Obviously I largely agree, however lately from various things I have read I have started to wonder if the optimism/pessimism divide is a product of a technological and agricultural society. It is hard for me to seriously consider debates like this happening in a primitive world in which humans are not domesticated and behave as animals in a larger ecosystem. Questions like this just would not arise, no one would give them any thought. This sort of thinking is symptomatic of severely corrupted and twisted creatures, things that by all accounts really should not exist. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, culture affects our modes of survival, comfort, entertainment. In the spirit of fairness and equality, even the "noble savage" of the primitive world, should grapple with this question. It is as much their problem as ours. This is true that they may never think it though on their own.

However, the fact that it can be thought by a human means that there is already something there that was able to be accessed.

The left/right politics is how we deal with this mess now it's happened. — Down The Rabbit Hole

True, but there should be a more fundamental debate going on.

In cognizance of the outline above, why isn't misanthropy a justifiable philosophical resolution to the fact of human existence? Why isn't a misanthropic stance consistent with an existentialist one? Can't one believe in the truth of human existence, dissociate it from its fact in the real world, and then champion an amelioration of its vices? — Aryamoy Mitra

Yes, see my post here along similar lines.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9790/misanthropy

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. That to me seems to require constant effort, or conflict, which is a battle against this threat, which is, in my view, competition. The alternative is to just “be” in the Buddhist sense of the Will creates suffering. If not then in a way you are competing with yourself, against the knowledge reason gives you, that there is nothing. — Brett

Well-stated. I would just add that as far as I see, survival, comfort, and entertainment are the general categories of the striving. Within those, we create myriads of other woes and worries.. but usually in relation to what though? Work-stuff, maintaining some semblance of comfort, finding stuff to keep one occupied. All the fuss for those three basic categories.. everything else is derivative- the jealousy, the planning, the psychological posturing/guessing, all for those three main goals. We need to maintain resources. We don't like discomfort. We don't like being bored.

Cultural milieu will change the forms/threshold of these categories though. A homeless person living with no showers or air conditioning may find this not needed over time. A middle class Westerner must make sure every dish is spotless perhaps. These are comfort-related, but in relation to culture. Nonetheless, it goes back to those categories.

Similarly, hunter-gatherers discussing where to migrate to next for food and office politics and intrigue are related to economic needs which relates to how we survive. These are survival-related, but in relation to culture. Nonetheless, it goes back to those categories.

as if what matters most to existence is how an individual feels about it. — Possibility

That's all that matters. No one else lives my life.

To me this doesn’t make sense - mainly because I believe the primacy of the ‘individual’ is an illusion of five-dimensional perspective, and ‘being born’ is already a collaborative effort. — Possibility

Even if this was metaphysically true, it is not epistemologically so, so would not matter to the experiencer.

What you’re competing for is the capacity to exist on your own terms, according to a relational structure of meaning and value that prioritises your consolidated individual ‘self’ as the only existence that matters. It seems to me like you were led to believe you were the centre of the universe, and then unceremoniously thrust into the real world. I don’t envy your perspective. — Possibility

Huh? How are we not thrust into the "real world"? I don't deny other people are in the world, also thus thrown and having to deal with in their own way. Just because we interact with each other to get stuff accomplished, doesn't diminish the dealing with that each individual does.

Yes. — Brett

Of course, someone will counter and say I don't mind encountering the trials, so surely others would not.

1) You cannot know if other people will like the trials on whole or in part. But the claim is that any trial unduly imposed on another is wrong.

2) Even if a person identifies with the trials being imposed on them, it is still wrong as again, any trial unduly imposed on another is wrong. The trials cannot be ended without ending life itself. The trials were never agreed upon for the terms of what they would be. The trials never go exactly how one would want to maneuver them. The trials can go terribly wrong. The trials can never be gotten rid of. For all these reasons and more, imposing trials for another unduly is wrong. That is what is going on here. Certainly, the competition imposed by a system of supply and demand can fall into this.

3) I think Benatar does have a good case that people can be delusional about their own well-being. Someone with an overriding mental condition, let's say, who struggles with it for a lifetime, may have happy moments, but may be unaware of how much flourishing is hampered by their condition. They are deluded into thinking that their diminished quality is as good as it actually is. Rather, if they only knew how much their imposition was causing harm, they would see how much they have lost in terms of how really good were the goods or how really bad their bad experiences were. Even further, there is a case that even so-called "well-adjusted" people might on the whole be delusional about how good their past and future experiences were and will be. The trials truly were not great, and yet people fit them into narratives to cope and move forward. Further, these narratives become justifications for creating other people who will also go through these well-known trials, and further will experience things unintended and even unknown to the parent. Thus, harmful aspects of being exposed to a competition are enacted on and imposed for other people and people think this is permissible. Is it? Like other trials of life, the harmful aspects of competition are also an imposition that is unnecessary to cause for another.

increase awareness, connection and collaboration has been to continue to live. Even though other strategies may be available, they may not be apparent, except by chance. — Possibility

If awareness, connection, and collaboration was some sort of overarching principle, then trying to achieve this consciously would be simply the naturalistic fallacy. My argument is that we are in fact "thrown" in situations of "dealing with" by being born at all. My evaluation is that the wrong thing to do is to put more people into situations of dealing with. Whether or not collaboration is or is not taking place, makes no difference to this evaluation.

If I create for you burdens to overcome, like a really mundane Hercules having to overcome all those trials (but think any daily common or uncommon burden instead), then I have wronged you. No amount of appealing to overarching themes of collaboration, awareness, and connection overrides this fact of causing burdens for other people be a wrong acted upon someone else.

So going back to the theme of this thread...
Even though it isn't competition proper as I define it (consciously competing with others for resources, points, objectives, etc.), in an abstract sense, people are competing against life itself. This takes three major forms- survival, comfort-seeking, finding entertainment to keep one occupied (which ironically, is one reason people consciously enter into competition proper like sports, games, etc.).

This could also be understood as life being about passing on knowledge, with survival a strategy. — Possibility

@Brett

Is it what life is about here or what brings about "these actions"? I believe it the latter. Knowledge would be a strategy for survival. You can make an argument that anything is what life is about. Maybe it's about making plastic. I think Brett's point is that Darwinian evolution works by differential survival rates based on contingent changes of the organism and its adaptation to the environment. The ones that can't adapt, don't survive. Competition would be the wrong word to use when not intentional. Differential survival rates and maladaptation would be more appropriate here. When used in an intentional way, for cultural reasons, that is a different thing. That is at a different area of organization (social psychology) and has to deal with how societies want to bring about some sort of outcome. If it is business, the outcome is production/consumption/price level equilibrium. If it is a game, it is the feelings of outdoing your opponent, working as a team, and using your skills, etc.

Causing people to "deal with" is bad. Life is about dealing with- many instances in fact.

I’m now going to throw in Schopenhauer’s World as Will.

Any comments schopenhauer1? — Brett

Schopenhauer would say that the "world" is built on striving-for-nothing, a principle when individuated through space/time/causality and the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason, plays out in the form of sufferings of all sorts for the subjective animal being.

To convince you to play the game? The carrot on the stick. But my question then is how long has this been going on? And competition obviously exists before it’s used as a tool to manipulate the population, as in a consumer world, — Brett

Im not saying it is not a feature of the world, but rather explaining how people spin it as good, just like many other features. We can self reflect on our situation and evaluate it. Thus, this aspect must be included in keeping species going- propaganda, enculturation, social pressure, and the rest.

Thus pillars of humanity need to propagate in any society:
1.) Some competition is necessary to keep it going. Thus, promote it as good.
2.) A lot of production is necessary to keep it going. Thus promote it as good.
3.) A lot of maintenance is necessary to keep it going. Thus promote it as good.

Non-existence hurt no one. Existence hurts everyone. However, you need to get people to go along with the agenda. People need to feel bad about not following the pillars. People naturally without any prompting get bored. Combine these two for more cultural and actual propagation.

Do you mean what if life is meaningless? — Brett

So these are things people will say to spin competition as good.

True. But why tolerable? — Brett

What do you mean by the question?

Yes, life is about survival. Competition is a strategy.

If, hypothetically, all our needs were catered for: food, shelter, etc, would we still be competitive? — Brett

I'll ask you a roundabout question. What happens if you don't like the things that you are supposed to like that are supposed to make life something like "zestful" and "lively" and one of the engines for "improvement" and "growth"?

Life is about "dealing with". From a far away, neutral perspective, like in scientific circles, they may call it "survival". As it is carried out in the first person, by us, the human animal, it is "dealing with" all manner of situations in life regarding survival, comfort, and finding entertainment. It is all just one thing to deal with then another, then another. When a person is born, it is just another burden-bearer that lives each day to reveal more burdens to deal with. Boredom is dealing directly with existence. Cleaning the house is one of many dealing with stuff of survival, comfort, entertainment. Dealing with tragedy, worry, anxiety, diseases, disasters, tedium, unpleasant tasks. A lot of the day is just dealing with, dealing with, dealing with.

Page number or chapter and page?

@frank
Let me know where you're at!

Without the power to change behavior, the whole idea is a dream. — Valentinus

Indeed.

I understand that your argument is an appeal to voluntary acceptance of a condition or truth about a condition. — Valentinus

That's what matters.

But the idea of responsibility is based upon what people should do or not. It is authoritative by default, for better and worse. — Valentinus

Ok, but I am not sure what you are getting at. If people looked to the authority of antinatalism, then that is what they do. You cannot say that antinatalists are dictating things though. Rather, people who agree with antinatalism are making decisions to not affect another person.

Should that be ultimately decided by those human beings agreeing to a moral code where the cessation is required? — Valentinus

But it's not forced. I never said it should be a view forced on people. Thus, they are not "deciding it". It's up to people's own individual decision. I don't advocate for such a controversial position to be law. Same as abortion, veganism, etc. etc.

How is that less authoritarian than whatever you oppose? — Valentinus

For reasons explained above. It seems more authoritarian though to want to see people maneuver through life's institutions and believe that you have the "magic formula" to make this gamble a worth it for someone else.

Whatever merit that argument has in pointing out what is in each of our control or not, it has no room to distinguish different ways to be a parent or promote institutions that build up those new people. Standing outside of those concerns is its own kind of irresponsibility. If the most important matter becomes proving that all reproduction is ultimately guilty of inflicting risk to future generations, it cannot be important that one family nourishes what another spoils or that education builds up or breaks down persons.

And those issues are what is important to those who bring new people into the world. — Valentinus

But who says promoting these institutions is even ethical? It is forcing a way of life on a person and then hoping that enculturation will make people "appreciate" these was of life thus forced.

Also, if it is past the debate about birth, then this is circular logic as the person is bypassing the very debate antinatalism is about, thus presuming exactly a position antinatalism is trying to debate in the first place.

As the OP states, there's a raging pandemic going on causing mass suffering. How does that not cause pause? But even the more mundane wanting to see someone play the game of life, is ultimately just playing a game of hot potato. Now a new person has to deal with life. Deal with all the things. All the things. All the things. All the things. All the things. All the things. All the things.

No pain will ensue. No dealing with overcoming will ensue. So you don't get to see someone have to deal with overcoming and maneuvering the institutions of a certain way of life.. So what? Why is that moral to want that for someone else?

If I even gave you one instance of overcoming something you really didn't want to deal with, it wouldn't be justified for me to do. If I give you a whole life time of known and unknown dealing withs.. everything from traffic to deadly pandemics. .That certainly isn't justified on someone else's behalf.

All the "ways of life" of a particular set of people that group together to survive, find comfort, and entertainment would be a society. The institutions and ideas that get propogated, updated, and continued for each generation would be "societal". Procreation in many ways is not just between the two individuals having the child because the child will have to interact with a whole bunch of institutions and ideas that have continued. Thus a while back I said that procreation is also forcing an ideology on the individual as not only an individual but ways of life of the society are getting propagated. An underhanded racquet.

Ok. I'll leave his attacks for now. The goal is to end up with a discerning subject. We just dont want to explain that with... a discerning subject. That's homuncular. — frank

Haha, yes. And the problem with most theories of mind.

Deacon had stated that it's "mostly" to do with quantum theory. I hadnt heard that claim before. — frank

Hmm, if that's the case, not sure. It could be that whole "microtubles" thing that physicists proposed a while back... like a hologram theory of mind or something. But that doesn't seem panpsychist as much. Certainly, what is in vogue now is "information theory" but how "information" is not hidden dualism, is interesting in itself. Deacon probably falls somewhere along that information theory. I'd like to see how he will account for how material shapes the information, etc.

Could you explain what the non-homuncular approach looks like? I mean, it's more than just having gaps in your theory. — frank

I think Deacon is trying to do that haha.. Let's see if he does. It's almost impossible not to probably. Perhaps panpsychism's insistence that the homunclus is just always there in some fashion is a way around it, but perhaps not a satisfactory one. I see the problems basically as always there vs. emergence more than anything rather than "materialism" vs. "dualism" or what not. Let's see how Deacon does against his own backdrop of how others fail.

If one opts for reductionism, it is incumbent upon one to explain how the reduction happens. On the other hand, if one opts for the panpsychist view that mind is an elemental feature of the world, then one must account for the apparent lack of mental features at the fundamental level." --SEP — frank

Looks like you have a pretty good answer right there.

Is the choice necessarily a presumption? Much generation happens without a lot of consideration. Some happens with care and the responsibility to do what one can to help.

Your position does not distinguish between different forms of life in this regard. We are all just bunnies fucking in order for the species to survive whatever is above them in the food chain. — Valentinus

That isn't my position. I am not sure where you are getting that based on my response. What do you mean what one can to help?

What is your ideal reality you describe like exactly? No pain? I wouldn't be able to tell if I'm carrying too much or exposed to too much heat until my arms snap or flesh singes? Or would that just not happen and we'd all be supermen. Or just magically healed shortly after? If we're all super than technically no one would be. What about becoming trapped somewhere? Can we teleport out? Boredom? We'd all just be insanely fascinated by the slightest thing like a drop of water dripping from a faucet or some inllectual way like how paint drying actually is pretty interesting scientifically? How would this work? — Outlander

I don't know what that would look like, but it's not this one. The fact that I can "know" and compare states of affairs of this world with possible other ones is enough. I don't need those other words as a possibilities. But using my imagination hmm..

There can be universes that you can dial in as much pain as you want and leave it if you don't want it anymore. Thus enough pain to make a work out good, and games and such, but then turn it off when you don't want that anymore.

There can be universes where you don't need any dips in anything to have joy. Joy just comes from being alive, but you are also fully aware and intelligent of anything in this world but without the need for "No pain, no gain" coping mechanisms that we try to tell ourselves is necessary because.. well, do we have any other choice?! There is pain.. and there is positive psychology that can come from the fact that it isn't going anywhere. Thus we NEED the pain....

I mentioned a long time ago real utopia is actually something like having no desire whatsoever. This is something akin to nirvana. It would an existence of complete wholeness or nothingness.

Also, your little revisionism discounts real suffering. Suffering that is just pain but with no joy that comes from it other than getting out of the pain. You just want to get through it.

It doesn’t prevent suffering. It prevents birth. It prevents life. But no, it doesn’t present suffering any more than cutting your thumb off prevents a thumbnail. — NOS4A2

It prevents suffering because it prevents birth. You are implying that this is drastic. The trillions of unborn babies not being born is not drastic. Cutting off a thumb to prevent a thumbnail (which doesn't even make sense) is drastic, yes.

has been around for centuries. As part of an approach to answering the hard problem, it has gained ground in recent years. What accounts for this shift? Is it related to confusion about quantum theory? — frank

I believe David Chalmers and the formalization of the Hard Problem of Consciousness has probably helped that come into more popularity. Could be wrong. I do know that strict materialism is usually monistic, yet as we were discussing in Incomplete Nature, there is some sort of "hidden" dualism, a homunculus that is usually added at the end, where mental events occur at some point. Panpsychism is kind of holding them to this. Emergence becomes tricky when moving from a third-person view of forces and matter to a first person perspective. Emergence can inadvertently become dualistic when trying to remain monistic. Panpsychism kind of says "fuck it" if we want to be monistic, ditch the emergence of mental events and keep it from the beginning. Thus one can say that it is all first person perspective or something of that nature. This is something like Whitehead or process philosophy.

Yes, but Chomsky doesnt say the algorithm is in the mind. He thinks it's part of the brain. Since we know speech production and interpretation are associated with two distinct brain structures, where else would the algorithm for universal grammar be?

Does anybody else see it differently? — frank

If I remember Chomsky, he does indeed think that the "mind" is computational in a sense whereby an algorithm (i.e. merge) is constantly taking place for recursive thought generation. I believe he is saying that "merge" now becomes a homunculus of sorts. Again, don't have the book on hand, so I'd have to look.

Chapter 2 is about the homunculus. Remember earlier I postulated that behaviorism brought intentionality into focus? The homunculus helps explain what I meant. Since wanting is usually thought of as a cause, we may resist seeing the idea of intention as an object to be explained. The homunculus represents the dead end for inquiry that's plagued by this mindset.

This isn't an issue with any contemporary philosophical approaches, but it's something to keep in mind. — frank

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I just thought that he did a good job showing how many theories are indeed unintentionally putting a hidden homunculus back in there without realizing it. I don't have the book in hand, so I can't give you specifics right now.

you could have saved space and simply blamed women for everything. Heavy stereotyping in your perspective.

I have known many women, young and old, who do not, and have not, desired children. I know many men that have. — Book273

Do you even read my posts? I said the same thing in response to him.

Right! Remember Fightclub:

You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We're all part of the same compost heap. We're all singing, all dancing crap of the world.
— Tyler Durden — Merkwurdichliebe

Ha, well I didn't want to state it that dramatically. That is more to wear the person's identity down. But the sentiment may be similar. The theme being that we are all born here and suffer. Let us look at the situation for what it is and not constantly gaslight it into your non-acceptance is the reason you suffer. No, life is about suffering and then coping with it. That in itself should be examined as to whether this is good in the first place, not gaslighted and then robotically overlooked for the next generation, and the next, etc. as if this answer is then an excuse to keep perpetuating the situation.. oh see. I can create life with suffering, because you see if they don't like it, it will be their fault.. You see what is happening here?

There are probably many reasons people desire dependents. And in nearly all cases, I would say that the acquisition of a dependent is the result of impulse, rarely is it founded securely on solid rationale and well-thought-out reason. I'm quite confident most people are on autopilot nearly all the time. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yep, I suspect in a lot of cases you are right. Cultural habits and expectations instilled, without much reflection for why they hold these expectations, why society might be perpetuating them, how they are being influenced by them and perhaps manipulated by it.

I cannot think of one young woman that is totally put off from the thought of giving birth. — Merkwurdichliebe

I can and have met some. It's not an instinct as much as a cultural expectation and a personal feeling of losing out on the "caregiving of my genetic offspring" experience. I don't equate that with other animals that procreate more because "It's that time of the season" and then go into immediate caregiving mode, literally without reflection due to inability to do so and deliberate on the matter like a human can.

The feminine is more immediate than the masculine, so it does not consider the course of history in its desire to procreate. The masculine has a stronger affinity towards the historical and speculative, but the feminine has the power to draw the masculine into immediacy. Translated, men want what women have, and to get it, they ultimately must give the woman what she wants, and what does the woman want more than anything else.... a baby. It's all part of God's sick plan. — Merkwurdichliebe

Interesting.. Not sure it always works like that. I've heard of the man wanting a child and the woman being lukewarm but willing to go along with it. I can certainly see it going that way a lot of the time though, but that may be more a product of culture. Do you have strong evidence that women are "immediate" and men are "speculative".. These sound like really stereotypical tropes more than reasoned or empirical claims.

However, if that is the case, they are playing the game anyway. — Book273

True enough.. I actually think philosophical pessimism can be a communal catharsis for helping cope with suffering. Bitch away, bitch away, bitch away.. Just don't blow smoke up my ass by accepting the situation. Everyone has their own sufferings and death by a thousand cuts...

Abstaining from procreation; as a basis for the reduction of suffering, from the perspective that that which remains unborn cannot suffer, is, when extrapolated forward, a fantastic logic for mass murder as a means to reduce universal suffering. Which is entertaining, but largely unsupported by...well almost everyone. — Book273

Oft-stated response. My reply to a similar line of reasoning is here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/472633 . Basically, I don't view ethics as based on some aggregate utilitarian construct whereby the greatest good is had for greatest number, or anything like that.

Suffering is based on perspective of the individual choosing to accept that what they are experiencing is suffering. — Book273

Yet, it is quite a fact that all individuals suffer in some way, and certainly the game of life is thrust upon a new individual to navigate and then have to figure out how to "choose to accept". I force you to play a game you don't want to play, and then tell you some horseshit like, "But it is up to you to figure out how to accept the situation", like I'm a freakn' Obi Won Kenobi.. Sounds like horseshit post-facto rationale to me for justifying thrusting the game on someone. Also it is gaslilghting..making them seem the crazy one for not accepting the game.

I suggest that suffering promotes growth, which, eventually, leads to acceptance and internal peace. — Book273

Again, read some of my responses to others on this thread with similar reasoning for "No pain, no gain" mentality. It is always YOUR fault for not understanding how the game works, and then it is proposed you just kill yourself for not being able to accept and cope properly. Try again, try harder.

People are really horny. Under the threat of inevitable and impending doom, fucking is as good an option as any. Consequence: invasion of the babies. — Merkwurdichliebe

True enough. This does seem to be the case. I think it is also the same reason people adopt pets, etc. It is an experience of caregiving.. But you are certainly right, a lot of it is people screwing and babies are the outcome. However, a lot of people do think it through and still decide it is worth it for reasons I have stated. They want to see a being that has their genetics and/or the love child of their own genetics and their partner, navigate the world and do so based on their influence and input, etc. No one has the perspective change that perhaps it is not good to make another being endure, and deal with existence in the first place.

You need to be able to suffer or otherwise have the possibility of failure, misfortune, or loss to have any sense of passion or life of purpose. Naturally we all work to avoid these things but after accepting their inevitability we learn to cope with them better when they do arise.

Why is gambling, playing a video game, skydiving, or riding a roller coaster exciting and not boring? Because each has a danger, some minor, some major, that invigorates us and is a departure from the normal routine. — Outlander

I mean I don't see it the same way as you presenting here. There are various ways that you are oversimplifying this. One way is that danger that becomes a real nightmare isn't as invigorating. Skydiving and crashing to your impending death or worse (surviving and breaking every bone and organ) isn't fun. But, my point was that in this reality, you need to have a deficit in order to gain some thrill or feel more rewarded, apparently. If that is true, I can at least imagine a universe where you can have just as many thrills without a deficit. It is just not this reality. So though, it may be true, that once born in this reality, we have to play the game of deficit/reward, it is not worth starting for someone else, being that it is not ideal circumstances. You have to have suffering or pain or whatever it is for some gain. Again, just because that is the reality, doesn't mean it is then automatically a good thing. That is what I am trying to decouple from what seems to be your presumption there.

Also, I don't think something is better off just because one had a negative experience that one overcame. A life where one could have gained the highs without the lows is better. However, if your claim is you can never have such a life, again that makes me think then there is something suspect about the reality of a situation where that is necessary in the first place. Just thinking a little beyond the usual tropes here of "No pain, no gain".

Nevertheless, we can still work towards a technological utopia on non-utilitarian grounds. — Alvin Capello

Work towards utopia, and prevent birth, so do both.

The idea is not going to change people's behavior. — Valentinus

Why do you suppose that is? Does acting the role of caregiver and lifegiver trump the realities that a child will have all sorts of sufferings known and unknown great and small befall him/her? Once born, you are giving a new being the task of enduring. Enduring what? It could be a number of personalized and generalized things.. Generalized things like navigating society's setup to survive within, find comfort, and seek ways to be entertained. It could be personalized things like dealing with various mental and physical illnesses, contingent circumstances of pain from the various causal circumstances of environmental, social, and physical combinations.

You are giving someone the game of life to play, but why is the presumption that this is ok to give this game?

The frequent response is the "If a tree falls.." argument.. Which I believe is falsely applied here and is kind of just a knee-jerk response. That is to say, people claim that people need to be born in order to see that they don't want to play the game. But they need to be born so they get to know that they don't like the game. Taken to its absurd extreme, it would be like saying that if you knew a newborn was going to be tortured, but since the newborn doesn't exist yet, we cannot determine that this is no good for that future person, because, it does not "actually" exist. So apparently the newborn needs to be tortured so we know that it would be bad. Does not make sense in that case, nor the "lesser" case of simply "giving" the game of life to someone, even if there is no actual person existing to know that they were "given" the game of life.