity of absurdity.

Why do you think there ought to be a goal? We have established what your personal goal is, and that you would like the rest of life to adopt the same goal, but it looks to me that life in general has no goal, any more than the moon has a goal. A lot of humans like to set goals and achieve them and then set more goals... if you are dissatisfied with the goals you have set yourself, you can abandon them and choose a new goal or no goal. A plant grows towards the light, but it does not have the light as a goal. It produces flower and seed in season, but does not have a goal to reproduce, it does not complain if it doesn't. — unenlightened

Ah, but you are inadvertently hitting on my point! Humans, unlike other animals, and the rest of nature have goals, but as you state, they are arbitrary as to what goal, when, or even if to have goals. However, despite this humans do have goals. Specifically, they have goals as a society to produce and consume. Thus, despite the fact that really there doesn't need to be social goals, we do in fact "sleepwalk" into the goals that are already in place and implemented- that of producing and consuming. You may not have any particular "personal goals", but certainly the goals of daily life are following the dictates of the social goals of production and consumption. And certainly you betray the fact that when parents have children, that is a goal of some sort. To raise the child. Public necessity takes this child and enculturates in the laborers and consumers they need to be.

The moon is absurd, going round and round like that and never getting anywhere. This is the absurdity of absurdity. — unenlightened

Yes, where the moon can't help but absurdly go round and round, we can!

Are you talking about US government's programs to increase programs in math and science? — schopenhauer1

:lol: That is a rather limited understanding of what happened, and I would not include science in that statement. Education for technology and leaving moral training to the church did not advance our appreciation of science, but advanced reliance of "experts".

You might have noticed the US has a president who denies science and ignores actions that are determined necessary by science, and that is he is very popular. The US has always put religion above science but I think we were better prepared for science in the past. Appreciating science goes with education for good moral judgment and democracy. The Texas Republican party in 2012 opposed the necessary education for promoting science throughout the citizenry.

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Tocqueville "Democracy in America"

So what is this referencing? — schopenhauer1

Your statement...

Yes. No forcing of anything on anyone. — schopenhauer1

That is not the point of the quote. The bottom line is the point.

"For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

Because I understand that question, I have no desire for heaven. We do not like everything that happens in life, but if life were not challenging, no one would want to play the game. :grin:

What's the point, what's the goal?

Why do you think there ought to be a goal? We have established what your personal goal is, and that you would like the rest of life to adopt the same goal, but it looks to me that life in general has no goal, any more than the moon has a goal. A lot of humans like to set goals and achieve them and then set more goals... if you are dissatisfied with the goals you have set yourself, you can abandon them and choose a new goal or no goal. A plant grows towards the light, but it does not have the light as a goal. It produces flower and seed in season, but does not have a goal to reproduce, it does not complain if it doesn't.

The moon is absurd, going round and round like that and never getting anywhere. This is the absurdity of absurdity. — unenlightened

Humans always have goals. They don't always share the same goal. However, when we were defending democracy in the classroom, the citizenry of the US was much closer to sharing the same goal. Education for a technological society with unknown values has pretty well destroyed that.

Education for a technological society with unknown values and the bureaucratic technology that goes with it, manifest of the despot Tocqueville warned us about. Our present economic crisis may sink this technological ship and leave us all in small lifeboats without the despot over us?

PS humans do not have the intellect of plants. They have the potential to be like a colony of ants, but education for independent thinking leads a reality that is not like a colony of ants. Education for "Groupthink" and our present bureautic technology, instead of education for independent thinking and the bureaucratic we had, can make a mass of humans more like an ant colony.

Humans always have goals. — Athena

That actually makes no sense. I don't eat to attain the goal of satiation. 'Often' I can accept, but not 'always'. I am not always future oriented, which is when goals have to be achieved if they are achieved. Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me.

Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me. — unenlightened

Honestly, those are rare moments. You can pretend to sit like a Buddha, but you're gonna get up for that bag of chips. And no- I betcha can't eat just one. :lol:

Life itself forces us to have demands on others and them on us. This forces us have to consume and produce. What's the point of putting anyone in this absurd situation? Any reason you give would be looking passed the person you are affecting... if you say to continue the concept of democracy, technology, morality, or any X thing, you have bypassed any good reason to have that particular person. You are using the new person born for some cause. You are also being an unwitting agent of society's goals to make more producers and consumers.. Why be a part of this?

you're gonna get up for that bag of chips — schopenhauer1

I am reasonably considerate and polite most of the time, but there's no way I'll get up for a bag of chips.

but you have fallen, as people often do, into a little circle of your own, along these lines:

All human action is motivated.
All motives are goals.
Humans are always active.
Humans always have goals.

Utterly reasonable nonsense that comes from the philosopher-child's constant demand for reasons.

"Why do you eat chips Mummy?"
" Well dear, it's so I get fat and ugly, and Daddy doesn't make me have more irritating children like you."

The sad truth is that Mummy doesn't want to get fat at all, she just likes eating chips and has no goal, she's not even hungry.

Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me. — unenlightened

I couldn't help but comment here. There is so much significance in this statement and yet it is so often overlooked and misinterpreted. And for good reasons as well.

It is for most people absolutely counter-intuitive to think that they can live without "goals". For most people, life is a means to an end. We get so caught in this pattern and why wouldn't we. We are born into a society and are expected to be a part of the circus or get ousted. Couldn't help but quote William Berrett from Irrational Man:

"Man's feeling of homelessness, of alienation has been intensified in the midst of a bureaucratized, impersonal mass society. He has come to feel himself an outsider even within his own human society. He is terribly alienated: a stranger to God, to nature, and to the gigantic social apparatus that supplies his material wants.But the worst and final form of alienation, toward which indeed the others tend, is man's alienation from his own self. In a society that requires of man only that he perform competently his own particular social function, man becomes identified with this function, and the rest of his being is allowed to subsist as best it can - usually to be dropped below the surface of consciousness and forgotten."

All human action is motivated.
All motives are goals.
Humans are always active.
Humans always have goals.

Utterly reasonable nonsense that comes from the philosopher-child's constant demand for reasons.

"Why do you eat chips Mummy?"
" Well dear, it's so I get fat and ugly, and Daddy doesn't make me have more irritating children like you."

The sad truth is that Mummy doesn't want to get fat at all, she just likes eating chips and has no goal, she's not even hungry. — unenlightened

I'm not trying to say I agree with the premise all motives are goals. In this case it is boredom eating. That is a reason in itself- boredom. You were perhaps responding to Athena's argument.

Anyways, my point was the dissatisfaction that occurs at almost all times. You mentioned that your mere presence suffices. My counter-argument was that if that's the case you wouldn't "want" for anything. You wouldn't be bored, you wouldn't plan anything, you wouldn't need anything. But of course, that's almost never the case. That isn't to say that on very few occasions we can't just sit there and "be" without needing anything, but I was saying that it is rarer than what you seemed to imply in your post.

Anyways, the question was, what is society trying to do here? Our goal as a society is to increase production and consumption. Thus, when we are born into the world, we are not just here to "pursue happiness" or any other self-interested act really. As far as the public is concerned, it is how much production and consumption we can provide. Not having children will prevent them from contributing to this goal of being laborers and consumers.

Maybe if you asked a businessman that would be what he says is the goal of society. If you asked a pastor or some other religious leader he'd probably give a different answer if you asked him about our social goals. If you asked a therapist or mental health expert he'd probably frame the issue in his own way.

Yes, if you have children they'll be subject to people's expectations.

Maybe if you asked a businessman that would be what he says is the goal of society. If you asked a pastor or some other religious leader he'd probably give a different answer if you asked him about our social goals. If you asked a therapist or mental health expert he'd probably frame the issue in his own way.

Yes, if you have children they'll be subject to people's expectations. — BitconnectCarlos

So part of my premise is occupations like pastors and therapists are Western society's way of making people feel well-adjusted (or feel meaning enough) to keep producing and consuming. It doesn't matter if the way to get there is through making people feel that it is self-oriented, the outcome is the same. Better consumers and producers. Same with the goals of education of course (not to say that is always achieved.. thinking of failed schools).

"Man's feeling of homelessness, of alienation has been intensified in the midst of a bureaucratized, impersonal mass society. He has come to feel himself an outsider even within his own human society. He is terribly alienated: a stranger to God, to nature, and to the gigantic social apparatus that supplies his material wants.But the worst and final form of alienation, toward which indeed the others tend, is man's alienation from his own self. In a society that requires of man only that he perform competently his own particular social function, man becomes identified with this function, and the rest of his being is allowed to subsist as best it can - usually to be dropped below the surface of consciousness and forgotten." — Zeus

Good quote, Zeus. The only addendum here I have to add is this quote implies that there is some solution or salvation to be had. "If only we designed society like X, we can get out of this". Of course, my position is it is the very nature of being a living human that will necessarily be dissatisfied. However, that quote is still valuable and true, it's just that the caveat is that human nature will be dissatisfied in any system. The system itself will inevitably use humans because our dissatisfaction brings about the demands of others, and we will once again bring about functional roles which will become the goals of the society to maintain and perpetuate in habits and in producing more people to enact these habits.