This article gets it: https://politics.theonion.com/paul-ryan-confident-american-people-will-warm-up-to-tax-1821509050

I doubt the average person, even the average TPF member, is conscious of what they "live for everyday", since the daily ritual of life doesn't allow for that much reflection. On top of that, when we do reflect on why we live life each day, we tend to come up with a nice ideal: "I live life for the betterment of others", "I live life for the beauty of things", "I live life because it's my imperative to do so", etc., ad naseum. But these aren't real reasons for "living life"; they're justifications for one's existence, and generally not quite truthful. In reality, we generally don't know exactly why we're living life. — Noble Dust

Agreed. Well stated. (Y)

One of my main points is that we survive, seek comfort, and avoid boredom using preferences based on our linguistic-conceptual minds shaped by enculturation of social setting and personality tendencies shaped by that very socialization and development.

I'm stuck on the same one — Agustino

The concept of hubris is as old as the Greeks, maybe older!

k
So I can "learn German", "read philosophy", "listen to music", sleep and avoid pain. — darthbarracuda

I live to see why others live. It amazes me the things that people say to keep going everyday. I mean, it is all instrumental- we live but for surviving, finding a more comfortable circumstance, and keeping entertained and out of boredom's clutches, but the attempts at some aspirational faith (see here: aspirational faith article) is quite amusing. If you teach yourself to believe long enough and hard enough, maybe you will actually believe it. But is it just fooling ourselves? Swinging from one hope-vine to the next; getting starry-eyed for lofty visions of grandeur?

I think the crux of much of theism of Western/Abrahamic variety is very much based on Anslem's ontological argument. This is definitely seen in Christianity (the most "romance novel" of the religions), but also seen in Kabbalistic/speculative aspects of Judaism, and some theological aspects of Islam. It's a very Platonic idea of the Good. It is the idea of the most perfect being. Do you like physical pleasure? God is the most perfect pleasure- in fact it isn't really pleasure but profound mystical bliss that cannot be described with words... or so the ideas would go.. The Platonic notions of the most perfect good. God is the most perfect completeness, the whole, the whole story, etc. etc.

In a way this idea is like the "romance novels" of religion. There is this romantic ideal of the perfect being. This vision is anthropomorphized as experiential reality is projected on a SUPER being that is equated with perfect reality. What of the idea that experienceness is only a quality of animals? How is it a quality of the universe writ large? Just human projection in my opinion.

So, my conclusion then is the superstitious nature of humans, the incomprehensible nature of reality outside our human understanding of it, provides the impetus to speculate about a god with the most perfect nature. We cannot get outside experience and it shows in our theological speculations.

What really defined the dominant class were the languages of their intellectual ancestors. — apokrisis

If you mean the influence of Latin in English, that was mainly through the influence of Old French brought over by the Normans.

The language of a given group of people may disappear IF it is advantageous to abandon one's own language for someone else's. Take the languages spoken by immigrants to the United States in the 19th century: German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Croat, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, Greek, Ukrainian, Spanish, Chinese, Italian, French, Czech, and so on. The first generation kept their native language. The second generation tended to be bilingual, the third generation tended to be monolingual in English. — Bitter Crank

Good point.

In reverse, an influx of a new language group which belongs to a dominating/dominant culture may cause the native speakers to abandon their language. In South America, many native Amerindian languages were abandoned in favor of Spanish or Portuguese. Probably the same thing happened over time in the British Isles. There was an advantage for non AS speaking people to learn Anglo-Saxon, and eventually lose their own. — Bitter Crank

True, I think that would be an appropriate analogy.

Nothing wrong about learning human historical migrations using DNA analysis. I don't get the uproar. If anything DNA tells us how connected we are while at the same time highlighting how complex history can be. Through the DNA analysis from that link, we know that there was little Viking admixture despite a century of rule in the northern regions of Britain. It also seems to indicate that rather than being wiped out, the Briton Celts were integrated more-or-less into Anglo-Saxon society, but the language was replaced fully. This actually raises an interesting question: How is it that the Celtic language was completely replaced even if the people remained. Shouldn't there be some mix of Celt with the Anglo-Saxon? So, I disagree and think DNA as an investigation into the human migrational patterns and historical events can be a very useful tool.

Now, as for DNA determining behavior and all that, and the subtle or overt racism of tribal thinking and us and them, etc. etc. I completely agree. However, that is not at all what molecular anthropology is all about, which essentially what this topic covers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_anthropology

Yes, really good breakdown. This article also provides some context based on genetic studies.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry

I guess this might help answer the question: https://www.ancestry.com/corporate/international/press-releases/DNA-of-the-nation-revealedand-were-not-as-British-as-we-think

If that is right, then it looks like the average is 37% Anglo-Saxon, 22% Celtic, 20% "Western European" (area covered by France and German), 9% Scandinavian, with variations based on region.

I wonder where the Western European comes in then. Is that Normans? Or is it just other Germanic groups like the Jutes and such. Perhaps pre-historic migrations.

So it looks like heavy mixing of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic culture, with practically wholesale replacement of language with Anglo-Saxon. I am not aware of much Celtic influence on English language. With only limited Viking influence.

Of course, it doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people. I thought we agreed on that. Is our main difference that I think more people get added the same way more squirrels keep getting added, and you think people are going out of their way to reproduce for some sort of reason?

The reproductive urge operates whether anybody (squirrel or human) wants it to operate or not. It just does. — Bitter Crank

Well, there are plenty of much used methods of preventing birth, so any deviation from that would be more likely intentional. There are the rare "accidents", but is that the norm anymore for how people are born? Not in the first world at least. In the third world, with less access to health care, it is at least implicit that it will happen, and thus desirable by at least one of the parties. So, new people being born seems to be something people want. So again, why is it that it needs to be expanded?

People read statements like mine, and they object that it is all too reductionist, depressing, mechanistic, and so forth. Much the way people (me too) respond to your antinatalist statements. The difference between your view and mine is that you think people can help it, I think people can't help it. Yes, we could cease to reproduce -- but the commitment and prolonged concentration that universal, species-ending non-reproduction requires is not one of our features -- and it isn't going to happen. — Bitter Crank

People read into their happy emotions too easily. Sex happens at a time of optimal contentment. Feelings of oxytocin start pouring in and dopamine and all of a sudden every care in the world is washed away in ideas of future ideals of two parents and babies in household, etc.

Let's back up though. What does my term of instrumentality really mean? It means that the world keeps turning, the universe keeps expanding, that energy keeps on transferring, and entropy keeps on its steady path. That is to say, that happiness is always on the horizon (hope swinging I mentioned in other posts). When goals are "obtained" are often not as good or too fleeting compared to the effort to get it (yes yes, eye roll eye roll... it's not the goal but the process to get there BS., not buying it..just slogans to make people not think about it).. we still need to maintain ourselves, our bodies, our minds, our comforts, our anxieties, our neuroses, our social lives, our intellectual minds, etc. etc. etc. It's all just energy put forth to keep maintaining ourselves, that does not stop until death. Why ALL of THIS WORK AND ENERGY? Does it really need to be started anew for a next generation?

We really are living in the eternal twilight of Christian sentiments. There is "something" special that we are DOING here.. It all MEANS something to "FEEL" to "ACHIEVE" to "INTELLECTUALIZE" to "CONNECT".. all buzzwords of anchoring mechanisms to latch onto as our WILLFUL nature rushes forward, putting forth more energy but for to stay alive, keep occupied, and stay comfortable.. All the while being exposed to depridations, sickness, annoyances, and painful circumstances that inevitably befall us.. It doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people.

If you watch people in silence, they don't seem all that self-reflective a good share of the time, either.

Are these people engaged in self reflection? Anything but. Naked apes addicted to the latest distraction. — Bitter Crank

Sure, here is an example of why we need to create more people at all though. Our brains need to be occupied, lest the mind gets bored. Take away all distractions, you contend with your pure striving willful nature. An animal's being is the churning of its willful nature. If it can't churn towards something it turns in on itself. More willful beings should be expanded? This is structural. How about the harms of contingent suffering? What if someone has a pervasive mental illness? This has to be overcome or dealt with right? Why put more people into those circumstances? How about disease, disaster, circumstances, etc. etc. etc.

Is human reproduction a self-reflective decision? One can hope, but clearly it is not always the result of self-reflection, or reflection on the goodness of the species' prospects, or the prospects of a specific child. — Bitter Crank

No, but we are discussing philosophy and ethics. Is your descriptive measures going to be your normative measures? Is the "is" going to be an "ought" because people tend to not reflect much? It's not totally out of their control. We are not talking about preventing someone from eating or going to the bathroom here. We are not even talking about refraining from sex.

I have more for you, but I have to go.. I'll try to reply to rest of post. Thanks for thoughtful response!

@Bitter Crank Just wondering if you had a response to last post here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/136859

I agree with you that "existence after death" is the same as "existence before birth" but I have no evidence that such is the case, therefore I can not say that there is any truth in the claim. — Bitter Crank

If one can prove that individual egos are attached to bodies and brains, and these no longer function, then one can prove that individual egos cease to exist with the loss of the function.

If one can prove that what makes you "you" is your individual ego that functions only as a derivative of a brain and body, then "you" cease to exist when the body and brain cease to function.

I'm not all that worried about antinatalists. There are more children being born than the world can reasonably support, so antinatalism makes sense from that angle. I know people who have opted to not have children for philosophical reasons, who aren't quite antinatalists. It's an entirely supportable position, at least from some angles. Being a gay guy, I never intended to have children. Not fathering a brood hasn't felt like a loss to me. — Bitter Crank

You mentioned our relation with other animals in a previous post. Other animals do not self-reflect. There might be insights and problem solving skills, but probably little to no self-reflection. Maybe the occasional dolphin has a pessimistic thought about its own existence, but I doubt its thought process gets to that level. Other animals have a mix of instinct and learned responses (also based largely on instincts that allow for basic learned responses to easily take place and get passed on). Other animals do their business without a secondary level thinking on top of it. They live an instrumental life- they eat, crap, build nests, avoid predators, mate, clean, preen, repeat, day in and day out. Maybe some have a form of play, bonding, etc. We do the same for the large part, but we have sort of an existential component to it. We know of our instrumental being, yet we need psychological mechanisms to not dwell on this. We have anchoring mechanisms, distracting mechanisms, isolating mechanisms, and sublimation mechanisms. All of these mechanisms being aided by social institutions. The very absurdity of the instrumentality of existence doesn't have an answer. You can live with the knowledge, pushing the boulder like Sisyphus with a smile, true. That is the point of Camus existentialism. You can see your life as a tragi-comedy with all its pains and suffering as seasoning life to make it [your individualized pain. It is your struggle, even if it is a struggle, and apparently, that in itself can make it good.

Of course, being the self-reflective creature we are, we can then ask the why. Breeding all of a sudden is broken asunder in its similarity with other animals. We can reflect as to whether life itself is something to bring forth into the world. We can look back prior to our individual existence and imagine something like "non-existence". We can look past our life and imagine something like "death". But then we can ultimately ask, what is it that we want new humans to "have" or "experience" or "endure" between the non-existence and death, that is to say, the potential 90+ years of human life. What is it about the essentially instrumental nature of life that needs to be expanded to yet more people? Remember, it is the already-living who will make this decision for the new person. So it is a question for the already-living prospective parents as to why that new person being born has to be another individual's perspective on the world, that will experience it. Now, this new perspective may have some uniqueness to it, but it basically will endure the same things- survival, comfort, entertainment seeking. We all know the drill, but why is it that more people should know the drill too? What is it that it is not enough for just the already-living to endure/experience, why must it be expanded. If you say it is because of some experiment, that these new people will bring something novel, it would be using them for the hope of some novel outcome. If you just want new people to "experience" life, then you must ask what it is about enduring life, overcoming challenges, and experiencing harm, that is an imperative to be experienced by yet another person. It is not so easy as other animals, you see.

I might even take Schopenhauer1 along to see if I can't arrange experiences which will be so thrilling he'll change his mind about the downside of nativity. Though, $50,000 isn't all that much when you get down to it. In order to change Schopenhauer1's mind, I might have to also have the $50,000 from the in vitro fertilization operation. Get me $100,000, TimeLine, and I'll throw in a second lunch and several movies. Maybe we could pick up a few philosophers and go bar hopping, or something. — Bitter Crank

I'll take the offer, but keeping the antinatalism, I'm afraid.. :D. I mean, life sucks, but antinatalism says nothing about not enjoying a 25 city European tour once born ;) .

Indeed what Thorongil says- no reason to create suffering where there was none before. Though, I agree with the sentiment that a two parent household, with loving parents is the optimal arrangement for raising children, there should be no children to raise in the first place. No one needs to be given the problems of life in order to carry out X reason (i.e. achievement, relationships, learning, etc. etc.). No one's life need be a vehicle for more instances of experience, as your post implies. No one needs to be given the premise of survival, comfort-seeking, and boredom-regulation- the constant goal-seeking that is ceaseless- the constant energy put forth for maintenance- the constant impingement of contingent harms. Indeed, no one needs to grow, as no one needs to be born in the first place.

The circular reasoning that without any individuals being born, there are no individuals experiencing growth breaks down in the broken logic of its own circularity. Compassion, the movie, does not have to played out for any new individual. Life is not a movie where one jumps in the air, fist out in triumph at 99 years of age while the scene freezes and then fades out.. Life isn't a movie. Life isn't a play. Life isn't a compassion love story. Life isn't a Nietzschean tragic-comedy. Life is an instrumental affair of survival, comfort and boredom regulation via the milieu of a linguistic-cultural setting, repeated unto death. We survive through economic/institutional means, we seek comfort via our institutional/encultured habits, we seek entertainment due to our restless, linguistically-based, culturally constructed, minds.

At the end of the day it is absurd the energy we put forth to maintain our existence. There is no ending it except through death. As stated earlier- there is the non-existence before birth, there is death. Why the in between? Every time this is answered, a circularity ensues.. Compassion needs to be carried out by individuals who need to experience it is apparently your answer. Why must compassion be carried out in the first place though? Does it add some substance to the universe? Does it please some god? Does it just make you smile as someone who is already born (not taking into account that from the point of view of the universe, there is no one to smile upon such a thing as compassion)?

Me and IVF are buddies. She calls me Dr. Evil. — TimeLine

Okay, that context made a bit of difference, so that makes a bit more sense.

But there is an ambiguity in our understanding of the sentiment. The first and broadly understood - i.e. the boo friggidy hoo my life is shit emotions - is only bad insofar as the individual does not actively engage in making those circumstances better and if they are able to articulate it, then they are able to improve it. I am not fond of this type of emotion, it is too static, defeatist and unchanging for my taste. — TimeLine

Again, no one needs to be born to overcome challenges, so this fails to address a main point.

Are you implying that love - and again, not that sentiment of a mushy romance but think of 'brotherly love' when I say it or the capacity to give love (emotion/compassion) - as a Will that drives us, are you suggesting the endeavour to reach happiness by regulating and correctly applying our emotions and by being passionate against injustice or bad things happening to others, that contains no 'purpose'? As you say: — TimeLine

Well, I didn't mention love at all, so I am not sure where this fits into my pessimism or antinatalism. I guess, if I was to pull out something, it is your use of "purpose" in connection with compassion. If my argument is that no one needs to be born to carry out any X reason. Then no, no one needs to be born to be given the problem of trying to overcome selfishness and show compassion for fellow man in the first place. In other words, though compassion should be something sought once born, it is not a reason to be born.

Humans don't need to be born at this stage; I openly told a woman at work who said that she spent $50,000 on IVF treatment that she was an idiot. We have more than enough children being born for the wrong reasons that need our attention (love, compassion, empathy, they are emotions that connect us) and why I myself do not wish to give birth but will (in the future) adopt a child. There is no 'black and white, strict, clear' reality here; IVF treatment and anti-natalism are two extremes and what we need is to apply ourselves with more humanity, compassion and knowledge that modifies our recalcitrant emotions and project it correctly to the external world, to direct the implicit and subjective experience to - as Searl said - direction of fit. — TimeLine

Although in theory I agree with the person not having kids, I think that your approach there perhaps lacked the compassion you dwell so much on. Don't get me wrong, I am an ardent antinatlist, but I am not a mean one. I liken it to vegans who may outline their position to those who will listen or in public forums, but are not overly condemning and understand that this currently is on the liminal aspects of ethics. Having a vegan shout at customers in the meat section of a grocery store, would be overly condemning and counter productive, for example.

Imagine if Stephen Hawking's parents known that their son would have a rare early-onset, slow-progressing form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and they practiced antinatalism, then we would not have one of the brightest minds of our generation — Cavacava

I don't really like this equivocating. No person should be used as a reason to carry out "X" principle, scientific or otherwise. Anyways, antinatalism is not eugenics. Far from it. Everyone deserves not to be born. It's an equal opportunity non-starter.

I haven't finishing reading your post, but if you hadn't shown up pretty quick, I would have sent you a telegraph alerting you to the topic's bright, sunny, breezy existence needing your special seasoning insight. — Bitter Crank

I am glad to be the punching bag. Every silver lining's got a touch of grey.

I enjoy solving problems, and the problem of finding goods is a crucial issue, It adds zest to my life, when I succeed it is fantastic, when I fail it's depressing, but I enjoy the striving.

Still working on the others. — Cavacava

What other choice do you really have? Embrace it or not. I still think that the problem itself does not have to be given in the first place.

I think the problem is a a given to life, not that the problem has the option to be given. It is just there, given to everyone. — Intrigued

Indeed, suicide is not the same as never being born.

How do you make that value call? — Cavacava

One reason, stated in previous post: these goods are unevenly distributed. Some people will have a better time seeking out, finding, or obtaining these goods than others. Some will struggle more than others. Not all goods in life are guaranteed. Why create the problem of finding goods in the first place, if no problem needs to be given in the first place?

Another is that, at the bottom of all experiences is an emptiness that must be filled yet again. This is often equated to the suffering described in Buddhism. It is a striving that is never yielding, yet we must find contents to content us and entertain us. Why create this problem of survival on one hand and finding the best way to fill our time on the other in the first place? All this energy running about again and again. How about let sleeping dogs lie? No need to make people put energy forth to maintain themselves.

If there are a need for goods, that means we are lacking those goods to begin with. So we need to find goods as we go about life to fulfill the cup that perpetually needs to be filled, to be emptied yet again (the emptiness at the bottom of endeavors) to be fulfilled yet again. It is an absurdity.

Oh boy, this thread seems to be, (pardon my imagery here) a big circle jerk for PF members.

"Oh, look how great life is..look how great it can be...

"Yes, yes, PF member, do go on so, I love your positive framework, let's all frolic in the flowers."

"Oh, I really like what you said about so-and-so aspect of life being good"..

"Yes, yes, I totally agree, but I would add, it's not just there is an inherent aspect that is good, but what you make of it that is good"

"Oh indubitably sir, thank you for showing me even more how good life can be"

"Of course, sir! I just want to elaborate on the happiness that you expressed!!"

Ok, this stops now :P . I am the evil and scorned antinatalist and pessimist that you all revile.. pleased to see everyone in good form here. I thought I'd make an appearance to add some perspective from the antinatalist side. Carry on with your circle jerking, if you must, but keep in mind several things.

1) There is structural suffering. My particular brand of pessimism equates this with the idea of instrumentality. This is the idea that life presents itself chiefly as a repetitive task of regulating survival, comfort, and boredom. It is the constant Will at the bottom of our egos driving us forward for no purpose. Our personalities via enculturation then create preferences for where to direct certain socially derived survival, comfort, and entertainment activities. You can say as a society, the de facto non-intentional, yet emergent goal is to perpetuate social institutions by using individuals as inadvertent vehicles in which to enact another life of socially derived survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment-seeking activities (which in turn strengthens social institutions, and so on).

2) There is contingent suffering. This equates to the classical litany of harms one can encounter living in daily life. It is contingent, because it is intra-worldy and circumstantial. It is based on how circumstances play out, and though not "baked into life" certainly have very high probabilities of occurring. This would include any genetic/environmentally caused illness, disease, disaster, painful circumstance, painful decision, painful experience that one usually encounters by being a certain person with various traits interacting with the environment and other people. Another problem with contingent harms is that it they are unevenly distributed. Some people will have it harder than others due to circumstances of their own or circumstances not of their own. If it is not of their own, nothing can be done. It is a true externality. If it was something that could be done better from learning and not repeating a mistake, it is still a harm that had to be experienced. Why do people need to go through this process in the first place? Yes, people can "improve". Some people don't. Even if they do improve, why is it the job of humans to be born for some major improvement project that they must undergo? Is this not just post-hoc rationalization for bad decision-making? "Oh, well it's a learning experience" doesn't seem to justify why there needs to be this dialectic of learning from mistakes in the first place. So humans need to be born so that they can learn to not make as many mistakes?

There is non-existence before birth and there is death. What is it that really needs to take place for a new human born into the world, considering the repetitive maintenance/upkeep of the structural suffering, and the myriad of contingent circumstantial harms that befall humans? Rather, no one needs to be born to thus maintain and upkeep their life nor experience contingent harms.

The goods one experiences in life- the relationships, the learning, the aesthetic pleasures (including humor), the physical pleasures, the pleasures of engaging in highly stimulating physical/mental activities (or flow activities), and achievement, though they might make life a bit more of a consolation, are not worth the structural and contingent suffering involved. Also, just like contingent harms, these goods are unevenly distributed. Some people will have a better time seeking out, finding, or obtaining these goods than others. Some will struggle more than others. Not all goods in life are guaranteed. Why create the problem of finding goods in the first place, if no problem needs to be given in the first place?

Correct

You do have an underlying goal- seek survival, seek optimal comfort levels, seek optimal entertainment, repeat. This I call instrumentality. It is the constant Will at the bottom of our egos driving us forward for no purpose. Our personalities via enculturation then create preferences for where to direct certain socially derived survival, comfort, and entertainment activities. You can say as a society, the goal is perpetuate social institutions by using individuals as inadvertent vehicles in which to enact another life of socially derived survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment-seeking activities. So purpose is baked into our socially constructed lives. Of course, I advocate preventing the continuation of instrumentality (structural suffering) as well as contingent suffering for new individuals who do not need to be alive to experience socially derived survival, comfort, and entertainment seeking activities.

If that is your definition of "work," then I don't necessarily see work as a bad thing. Sure, some people can be obsessed with finding pleasure that it causes them pain, but I don't think that is the case for most or even all people. Your definition seems a bit too broad. — czahar

I don't think so. It is simply not giving problems where there weren't any. No problem needs to be created to overcome. Certainly, the very real understanding of life being a constant pursuit of survival, comfort, and boredom regulation is a problem created to be overcome. Add to this the contingent harms of things like disease, negative circumstances, and negative decisions, and there is a strong case against giving burdens to new people that did not need or have burdens to be given or endured in the first place (to be overcome).

Your assumption implicitly is that there is a necessary component that individual humans need to carry out about life. Yes, I'm very familiar with David Benatar's antinatalism. I think he has some interesting contributions to antinatalism through the asymmetry argument, but I don't think it is airtight or the best reasons for antinatalism. I consider my thoughts on antinatalism as "aesthetic pessimism". One sees the instrumentality (the repetitive maintenance of life) and this causes a questioning. Admittedly, other than seeing the aesthetic, there is no further promotion other than painting the picture. People then make up their own minds. I liken it to vegans who make their argument but don't force their argument.

That may be true now, but probably won't be true in the near future. With the way technology is advancing, it is entirely possible that robots could do the labor we all do today. Certainly all manual labor could be replaced by robots, and virtually any labor that involves a lot of math could also be done by robots. — czahar

People are so unoriginal, even in the unlikely scenario we can outsource work to robots, people would still hold on for dear life to their dear occupations, not necessarily out of liking them but out of existential despair with their free time. Work brings regularity to peoples' otherwise directionless life. Also, how can people fulfill their desire to "prove" themselves by running a successful business or making a lot of money (almost always "one day" way off into the future when they'll "really" make things happen). Again, people's unoriginal ways of dealing with existential realities that must be faced without socially defined success.

This seems to be an extreme response to the work "dilemma." It's kind of like burning one's house down in order to kill a spider in it. I think there are better ways to reduce (and maybe one day eliminate) work. First off, we need to get rid of this ridiculous Protestant work ethic. Next, we need to reduce the number of hours people work and replace as many jobs as possible with robots. Third, tax those robots and give the money to humans in the form of a universal basic income. — czahar

I agree with getting rid of Protestant work ethic. But my definition of work is really much broader than just survival related activities.. it is regulating comfort and seeking entertainment. It is about the maintenance of one's life. I don't think creating people who have to maintain their lives, including survival but not only survival-related activity, is not a good thing. Nothing wrong with no one existing. I don't believe in creating a problem for someone (of maintaining life) is a desirable thing.

It does not have to be, the same way you're not the root of it either. So, where does that leave us? — Πετροκότσυφας

The argument is that causing burdens of work for others is inherently wrong. Burdens are inherently bad, and therefore causing burdens is wrong. Now this does fly in the face of certain "everyday" notions of burdens. For example, causing someone to struggle through homework to get better is not wrong, as it will make the student's skills stronger in the future. But indeed, though it is inherently wrong in an absolute sense, it is relatively necessary for cultural-survival-maintenance reasons. So, though in an absolute sense it is wrong, in a relative sense of necessity for survival-in-a-culture, it is required. (If it isn't homework, it would be something else- it is inescapable for any functioning society). And the example of homework is not even an example of the numerous externalities of struggles that occur from unexpected circumstances causing more strain on the initial efforts. So, there is not only the intended struggles but the unwanted struggles that compound the burdens. Struggle itself contra Nietzsche (whether from intended goal seeking or through unexpected circumstances) is not inherently good. The only way to prevent all forms of struggle, burdens, work for others is to prevent birth. Since de facto, birth creates the very struggles that are in question here, non-birth is the best state of affairs to have occurred. No one needs to be born for struggles to be overcome, achievements to be made, nor pleasures to be fulfilled. People continually fall into the assumption that there is a necessity to being, when in fact there is not. There is indeed rather an imperative to prevent burdens for others though.

Since when has "the rest of humanity" been the root of morality? Do I even have to say the fallacy of numbers? — schopenhauer1

Philosophy is inherently on the borders and limits of certain topics. When you get to things like "Is giving people a burden to overcome, or a whole lifetime of burdens moral?" well, have people even really addressed the issue as a philosophical one, or is it chalked up to other more "down-to-earth" thought processes? Not much, especially birth is thought about philosophically. The point is to think about it this way, and not just assume that what is must be the correct case.

Yeah, and the rest of humanity does not think that having to work to survive is inherently problematic. So, how is this anything more than just someone's personal dissatisfaction? — Πετροκότσυφας

Since when has "the rest of humanity" been the root of morality? Do I even have to say the fallacy of numbers?

You speak for the rest of humanity? — Philosophersstoney

Good point

So, life's bad because it entails work and work is a burden. Ok. Now you have to show how work is inherently a burden. — Πετροκότσυφας

If work is defined by maintenance (of survival, comfort, boredom)- it is creating situations where people must maintain their well-being where there was none before. This is inherently giving a problem to be fixed where there was none, and I consider giving the problems of regulation a burden. No problems to fix, no burden, but lo- life is full of problems that need to be fixed (hungry, need place to live, need things to do, and on and on).

It is a position that giving someone work is always an intrinsic bad. In the intra-worldly affairs of living, it cannot be helped. Our whole survival, comfort, boredom maintenance is based on this premise. However, the unique ability to prevent it from happening at all is available. Why is giving someone work an intrinsic bad? It is harder to get more basic than a formula like, "giving someone a burden is bad, giving someone the groundwork for all burdens is very bad".

This is about the gift being not a gift correct.

Nope, it's about not giving OTHER people the "gift" (sarcastic quotes) of MAINTAINING a lifetime's worth of work (survival, comfort, boredom regulation).

So life takes MAINTENANCE- survival, comfort, and boredom regulating activities. To create a new life which NOW must MAINTAIN itself perpetually until death is forcing a work regimen onto a being that previously was non-existent ergo did not have to work to maintain itself. I think one of the best quotes on this subject was from a random poster from the interwebs, so I'll quote him here:

I would put it this way: the good things in life are only valuable to those who want them. Before being born, nobody wants the goods in life, so they are not valuable to them until they are born. So, to create an empty cup where none existed before, just so that it can be filled and emptied repeatedly over the course of some decades before spilling for the last time, seems to me like a pointless endeavor, and since we know the pain that accompanies each instance of emptiness, it's better not to make the cup at all.