But in this case life remains inescapable. So clearly your problem isn't so much with the inescapability from "the game" itself, but rather the inescapability of suffering within the game. If it is sufficiently easy not to suffer in the game, then it's ok to impose the game. Agreed? — khaled

You emphasize this here:

they can sufficiently "escape", so barring other information, this seems permissible. — schopenhauer1

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.

So how is this situation just — schopenhauer1

It isn't, and that's the point.

What a petty game this god has set up.. — schopenhauer1

Actually, we set it up. For what it's worth, you don't have to play. No matter what you do, you will still die, same as everyone else.

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game. — khaled

Si let me know when life is that utopia

Oh Wheatgrass, no no. You can have an unjust situation and have someone enjoy their life. Precisely why my argument is more than the simplicity you deem it as. It is hard for some people to wrap their heads around an unjust situation that people can still feel happy subjective states. Someone who feels joy despite X activity that's Y (bad/unjust) doesn't mean that X activity is a good state of affairs. — schopenhauer1

Okay, even if you succeed in demonstrating that having kids is bad and unjust (in a philosophical sense), I can accept that. But that alone isn't sufficient to convince me not to have kids. Having kids is not nearly the worst thing I can do.

the injustices of life — schopenhauer1

Here are three arguments:

A1. P is forced to experience L.
Therefore
A2. P is forced to experience something.

B1. P is forced to experience L.
B2. L is inevitably in part bad.
Therefore
B3. P is forced to experience something that is inevitably in part bad.

C1. P experiences L.
C2. L is inevitably in part bad.
Therefore
C3. P experiences something that is inevitably in part bad.

You are arguing that (B3) represents an injustice. What about (A2) and (C3)? Are both or either of them unjust?

The point is "If this is X, why can it not be made more X? Therefore this is not X" is not valid at all — khaled

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Depends on your standard I guess. In other words, life is not pretty because you choose to compare it to something better. — khaled

That's the nub, the heart, of the issue. :chin:

For the purposes of discussion, sure, since you seem so convinced utopias are impossible and I don't care to argue that. They serve well enough for a thought experiment. — khaled

That doesn't quite do the job of helping you make your case. Why...I forgot what I wanted to ask.

Experience and observation of others' experience.

Also the fact that it's physiologically possible should imply that it's possible. — khaled

I'm afraid that won't do.


Food for thought: assuming our imagination bears the mark of experience in the real world, ever wonder why our conception of hell has exquisite detail compared to our idea of heaven?

How do you differentiate between when a game is “too hard” (too hard not to suffer) and not? In other words, what makes someone who says that “escaping suffering in life is easy enough such that having kids is ok” wrong?

Beforehand you made it seem like the difficulty of escaping the game is what determines whether or not it’s ok to inflict. Obviously a game that requires you to kill yourself to escape is too difficult to escape. But now we know that what you’re really concerned with is the difficulty of escaping suffering within the game, not the game itself. So it’s not at all obvious anymore that life is “too hard” in that sense.

I would think everyone agrees that forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. It’s true by definition (that’s what the word “too” is used for). And the majority still aren’t AN.

That's the nub, the heart, of the issue. :chin: — TheMadFool

Agreed. I’m not pushing for a particular position though. You and shope are trying to convince others of AN. So you must show why the standard by which you judge life as bad enough not to bring any more people in, should be objective. I’ve been asking shope for many threads now and he cannot come up with a consistent standard even, one that doesn’t lead to ridiculous side effects like having kids in a utopia being wrong, or wearing crocs on Sunday specifically being wrong. Much less explain why that standard is objective.

I'm afraid that won't do. — TheMadFool

Why doesn’t it? And what would? Would a happiness survey suffice? Because those always come back positive.

And even if we give that life on balance has more suffering (against all evidence), now what? Because that doesn’t logically lead to AN. You would need to explain why we should use a purely utilitarian standard with no other considerations.

Food for thought: assuming our imagination bears the mark of experience in the real world, ever wonder why our conception of hell has exquisite detail compared to our idea of heaven? — TheMadFool

Where did you get that our conception of hell had more detail than heaven?

And “bears the mark of experience in the real world” is vague hand waving. What exactly do you mean? That if I can imagine something in more detail, that means my life had more properties of that thing? That seems like a completely unsubstantiated claim to me.

First off, which hell and heaven? Christian? In that case it has nothing to do with our imagination and everything to do with how many words God dedicated to describing them in the Bible. Same with all the rest of the Abrahamic religions. And non abrahamic religions don’t usually have heaven/hell in tue first place, and when they do, their descriptions are not left to the followers’ imaginations.

Or you could be saying that all that stuff is made up, in which case, your argument still doesn’t hold. Even if we accept your terribly hand wavy statement above and accept your logic, all that would show is that the authors of the holy books felt it more appropriate to describe hell in more detail than heaven. Not that their imagination of hell was more detailed than their imagination of heaven.

This food for thought is way past its expiration date I’m afraid.

What if a baby was guaranteed to be born into a lava pit and you can convince the parent not to do that? You would, correct? The thing is you are not seeing life as properly that volcano.

You would only prevent the baby from being born in a volcano if you convinced her to have birth elsewhere. You cannot prevent a baby from being born in a volcano if there is no baby.

None of this is to say that life is good, or that one should have children, only that an antinatalist could never prevent harm and injustice by not having children. It could be said that his efforts go as far as preventing fertilization, or maybe pregnancy or birth, but that’s about it. His efforts cannot be stretched beyond that.

@schopenhauer1, what, in your own words and opinion, is the root cause of the suffering that you seem makes life unjust, other humans or nature?

You are arguing that (B3) represents an injustice. What about (A2) and (C3)? Are both or either of them unjust? — Srap Tasmaner

Not sure where you are going, but A would be an injustice if that something was bad (like B). If C is a known fact, then it conflates into B, essentially.

How do you differentiate between when a game is “too hard” (too hard not to suffer) and not? In other words, what makes someone who says that “escaping suffering in life is easy enough such that having kids is ok” wrong?

Beforehand you made it seem like the difficulty of escaping the game is what determines whether or not it’s ok to inflict. Obviously a game that requires you to kill yourself to escape is too difficult to escape. But now we know that what you’re really concerned with is the difficulty of escaping suffering within the game, not the game itself. So it’s not at all obvious anymore that life is “too hard” in that sense.

I would think everyone agrees that forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. It’s true by definition (that’s what the word “too” is used for). And the majority still aren’t AN. — khaled

So I'm going to essentially disregard the "Most people" argument at the end there because as we've discussed at length, I don't think that a majority of people thinking something at a particular time makes it right.

As for the "too difficult" question and the "suffering" vs. "escape" dichotomy, your utopia example gave plenty of ways to escape the game. You are automatically thinking escape means suicide. That is one escape, and it's a DIRE one. That is the key word there. I said "without DIRE consequences". Suicide is a dire consequence (along with others that I mentioned). The example you provided gave escapes without dire consequences. That world is precisely the world I am saying this is not. You are more proving the case, if you will.

It could be said that his efforts go as far as preventing fertilization, or maybe pregnancy or birth, but that’s about it. His efforts cannot be stretched beyond that. — NOS4A2

You must be conservative, you really don't think what happens to people after birth :rofl:. That whole "conservatives only care about the "person" prior to birth with focus on abortion" argument. You seem to be doing that here. Anyways, so I am saying life presents certain negative experiences that will happen to the child after birth (analogous to the danger of the volcano). You would have prevented that baby from burning up in a volcano pit. You would have prevented that person from experiencing the negatives of life.. Same in that regard.

what, in your own words and opinion, is the root cause of the suffering that you seem makes life unjust, other humans or nature? — Outlander

Please read my profile, it explains essentially the answer to your question, both the general description and the quotes I provide from Schopenhauer.

I will add to what you read there this:
I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything..

Most people are sort of aware of this.. However, because of group-think and the need for social pressures to keep "things going" in its own self-perpetuating fashion via culture.. People try to pretend like this is something to embrace and a "good" when, in fact, it is simply existential/metaphysical turmoil within our self-aware animal nature.

I have focused less on this core philosophy lately because I think there are simpler ideas like the injustice of putting more people into an inescapable game, and inevitable harmful experiences that can and should be argued for. No amount of economic or political change overrides the negative existential situation itself. The animal with the pendulum between pain, boredom always needing that pendulum to get in the middle somewhere but it never stays.. as Schopenhauer analogized.

I don't think that a majority of people thinking something at a particular time makes it right. — schopenhauer1

And I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that despite everyone agreeing with your principle, they don't agree with your conclusion. That doesn't make them right. But it puts your correctness under much more doubt. I was only pointing out that it's not clear at all that AN can be logically derived from:

forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. — khaled

You are automatically thinking escape means suicide. — schopenhauer1

Pray tell what other ways are there of escaping life? Unless you mean, escape suffering.

Your point was that life is a game where one must work to survive. The only surefire way of escaping this game is suicide or starvation. However we now know that what you are really concerned with isn't escape from the game itself, but escape from suffering within the game. Which is an important departure form your op:

Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism. — schopenhauer1

Now it's more like: Any forced, inescapable game, where it's too difficult not to suffer, is a target for scrutiny and criticism. If so: Life as is right now, in many places, offers easy enough ways of escaping suffering within the game.

In real life the escape from suffering is pretty easy in a lot of places (which would make imposing the game ok in those places). You think this statement is false. Show why this statement is false.

That world is precisely the world I am saying this is not. — schopenhauer1

Yes you're saying this. You're not showing it. I know the world isn't a utopia, but you've yet to show life is a difficult enough game not to impose. You think that life is too difficult a game. It's too hard not to suffer in life. I, (and the majority of people) disagree. You want to convince this majority that you are correct. Simply stating your opinion does not suffice for that purpose. Show that life is too difficult a game. We all understand you think it is, that alone is not convincing.

You are arguing that (B3) represents an injustice. What about (A2) and (C3)? Are both or either of them unjust?
— Srap Tasmaner

Not sure where you are going, but A would be an injustice if that something was bad (like B). If C is a known fact, then it conflates into B, essentially. — schopenhauer1

Is that a no to both then, neither of the others are in themselves unjust?

Please read my profile, it explains essentially the answer to your question — schopenhauer1

I have, and it does. But perhaps not in the way you might think. It'll be taken care of in due time.

I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.. — schopenhauer1

Funny? That sounds entertaining, aka enjoyable. Who are you trying to fool here.

That's a velocitous point (the Jack and Jill thing) but easily refuted by the counter-argument that since as you say things are undesirable, Jack sometimes settles for Jane instead of Jill for multiple reasons perhaps lack of education, dire circumstance, desperation, ignorance, you can take your pick. If you get the metaphor, which I'm sure you do. So, back to my original question which perhaps is already answered, what needs to be changed? I suppose the stock question would be, if you were God and wish to make this possible, suffering free world to your hearts content and your minds eye, what would have to happen? What would it be like? How would it differ from now?

I have focused less on this core philosophy lately because I think there are simpler ideas like the injustice of putting more people into an inescapable game, and inevitable harmful experiences that can and should be argued for. No amount of economic or political change overrides the negative existential situation itself. The animal with the pendulum between pain, boredom always needing that pendulum to get in the middle somewhere but it never stays.. as Schopenhauer analogized. — schopenhauer1

It's a nice analogy. Yet we still seem to be deviating or at least dismissing (which if you choose to admit and broadcast will result in utter failure of any alleged important goal) the fact that some people like how it is, the good and the bad, the give and take, the uncertainty. That's great that you don't and see yourself as some person above those who disagree with you who must achieve this conquest for a greater good us ignorant and blind animals could never understand, but again I ask a simple question: who are you to think so let alone do so in a life you claim to be negative and worthless? And more importantly why should others listen to you? You have to have some worth and positivity from somewhere, even if you choose to ignore it.

.

Show that life is too difficult a game. We all understand you think it is, that alone is not convincing.

Regardless of whether I agree with them, hasn't shop1 shown tons of reasons in other posts why life is too difficult a game to be played?

They talked about it a few comments above:

I will add to what you read there this:
I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.Most people are sort of aware of this.. However, because of group-think and the need for social pressures to keep "things going" in its own self-perpetuating fashion via culture.. People try to pretend like this is something to embrace and a "good" when, in fact, it is simply existential/metaphysical turmoil within our self-aware animal nature.

Schopenhauer himself stated that no matter where you are, life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction, annoyance, toil, and seeking comfort and entertainment to avoid boredom that's always hanging over our heads. To me this sounds like the game shouldn't be played for anyone. I would like to see what you think since I've been enjoying your debate here. I remember you stating you don't agree with pessimistic arguments for AN, but I've honestly been wondering why? Where I disagree with Schop1 is that these seem way more convincing than injustice, pain/pleasure asymmetries, consent, etc

I’m just pointing out there is no recipient to your behavior. It affects no one but yourself. The suffering you prevent, and the beings you’re saving, are imaginary. So why pretend?

the fact that some people like how it is, the good and the bad, the give and take, the uncertainty — Outlander

Absolutely right. Everyone knows that, for us, maybe because we didn't evolve for it, utopia would suck. There's that Star Trek movie where Kirk is dumped in some fake utopia and it dawns on him out horseback riding that he never misses a jump. Whatever that is, it's not real life at all.

life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it — Albero

I really don't think I've ever been bored for more than five seconds at a time in my entire life. I have more goals than I know what to do with. I just wish I didn't have to sleep.

I really don't think I've ever been bored for more than five seconds at a time in my entire life. I have more goals than I know what to do with. I just wish I didn't have to sleep.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't jealous :rofl:

So the default position for the modern person is to think that to be anti-work is to be anti-social — schopenhauer1

"Antisocial" is someone who is against the laws and/or customs of a society and also who is considered an annoyance to and is disapproved by the society. So, if someone fits these criteria, he can be certainly called antisocial.

Now, about what kind of people's position are you talking? Young or old? The first ones, have not worked yet a lot or not at all and are still carefree and in their period of controversy against society, and have not yet met the difficulties of life. The second ones have been thrown in the arena of life where they have to work, often hard, to earn a living. Also, are you talking about poor, middle class or rich people?

As for the term or subject of "anti-work", I have never met it or even heard people talking about it. So I assumed it means "refusal of work" and I looked it up in Wikipedia: " behavior in which a person refuses regular employment.". Much better than what I thought, which was "refusal to work in general" and which of course lacks any logic! Although, in reality, the two of them don't differ much.

I don't know though how exactly yourself see "anti-work", except that you are talking "an economic system that runs on work" and as a "condition of life".

"... entering the economic system itself was a forced game ..."
"... we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death ..." — schopenhauer1

I can see that you mean that from the moment we are born we are forced to play this game. And that no one asks us if we wanted to. So, maybe your question is not really about "anti-work" --since there are a lot of things in our society and economic system that one can object to-- but our choice about living. I remember we have talked about that (Re: your topic "Is never having the option for no option just?")

Like the happy slave, the laborer has no other choice — schopenhauer1

The slave has no choice: he cannot choose his job or be on strike or refuse to work.
The laborer has: he can do all of them! :smile:

hasn't shop1 shown tons of reasons in other posts why life is too difficult a game to be played? — Albero

No. Because everything he said, everyone is already aware of.

The conversation typically goes like this:

shope: Having kids is an action of type X and actions of type X are wrong! (X can be, for example, "unconsented imposition", in this case it's "putting someone in inescapable game" typically, why actions of type X are wrong is left unexplained, but barring that...)

Me: But *insert activity here* is also of type X and you don't think that's wrong

shope: Well, this activity is not X enough to be wrong!

Me: So how can you tell between activities that are X enough and ones that are not X enough? We all agree that activities that are too X are wrong (true by definition of the word "too"), but we just don't think life qualifies as too X.

shope then proceeds to either "delineate" the argument for 20 replies, or outright not respond, then comes back in another week with another X and we do the same thing all over again. Repeat ad nauseam.

"What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything.

life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction — Albero

Thing is, it has never been my experience that this is the case. Never has it seemed that way in my own experience or others' experiences.

But even if we accept this, it is absolutely not the case that:

because of group-think and the need for social pressures to keep "things going" in its own self-perpetuating fashion via culture.. People try to pretend like this is something to embrace and a "good" when, in fact, it is simply existential/metaphysical turmoil within our self-aware animal nature. — Albero

This has 0 proof. If it were the case that we're all deeply dissatisfied animals only pretending to be happy, you wouldn't expect anonymous happiness polls to come back positive. You'd expect people to "break" and show their "true feelings" of deep dissatisfaction at a much higher rate than they are. You'd expect therapists to be the most paid and sought after profession in the world. This makes it seem like we're all miserable Oscar worthy actors pretending we're not miserable. Most people are not Oscar worthy actors.

The consequence of "life is an escape from boredom or dissatisfaction" isn't necessarily "we're all deeply unsatisfied animals pretending otherwise", there is 0 evidence for that. Even if we accept the first statement, it could just be the case that NOT everyone is a lying Oscar worthy actor, and instead, it's just easy to escape boredom and dissatisfaction so on the whole people find the game worthwhile.

Is that a no to both then, neither of the others are in themselves unjust? — Srap Tasmaner

A is lacking enough information and C is ignorant of the connection. Unjust remains but the connection of the birth to the situation of inescapable situation is not recognized.

So, back to my original question which perhaps is already answered, what needs to be changed? I suppose the stock question would be, if you were God and wish to make this possible, suffering free world to your hearts content and your minds eye, what would have to happen? What would it be like? How would it differ from now? — Outlander

I don't think I have an answer for that. All I know is this is not that world. I guess if the main problem is lacking in a self-aware animal, it would be not lacking. No need or want for anything, yet somehow knowing it. No contingent harms and no religion too (sorry.. I felt like I was in the lyrics for John Lennon's Imagine...Imagine all the people.... :D).

who are you to think so let alone do so in a life you claim to be negative and worthless? And more importantly why should others listen to you? You have to have some worth and positivity from somewhere, even if you choose to ignore it. — Outlander

To put this another way that you don't seem to see..
Who are other people to claim that life, with its entailed harms needs to be lived out by X person? My path assumes nothing on NO ONE. The other way assumes everything for SOME ONE. If you are trying to raise the specter on antinatalism of presumption, my whole point is the presumption is actually the burden of those who are the ones who presume they should affect someone else (by procreating them).

Regardless of whether I agree with them, hasn't shop1 shown tons of reasons in other posts why life is too difficult a game to be played? — Albero

Thank you.. This should be noted. It is good to know someone else is also paying attention :).

Schopenhauer himself stated that no matter where you are, life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction, annoyance, toil, and seeking comfort and entertainment to avoid boredom that's always hanging over our heads. To me this sounds like the game shouldn't be played for anyone. I would like to see what you think since I've been enjoying your debate here. I remember you stating you don't agree with pessimistic arguments for AN, but I've honestly been wondering why? Where I disagree with Schop1 is that these seem way more convincing than injustice, pain/pleasure asymmetries, consent, etc — Albero

I also agree that the more convincing argument is one from a Schopenhaurean perspective, but as you noted, I have written a lot about this already, and am sort of looking at other arguments as well.

I’m just pointing out there is no recipient to your behavior. It affects no one but yourself. The suffering you prevent, and the beings you’re saving, are imaginary. So why pretend? — NOS4A2

I just don't find this argument relevant of the morality of preventing future person from suffering. The fact that no person exists with an identity doesn't take away from anything.. We talked about ridiculous conclusions.. You can do whatever you want as long as they don't exist yet under your conception. That is very weird.

Anyways, if it helps you out, what you are doing is preventing an injustice. I agree that this isn't anything heroic. You are simply taking due care.

No. Because everything he said, everyone is already aware of.

The conversation typically goes like this:

shope: Having kids is an action of type X and actions of type X are wrong! (X can be, for example, "unconsented imposition", in this case it's "putting someone in inescapable game" typically, why actions of type X are wrong is left unexplained, but barring that...)

Me: But *insert activity here* is also of type X and you don't think that's wrong

shope: Well, this activity is not X enough to be wrong!

Me: So how can you tell between activities that are X enough and ones that are not X enough? We all agree that activities that are too X are wrong (true by definition of the word "too"), but we just don't think life qualifies as too X.

shope then proceeds to either "delineate" the argument for 20 replies, or outright not respond, then comes back in another week with another X and we do the same thing all over again. Repeat ad nauseam. — khaled

I interpret @Albero's idea about pessimism in that why don't I discuss pessimism in more exposition rather than making these tit-for-tat microarguments (like the ones we have)..

Thing is, it has never been my experience that this is the case. Never has it seemed that way in my own experience or others' experiences.

But even if we accept this, it is absolutely not the case that: — khaled

I don't have a name for this fallacy.. But if there is a rabbit and you say it is a dog, that doesn't make it not a rabbit. The idea of lacking in the human animal is shown over and over in daily life too much and is too true a truism to just dismiss. I understand you need for such global claims of denying "animal lacking nature" to make sure you refute any argument that makes a positive claim (at least if I or other people of similar views are making them).

This has 0 proof. If it were the case that we're all deeply dissatisfied animals only pretending to be happy, you wouldn't expect anonymous happiness polls to come back positive. You'd expect people to "break" and show their "true feelings" of deep dissatisfaction at a much higher rate than they are. — khaled

That isn't necessarily the claim. Rather, it is the dissatisfaction at the heart of being an animal in the world with needs and wants. The very fact of pursuing this or that..

However, interestingly, the weaker argument you do bring up has some validity too. There are reasons for therapists and all the self-care things.. People are often not as happy as they need to present themselves to others. There are constant reminders of that.. which is why pessimistic comedies/comedians resonate with people (part of the reason anyways).

The consequence of "life is an escape from boredom or dissatisfaction" isn't necessarily "we're all deeply unsatisfied animals pretending otherwise", there is 0 evidence for that. Even if we accept the first statement, it could just be the case that NOT everyone is a lying Oscar worthy actor, and instead, it's just easy to escape boredom and dissatisfaction so on the whole people find the game worthwhile. — khaled

Again, the root of the problem is the need for X at all and that it is constant except for very few moments (pendulum in middle moments, sleep, unconscious states).

Antisocial seems to mean whatever negative thing you want it. Antisocial can simply mean, not enjoying other's company. I often see it used in terms of "antisocial personality disorder" as in sociopaths. So, I am not sure we can define it so concretely.

I don't know though how exactly yourself see "anti-work", except that you are talking "an economic system that runs on work" and as a "condition of life". — Alkis Piskas

Yes I am talking mainly about that kind of "work". I am saying, DON'T create more WORKERS who HAVE to WORK to survive. It is an unjust thing to put people in an inescapable game of challenges (like work) lest dire consequences (death of starvation or suicide). There is no opt out.. once born, people (generally) must work. Do not create this situations for OTHER PEOPLE.

I can see that you mean that from the moment we are born we are forced to play this game. And that no one asks us if we wanted to. So, maybe your question is not really about "anti-work" --since there are a lot of things in our society and economic system that one can object to-- but our choice about living. I remember we have talked about that (Re: your topic "Is never having the option for no option just?") — Alkis Piskas

"Antisocial" is someone who is against the laws and/or customs of a society and also who is considered an annoyance to and is disapproved by the society. So, if someone fits these criteria, he can be certainly called antisocial. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly, this is just one example of a larger theme...

The slave has no choice: he cannot choose his job or be on strike or refuse to work.
The laborer has: he can do all of them! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Right, but what if he chooses not to work again? The dire consequences is as I spelled out:
Homelessness, starvation, free-riding (making it another person's/people's burdens), suicide, hacking it in the wilderness and probably dying there.

Set aside birth just for a moment. You haven't, so far as I know, claimed that procreating is just wrong; it's wrong because it's an instance of a sort of thing that is wrong. I'm trying to figure out that part.

A is lacking enough information — schopenhauer1

Enough information for what? You could be claiming that being forced to experience anything is unjust. Are you?

C is ignorant of the connection — schopenhauer1

Connection to what? C is only about experiences that are inevitably in part bad; would you describe having such an experience as an injustice? It's a simple question.

Unjust remains but the connection of the birth to the situation of inescapable situation is not recognized. — schopenhauer1

There's no birth at all in my questions. I'm trying to ask about the general case of which procreating is supposed to be an instance.