Three points:

One. About half the people in the world are electing to procreate at a sub-replacement rate. The sub-replacement rate is less than 2 children per woman. Sub replacement is the norm in Europe; Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, United States and a number of other nations. It is as low as 1.31 in Portugal. France is at 1.96. The lowest reproduction rates are in Singapore, Macau, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. In developed countries population growth is from migration, or where there is insufficient immigration the population is shrinking.

In the developing countries, the rate of population stability is higher -- perhaps 3.4 children per woman. (Mortality rates, particularly child mortality, are significantly higher in some countries. Niger, South Sudan, DRC, Somalia, Chad, Burundi, Angola, and Mali all have birth rates above 6.0. Niger's is 7.6. This actually represents progress. In 1970, Rwanda and Kenya had birth rates above 8.0. Their birth rates are now 3.9 and 4.3 respectively.

So, At least half of the world has decided that the delights of existence are insufficient to justify more reproduction than it takes to replace themselves.

Two. I agree with you that the economic system to which most people in the world are subjected is based on at least, controlled, and not-horrible exploitation, but exploitation none the less. A good share of the world's people are subjected to fairly bad exploitation, and some people experience downright horrible exploitation.

The Standard Model in the much of the world is this: I will pay you less than your value as a worker and I will keep the extra value you produce for myself. In exchange for this fabulous and generous deal, I will probably? keep you employed until it is no longer convenient for me to do so.

The result of the Standard Model is that some people get more and more rich at the expense of those who get more and more poor. At the present time, the Standard Model has produced less than a dozen splendid people whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of about 3.5+ billion riff-raff. In the industrialized world, the Standard Model applies, but it has been spoiled by roughly a billion lazy, selfish, greedy workers who demanded a larger share of the wealth they created.

The NON-Standard Model is that production should be for human use, and not for profit. The Non-Standard Model greatly reduces the level of exploitation of even the billion lazy, selfish, greedy workers who don't know what hard work is. (For best results, apply your sarcasm sensors here.)

Three. Even in the best of all possible worlds (a famous caveat), life will not be perfect and free of suffering. There will be, for instance, snakes.

We could do a lot better. I don't recommend that anyone hold their breath waiting for that happy day when we figure out how.

The Standard Model in the much of the world is this: I will pay you less than your value as a worker and I will keep the extra value you produce for myself. In exchange for this fabulous and generous deal, I will probably? keep you employed until it is no longer convenient for me to do so. — Bitter Crank

But as with the other thread about economics, what is the best model? Is this only for large businesses with CEOs that answer to shareholders, small businesses, or down to the non-owning manager level as well? What makes someone like a manager have more control and power than others? If it was democratically run,would there be more infighting?

Even taking all this into account, if we have to survive, we are obligated to work and that in itself is a problem as now people must be forced to be under some other people's control. There is no way out.

... but as with the other thread about economics, what is the best model? — schopenhauer1

Well, which is the best model depends on what values you want to optimize. In the Standard [capitalist] Model that we have, profit is optimized. Optimizing profit makes sense in the capitalist system.

Society can elect other values to optimize: environmental safety; worker satisfaction; high quality products or inexpensive products; and so on. Worker satisfaction is a reason primary value to optimize, since most citizens in any given country are workers (or will be workers, or were workers). So, optimizing working conditions AND achieving adequate production to meet social needs makes sense,

There are several aspects to optimizing worker satisfaction:

1. Workers have control over their workplace, its operation, and its purpose. In this scheme, workers elect (or hire) coordinators, quality control specialists, occupational safety and health inspectors, and the like. The workers decide what kind of products to produce, what level of quality (with respect to cost), and quantity.

2. Workers decide what they need in terms of their own support and maintenance. They may not be producing for profit, but they are also not working as a voluntary hobby.

3. Most consumers are workers, and consumers need to work with factories to match production to desire (obviously, not on a one to one basis, or in picayune details). If workers need cooler clothing to wear in increasingly hot weather, and maybe with insect repellence built in, these needs can be communicated.

4. Workers and consumers together will have to form councils to determine what a reasonable standard of living is for a given area. Today, people live within the limits of a wage somebody else determines. People will have to decide for themselves what is reasonable for the amount of time they want to put into work. If they want to work less, they might have to share more goods, like sharing bicycles, tools, laundry equipment, or camping gear.

Greater independence and autonomy will, paradoxically, require more interaction and cooperation among people.

What happens to rich people in this sort of society? Well... first, their cash becomes worthless in a economy where work and consumption is connected. Their property will be socialized. a few thousand people in a country of many millions won't own everything. The rich will have to find useful work, just like everybody else, and it will literally be good for them. (The alternative will not.)

The problem with the Standard and Non-Standard dichotomy is it doesn't address particular questions of motivation and production. It's correct about the relationship of the worker to a job, within the context of them participating in that job. When profit is put before the well-being of a worker, the worker suffers. In the wider context though, that is too the livelihoods of people outside of the treatment of a worker, the concepts break down.

In a world with excess people, that is more people than production jobs, the organisation, production and distribution of resources can no longer be tracked by "need." People without a place in the production system need economic means, they need to be able to access food, housing and recreational activities. In the era of mass production and population, it's inevitable that many people outside the system of production are going to have to use it. So what are the idle masses going to do? How are we going to define what they are interested in doing or the particular products they need?

At this point, the "non-productive jobs" come roaring back. If the idle masses are going to enjoy media/art, society is going to need advertising and marketing to generate interest (else you'll just be making expensive films for empty theatres). Various non-essential service industries will spring up again, offering a place for the idle to spend their time. In any case, the deadlines and pressure come back in because this sort of production and service takes people to make and perform it. Many who are idle by basic production must cease to be, to produce the variety of products and services idle masses like to enjoy.

No doubt the remove of the profit motive takes away certain pressures. People aren't under the constant pump to produce for profit maximisation, but it doesn't remove the pressures to keep "doing." Even if basic survival is guaranteed by an effective combination of basic income and resource distribution system, there still many organisations, services and productions which demand the action of it's workers. Many of the excess people won't need to work to survive, but to one degree or another they will have to, to produce the variety of products and services we enjoy. The work cycle doesn't get eliminated till all production and distribution is automated, so no-one has to do anything to produce, organise or distribute what people want.

Forcing people into obligations by procreating them is wrong

Now, that is one odd premise. You are saying that having children is unfair to children themselves. We need to be fair to non-existent people by preventing them from coming into existence. I can understand not having children as a political choice to stop overcrowding and damage to the environment. I don't buy it, but I can understand.

Groundhogs are not given a choice. Neither are shrimp, elephants, ants, bacteria, small-mouthed bass, and lobsters. Or apple trees, seaweed, mushrooms, and broccoli for that matter. Broccoli in particular is oppressed by Big Agriculture.

Forced into obligations? We aren't forced to be what we are. We have evolved over billion of years to do what we do and be what we are. There is no obligation to live the life you were built for. It comes from inside yourself.

I ask myself what kind of experiences you must have had to come up with an idea like this. I can't figure it out unless you wish you'd never been born. Which is fine, I guess. I flirt with that idea myself from time to time.

I was hoping you'd finally comment on this topic.

Forced into obligations? We aren't forced to be what we are. We have evolved over billion of years to do what we do and be what we are. There is no obligation to live the life you were built for. It comes from inside yourself. — T Clark

So we have no ability to make choices (not having more children who must be forced into social obligations and control and be controlled)? I am choosing not to bring more people into the world and advocate it... How is it from within me not to decide this if I am willingly doing this along with millions of others who either call themselves "antinatalists" or who choose to be childless for other (non-moral) reasons?

I was hoping you'd finally comment on this topic. — Terrapin Station

:D

The workers decide what kind of products to produce, what level of quality (with respect to cost), and quantity. — Bitter Crank

And what if the your teammates are no better than a belligerent manager? Is tyranny of the masses that much better than the tyranny of the few?

Most consumers are workers, and consumers need to work with factories to match production to desire (obviously, not on a one to one basis, or in picayune details). If workers need cooler clothing to wear in increasingly hot weather, and maybe with insect repellence built in, these needs can be communicated. — Bitter Crank

How will they know how much to make? Didn't the Soviet Union and other communist countries have problems making enough consumer items? Granted their big trade-off was spending it on military and other non-essential items, how would you not create shortages or waste in command economies?

What happens to rich people in this sort of society? Well... first, their cash becomes worthless in a economy where work and consumption is connected. Their property will be socialized. a few thousand people in a country of many millions won't own everything. The rich will have to find useful work, just like everybody else, and it will literally be good for them. (The alternative will not.) — Bitter Crank

Sounds like anarcho-communist collectives.. Always compelling due to the idea of everyone contributing in smaller communities. I see the benefits of an interconnected capitalist (exploitative) economy not being realized in this type of economy. For example, communities would have a harder time coordinating without markets and thus overall utility and supplies will be limited.

I'm not against these ideas in theory or practice.. I'd be glad for a change in many aspects if it was for the better.. though predicting if it really works out for the better is near impossible and the collapse of such a system into classic markets or the chance for it to turn into a classic dictatorship seems fairly high. However, even in this model there are still obligations and forcing others into obligations is still harmful to others who will be controlled by the collective or control the collective.. Whether rule by council or rule by shitty CEO/manager everyone is who is part of an economic system will have to endure the insidious, harmful obligations to some entity to survive. The only way to prevent it is to prevent people.

Did you mean to reply to @Bitter Crank?

By being born we are forced into into agreements with society to survive. One major example is work. While employed, you are obligated to do everything for the employer that is necessary. If you quit, you may find yourself with no economic means to support yourself so you are obligated to continue (if you don't want to burn savings, go poor, homeless, etc.) until you find another job which might continue the cycle. I say it is immoral to knowingly throw more people into the obligatory forced agreements of the economic system or any system that requires obligatory duties be performed. — schopenhauer1

Well this all is predicated on the assumption that you have to work in a traditional job your whole life in order to survive, but that's false. You can teach yourself new skills, which may enable you to start your own business or work as self-employed - for example. Yes, you will have to do something useful for others in order to survive, but that's only normal, human beings are social, and we all need to contribute. If you don't want to contribute anything, then that's a character defect, which you need to work on to fix. Compassion is a natural human virtue.

Also, procreation has nothing to do with this.

If you don't want to contribute anything, then that's a character defect, which you need to work on to fix. Compassion is a natural human virtue. — Agustino

Blaming the victim.. you are so compassionate you will FORCE others into "X" harm and then say "Buck up kiddo.. life isn't going to hand you anything".. Well, no shit. Every adult learns this lesson. but YOU put them there in the first place! Not everyone has the constitution, nor WANTS to go through with x, y, z character building program.. I am glad you are all for it and peddling it daily.. but why force others into it?

Blaming the victim.. you are so compassionate you will FORCE others into "X" harm and then say "Buck up kiddo.. life isn't going to hand you shit".. — schopenhauer1

Okay, can you explain who I will force and into what harm I will force them?

but why force others into it? — schopenhauer1

Who am I forcing?

The OP was about forcing people into obligations by procreating them into existence. A state of affairs will occur where more people will exist and experience the harm of obligations.. specifically economic ones (as dropping out of system is not viable and only sounds doable in philosophy threads).

The OP was about forcing people into obligations by procreating them into existence. — schopenhauer1

The OP is incoherent.

So let's see. First of all, you presuppose that obligations (and responsibility) are somehow a harm. I think this is absolutely wrong-headed.

Then you also say that by procreating them, you force something on them. But wait a second. Do you believe in souls? If you don't, then the person starts existing when they are born. How can you force something onto someone who isn't yet born? All the forcing starts only after birth, not before birth, so again, logically speaking this has absolutely 0 to do with procreation.

And if you do believe in souls, then there may be a purpose for bringing them here.

(as dropping out of system is not viable and only sounds doable in philosophy threads). — schopenhauer1

Depends what you mean by dropping out of the system. If you don't want to work a traditional job, then learn the skills required so that you don't have to do it anymore. You're not precisely forced to go your whole life working a traditional job... If you don't want to do anything useful for your fellow human beings, then yeah, don't expect to get them to provide for you, that would be absurd. Those who can do something useful for others, should do it. Those who can't do something useful for others - because say they're physically, or mentally handicapped, they should be provided for and taken care of by those who can do something useful.

But you definitely don't have a child thinking that life is worth living, >:O

The OP is incoherent. — Agustino

Do you need me to clarify? Otherwise you just mean to say "invalid" or "wrong". Incoherent means it's not clear.. Which would mean it's best to clarify first..

So let's see. First of all, you presuppose that obligations (and responsibility) are somehow a harm. I think this is absolutely wrong-headed. — Agustino

Why? Obligations force work to be done that would not otherwise be done. Now a person can willingly accept it, and even put a smile on their face while doing it (whistle while we work), or a person can be bitter about it, either way.. it is a necessity and therefore a forced task. To me, continual, ongoing work that is unwanted is harmful. I do not see how it is not.

Then you also say that by procreating them, you force something on them. But wait a second. Do you believe in souls? If you don't, then the person starts existing when they are born. How can you force something onto someone who isn't yet born? All the forcing starts only after birth, not before birth, so again, logically speaking this has absolutely 0 to do with procreation. — Agustino

Oh this little rhetorical wordplay again.. I've gone through this in so many variations.. So I'll say that when the child is born, that is forcing someone, as once a child is born, they exist due to your previous actions. A new child exists and is therefore harmed.

And if you do believe in souls, then there may be a purpose for bringing them here. — Agustino

What would be the worst that would happen by not manifesting souls into physical bodies (not that I believe that)?

Depends what you mean by dropping out of the system. If you don't want to work a traditional job, then learn the skills required so that you don't have to do it anymore. You're not precisely forced to go your whole life working a traditional job... — Agustino

Again, not that viable.. Surely a person's life trajectory is not as malleable as you claim. Hypothetically, anyone can do anything they want (within reason) but in reality there are a lot of social ties, pressures, and the like that make it almost as impossible as it not even being an option. Also, most people do not like to be homeless, be subject to disease, parasites, bugs, and have no luxuries whatsoever when they were already exposed to the lifestyle of having these goods/services.. No doubt a few people can do this but then it is possible that their social circumstances, their personality, and the like has already given them the inclination and capacity to accomplish this. Of course how long these people really "drop out" would be interesting to discern.. I'm thinking the hippies in the "back to the land" movement in the 60s and then going back to suburban life with family later on.

If you don't want to do anything useful for your fellow human beings, then yeah, don't expect to get them to provide for you, that would be absurd. Those who can do something useful for others, should do it. — Agustino

This is the perfect example of forcing people into obligations which is harmful. Again, I am not saying that people should NOT follow obligations to others, just that exposing new people to this is no good.

But you definitely don't have a child thinking that life is worth living, >:O — Heister Eggcart

No, I don't currently have a child because I'm not married, nor would I have a child right away (that would be something to be discussed and decided together with my wife) but I don't see why that's funny. Most children do in fact seem to think that life is worth living.

No, I don't currently have a child because I'm not married, nor would I have a child right away (that would be something to be discussed and decided together with my wife) but I don't see why that's funny. Most children do in fact seem to think that life is worth living. — Agustino

LOL. Ah, so you're banking on your child thinking like you, agreeing with you that life is worth living. Thanks for rubbishing your faux neutrality in the other thread >:O

~
(Y)

LOL. Ah, so you're banking on your child thinking like you, agreeing with you that life is worth living. Thanks for rubbishing your faux neutrality in the other thread >:O — Heister Eggcart

No, I nowhere said that I'm banking on my child thinking that life is worth living. I did however tell you a fact, namely that most children (while they're children) do in fact seem to think life is worth living. As for neutrality, I don't have any neutrality to hold. I believe life is worth living, but I don't claim to know that. It's a matter of faith.

But you do claim to know that your faith is worth having. Why? Why else would that be the case were you not also assured in the knowledge that life is worth living?

Do you need me to clarify? Otherwise you just mean to say "invalid" or "wrong". Incoherent means it's not clear.. Which would mean it's best to clarify first.. — schopenhauer1

Incoherent means something more than it's not clear. It means that it's nonsense.

Obligations force work to be done that would not otherwise be done — schopenhauer1

So? >:O That's as silly as complaining you're forced to breathe! I don't understand why you assume that obligations or work are something bad, a harm, or the like. That's absolutely arbitrary.

it is a necessity and therefore a forced task — schopenhauer1

Breathing is a necessity too, why don't you quit it for awhile? :s Not all necessities are bad. You're making a totally mistaken assumption. You have to justify why a necessity is something bad in the first place.

Oh this little rhetorical wordplay again.. I've gone through this in so many variations.. So I'll say that when the child is born, that is forcing someone, as once a child is born, they exist due to your previous actions. A new child exists and is therefore harmed. — schopenhauer1

It's not word play at all, it's just pure logic. When a child is born, nobody gets forced because 1 second prior there was nobody, no suddenly there is somebody. Who was forced? Forcing can only start after the child is born. Mere existence also isn't a harm. I don't understand where you're taking this stuff from. Things like being raped, being beaten, being tortured, starvation, disease, etc. these are harms. Existence isn't a harm.

What would be the worst that would happen by not manifesting souls into physical bodies (not that I believe that)? — schopenhauer1

They couldn't know themselves truly and completely? To know something you have to set it against its opposite. To know immortality, you have to set it against mortality. To know joy, you have to set it against suffering.

Again, not that viable.. Surely a person's life trajectory is not as malleable as you claim. — schopenhauer1

It is absolutely viable. Have you tried it? Have you tried training yourself to do something useful for others that would allow you to work independently? People's life trajectory is a lot more malleable than they would initially guess. If you look back 10-20 years ago, you'll be amazed you are where you are today.

This is the perfect example of forcing people into obligations which is harmful. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand your point. You haven't proven that all obligations are harmful.

But you do claim to know that your faith is worth having. Why? — Heister Eggcart

Which faith are you talking about? My faith in God? And how can faith be a matter of "worth having" or not. It's not like you do a cost benefit analysis and then decide, yeah, sounds like a good idea, I'll have this faith.

Why else would that be the case were you not also assured in the knowledge that life is worth living? — Heister Eggcart

Because I believe that God wouldn't place man without a reason here.

Which faith are you talking about? — Agustino

This one:

I believe life is worth living, but I don't claim to know that. It's a matter of faith. — Agustino

~

Because I believe that God wouldn't place man without a reason here. — Agustino

So, faith upon faith upon faith. If none of these faiths are worth having, or if to ask such a question is peculiar, then indeed why have faith? Merely to have it in itself? Surely not, you have faith based upon what believing gets you. And you need to believe that the non-existing, unborn child is worth procreating and is worth being given a life, otherwise your decision to have a child is at best arbitrary and amoral, like picking your nose.

then indeed why have faith? — Heister Eggcart

Because you love God, and you believe in the things promised by God. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"

And you need to believe that the non-existing, unborn child is worth procreating and is worth being given a life, otherwise your decision to have a child is at best arbitrary and amoral, like picking your nose. — Heister Eggcart

The decision to have a child, is similar symbolically to the divine decision to create the world with its myriad forms in it. It emanates out of love, in this case the creative love that exists between a man and a woman.

We must return, then, to curious claim that we somehow do harm to "someone" who doesn't exist. In other words, that there is some class of "people" who are not people who are caused harm when they become people by some act which took place before they became people.

Becoming a person who exists (as opposed it seems to being a person who doesn't exist) is evidently bad in and of itself. That is the case because an existing person necessarily experiences pain of some kind in some manner at some time, which was not and could not be experienced by that person while in the blissful state of nonexistence..

So, for example, the parents of schopenhauer1 did wrong by causing him to exist, thus forcing him to do all the things existing people do and those fortunate people who don't exist do not do; work and for that matter I suppose eat, drink, speak, etc.

It's a view which has similarities to the doctrine of Original Sin. We humans exist because our ancestors procreated through the ages. There was no Adam and Eve, but sometime in the course of our evolution a pair or pairs of sinners reproduced and that reproduction caused the many harms we existing people now experience.

So we have no ability to make choices (not having more children who must be forced into social obligations and control and be controlled)? I am choosing not to bring more people into the world and advocate it... How is it from within me not to decide this if I am willingly doing this along with millions of others who either call themselves "antinatalists" or who choose to be childless for other (non-moral) reasons? — schopenhauer1

I have no problem with you not having children. It's none of my business what your reason is. But to justify it on the basis of the welfare of the unborn child, if that's what you're really doing, is bizarre.

But to justify it on the basis of the welfare of the unborn child, if that's what you're really doing, is bizarre. — T Clark

Why?

I'm not an anti-natalist anymore in part because the argument from consent, which you present here, doesn't work. It's incoherent, as Agustino said, and pointing out the obvious fact that no one is being harmed in procreation is not a rhetorical trick. Do the parents cause their child to exist? Yes, but causation does not equal compulsion. One can only compel, coerce, or force, and therefore harm, the existent, not the non-existent.

Ergo, it is morally permissible, or not wrong, to have children. That being said, just because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right, so there is certainly nothing like a duty or positive moral reason to procreate.

It means that it's nonsense. — Agustino

I would say invalid or unsound are more appropriate to what you are trying to convey.

So? >:O That's as silly as complaining you're forced to breathe! I don't understand why you assume that obligations or work are something bad, a harm, or the like. That's absolutely arbitrary. — Agustino

Because I believe forcing someone to be in a (practically) inescapable position to do something or not that is ongoing is harmful. Breathing, is usually automatic. Perhaps you should have used eating. Eating is optional.. If eating caused harm in an ongoing continual fashion, than I guess that applies to, though usually it does not.

Breathing is a necessity too, why don't you quit it for awhile? :s Not all necessities are bad. You're making a totally mistaken assumption. You have to justify why a necessity is something bad in the first place. — Agustino

See above about eating.

It's not word play at all, it's just pure logic. When a child is born, nobody gets forced because 1 second prior there was nobody, no suddenly there is somebody. Who was forced? Forcing can only start after the child is born. Mere existence also isn't a harm. I don't understand where you're taking this stuff from. Things like being raped, being beaten, being tortured, starvation, disease, etc. these are harms. Existence isn't a harm. — Agustino

When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy.

They couldn't know themselves truly and completely? To know something you have to set it against its opposite. To know immortality, you have to set it against mortality. To know joy, you have to set it against suffering. — Agustino

But why does this "know themselves truly and completely" have to be carried out? What is the worst that happens with incompleteness?

It is absolutely viable. Have you tried it? Have you tried training yourself to do something useful for others that would allow you to work independently? People's life trajectory is a lot more malleable than they would initially guess. If you look back 10-20 years ago, you'll be amazed you are where you are today. — Agustino

This sounds like too much self-help hype. I just don't buy that people can control things as much as you are saying in the amount and scope you claim.

I don't understand your point. You haven't proven that all obligations are harmful. — Agustino

I agree that the obligation to do something useful for others is necessary, but I think that people are exposed to having to do this is harmful as it forces unwanted, (often unpleasant) work. Often one must control or be controlled by others. I think here for example of a job..something that is obligated to the employer (being controlled) as it's mainly necessary for economic survival in our current system. I am not advocating that we should be selfish or not be obligated- we must. However, exposing new people to unwanted, unpleasant work in order to survive and function properly (though necessary once born) is not good for the interest of a future possible person who will have to endure it.