Like I said:

You could perhaps specify your point and instead of making a wholesale indictment against humanity for procreating at all, focus on pointing at the fault of producing children while failing to instill in them the belief that life is a blessing and worth living.

I think this is the point that people fail at the most: Showing and teaching others that life is a blessing and worth living. — baker

I've been trying to get to answer whether it is possible to deliberately learn to view life as a blessing and worth living.

Gotcha, but wouldn't this be a distraction from the point that injustice can happen whether people view it as a blessing and like it or not?

Because in one instance (the antinatalist), no new person is put in an unjust (and harmful) situation. In the other instance a new person is put in an unjust and harmful situation. As my example of the happy slave shows, you can have unjust situations despite people's subjective reporting post-facto. — schopenhauer1

What if we're all actually reincarnated from a truly worse place, and this is sort of our proving grounds to see if we've learned our lesson, plus a few legacy punishments here and there, we simply just don't remember it by divine power yet the nature that originally damned us, rather that led to the actions that did, remain ie. our vices, bad habits, negative inclinations, etc. and the point of this life is to overcome them to truly escape this 'unjust and harmful' situation, one that can not be escaped, perhaps even perpetuated by simply not having kids. Sure you or I don't know that, but not long ago a young man just like you looked out toward the edge of an ocean shore and dismissed the possibility of anything beyond what he could see too. We'll call him Frederick. Please don't be Frederick.

do you see a difference between food that was absolutely always available no matter what and the set of challenges of work to get the food — schopenhauer1

It is technically work to put the food in your mouth, chew, and swallow. And then sometimes food has consequences on our digestive system and it is additional work to resolve the stomach or intestinal problems. Point being, your problem here seems to be that we are human, we can't get away from work of some type.

That is more accurate.

There is no difference if the injustice is caused by the de facto situations of being alive in the world as a human animal or by the hands of a person. That is the big leap that's hard for people to understand. Do not put people in these circumstances in the first place. Why is that so hard? Can a human prevent this for someone else?

Also, why the hell would it matter if everyone started from the same unjust position? It's still unjust, just for everyone, instead of one particular set of people. Global antinatalism doesn't discriminate.

You could never point to this “someone else” you’re saving from this so-called injustice, because they do not exist. In other words, you’re not preventing people from being put in these circumstances. You’re not preventing pain and suffering and injustice at all. You cannot save imaginary people.

However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences."
-I will agree with your conclusions. Its a condition that all animals(including us) must follow...except from our pets and livestock (maybe parasites too).
One problem though. Not all humans work since economic inequality is currently one of the last if not the only form of discrimination that's still acceptable by human societies. So human condition is defined by the position one has in his "environment".

We constantly have been inventing technical solutions that have alleviated or render human effort unnecessary for specific tasks and jobs. Unfortunately our economic system doesn't allow human ingenuity to offer technical solutions that could render repetitive boring works a thing of the past.
Working or to be more descriptive... doing a specific activity to earn your living might appear to be a human condition, but it is the main reason behind the collapse of our societies and the distraction of human relationships and our ecosystem.,

-"You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then."
Its nice to see that you also identify this injustice!...and yes consciously me and my wife took the decision not have children for this exact reason and I am amazed that other people also see that as a solution to this ethical dilemma. — schopenhauer1

Gotcha, but wouldn't this be a distraction from the point that injustice can happen whether people view it as a blessing and like it or not? — schopenhauer1

My point is easier to argue for.

What if we're all actually reincarnated from a truly worse place, and this is sort of our proving grounds to see if we've learned our lesson, plus a few legacy punishments here and there, we simply just don't remember it by divine power yet the nature that originally damned us, rather that led to the actions that did, remain ie. our vices, bad habits, negative inclinations, etc. and the point of this life is to overcome them to truly escape this 'unjust and harmful' situation, one that can not be escaped, perhaps even perpetuated by simply not having kids. Sure you or I don't know that, but not long ago a young man just like you looked out toward the edge of an ocean shore and dismissed the possibility of anything beyond what he could see too. We'll call him Frederick. Please don't be Frederick. — Outlander

Right...Not much to say with this. Even in that scenario not bringing more people into the world would effectively end more people coming into the world.

It is technically work to put the food in your mouth, chew, and swallow. And then sometimes food has consequences on our digestive system and it is additional work to resolve the stomach or intestinal problems. Point being, your problem here seems to be that we are human, we can't get away from work of some type. — Derrick Huestis

So two things..
Point 1) As I asked before, can you please let me know that one can make a distinction between working-to-survive and a kind of "trivial" work of lifting a hand (unless disabled or other caveat)?

Point 2) You bring up the larger point of the injustice of the human condition. I have argued that many atime.. Schopenhauer's main argument of striving and unrest of existence. I am focusing on a sub-set of inescapable (without dire consequences) situations.

You could never point to this “someone else” you’re saving from this so-called injustice, because they do not exist. In other words, you’re not preventing people from being put in these circumstances. You’re not preventing pain and suffering and injustice at all. You cannot save imaginary people. — NOS4A2

I am not explaining my objection yet again to this kind of argument.

Its nice to see that you also identify this injustice!...and yes consciously me and my wife took the decision not have children for this exact reason and I am amazed that other people also see that as a solution to this ethical dilemma. — schopenhauer1

Glad to see! It sounds though that under different economic conditions (socialist/communist/anarcho-communist?) you WOULD reproduce though? My position would be that no economic system by de facto nature of being an inescapable condition/system/phenomenon (unless dire consequences) is going to "solve" this problem. By the very nature of having to exist in a world of scarcity and how our bodies survive, we would need some sort of inescapable system which is the injustice. It's not that this particular economic system is unjust but any economic system by de facto circumstances of what living entails.

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

But what's the alternative? Is the government to serve all our needs? I would love to experience a technocratic utopia where robots and artificial intelligence take care of humans.

But what's the alternative? Is the government to serve all our needs? I would love to see a technocratic utopia. — Wheatley

Not putting anyone into the economic system in the first place. You should know my answer by now...

Not putting anyone into the economic system in the first place. You should know my answer by now... — schopenhauer1

But I don't. Who are these masters who place me into economic systems?

I am not explaining my objection yet again to this kind of argument.

I do not require you to do so. But I will state it anyways. You’re preventing no suffering and no injustice. Your behavior effects no one but yourself, so as far as ethics go, it’s all self-concerned and self-congratulatory.

You’re preventing no suffering and no injustice. Your behavior effects no one but yourself, so as far as ethics go, it’s all self-concerned and self-congratulatory. — NOS4A2

What do you expect from him? To fix society? :lol:

He's part of the academic coffee shop community. I'm not because I don't fit in well with them. :wink:

But I don't. Who are these masters who place me into economic systems? — Wheatley

C'mon, you're full of shit if you don't know that I'm going to say that potential parents should prevent their future children from entering into it by simply not having them. Injustice averted.

I do not require you to do so. But I will state it anyways. You’re preventing no suffering and no injustice. Your behavior effects no one but yourself, so as far as ethics go, it’s all self-concerned and self-congratulatory. — NOS4A2

We went over this haven't we? I have responded to this haven't I? You don't believe people can prevent future outcomes. Essentially your (weak) argument is basically.. "I don't believe in conditionals.. wah wah wah". But even other forms of ethics relies on "Could happen IF.."

you're full of shit if you don't know that I'm going to say — schopenhauer1

:gasp:
I think we'll end the conversation right here.

I think we'll end the conversation right here. — Wheatley

What did you expect the answer to be? Of course my main answer of the injustices of life is to prevent future children. That is how we prevent it.

What did you expect the answer to be? — schopenhauer1

It was never my intention to cooperate with you. You've dug yourself into antinatalism, I know that. All I'm am doing is commenting.

Excuse me...

To go further.. anything short of preventing future people is basically saying
"I have a political agenda.. I WANT to see a way of life perpetuated.. and I don't care that this future person's personhood and any X injustice/suffering entailed is considered a furtherance for this agenda". Ends justify the means.. because no one THINKS about the means carefully enough.

Unfortunately differing policies or systems don't get rid of the underlying problem itself. That's where a lot of the disagreement is going to come from.. People may think'..."If we just tweak this or that or overhaul all of these things.. then problem goes away".. There's always going to be the problem of work though. People will THEN justify the injustice by saying work is necessary and good for people and thus THERE lies the political agenda being enacted on others.

This is why someone like @Bitter Crank and I will always disagree :smile:. His kind of answer will be "overthrow/reform the system!" but the underlying implication is that "WORK IS STILL GOOD FOR THE SOUL!!".. and thus he won't mind throwing more grist in the mill.. more workers..more political agenda being enacted for others.. My policy bypasses all of that by simply not starting it.. No one misses out too.

Added more..

Unfortunately differing policies or systems don't get rid of the underlying problem itself. — schopenhauer1

From my position right now (because I have no access to powerful people or institutions), antinatalism (as you formulated it) can be categorized fairly as a psudo-problem because like @NOS4A2 said

You’re preventing no suffering and no injustice. — NOS4A2

Why should we continue discussing this?

We went over this haven't we? I have responded to this haven't I? You don't believe people can prevent future outcomes. Essentially your (weak) argument is basically.. "I don't believe in conditionals.. wah wah wah". But even other forms of ethics relies on "Could happen IF.."

I believe people can prevent future outcomes, I just don’t believe you can prevent suffering and injustice without other people involved. The question of “whose suffering are you preventing” still remains.

make a distinction between working-to-survive and a kind of "trivial" work of lifting a hand — schopenhauer1

There is no "trivial" about it. If you reject the modern system, a lot of work goes into keeping food safe without the modern practices of having a house with electricity and plugging in a refrigerator. And once again, dealing with the end process, we either need running water and sewer or we deal with a lot of work disposing of waste and cleaning ourselves to prevent disease. To solve all these problems we have created a modern system which yes, requires work, but that work doesn't disappear if you leave modern society, it instead becomes harder. We have made working to live easier, not harder, hence you have the liberty to argue about working to survive. I somehow don't think this is a conversation the starving poor of the world would ever think to have.

Why should we continue discussing this? — Wheatley

See my responses to NOS then previously. I'm not bringing the non-identity problem up yet again.

There is no "trivial" about it. If you reject the modern system, a lot of work goes into keeping food safe without the modern practices of having a house with electricity and plugging in a refrigerator. And once again, dealing with the end process, we either need running water and sewer or we deal with a lot of work disposing of waste and cleaning ourselves to prevent disease. To solve all these problems we have created a modern system which yes, requires work, but that work doesn't disappear if you leave modern society, it instead becomes harder. We have made working to live easier, not harder, hence you have the liberty to argue about working to survive. I somehow don't think this is a conversation the starving poor of the world would ever think to have. — Derrick Huestis

Why do you suppose I am suggesting we change our system?

I believe people can prevent future outcomes, I just don’t believe you can prevent suffering and injustice without other people involved. The question of “whose suffering are you preventing” still remains. — NOS4A2

Read all my previous responses to this. You should be able to quote it now like an English teacher to Shakespeare.

Do not put people in these circumstances in the first place. Why is that so hard? Can a human prevent this for someone else? — schopenhauer1

What circumstances precisely? It is very hard to understand what your talking about unless you're a professional philosopher (and many of us aren't). All I see here is wild and vague abstraction, philosopher talk, with no relevance to our sex lives, and how we choose to raise a family.

unjust — schopenhauer1

Another ridiculously abstract philosphical concept...