Why seek to move the immovable with this thread then? — Hanover

Because in the end, my stance doesn't promote and condone no opt out situations.. See this very thread for anticipated response (aka happy slave response..) The dialectic has played out a bit, you just have to read otherwise repeat my already answered responses to typical type of objections that have already been addressed. You know I've heard 'em before.

As noted above, some people do believe, by default, that life is a blessing and worth living. Such people cannot relate to your concern. — baker

They can't relate to my concern, but perhaps to the injustice of a no opt out game.. The harm one subjectively feels is precisely what I am saying is not relevant. Rather, the injustice of the no opt out game, is all that matters. Here is a no opt out game.. like it OR NOT. You like X (sunsets, walks on the beach, reading philosophy), thus Jimmy should work (political agenda enacted on others).

So he must be he and I must be me? Why seek to move the immovable with this thread then? — Hanover

Is it immovable?

Are you slothful by nature, but have managed to overcome your sloth philosophically?

I'm anti-labor (servile drudgery) because I'm pro-work (applied creativity). We thrive from the latter and merely survive by the former. Homeostasis, more more than class, is the "forced choice". A socioeconomy which consists of only labor for the vast majority of people and work for relatively few (e.g. Capitalism in all of its stages) is structurally exploitative (reductively brutalizing) and unjust (totalitarian). This is a historical / political condition, however, not an ineluctable existential fact. — 180 Proof

:fire:

$Bare Necessities \rightarrow [...] \rightarrow Self \mbox{-} actualization \rightarrow Transcendence$

Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs

They can't relate to my concern, but perhaps to the injustice of a no opt out game.. — schopenhauer1

I suspect they would relate to that injustice only if they would be on the losing end of the no opt out game.

Because generally, many people are perfectly fine with unjust, uneven, unequal arrangements -- as long as they are not on the losing end, or at least far enough from it.

As long as a man has a wife and children to beat, or at least a dog to kick, he can find ways to be okay with being bullied by his boss.

Moreover, many people perfer to arrange their relationships with other people in a way that is unjust, uneven, unequal to others, but beneficial to themselves. Many people don't mind having slaves (and would probably prefer to have slaves).

So, it doesn't look like there are many people who can relate to your concern.

Bare Necessities → [...]→ Self−actualization → Transcendence

Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs — TheMadFool

Well, I'm an immanentist (re: Spinoza, Zapffe, Camus, Rosset ... ) :death: :flower:

Well, I'm an immanentist (re: Spinoza, Zapffe, Camus, Rosset ... ) :death: :flower: — 180 Proof

:up: This reminds me of a frequently asked question regarding the US space program: Why put so much into space exploration when all that money could be used to solve more earthly, more presssing, problems?

Neil deGrasse Tyson's response (paraphrasing): We spend more money on lip balm than we do on NASA.

$anti \mbox{-} work$

So the answer to all these for you is no bringing kids in life?
Anyway we have discussed about antinatalism already at another thread and we agreed that we disagree.

I disagree with this premise:

you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. — schopenhauer1

You paint all these things to look like dire consequences when not all of them are. I think everyone would agree that starvation is a bad thing, but is it obvious that homelessness is? Some ppl actually choose homelessness, I think, as a solution to the forced game of life you speak of. Have you ever been homeless? I haven’t, but I’ve considered the possibility, and it’s certainly scary to anyone who has never experienced it.

We grow up well-fed, decently clothed, warm and dry in our cozy homes. We watch daddy go off to work, and on our way to school look out the window of the car or school bus and see ppl on the street in shabby clothes, unkempt, with long disheveled hair and beards, pushing along a cart full of their possessions, and we are fascinated by them—till daddy tells us they are “homeless ppl” that are down on their luck or just plain sorry and miserable.

It’s funny: we watch ppl on tv willingly take only a knife and fire-starter kit and go live for a few weeks in some god-forsaken region of the earth, eating bugs (and being eaten by them!) and worms and killing small animals to stay alive, and we identify with them. Then we see a homeless person on the street, and he is the most alien thing human to us.

I think it would be good if the government would require—not like in Israel, that every man serve in the military for a year—but that everyone spend at least a month being homeless and on the street. Maybe we would discover that it is not as terrible as we were brought up to believe. Maybe we would find something better in it than the comfortable life that was the only one we knew. At least we would have a taste of what we only knew before, as outsiders, as a terrible thing.

However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. — schopenhauer1

I think this says it all. We don't enter it, we're in it from the get go.
Life is about economics; which means management and distribution of resources (abstract and/or otherwise).

When you talk about 'work' I've no real idea what you're talking about. If you mean being paid money for doing something for someone else in exchange for your skills/knowledge/time, then I don't see what the big deal is. Money doesn't even need to come into it - 'economics' doesn't require 'money'.

If you mean being paid money for doing something for someone else in exchange for your skills/knowledge/time, then I don't see what the big deal is. Money doesn't even need to come into it - 'economics' doesn't require 'money'. — I like sushi

The big deal is what you said here:

I think this says it all. We don't enter it, we're in it from the get go. — I like sushi

And because it’s from the get go, it is a forced situation. If you don’t work, you’re probably in trouble. Don’t put more people in the situation. Don’t add more workers as it represents a no opt out situation. Putting someone in this no opt out position is an injustice along with all the harms of life.

The big deal is what you said here:
I think this says it all. We don't enter it, we're in it from the get go.
— I like sushi — schopenhauer1

I think we're talking cross purposes here. I don't mean just 'Work' as in 'having a job'. I'm talking about having to work to get food/water etc.,. The 'cost' may be time, money, sleep and numerous other items. Within we trade off one possible future for another. That is economics and it is basically human life.

If you're just talking about employment not interested. My mistake.

That is economics and it is basically human life. — I like sushi

I don’t separate the two. Economics is a more complex version of the hunting-gathering economy. Whatever method to get food/resources then I am defining as work, NOT just the current market economic system as has been around since the 1800s in various forms.

Thus "Work" (economic system) is an avoidable, inescapable non-opt-out situation. Thus wrong to put someone into.

sure, you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. Of course everyone cannot free ride otherwise even more dire consequences for the whole system of (used) workers. — schopenhauer1

Would you say homelessness is a form of free-riding? It can be, when a man panhandles, begs for his money or food, but it isn’t necessarily so...

...I once knew a man who said he used to be homeless, and to get his meal he waited for a certain supermarket to throw their expired meat into the back dumpster, and after they were gone he would fetch it out and cook it over a campfire. That is certainly not freeloading...

...I knew another man who did the same thing in back of a posh restaurant: he waited there till they threw all the uneaten food out, then he swooped in to fetch it out of the trash. He thusly enjoyed the finest shrimp linguini and chicken alfredo at no cost—other than the effort of leaning over into the dumpster.

As for the man who begs for his bread, is he so despicable? so miserable? Cannot men who possess mansions and yachts afford to give a man who has nothing to eat a loaf of bread? Is this really unfair? Can we really know that a man who would rather beg for his bread than earn it is contemptible?

Maybe he is willing to buck the system and undergo what we consider shameful behavior because he has a more exalted sense of the dignity of life. Is he any more contemptible than a factory worker who earns a decent wage and supports his family and sends his kids to school, but is a sycophant to his boss? brown-noses in order to curry favor?

Without ‘work’ we learn nothing and do nothing. So @schopenhauer1 I’m just going to say you have a rather strange way of viewing life that I strongly oppose and move on.

Putting someone in this no opt out position is an injustice along with all the harms of life. — schopenhauer1

But we know and have agreed previously that not all no opt out positions are wrong to impose. So how do you tell apart the ones that are ok to impose and the ones that aren't?

Assuming work is required for most - yes, a dreadful indignity of the human spirit - should a country, say the USA, make a top priority a minimum wage for any job must be enough for an individual to survive on their own - food, lodging, transportation, etc.?

A beginning worker at McDonalds would not be forced to live at mom's home or share expenses with another for the necessities. And more men in the US age 30 and below do in fact live at their parent's home than was the case twenty years ago. More young women, too.

Belonging to a much older generation I still believe in working one's way up, but housing is out of sight these days and gas is $3.50 - $4 a gallon. Prior to this three generations might live in the same house, and I see this returning, along with multiple families in one home.

Personally, I work a job which requires long hours - I work in logistics and warehousing (I drive trucks, forklifts, deal with freight companies, move things from A - B). This suits me well because frankly, I really don't cope well with unstructured time. Unstructured, non-goal directed time for me is just an imposition of boredom, ennui, depression, suicidal thoughts and actions. I hate the sense of having "nothing to do". I know deep down it's because it's a confrontation with the worthlessness of existence, the valuelessness of simply being alive (for me), and so I very desperately crave having goals and ends and aims things to do and places to be and places to go. Which is why the jobs I work suit me very well. I need a job where, essentially every moment is goal directed. Always on the move.

For me, personally, I'm not anti-work as the jobs I work essentially function as 'pain-relief' - I'd feel worse NOT working. The problem is of course - I was borne out of my mothers womb into this world having perpetual biological needs that REQUIRE work (on threat of violent death - starvation, thirst, violent by other animals, etc) to maintain. There is no choice. It is, once embodied (or as I think of it - once humanized), we work to address our needs until we die. That is to say - no me, no pain and therefore no work to mitigate it. If I were never embodied there is no need to drive trucks to mitigate of unstructured time in the first place. No womb, no father whom ejaculates within, no conception, no child, no seeing the whole embodied striving played out in the next generation, no more work, no more perpetuation of the family, social, or political structure that ones forefathers cared about so much.

No humans - no pain nor suffering.

But we know and have agreed previously that not all no opt out positions are wrong to impose. So how do you tell apart the ones that are ok to impose and the ones that aren't? — khaled

Inescapable, etc. You can opt out of the surprise party if you really wanted.

Without ‘work’ we learn nothing and do nothing. So schopenhauer1 I’m just going to say you have a rather strange way of viewing life that I strongly oppose and move on. — I like sushi

Not an excuse to impose on another.. Imagine any injustice done because you think X about a situation.

As for the man who begs for his bread, is he so despicable? so miserable? Cannot men who possess mansions and yachts afford to give a man who has nothing to eat a loaf of bread? Is this really unfair? Can we really know that a man who would rather beg for his bread than earn it is contemptible?

Maybe he is willing to buck the system and undergo what we consider shameful behavior because he has a more exalted sense of the dignity of life. Is he any more contemptible than a factory worker who earns a decent wage and supports his family and sends his kids to school, but is a sycophant to his boss? brown-noses in order to curry favor? — Leghorn

Sometimes that option is more freeing. Homelessness in this regard must rely on a larger superstructure though. It was still an injustice somewhere down the line.

The problem is of course - I was borne out of my mothers womb into this world having perpetual biological needs that REQUIRE work (on threat of violent death - starvation, thirst, violent by other animals, etc) to maintain. There is no choice. It is, once embodied (or as I think of it - once humanized), we work to address our needs until we die. — Inyenzi

And in this regard you do seem anti-work in the idea that it is an injustice. Of course, you bring up the larger and deeper existential problem of striving at all (pace Schopenhauer) here:

That is to say - no me, no pain and therefore no work to mitigate it. If I were never embodied there is no need to drive trucks to mitigate of unstructured time in the first place. No womb, no father whom ejaculates within, no conception, no child, no seeing the whole embodied striving played out in the next generation, no more work, no more perpetuation of the family, social, or political structure that ones forefathers cared about so much.

No humans - no pain nor suffering. — Inyenzi

Scenario 1

$1. Work \rightarrow Money \rightarrow Food \rightarrow Work$

The arrow stands for converted to.

:cry: :sad:

The money we get from work simply gets transmuted via food back into work. So, the belief that we're getting something in return for the work we do - a full belly - is an illusion; after all, the food in our tummies circle back to become work.

Anti-work justified.

Scenario 2

$2. Work \rightarrow Money [For \space (Food \rightarrow Work) + Other \space Activities \space e.g. Recreation]$

:smile: :grin:

The worker makes a little extra which he can spend on himself (whatever he wants). In this case, working has benefits.

Anti-work unjustified.

Nevertheless, even scenario 2 fails to make a case for natalism. Work, even if it's good, doesn't quite do the job of making life worth it.

Recreation takes work too. ALL activity is 'work'.

Recreation takes work too. ALL activity is 'work'. — I like sushi

Perhaps we need to make a distinction: boring work & fun work. But we'd simply be playing with words.

Like the OP. If you parse 'economics' alongside 'work' the meaning is exactly how I framed it.

The cost of 'enjoying yourself' exists and it isn't in a matter of monetary value.

These are the basic building blocks of what economics is about. I'm not making it up. A look at any basic introduction to economics and what economics covers will reveal this.

The OP is about EMPLOYMENT/JOBS. You don't have to get a job but you'll have to work no matter what if you wish to keep breathing. The person posting this has made clear elsewhere they don't much care for breathing in the first place and that on balanced life=suffering and that that is 'bad'/'wrong'.

Like the OP. If you parse 'economics' alongside 'work' the meaning is exactly how I framed it. — I like sushi

ALL activity is 'work — I like sushi

How then?

The cost of 'enjoying yourself' exists and it isn't in a matter of monetary value. — I like sushi

Indeed but there's a difference between working for survival and working to earn enough to have a good time every now and then.

These are the basic building blocks of what economics is about. I'm not making it up. A look at any basic introduction to economics and what economics covers will reveal this. — I like sushi

When I said we could be simply playing with words I meant that we're on the same page, we see eye to eye, the dispute between us being only verbal (about the choice of words).

If you think not, the onus is on you to clarify the situation and that because I won't be able to do so, I lack the wherewithal.

The OP is about EMPLOYMENT/JOBS. You don't have to get a job but you'll have to work no matter what if you wish to keep breathing. The person posting this has made clear elsewhere they don't much care for breathing in the first place and that on balanced life=suffering and that that is 'bad'/'wrong'. — I like sushi

I offered my analysis:

$Work \rightarrow Money \rightarrow Food \rightarrow Work$

The above is a raw deal and I believe a good number of folks are in such a or similar circumstances. Life ain't worth it then, no?

Then, I showed how it could be better but then work is just the tip of the iceberg of our woes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7cQirBto2k