"Even Marx fetishizes it but says work is a "good" in itself as long as one is doing it as sort of a hobby. But I think any activity is not self-justified "goods" that are just "there" in existence necessarily".

This is sort of what I was getting at. I agree with Marx but it's nice to see a refreshing perspective!

As an aside: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/383 :lol:

'Minutia-mongering' is good. In this economy, we are machine-parts, some more than others. I like the way you follow the for-the-sake-of's around in your post. To see the vast machine from the outside despite actually being trapped within...that's a piece of transcendence. It's our glory and our torment. I don't the other animals have that kind of experience (which is why it's still a little strange to call humans animals, even if it's biologically useful.)

YES to this. The character of Lucifer is a good one here. I rather like the the Gnostic concept of reversing this. The NAYsayer of life is the hero. — schopenhauer1

I connect the nay-sayer (our dear 'negative creep') to the skeptic as Stirner & Kojeve describe him. The stoic, who as his charms, is more of an optimist. Both are terribly proud, but the skeptic is really not sure if the game is worth the candle. Maybe the luckiest are the neverborn. Even Socrates implies that life is a disease, when he's about to be cured of it.

There's a default prudent optimism which politicians must echo and which politeness dictates when dealing with strangers. 'Herd animals' gets it right, and I say this as someone who is largely another herd animal. We know that we will die, but we take precautions, let risky opportunities pass. Even monogamy may be a manifestation of sloth and fear (and not only of love.) We like TV shows where people risk their lives for honor, or trade a mediocre future for a intense moment. But politicians and schoolmarms and university administrators have to spurt out the same sentimental inanities. It's literally their job...to tell a partial truth, that we all agree to pretend to take seriously in public. It's not all bad, and ultimately it's virtuous to keep strangers out of our own risks and ecstasies. Ordinary life is the boring background that we all need a private sinners for our adventures to be adventurous. Hard drugs, sexual excess...these do often manifest in crimes that we'd hate our families to be the victims of.
The no-sayer, the skeptic who isn't sure about life, is scary because he claims to not be tethered to what keeps us all in line, fear of death and its primary agent, thiswordly diminishment (being cancelled, poverty, prison,...)

What an insane world. Have you ever read Peter Zapffe? He talks about how we have an "over abundance of consciousness" that provides us more evaluative reflective capacities than is needed for an animal to survive. This meta-evaluation gives us that much more to grapple with. We don't just "do". We don't just go from garbage can to garbage can looking for food, and finding shade under a tree like a racoon. We KNOW we are doing something and can say, "Ah shit, not this X task again...". Why!? — schopenhauer1

I've read some Zapffe. Good stuff, part of the truth-telling tradition. I'm guessing you have Schopenhauer's Essays and Aphorisms. I love the end of 'On philosophy and the intellect.'
He talks of a crown of thorns blossoming into a laurel-wreath. He talks of an insect laying its eggs so that it can die in peace. Btw, isn't God on the cross a supremely pessimistic image? The fucking divine itself is crucified, shamefully executed, naked to the storm. Our luciferian pride reveals the cross. If we were just scavenging raccoons, we might suffer but the pain wouldn't be spiritual. 'Only the damned are grand.' It's grasping the absurdity of existence that paradoxically almost sanctifies it.

We live in the belly of the empire and most of us haven't experienced war. But I think of Xerxes, etc., and of all the drama of conquest, the violent risk of life. There is a submerged part of our nature that hates the routine, hates swallowing pride. Peace has been described as rotten and decadent. Even in time of peace, men have fought duels. In Hegel/Kojeve the 'master' is only a master because he proves his freedom from the slavish attachment to life. In WWII, there were men who couldn't enlist for health reasons and killed themselves out of shame and envy. We're not in a moment where talking about this kind of toxic masculinity is going to win you a cubicle.

True.. but how can this topic be elevated from these practical reasons to be seen as actually a political choice? By having the child, you are promoting the fact that someone else needs to experience life, and that they should engage with the soci-economic-cultural superstructure. This idea though seems so remote to certain mindsets. Why do you suppose some people cannot think in these more abstract terms? I guess socio-economic status and environment have a lot to do with it. If one isn't exposed to philosophical thinking, one doesn't engage with it naturally.. — schopenhauer1

Well, it suffices to be a barren young married woman or an aging spinster, and one is thrown into the matter at the deep end.

What interests me too is molding this social mindset in becoming a compliant worker for an entity. We can't but NOT do this if we need to survive as we humans do (by social effort), yet just as the OP states, here we are KNOWING and EVALUATING dislike for this effort WHILE we do it. What an insane world. Have you ever read Peter Zapffe? He talks about how we have an "over abundance of consciousness" that provides us more evaluative reflective capacities than is needed for an animal to survive. This meta-evaluation gives us that much more to grapple with. We don't just "do". We don't just go from garbage can to garbage can looking for food, and finding shade under a tree like a racoon. We KNOW we are doing something and can say, "Ah shit, not this X task again...". Why!?

The Early Buddhists would probably reply to this that human life is a "mixed bag".

Yes, it is the forgetting that is the mystery here. What does one do once it is exposed? I am advocating for communities of catharsis, of commiseration.. What does it mean for the superstructure itself? Of work? Of needing to survive? Of still having to live life knowing these ideas? — schopenhauer1

(This is also in reply to several other questions and points by you:)
The matter appears to be so complex that only a massive and complex superstructure on the level of religion can handle it. Such as, for example, Buddhism in traditionally Buddhist countries. There, there exists a socially accepted (and even respected!) option of ordaining as a monk (or, to a lesser extent, nun) and exiting the usual business of life.

But without such a massive and complex superstructure, AN seems to be doomed to failure.

What if this is the mistake, thinking that ad populum/ad baculum is "just political"?
— baker

Can you explain? I just mean that people think because the majority thinks it, it must be the right course of action. The political consequence is that the YAYs win out by default by voting with their procreation.

It's something I've been wondering about for a while. I think philosophy is a kind of la-la land, advocating for principles of reasoning that usually just don't work IRL with real people. In general, people don't give a rat's ass about "critical thinking". The argument from power is the strongest one.

I'd like to believe this isn't the final word on this, but I'm afraid it is.

Very good insights here. Do people who believe in the Protestant Work Ethic, really sustain this thinking throughout their work life? At no point does the good Protestant worker go, "God I really don't care today to do this"? — schopenhauer1

People who grew up with the PWE probably also have a deeply ingrained contempt for idleness and failure. So I don't think they are likely to engage in thoughts of idleness or the justification of it.

Also can one be in what is considered really "necessary" line of industry (a doctor for example) and still find it to be unfulfilling to do the work?

The idea that work should be "fulfilling" seems to be rather new, a relatively modern invention.
I gather that in earlier times, people didn't look to work as something "fulfilling" or "unfulfilling".

Is the Prot. Work Ethic just a way to get certain people to not think about the existence itself?

That's a good one! As far as the religious component goes, I'm not so sure. This:

In the good old days, religion provided an anodyne for this discomfort. It provided meaning for people's lives. — Bitter Crank

I don't believe this, not at all, at least not as far as the ordinary, illiterate masses are concerned. For the ordinary person, religion/religiosity is an externally imposed chore, a ritual, a keeping up of appearances, not something they would actually take to heart or with the help of which they would make sense of the world.

Zapffe observed that all humans have the ability to access the truth that we don't need to do anything at all, that we know our existential dilemma.. — schopenhauer1

It is also true that we cannot not do something. One way or another, as long as one lives, one will do something, even if it means rocking back and forth in a chair.

The question isn't whether to do or not to do, it's what to do and what not to do.

isn't the PWE just another trope to get people to limit their thoughts. to anchor them so that they don't run into an existential meltdown?

Sure, it can be a useful heuristic, provided one has internalized it early enough in life.

Well, it suffices to be a barren young married woman or an aging spinster, and one is thrown into the matter at the deep end. — baker

Is that really a consideration in non-traditional societies? Yeah there is pressure from parents maybe to be grandparents, but is that such a strong incentive for most people?

It is also true that we cannot not do something. One way or another, as long as one lives, one will do something, even if it means rocking back and forth in a chair.

The question isn't whether to do or not to do, it's what to do and what not to do. — baker

As Ligotti wrote over and over.. Nowhere to go, nothing to do, nothing to be, no one to know one to know (or something like that). Yet, we do need this as you explain. As Schopenhauer pointed out, if life was fully positive, we would not want for anything. We would just "be" and there would be no lack. The main point though is that we are an animal like all others, yet we KNOW what we are doing AS we are doing it. It is an odd paradox. To KNOW one can dislike the very tasks necessary to survive. So then the burden of justification is needed.

@Bitter Crank I'm wondering what you think Schopenhauer would say to Marx. What do you think Schopenhauer's critique would be of Marx's whole enterprise?

@norm@Albero@baker@Bitter Crank@180 Proof

So another big point here is that bringing a child into the world isn't "just" this...bringing an individual into the world. Rather, it is perpetuating the ideology of the superstructure and reinforcing that superstructure. So I can't emphasize enough this becomes a political issue due to this broader societal nature of procreation. It isn't just, "A child is born". It is also, "And the institutions, values, and ways of life of the society shall be enacted and reinforced again and again with each new child". Our mode of production/consumption/trade/survival/comfort-seeking/entertainment is all wrapped up in the socio-economic-cultural superstructure. Birth is a clear YAY in its perpetuation.

However, who says that this should be perpetuated? As I stated in point 2 in the OP, our animal species can KNOW what we are doing as we are doing it. Any given task can be evaluated as non-preferable. So here we are perpetuating/replicating a way of life unto yet another person who can yet again, evaluate negatively any given task mandated (by de facto needs of living) by the socio-economic-cultural superstructure.

If we lived perhaps like other animals, this doesn't become as much an issue, and certainly not a political one. Rather, if I was another mammal of sorts.. I may prefer to eat rabbits instead of mice.. I might prefer to be in the sun at a particular moment and then in the shade. However, I cannot evaluate the very acts of my mode of living (e.g Aww.. shit, not THIS again!).

So combining this all together, by perpetuating more people (aka procreation) it is de facto akin to saying: The needs of perpetuating the superstructure are more important than any negative evaluations that can be had of any given task or aspect of said superstructure. Why should the superstructure take precedence over the negative evaluations of it in particular aspects or as a whole? This then further becomes a debate between those who want to perpetuate the ways of life of a given superstructure (any superstructure, not a particular one- it doesn't matter what the setup is) and those who do not.

ok thanks for laying it all out like this it’s more clear what you’re asking, but I’m still a little bit confused. Are you asking why should any mode of production/survival/trade etc be perpetuated or are you asking why should the current one be perpetuated? As I said I’m not a fan of the current political structure, so I’m definitely not going to put any people into this one period.

Are you asking why should any mode of production/survival/trade etc be perpetuated or are you asking why should the current one be perpetuated? — Albero

Good question. I mean any mode over and above any individual's negative evaluation of any given superstructure they (must) find themselves in.

So another big point here is that bringing a child into the world isn't "just" this...bringing an individual into the world. Rather, it is perpetuating the ideology of the superstructure and reinforcing that superstructure. So I can't emphasize enough this becomes a political issue due to this broader societal nature of procreation. It isn't just, "A child is born". It is also, "And the institutions, values, and ways of life of the society shall be enacted and reinforced again and again with each new child". Our mode of production/consumption/trade/survival/comfort-seeking/entertainment is all wrapped up in the socio-economic-cultural superstructure. Birth is a clear YAY in its perpetuation. — schopenhauer1

It's no so indiscriminate, though.

An upper class pronatalist surely isn't glad if a lower class woman gives birth. And vice versa.
White pronatalists aren't happy about black people having children. And vice versa.
And so on.

And further, it's not like pronatalists typically want to have as many children as physiologically possible. It seems they typically want to have a set number of children.

How do you account for that? You said, "And the institutions, values, and ways of life of the society shall be enacted and reinforced again and again with each new child". But given the above considerations, this holds only in the sense that there are many superstructures, some of them opposite to eachother.
So that, for example, the white supremacist pronatalist supports one superstructure, while the black supremacist pronatalist supports another one, and the two are in conflict, each wanting to eradicate the other.

The closest comparison is tribal competition and warfare.

So combining this all together, by perpetuating more people (aka procreation) it is de facto akin to saying: The needs of perpetuating the superstructure are more important than any negative evaluations that can be had of any given task or aspect of said superstructure.

Or maybe Plato was right and it's all about ideas.

As Ligotti wrote over and over.. Nowhere to go, nothing to do, nothing to be, no one to know one to know (or something like that). Yet, we do need this as you explain. As Schopenhauer pointed out, if life was fully positive, we would not want for anything. We would just "be" and there would be no lack. The main point though is that we are an animal like all others, yet we KNOW what we are doing AS we are doing it. It is an odd paradox. To KNOW one can dislike the very tasks necessary to survive. So then the burden of justification is needed. — schopenhauer1

I don't make a point of thinking of humans as animals, so this doesn't touch me they way it apparently touches you.

I don't make a point of thinking of humans as animals, so this doesn't touch me they way it apparently touches you. — baker

But this is the most important point and informs the other objections you were raising. So it isn't a particular but any society that is being perpetuated by procreation. However, we can evaluate and assign negative value to things. At each decision, we have to put a justification for why we do or don't do anything. It's usually for reportedly "practical" reasons, but even those are justifications. Other animals do not need that. They just "live". I recognize they have preferences perhaps, but they don't need justifications. That is important. At any moment, we can negatively value doing any task of the superstructure (work, chore, task, etc.). Yet this doesn't matter to procreation sympathizers (or agnostics). Apparently, perpetuating the structure is deemed more important than any individual potentially having negative evaluations of the very structures needed to survive.

Well, ok. I choose(?) 'perpetuating the superstructure" – the human species – over "negative evaluations" ... So what? Or the reverse. Again, so what? Neither way changes anything. I've not procreated; but so what? ... since the vast majority have and still do and will continue to procreate, all things being equal, for the foreseeable future.

I agree that it is political, but you are adding/interpreting such implications. I agree that in fact we perpetuate everything by continuing to breed, but we do so mostly blindly.

Well, ok. I choose(?) 'perpetuating the superstructure" – the human species – over "negative evaluations" ... So what? Or the reverse. Again, so what? Neither way changes anything. I've not procreated; but so what? ... since the vast majority have and still do and will continue to procreate, all things being equal, for the foreseeable future. — 180 Proof

So they put the continuance of the superstructure over individuals that will engage (possibly negatively) with this superstructure.

I agree that it is political, but you are adding/interpreting such implications. I agree that in fact we perpetuate everything by continuing to breed, but we do so mostly blindly. — norm

We can evaluate negatively the very means of survival AS we are doing it. That is insane as far as keeping this whole thing going. Humans need a justification for any action.

I agree that we've culturally evolved a notion of ethical rationality, related to something like a universal secular humanism. So one ought to have justification. I've long thought that life is fundamentally immoral. Nature is a box of monsters eating one another. Human beings marry and breed before they even know what life is. It's only when one gets old and disillusioned that one realizes the sin.

It also makes sense that anti-natalist ideology will be bred out. Didn't the Quakers eschew reproduction? As much as I sympathize, I don't think AN has legs politically. It's not a live option. If Bernie couldn't win, ....

I’ve always thought this was an interesting way of analyzing our moral intuitions. Ultimately morality is a human construction, and yet existence itself is far from moral depending on where you lean. Think of all the animals getting ripped to shreds out in the jungle or even in your own backyard. This is one reason why I’ve accepted an anti-realist position-existence itself is incompatible with the intuitions I grew up with

I suppose Nietzsche was a big influence on me. But another more banal influence is all the causes that cry out for attention. Factory farming is bad. Plastic is bad. Driving is bad (fossil fuels.) And so on. The 'pure' option is to just not exist at all, because we breath oxygen that someone else might need. But all this 'X is bad' stuff is itself caught up in powerplays that assert moral superiority! I don't deny some genuine empathy, but everything is mixed. But hey! Even non-existence is a sin, because one is not here to help others. It's selfish, this quest to be blameless. (The gods laugh, since there's nothing funnier than neurosis.) (I don't really believe in the gods, but I like the phrase 'the gods.')

EDIT
More to the point, you can maybe see historically 'the tribe' being slowly expanded to include all humanity (and perhaps eventually aliens.) Perhaps none of us live up to this ideal, but the ideal is prominent, I think.

I agree that we've culturally evolved a notion of ethical rationality, related to something like a universal secular humanism. So one ought to have justification. I've long thought that life is fundamentally immoral. Nature is a box of monsters eating one another. Human beings marry and breed before they even know what life is. It's only when one gets old and disillusioned that one realizes the sin. — norm

But specifically here, I'm talking about the justification related to the superstructure. Let's break it down to a very discrete important part of it.. Work. Every day you decide to work, you have either an explicit or implicit justification for why you do so. You can do otherwise, but the other options are pretty dismal, so you go with the least bad option based on your calculation. If you don't like any given task at work, the people you have to interact with, etc. etc. that doesn't matter. You were born, now you have to "deal" with it. Again, we are the only animal that can evaluate what we are doing as we are doing it. We can say about work- an institution needed for survival "Aww shit.. I don't want to do this right now". Other animals have no capacity for this kind of negative evaluation. So when we put more people into the world, we are putting more people into institutions (like work), and we are not just automatically, Zen-like going through the motions, but are justifying and keeping ourselves "motivated" to keep doing what we do. And to say, "Well, one can find different work" is the wrong sentiment as it is the institution of "work" itself that is unavoidable without other consequences. But apparently, for most people, putting more people into the world as laborers (even if there are choices in what "labor" to do) is something that is considered good, appropriate, or right to bestow on another person. That person's negative evaluations of any given experience with the superstructure (such as institutions like work), are not taken as enough consideration to prevent putting more people into the world who must then deal with it.

But apparently, for most people, putting more people into the world as laborers (even if there are choices in what "labor" to do) is something that is considered good, appropriate, or right to bestow on another person. — schopenhauer1

I agree with you completely up to this. I think we have to distinguish between the safe & sentimental public discourse and the stuff one confesses to friends. 'Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone.' Mostly we are just too greedily immersed in our own problems and opportunities to give strangers anything but platitudes. Or, since suicide is off the table for most people, we sincerely give the best non-suicide advice we can. 'Look on the bright side' is all we have. 'Try this' is all we have. I once told a good friend that I might end things and he didn't try to stop me. He respected my decision. In retrospect, I'm not so happy with that, but only because I was too young for such considerations, and because I had a woman who would have been devastated. (That's a big reason we all stick around. We're entangled.)

I agree with you completely up to this. — norm

What exactly do you disagree with? Do you think it wrong to question putting more laborers with negative evaluations of the laboring into the world?

I'm saying that I don't think that most people simply think it's good and appropriate. I suspect that some people look at other people and think 'God, I hope they don't breed.' There's a lot of hatred for people in people. Also one hears talk of overpopulation, rational or not. What do you expect people to say to some pair of acquaintances with a new baby? 'Why'd you do that?' It's largely fearful prudence that keeps people within social conventions. What kind of maniac actually tells the truth in public?

I don't make a point of thinking of humans as animals, so this doesn't touch me they way it apparently touches you.
— baker

But this is the most important point and informs the other objections you were raising. So it isn't a particular but any society that is being perpetuated by procreation. However, we can evaluate and assign negative value to things. At each decision, we have to put a justification for why we do or don't do anything. It's usually for reportedly "practical" reasons, but even those are justifications. Other animals do not need that. They just "live". I recognize they have preferences perhaps, but they don't need justifications. That is important. At any moment, we can negatively value doing any task of the superstructure (work, chore, task, etc.). — schopenhauer1

I think this awareness and ambivalence are inherently human.

Yet this doesn't matter to procreation sympathizers (or agnostics).

Not sure what you mean here. Do you envy them their "animalistic", thoughtless, going-through-the-motions way of life?

Apparently, perpetuating the structure is deemed more important than any individual potentially having negative evaluations of the very structures needed to survive.

Are you sure they put that much of this kind of thought into their acts of procreation? Or did they "just do it"?

Are you sure they put that much of this kind of thought into their acts of procreation? Or did they "just do it"? — baker

I guess just focusing on non-accidental birth. Let me then break it down to real basic elements then. Birth means creating more laborers. Is it ethical to create more people who labor? Now combine this with my comments on negative evaluations of that very labor.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't see how any argument could change the way both proactive and defensive pronatalists view procreation favorably.
It's not like we could come up with an nifty antinatalist syllogism, and then, boom, people change and stop making new babies.

And my question still stands:

Do you envy them their "animalistic", thoughtless, going-through-the-motions way of life? — baker

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't see how any argument could change the way both proactive and defensive pronatalists view procreation favorably. — baker

Well the argument and the efficacy of people changing their practices after hearing those arguments are two different things. I agree, just hearing a good argument won't change much for people.

It's not like we could come up with an nifty antinatalist syllogism, and then, boom, people change and stop making new babies. — baker

Granted. But to be fair, have people ever really been presented with antinatalist arguments? Only people on philosophy forums and niche groups probably. So it really hasn't been tested either.

There's a weird thing where not only does the argument have to be good, but the presentation of the argument must be convincing to really make people do something from it. It is a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos.

I wasn't quite sure what the question was pertaining to. Are you asking if I envy animals their thoughtless way of life, or people who don't think about procreation in political terms (e.g. creating more laborers who can evaluate their laboring as negative)?

If the latter, I don't envy them. Rather, I think it as thoughtless actions that create negative consequences for other people. It is bypassing our capacity to examine what is going on and assumes that automatically creating new people is a good thing for that person. It is not sufficiently seeing how we are manipulated by our very animal nature of needing to survive, and specifically the human animal's way of survival through the superstructure and our ability to negatively evaluate any task required of that superstructure. And I'm not even making the AN arguments that are more readily apparent like physical illness, pandemics, disease, disaster and the like.

This is more refined in that it is less obvious. It is about our very ability to understand what we are doing as we are doing it, and seeing it as negative, but still knowing we have to do it to survive.