"Potential of life" doesn't mean anything in the context of "fear of death". However, if you mean the "experiences of life that one may benefit from", I do not deny people can get benefit out of experiences. That doesn't mean THUS life... which supposedly you agree with. — schopenhauer1

I already predicted that it would mean nothing to you. Death is inevitable, so limiting your life further based on a fear of death is a waste of resources. It’s not necessarily about what benefit you might get out of life’s experiences, but about the benefit your life has on the overall value of existence.

How do you disagree that it's forced? In fact, you just agreed with Antinatalist here:
Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening.
— Antinatalist

No argument with you there.
— Possibility

And my point is indeed that you can't go along and start praising the collaboration "reduction suffering scheme" without recognizing the forced aspect of its very existence. So no, I won't let you get away with moving forward with the new age talk until you recognize this. — schopenhauer1

I agree with Antinatalist that the initial situation is forced, but everything after that realisation is ours to determine. You just can’t get past your sense of entitlement - that you somehow deserve more than this. This is an awareness of the unrealised potential and value in your current existence - it’s NOT yours by right, but by your allocation of effort, attention and time. You don’t think that’s fair, and so you’re complaining - to anyone who will listen - that you expected the full value of existence delivered on arrival, and you deserve your money back. But this ‘money’, this value/potential, was never yours in the first place. It’s been gathered up, partially invested in your existence, in the naive and misguided hope that you’ll do more with it than they ever could, and your reply is ‘You invested it wrong - if you’d only left it all under the mattress, it’d be worth more.’

This idea that any unrealised value we perceive has no relation to existence is false.

You could make up any scheme you want... whatever political agenda/scheme you want. All forced. And THAT is where we must start in our ethics. No moving forward until that is properly put into the equation and context. That we are living out someone else's forced agenda, and the implications of this on everything, including reducing suffering. — schopenhauer1

I’m not denying the initial situation as forced, but I disagree that any scheme - whatever we do immediately after our awareness of this initial situation - can be forced. Only our ignorance, isolation and exclusion keeps us in compliance.

You want to manage like a business your way out.. The most middling of middle class answers to suffering. Suffering doesn't go away because we work as a "team" to get goals done. — schopenhauer1

No, I want people to increase awareness and share it before presuming any goals should get done. Stay ignorant, and you are bound by someone else’s agenda, and contributing to suffering.

I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it. — Antinatalist

Agreed. But we need to recognise that we can only control ourselves. We can’t force others not to reproduce - that just adds to suffering, and then we’re compromising our efforts. Increasing awareness and connection brings others the information they need to recognise the inefficiency of procreation, given the potential of life. And collaboration brings this diverse potentiality together, with a reduction of suffering as our common focus of attention, effort and time we each have available.

I mean, the griping can be akin I guess to the "connection" and "awareness". It is collective recognition of the forced agenda, and being compassionate about the shared situation we all find ourselves in (connection). It is trying to not burden too much other people if at all possible, and doing things to alleviate other's burdens.. So there are ideas of reducing suffering, but in this context of the very fact of the burdens in the first place. It is the recognition that we are on a constantly leaking ship that needs to be fixed.. and yes, helping fix the holes, but WITH THE RECOGNITION that it is indeed a never-ending leaking ship that we are all forced onto, that others thought fit to bring more passengers onto to keep fixing the holes, and now burdening them with something to overcome. And with the recognition that this ship has a "maintenance routine" that no one asked for, and cannot accord to any individual's idea of how to run it. The ship (life) has a "situatedness" of physical/social reality that no passenger can alter, but must (even if unintentionally) contribute to. Only within that context is it getting at what is going on. — schopenhauer1

I don’t see it as a leaking ship. It’s a flawed system of perceived potential/capacity, sure - but it’s the only one in existence, it’s the best those before us could manage, and we’re here - so we can improve on it OR deal with it as it is (ie. maintenance), AND eventually die either way.

In a way, each of us is a leaking ship, loaded with precious cargo. What we do with that cargo is more important than the ship that carries it. Once we recognise that, it’s a matter of pooling our resources and building a better system that can hold ALL the cargo, not just what you can salvage of yours and your significant other’s. So, why are you all sitting there complaining about the current state of your ship?

An existential crisis is an existential crisis.

This seems to arise with age more readily. In youth everything is fresh and new, the horizons seem limitless and our potential to develop and learn in growing exponentially. It is no wonder that an ‘existential crisis’ hits at some point because we ‘slow down’ - or rather seem to.

The key is to recapture our inner child and see how fascinating the world IS (not can be!).

As children we did not really ask why we were asking why. I think it is at that threshold when the ‘existential crisis’ rears its head. The ‘why’ is approachable, but the ‘why of the why’ leaves us feeling adrift rather fascinated.

From a personal perspective something that I have become more and more aware of with age is how a life of leisure is no leisure at all. I seem to have an inbuilt code that does not allow me to ‘enjoy’ leisure unless I have earned it. It can be something simple like washing the dishes or making my bed. Once this is done I can relax and do something I consider ‘leisure’.

Is this an ‘illusion’ to feel that I have ‘achieved’ something that warrants me time to pursue more apparently frivolous activities? I am not convinced it is an illusion because if it is then what is not an illusion? Does ‘illusion’ mean anything if everything we experience is called an ‘illusion’? If ‘illusion’ is all we know then said ‘illusion’ is nothing more than our lived reality.

The OP has a point. The choices are boredom OR suffering. Take your pick, but don't blame me if things don't go your way.

I don’t think either are ‘choices’. They are necessary life experiences. Without them life would be … null/grey/meaningless/void.

The pessimist exists merely because of optimism not in spire of it.

I genuinely believe life is fine. The burdens are the meat of life. Without burdens we have nothing. The time to reflect between basic sustenance can be viewed with pessimism or optimism. At some point in everyone’s life they will feel both, but some will feel one side more strongly than the other.

Work hard and play hard seems like a simple and effective life rule. Life feels good when at the end of the day I can lay back and know I have achieved something.

Boredom is certainly a window into the existential crisis. Boredom is just something inside telling you to reassess your life in some way. Avoiding problems is also something people do a lot. Bad combination! The key is to embrace the so-called ‘suffering’ and surprise surprise, it practically always turns out for the overall betterment.

To strive and to overcome. Little holds more ‘joy’ in life.

Perhaps there are enough white balls and enough black balls in this bag we call life to justify both claims of whiteness and blackness. As usual, it depends on where you are and when you are. It looks like a problem for statisticians: on the whole, is pessimism or optimism justified? Someone should do a study on the success/failure rates of (well-laid-out) plans. That should settle the matter once and for all.

We created the white and black balls. The human experiences and feeling are only partially, and imperfectly, captured in mere worded terms.

To be ‘happy’ is probably the most mundane and shitty term I have come to realise as utter nonsense over time. No one is ‘happy’ because ‘happy’ is nothing. It is a weird ‘after the matter of fact’ judgement imposed on us. Yet it is nebulous enough to carry the core of the experience/feeling that makes us feel like we can say ‘we are happy’. It is drivel though :D

How did we create the black and white (balls)?

utter nonsense — I like sushi

Why is it nonsense?

‘happy’ is nothing — I like sushi

What means this? Elaborate, please.

We create the distinctions in language and the social significance of these differences. Be this for political reasons or simply down to low resolution analysis/laziness.

As a species it seems we cannot help but bifurcate everything we come across then clumsily categorise as this or that kind of antonym.

When there is a genuine paradigm shift what seems to happen is the usual ‘black and white’ attitudes come into conflict with a fresh perspective. From them arises a new term that is just as quickly cut in two, because it seems we just feel more comfortable with yes/no answers/views rather than having to deal with nuances.

Nothing wrong with this, it is just what humans do and it has been damn effective - even with the problems it carries along.

As for ‘happy’ it something we say but it is such a general term that if you try to get to the bottom of what it means there is little to no conclusive substance to it. Many people will say they want to be happy, but they ignore everything but the idea of this false goal. To be happy is more for children, and it is a fleeting and pointless feeling compared to everything else that happens to us before and after some insignificant little ‘inner glow’ we get (or however else you care to define ‘being happy’).

Happy is not something you do, not something you feel, it is an after thought to glimpse of something that touches us in a way we cannot really articulate.

Note: I admit I was fishing to see if you were curious, but I cannot explain something like this well because I experienced something that made me realise how the idea of being ‘sad’ makes no sense whatsoever and is more or less a delusion of sorts. I don’t mean this as a positive or negative point, it just is what it is and human emotions seem to me to be a confused bundle of issues covering up … words fail :D

We create the distinctions in language and the social significance of these differences. Be this for political reasons or simply down to low resolution analysis/laziness — I like sushi

So, a mind-generated illusion it all is? Sounds plausible; only it seems to deny reality as it appears to us. Do we have a good reason to reject/doubt reality (as it presents itself). Pain isn't pain, happiness isn't happiness; they're both something else or nothing at all.

Such a viewpoint has been popular (enough) since the dawn of philosophy; I suppose it's skepticism in full bloom or on all thrusters. I would like to be a skeptic, I was and probably still am one, subconsciously; thus my earnest queries to your, prima facie, "wild" statements (utter nonsense, happy is nothing, and the like).

When there is a genuine paradigm shift what seems to happen is the usual ‘black and white’ attitudes come into conflict with a fresh perspective. From them arises a new term that is just as quickly cut in two, because it seems we just feel more comfortable with yes/no answers/views rather than having to deal with nuances — I like sushi

This is a textbook case of the mind critiquing/reprimanding/denouncing itself. This brings to the fore the issue of trust - how can a mind that's been declared flawed be entrusted with the task of discovering truths (about itself first, and about the world, second).

Hence, my suspicions that great Buddhist masters have been trying their best to eliminate the mind from the equation (google for more). We have to, in truth, leave our minds behind in this quest whose objective(s) is/are, as of yet, hidden to a great many people, including so-called Buddhist gurus themselves.

As for ‘happy’ it something we say but it is such a general term that if you try to get to the bottom of what it means there is little to no conclusive substance to it. — I like sushi

That would depend on what one means by "substance". Plus, such an inquiry seems misguided for some reason I can't quite put my finger on at the moment. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick here.

Happiness, in the simplest sense, is a state of mind that one either prefers or doesn't mind (because it's pleasant, think of it as likeable "person" you would want as company). I'm sure this is a reasonable definition of happiness that we could work with, oui?

Note: I admit I was fishing to see if you were curious, but I cannot explain something like this well because I experienced something that made me realise how the idea of being ‘sad’ makes no sense whatsoever and is more or less a delusion of sorts. I don’t mean this as a positive or negative point, it just is what it is and human emotions seem to me to be a confused bundle of issues covering up … words fail — I like sushi

We must try...oui?

Happiness, in one sense, could be an addiction and if that's delusion in your book, amen to that. Even so, the addiction seems pro-life and anti-death. We do get mixed up sometimes and therein lies the rub I suppose. Appearances can be deceptive. Agent Smith, in search for hidden order.

Please excuse the haphazard response. I'm freewheeling.

From a personal perspective something that I have become more and more aware of with age is how a life of leisure is no leisure at all. I seem to have an inbuilt code that does not allow me to ‘enjoy’ leisure unless I have earned it. It can be something simple like washing the dishes or making my bed. Once this is done I can relax and do something I consider ‘leisure’. — I like sushi

Remind me to clone your "inbuilt code" and inject it in my minions when I devise an existence that requires workers to work to maintain my empire. Oh wait, that's just this existence.

What better way to motivate workers than to ensure that they internalize incentives through things like "guilt at not working for it" and "no pain/no gain". In Willy Wonka's "loving world" this is the motto! Now go out there tiger, and go get 'em! They're greeeatt!

You can be the manager at Life Corp Enterprises making sure the workers are internalizing guilt for not "getting things done".

@Possibility can be your HR head, making sure that the minions have slogans like "Awareness through collaboration!"..

Then you two can have a torrid love affair.. And you can smoke a cigarette with your Burt Reynolds mustache as she curls up next to you in bed, sheets strewn about.. and with Ayn Rand on your bedstand and Nietzsche on the dresser.. She can say, "What a great team we are..We have made such connections and collaborate so well!" And you can say, "Damn right.. Look what we have built.. If I didn't do anything I would be beside myself with angst and guilt"..

Anyways, the point of the OP was exactly this problem.. The fact that you cannot "be" is not "doing nothing". In other words, there wouldn't be "guilt of having to do something". Rather, LITERALLY, existing itself would be enough.. with no desire for needing to feel satisfied via work projects, or any other dissatisfaction one is feeling that motivates you to overcome it by doing X.

I think it goes without saying that work is required to live? I guess the transition from ‘animal nature’ (based on hand to mouth living) has always felt rewarding because ‘not dying’ is pretty good.

Projecting that into the modern world and humans I don’t quite understand your tone or what your reply means/says?

My point was just that a life of luxury and abundance seems hard to enjoy for anyone who does not believe they deserve it. Granted, many people exist that feel like they deserve everything for nothing … they usually grow up at some point though or turn to crime. Generally a price is paid no matter what.

I still view ‘boredom’ as psychological warning. Sometimes we react to it in the wrong manner. During lockdown a great many have felt the mental strain because they come to realise that they have been ‘working’ from day-to-day without thinking (maybe that is your ‘guilty’ group?), and having to face up to what they consider important underneath causes existential angst.

I do believe the whole existential question is one that comes more easily to some than others. It may even be better for some to ignore it best they can because they might simply end up miserable overall? Hard to impossible to say?

I do believe the whole existential question is one that comes more easily to some than others. It may even be better for some to ignore it best they can because they might simply end up miserable overall? Hard to impossible to say? — I like sushi

So Schopenhauer's idea is not about "boredom" in the sense that, "Boy I got nuthin' t'do today.. Shucks g-golly".. Look at his quote again:

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to ​boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious. — Schopenhauer

I think we’re roughly on the same page.

Regarding ‘happiness’ I can only say I managed to get into a certain state of consciousness (by fluke) and realised that to be ‘happy’ (as a goal) was kind of besides the point. It was like looking down on emotions as some weird facade but I don’t mean this in a non-feeling way (detached), I mean it in a ‘being happy is not important’ way because there is WAY more.

That is why I mentioned youth and novelty before. I have read some of his stuff.

I’ll have to look into what neuroscience has to offer about boredom and the brain one day.

I am not convinced ‘boredom’ is our natural state. I think humans, and most life as far as I can see, are at base about exploration of a sort. I think boredom hits when we have been exposed to too many or to few options.

Starting from the beginning of a human life we are inundated with sensory data and our neurons start to fade away in order to shape the brain into an efficient machine rather than waste maintenance on unused neurons. Maybe homeostasis as a regulatory device is where ‘boredom’ stems from? But homeostasis is not static obviously!

I already predicted that it would mean nothing to you. Death is inevitable, so limiting your life further based on a fear of death is a waste of resources. It’s not necessarily about what benefit you might get out of life’s experiences, but about the benefit your life has on the overall value of existence. — Possibility

So how is this not using people for a scheme again? This is again, LITERALLY defining an/the agenda, that is my whole theme in our discussion. You are doubling down on the fact that procreating is forcing others into a (political) agenda.. and you have thus defined it "benefit ..to existence".. Which has not justification other than STEAMROLLING COLLABORATION MUST BE HAD! But you don't care that this forced agenda violates and disrespects the dignity of the individual that must "benefit the value of existence".. Again, the political agenda.

It’s been gathered up, partially invested in your existence, in the naive and misguided hope that you’ll do more with it than they ever could, and your reply is ‘You invested it wrong - if you’d only left it all under the mattress, it’d be worth more.’ — Possibility

Ah right, so more follow the agenda.. All that protestations earlier that it's not about the agenda goes out the window.. You are full blown HR defending the Boss now.

I’m not denying the initial situation as forced, but I disagree that any scheme - whatever we do immediately after our awareness of this initial situation - can be forced. Only our ignorance, isolation and exclusion keeps us in compliance. — Possibility

Am I in 1984? How is anything not comply or die? Again, have you read my thread on Willy Wonka's Forced Game? Limited choices are still limited choices.. And somehow, the "AWARENESS THROUGH COLLABORATION" is a the big consolation prize.. See, look how you contributed to the AGENDA.. Isn't that nice?? All it is, is lipstick on a pig.. the pig is "comply or die".. You're here.. you have to do X, Y, Z or die.

In a way, each of us is a leaking ship, loaded with precious cargo. What we do with that cargo is more important than the ship that carries it. Once we recognise that, it’s a matter of pooling our resources and building a better system that can hold ALL the cargo, not just what you can salvage of yours and your significant other’s. So, why are you all sitting there complaining about the current state of your ship? — Possibility

Utopianism. Why do people need to be on the ship? All this amounts to is more of the same.. Work to survive, maintain comfort, and entertainment pursuits.. You're just talking the best processes to do this..That isn't addressing the very problem of being on the ship in the first place. Don't think about the ship.. think about fixing the holes better! But Schop's point is that the holes are inherent.. Dissatisfaction-game is inherent.

Starting from the beginning of a human life we are inundated with sensory data and our neurons start to fade away in order to shape the brain into an efficient machine rather than waste maintenance on unused neurons. Maybe homeostasis as a regulatory device is where ‘boredom’ stems from? But homeostasis is not static obviously! — I like sushi

This stuff doesn't matter.. As self-conscious animals, our POV is not neurons regulating, but an agent who must grapple with the everyday of surviving, finding comfort, finding entertainment. We are also an animal that can dislike what they are doing yet do it anyway, KNOWING they don't like doing it, and then having to find little strategies to tolerate it. What an inefficient way of surviving.. But hey, we got music, art, and poetry (sarcasm there)..

In an industrialized, complex network of production and consumption, this is all atomized into our little "work" and "leisure" pursuits. On the other side of the spectrum, waiting for us is boredom. Boredom lays bare that existence isn't anything BUT striving-after. We strive to survive and be comfortable. Then, if we do not have any entertainment pursuits to occupy our mental space, we may get existential. "Why are we doing this repetitive upkeep, maintenance, and thrashing about?" It becomes apparent about the malignantly useless (as another author has characterized it).

A pretty face, a noble pursuit, a puzzle, an ounce of pleasure.. we all try to submerge in these entertainments to not face the existential boredom straight on. That would be too much to dwell in for too long. We design goals, and virtues and reasons, and entertainments, and standards to meet, and trying to contribute to "something". We cannot fall back on the default of existence- the boredom.

So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not. — schopenhauer1

I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it.
— Antinatalist

Agreed. But we need to recognise that we can only control ourselves. We can’t force others not to reproduce - that just adds to suffering, and then we’re compromising our efforts. Increasing awareness and connection brings others the information they need to recognise the inefficiency of procreation, given the potential of life. And collaboration brings this diverse potentiality together, with a reduction of suffering as our common focus of attention, effort and time we each have available. — Possibility

We can force people to fight in wars they didn´t start (and to die there). But however, I don't consider it realistic that there would be a law against procreation.

I think we’re roughly on the same page.

Regarding ‘happiness’ I can only say I managed to get into a certain state of consciousness (by fluke) and realised that to be ‘happy’ (as a goal) was kind of besides the point. It was like looking down on emotions as some weird facade but I don’t mean this in a non-feeling way (detached), I mean it in a ‘being happy is not important’ way because there is WAY more — I like sushi

It is possible (to transcend the hedonism trap); so, why not? People do it, at a much smaller scale, in the form of sacrificing short-term pleasure for long-term well-being. Whether it's a step in the right direction or not remains to be seen. However, it appears that we're kinda stuck with the way our brain's wired, the reward system and all that. It looks like our brain is, in a way, seeing through the ruse as it were or...not! This ain't cure against poison, it's poison against poison. No matter how we slice this cake, we're not gonna be able to, well, liberate ourselves. Then again, we got this far..recognizing that there's a problem is half the solution or thereabouts. :smile:

Animals that have evolved. Animals that are not exactly born ‘self-conscious’ as far as we know.

How the brain adapts to the environment in vitro and when exposed to the world may actually provide us with some insights into how we arrive at ‘boredom’ and whether it is viable to state that ‘boredom’ is the baseline for conscious beings.

Note: I don’t think we strive to be comfortable at all.

What mad man actually craves absolute liberation? Not me for sure! There is only so much one can carry on their back ;)

Note: I don’t think we strive to be comfortable at all — I like sushi

Ok, next time you shiver and try to stay warm or get cooler, adjust your chair, try to regulate any comfort, let me know.

I think it was Schiller who said something like ‘if things work perfectly well humans will take them apart to see how it works/ give them something to do’.

Meaning, I think we are naturally inclined to explore and that ‘comfort’ (in too large an amount) can prevent this. Comfort and boredom have some thing some common - neither appears to be an initial state.

What mad man actually craves absolute liberation? — I like sushi

Good question? Clinically depressed individuals (Buddha may have been one) probably swing to the other extreme - from unbearable suffering to an unqenchable thirst for moksha. It's just the way it is although from a certain angle it makes absolutely no sense at all.

There is only so much one can carry on their back ;) — I like sushi

Indeed, although I must say how holocaust survivors keep their faith in a (benevolent) god is quite beyond me.

Meaning, I think we are naturally inclined to explore and that ‘comfort’ (in too large an amount) can prevent this. Comfort and boredom have some thing some common - neither appears to be an initial state. — I like sushi

You miss my meaning. I mean “getting comfortable”. You sit, stand, itch, open window, clean your environment, etc to get more comfortable.

I the bigger picture I don’t think we create ‘equilibrium’ (let us call it) in order to ‘get comfy’.

I honestly see it that we do this simply to create a semblance of balance in order to measure from.

When someone creates a home and places certain things in certain places I see this as acting as a creator in order to knock it off balance and learn how regulation in one area can be transferred into life in general. A tidy home leads us to understand something about limited control.

At base it appears to all be about learning or, in mechanical terms, about collecting and regulating information in order to facilitate more of the same.

In terms of pure psychology I absolutely wish to get uncomfortable sometimes because the relief of comfort afterwards is quite nice to say the least.

When someone creates a home and places certain things in certain places I see this as acting as a creator in order to knock it off balance and learn how regulation in one area can be transferred into life in general. A tidy home leads us to understand something about limited control. — I like sushi

Dissatisfaction.

In terms of pure psychology I absolutely wish to get uncomfortable sometimes because the relief of comfort afterwards is quite nice to say the least. — I like sushi

Dissatisfaction.

So how is this not using people for a scheme again? This is again, LITERALLY defining an/the agenda, that is my whole theme in our discussion. You are doubling down on the fact that procreating is forcing others into a (political) agenda.. and you have thus defined it "benefit ..to existence".. Which has not justification other than STEAMROLLING COLLABORATION MUST BE HAD! But you don't care that this forced agenda violates and disrespects the dignity of the individual that must "benefit the value of existence".. Again, the political agenda. — schopenhauer1

No political agenda, just a perspective that I’m sharing. Take it or leave it, but stop representing it falsely as some political scheme or forced agenda. Ignorance or awareness - it’s all a choice, as is acting to benefit existence as a whole. If you only want to benefit yourself, go ahead, but don’t complain to me about suffering as if there’s nothing you can do about it. There is no dignity in complaining about what everyone is experiencing.

You are full blown HR defending the Boss now. — schopenhauer1

What Boss? Make your own choices, and stop pretending there’s some ‘Boss’ you can be pissed at for your situation. It’s all part of your little dystopian fantasy...

And somehow, the "AWARENESS THROUGH COLLABORATION" is a the big consolation prize.. — schopenhauer1

Again with the misrepresentation...no, awareness first. But, then you’d prefer if I was arguing for ‘blind collaboration leads to awareness’, because it fits in with your fantasy...

In a way, each of us is a leaking ship, loaded with precious cargo. What we do with that cargo is more important than the ship that carries it. Once we recognise that, it’s a matter of pooling our resources and building a better system that can hold ALL the cargo, not just what you can salvage of yours and your significant other’s. So, why are you all sitting there complaining about the current state of your ship?
— Possibility

Utopianism. Why do people need to be on the ship? All this amounts to is more of the same.. Work to survive, maintain comfort, and entertainment pursuits.. You're just talking the best processes to do this..That isn't addressing the very problem of being on the ship in the first place. Don't think about the ship.. think about fixing the holes better! But Schop's point is that the holes are inherent.. Dissatisfaction-game is inherent. — schopenhauer1

They don’t need to be on the ship - they ARE the ship, or they are the cargo and the ship is theirs to do with what they will. And I very clearly have NOT been arguing for survival, comfort or entertainment, so stop bringing them up. Of course think about the ship, but it’s basically scrap, so there’s no point wishing it wasn’t, because everybody’s is scrap. Instead, think about what you can do to look after the cargo (which, in case you were wondering, is the ‘dignity’ - value/potential - of the individual).

I don't consider it realistic that there would be a law against procreation. — Antinatalist

Neither do I. I guess I was talking more about this moral judgement against procreation. People are going to continue procreating, no matter what we say about it. To them it still appears to be their best option, whether in compliance with the myth or in defiance of it. If we’re going to genuinely reduce suffering, then we need to account for this, and not ignore, isolate or exclude those who choose to procreate, for whatever reason.

WTF?

Completely unnecessary - sexist character attacks with zero substance are not welcome here.

You want to write fiction - do it somewhere else, and leave me the fuck out of it!