If a couple wants to have children, why should one of their first concerns be that there will be ''more of us'' on this planet? Why is it relevant? The point in which I disagree with utilitarianism is that life is about quality of life, not about quantity, therefore the number of people on this planet is irrelevant to the meaning of life and to the ethical questions raised. — Coldlight

Well, the point of the quote you were responding to was that there a lot of post-hoc reasons we provide for why people need to be born, but none of them are satisfying as they create circular reasoning. Therefore, the only conclusion seems to be that more life (or more experience) itself is what is wanted. It is a desire for more for more's sake. This is not necessarily utilitarian, as there is no rational calculation here, just some underlying desire for more life/experience to be brought forth into the world.

We've all experienced Camus' feeling of absurdity. In Myth of Sisyphus, Camus' immediately discards human reason and claims that the world is alien to us. Why? Just because of some feelings, or the lack of other feelings? It's as if I said that the one who understands God has finally understood the meaning of life. It might sound appealing to some, but I haven't proven that it's true with regards to its relation to reality. Neither did Camus prove that his feeling of the 'absurd' is something more than just a feeling. — Coldlight

Well, the "feeling" is a feeling sure, but it's not a feeling your everyday animal possesses, but one that can self-reflect on its own existence- namely humans. But anyways, THAT particular use of the absurdity I was using was to point out that people may feel we need to be born to experience the absurdity because it's somehow hip and fun to do so. In other words, here Sisyphus is seen as a hero rather than a tragic figure. If life is a repetitious episode of boulder rolling, why not let people experience the fun of absurdity? One repeated theme of mine is that absurdity is really not fun or hip though, but more tragic. It is the repetitious nature of existence- the daily need for upkeep, work, entertainment that is so deadingly circular in its mechanism. Life is instrumentality itself, doing to do to do to do..

Charity, scientific advancement etc. do not have to be a manifested desire for redeeming the world. If the ''Will'' is a metaphysical concept, is it also a part of the human nature? A part that is not futile (as it itself wants to exist) at all, and the rest, psychological feelings and experiences are the ones that make a person miserable? That would however mean that a person can only be miserable in a material sense, in his own body, so to speak, but not outside of it in a metaphysical sense. — Coldlight

I haven't decided if I really believe there is some ground of a metaphysical "Will", but certainly there seems to be a principle of striving going either in the universe at large or in the individual psyche or both. The individual is continually striving-but-for-nothing until death of the individual. The Pessimist might try to quiet the will. Schopenhuaer advocated quietism through ascetics and pointed to the similarities of Eastern thought on this approach. Antinatalism advocates a prevention of future people which would quiet the needless striving of future people. "Why create a burden when none needs to be there in the first place" might be the approach of this brand of antinatalism.

In this sense there can be more default experiences. Why would an experience, regardless of the importance for the individual, be so telling when it comes to the nature of being and existence itself? How can it be defined by an experience? — Coldlight

Because it is the default experience of self-reflective minds that are not driving after goals.

I'm not sure if you view human just from a materialistic point of view when you're describing those forms. — Coldlight

I don't know about materialistic, but I mean the stress of goal-driven activities and the anxiety of boredom.

So, by saying that something is immoral you imply that there are absolute moral standards? If so, then why would you focus only on the biological suffering of the individual? Metaphysical morals would suggest that there is more to life than just suffering and body sensations. — Coldlight

I actually do focus on that. I bring in some utilitarian ideas like harm to bring some variety to the discussion, but technically, negative utilitarianism is not Pessimism proper per se. The core belief is more of the Schopenhaurean idea that the Will strives forward and will lead to frustration, Sisyphean absurdity, and the like.

As I've said in an earlier thread: Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? There is an underlying assumption here, or hope that more people put into the world "means" something. The redemption part is simply an post-hoc top layer put over this desire to keep seeing more people in the world. If all was really redeemed though, and there was no need for this, we would still desire the continuation of existence. But for what? The continuation of social relations, "progress" in science/technology, aesthetic contemplation, and mastering skills/knowledge, seem to be usual candidates. Also, the Camus' "hip" standing at the edge of existence by understanding the absurdity as we are living it out, is another candidate for many.

So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. Schopenhauer might call this the "will-to-live".. or simply Will when made into an abstract metaphysical concept.

Also stated: Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do. It is often described as a dullness or restlessness. It causes one to experience time passing, or rather "pressing" down on us. What makes boredom so significant compared to other emotions is that it is, arguably, the baseline emotional state of being. When the usual concerns and goals of daily life are exhausted, or temporarily unable to be pursued, boredom seems to seep through as the phenomenological default experience. If this is true, that boredom is a baseline experience for humans, then what does that say about the nature of being and existence itself?

If life was to be characterized by various forms of flux and stasis, and stress (in its loosest terms of causing one's homeostasis to be out of balance) is one side of the coin, boredom seems to be the emotional baseline state tied with homeostasis. Perhaps like other higher order animals, our baseline state is boredom, but unlike other animals, our acute awareness of our existence makes us aware of time passing, making it all that more significant as part of the human condition.

We are churning along, striving towards goals related to survival, comfort, and entertainment. The avenues to achieve this occur in our particular cultural and linguistic milieu. The props and plays may be different, but the themes are always the same (survival, comfort, and entertainment). The absence of any particular goal/upkeep routine/entertainment seems to lead to a profound boredom- that which makes us aware of our internal need for pursuing something.

There is the stress of moving this way and that, the stress that is inherent with being alive. There is the anxiety of stasis, of no particular goal in mind, of just being, of being acutely aware of time passing. Human existence is characterized by stress and boredom from our first moment of conscious experience.

Also stated: Here is the idea of instrumentality- the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action that eats up free time simply for the sake of being alive and having no other choice. There is also a feeling of futility as, the linguistic- general processor brain cannot get out of its own circular loop of awareness of this. Another part of the feeling of futility is the idea that there is no ultimate completion from any goal or action. It is that idea that there is nothing truly fulfilling. Time moves forward and we must make more goals and actions.

So the slim margin that someone might be rich enough to be above the fray of economic obligations means the whole principle is wrong? I don't think so. Also, if you look at most of my other antinatalism threads, I give many, many reasons why procreation leads to harm. This is just one of many. Combine them all together, and you have a pretty compelling case. This is just yet another reason that affects most people in the world.

Rarely do I meet people who try to find the truth in the other person's statements, it is more people trying to find the flaw so that they can use it to justify that they can win an argument against you. Defence mechanisms of the ego, — intrapersona

Good observation. (Y)

Sure, you need another argument, that's for sure. — Agustino

The argument about economic obligations still stands for 99% of people. Suffering exists for 100%.

If you do absolutely nothing and just plug 1 billion in the bank, how long do you think it will last? :s More than your own lifespan? Probably. Why don't rich people do that? Because it's not fulfilling. — Agustino

While it's true for 1% of people they, do not have to worry about economic obligations in the same way others do, there are other harms- some of them are structural.

I agree. No forcing anyone to do anything. Also, adult behavior needs to be reviewed to best understand the spirit of such a view. We're not behaving well - inventing WMD, polluting the environment, waging wars, perpetuating systems as mentioned in the OP, etc etc. And still we bring children into this world. The reasons for doing that are literally vanishing into thin air while reasons for not are multiplying everyday. — TheMadFool

There are many harms that befall humans. No procreation means no exposure to harm.

No, it's absolutely not. If you have a child in a war torn region, giving birth to them isn't wrong, but failure to protect them when they need it, that will be wrong. — Agustino

So rich people have no economic obligations? They have their own obligations not to mention being on top of the very economic system where the economic obligations take place.

Procreation isn't necessarily immoral, but it can be. — Agustino

But based on my premise, it is valid.

So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. It's not a position I accept, but it's comprehensible at least. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, I agree with this, but I do not believe I was NOT saying this. AFTER the child is born it is forced into obligations. Obligations are harmful and inevitable. Procreation creates this condition. Ergo, procreating children is wrong as it leads to exposing a new person to inevitable and harmful ongoing, inescapable obligations.

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. — Thorongil

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.

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. — T Clark

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.

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. — Ciceronianus the White

In a way yes. Procreation brings on the harms, again and again and again.

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.

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.

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).

Who becomes a manager should be based on election by workers. "Management and oversight" is a useful service which helps people perform well, when the purpose is to enhance work, rather than just squeeze out more from fewer people. There are people who have been managers over me who I would happily elect as a manager, and their are other people who should never be in the position of management. — Bitter Crank

If there are 4 shitty people and 2 good people.. the 4 shitty people will put someone shitty like themselves in charge.. (Insert quote about how shitty people like shitty leaders..add other quote about Trump being a shitty leader :D). Of course what makes a shitty leader is in the eye of the beholder.. too nuanced.. a ruthless task master who gets the job done early so everyone has more free time or a loungy "cool" boss who lets you go at a leisurely pace and more time for fun at work? I guess we can both agree arbitrary hours (8 hours but all of it is BS work) is bad and makes no sense so maybe there are some objective measures.. no arbitrary rules about work hours, etc. Then there's the idea that there should be no leader at all, even by democratic vote.. anarchy within anarchism baby!

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?

Did you mean to reply to @Bitter Crank?

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.

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

:D

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?

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.

You know what I always thought was funny, is how certain people arbitrarily get to be managers. Should it be based on performance? Experience? Drive? Charisma? All of the above? What gives one person the right to control others? If it was more democratically-led (by meetings/councils/voting), would there be just as much infighting, squabbling, and the like between the workers? What is the best way to organize a workplace?

This brings me to life itself.. We have new kids, we are inherently giving them the burden of work. I am not in the camp that believes that work is good for people.. If certain personality types like the tasks that we call "work", than that is their play.. but work is not always play.. Why provide more units of work, more burdens to deal with in the first place by throwing more people into the workforce? I force you to work with my demands, you force me to work with your demands.. we force people into existence and are now forced to work, and force others to work.. It's not only the work itself, it's the conditions, the other people, the interactions, etc.

Most of my threads cover similar theme to what you bring up. Here is the latest: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1495/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-really-inauthentic-decisions-and-the-like/p1

On the other hand, the task of philosophy as such is to attain a state of equilibrium, harmony, emotional balance, and so on - the traditional ethics. That is a rather different matter to effecting social change, although it can be related. But in my case, I have pursued that through meditation and study of the philosophical traditions associated with that. I suppose, to extrapolate from that, that if more people pursued such an understanding, then it would have a ripple effect, in that many of the compulsions, neuroses, and obsessions that often generate social problems would be dissipated by such a way of life. — Wayfarer

I suppose the problem you discount is humans are always at a disequilibrium. We have the ability to self-reflect- to bring things to a a meta-level. Even if you blame civilization and not our cognition for this ability, it's there nonetheless, and it is not going away. We are aware of the absurdity of repetition.. Where some see great comfort in cycles, I see great despair. We must get caught up in meditation because the regular mode of living is not satisfying. We must get caught up in projects the mere present does not seem to be as desirable. Schopenhauer's Will is a metaphor for that striving that is without real goal or end.

Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer. — Question

So we are all giving each other burdens of work as life moves forward in one repetitious wheel where we are the proverbial, nameless cogs? Yay life. If you want pessimism, think of life in economic terms. Yes, I know, even entertainment can be seen in terms of supply/demand.. oh yay, even more things to suck the illusion of essential good out of something.

So what's your vision of an ideal world? Tribal society and the lifestyle this entails?

As others have argued, the desire for perfect innocence is a desire for the grave. I wrestled with that desire intensely once and came out much freer and fiercer on the other side. Life is war. I prefer this war in its sublimated manifestations. I fight for a life of love, creativity, pleasure. This might require moments of hatred, destruction, and pain. Sometimes the ugly has to step in for a moment to maintain the usually beautiful. — visit0r

I've had that impulse at times.. If life is absurd, why not try to be absurdly good? Bring as much joy as possible to others, help them out as much as you can, etc. It's still an interesting idea.. However, somehow this also plays into the nihilistic burden and angst as well. You are helping others in order to help others in order to help others, etc.. it's like walk on a path with the same scene for miles and miles and miles..It's all absurdly repetitious. Besides this, there are the realities of adversity that simply bring one right back into self-interested mode.. Maybe one can train to get over this and just help again, but it's a constant battle. Either way, it all becomes enveloped in the absurd repetitious nature of life.

I'm a big fan of Clarence Darrow.. He does a good job countering those who want to say that nature is good simply because it's nature. Certainly a great avenue to pessimism. My interest in this thread is coming from a similar avenue, that of absurdity- specifically absurd repetition. It can definitely tie in with nature, which is full of repetition. Just the Earth rotating and revolving, the sunrise and sunset, the sleep cycle (for those without chronic insomnia), the getting up to repeat basic hygiene habits, the going to work, the driving to work, the going through the motions at work, the going home and finding x,y,z entertainments and repeat. I would imagine it is not cultural contexted either- the opposite end of the spectrum I am sure is full of repetition, maybe more so. Here I mean hunter-gatherer based tribal cultures. The feeling of angst comes at those moments after you felt accomplishment (caught the prey, completed the task, created the widget, helped that person,etc.) and wondering what that matters as the next day comes, and the next, and the next. It's more than anxiety of death, it's anxiety over the burden of pointless moving forward, to repeat the same.

Anticipation gives life its color, the expectation of a future metamorphosis keeps us going, even if this future never actually materializes. — darthbarracuda

It's funny, I wonder if anyone else experiences that phenomena of having that feeling of anticipation around 11am on Saturday where they are most full of ideas and connections.. then to have it fade completely by 4pm that very same day.. as a sham and illusory.

For example, I may program and code, with a cup of coffee next to me and earbuds in, listening to some sort of space ambient music or science-fiction music. It really pulls me out of "reality" and into a different one, the world of the what-if. What if I was on a space-faring vessel, exploring some distant star cluster, away from the political bullshit on Earth, the impending environmental disaster, the rampant suffering and decay? I think people live in this world of the what-if more than actual "reality". They spend more time dreaming than acting, because dreaming doesn't come with limitations. People take drugs to escape reality. They browse social media to escape their responsibilities. — darthbarracuda

Escaping reality is a very large part of getting by for most. Drugs, getting lost in music, etc. For many, getting lost in video games and sports are time-sucking but escapist in its own way. On the other end of the spectrum, perhaps logic puzzles and math are an escape? Is entertainment itself just an escape or do you think it has to be a certain kind of day dreaming that is particularly escapist? For example, listening to music and being carried away to a more ideal world. If you think about it, it is the experience of the present time itself that we usually can't stand. We are always trying to get caught in some way to escape the present. We get caught up in our own thought-fantasies, we look for flow activities to increase alpha-wave concentration, we plan for future events that we anticipate. We meditate and try to achieve some sort of calm. We try to sleep. The usual mode of being does not seem as comfortable though. In fact, to achieve peace, we must simply learn to sleep-walk efficiently..

This brings up Platonic Idealism in general. The idea that the world of ideas, imagination, is much greater than the physical realm of "shadows on the wall". However, this may be truly Platonic Irrealism as mostly it is the fantasies playing out, not "Real" ideas that are causing the shadows we are contemplating.

There are ready-at-hand entities (equipment), that have a reference towards-which (work), which is for-the-sake-of-which (a possibility of Dasein's Being), or for-Others, etc. The angst, the anxiety, comes from the moments when we ask for what sake do we ourselves exist and do all the things we do. It's a void of meaninglessness in which the nothing "nihilates" our contextual meaning, our world. Nothing matters anymore, it's all just very ephemeral and pointless. — darthbarracuda

Yes we need to get caught up in something. If we get stuck on our own existence- broken tool-mode, we cannot handle it for too long it seems. Does that sound about right?

Wow, you completely missed the point of my last post and thus I have nothing more to say unless you want to address what I have brought up and not distill it down to laundry detergent so you can make rhetorical points. This is smug and uncharitable and you know it. Very troll-like too.

Well, I'm with you in that I find anyone in camp 1 suspect. Suffering is a fundamental part of life. — Roke

Hey we agree on something.

1) Suffering as currency
There is an unavoidable baseline of suffering. The more you try to avoid it, the more ubiquitous it becomes (e.g. boredom, restlessness). If you fall into the habit of avoidance, this can becomes quite pernicious. Avoidance is the wrong strategy. This baseline suffering is biological currency that can be exchanged for pleasure. Meet it head on with physical exercise, strategically directed toil, and to do good for others if you have anything left to burn. That's how you cash it out. — Roke

A part of this is the procedural inauthentic decisions I discussed in the OP. There is a certain repetitiveness to things. Much of life is repetitive procedural acts of habits to maintain some avenue of established living. I would consider this nothing much different than sleep-walking. Don't get me wrong, I recognize the necessity of it for survival and maintenance of one's comfort. However, I would not give short thrift to this idea, as much of the "currency" you discuss is not as abundant as you might at first think. The absurd instrumentality of it is telling you something. The angst is telling you something.

Also, this is not a binary sort of suffering but a spectrum. It's not that you are bored or you're not, but you experience certain kinds of boredom- some more profound than others. It's not that you experience things as pristinely good, but it's good surrounded by not as good, or dull, or frustrating, or annoying, or etc. etc. It's much more of a kaleidoscope of experiences and less of a light switch- suffering torturous pain/not suffering. You don't need to be tortured and some saintly martyr, living through pain, to be suffering. Sometimes the subtle is all it takes.

This leads us to what we are trying to accomplish. When you have a child, most likely it will fall into the procedures of its cultural milieu. Much of it's life will be first developing habits (tweaking every so often for obvious reasons) and then executing them. I am not saying that this should not happen- it is a necessity, just that much of our life is just that, repetitive actions to get by. What this also leads to is that we do not really know why Sisyphus needs to keep rolling the rock. I mean waking up every day is hilariously absurd.. We go to sleep, repeat our patterns, find nuggets of amusement or engagement to a mild degree to keep our angsty minds entertained and repeat. What are we trying to accomplish except experience itself? Just the insatiable need to experience and see others experience? Again, the absurd is telling you something, the angst is telling you something.

Now, in our free time we have chances for "flow" experiences (the stuff you were talking about.. funny how exercise is the best you can think of :D). We also have chances for forming strong relationships. Also on top is learning, music, art, accomplishment, and contributing to some grand project. Down the list a bit is sensual pleasures and entertainments of a whole variety. So one can say that this is the heart of what is supposed to make existence worth it. Right?

Given the option of giving a new person the "opportunity" for the worth it moments knowing that much of their life is just following procedures, and that much of the worth-it experiences are at a cost of a kaleidoscope of not as worth-it spectrum experiences, contingent harms of a host of varieties, knowing that there are chances for suffering-as-tragedy as you call it, knowing that each day is absurdly repetitive, NOT being born costs NOTHING and leads to no bad for any future particular person, knowing that no one needs to exist in the first place. We are just too self-reflective to be "in the moment" at all times.. Instead we are acutely existentially aware of the absurdity. We want the procedures to absurdly continue. It's that angst that you may feel even after accomplishment.. that "what is it really all for" feeling... I'm following this to its logical conclusion. Again, the absurd is telling you something, the angst is telling you something.

Let me tell you this, is NOT having future people that terrible? Other than this pops a bubble in people's ideal life with a family (and possibly using other people as a means to this end), what harm does it do to not have a child? It does no harm. No one needs to experience anything. No one needs to accomplish anything. Now that we, the already-born are here, sure we want to see the worth-it moments maximized. But, as the already-born, would you say that much of human life is worth-it moments? I'm sorry but it is not designed that way. We are supposed to develop habits to sleep-walk through most of it.. the worth it moments get entangled with frustrations and annoyances anyways, and there are chances for great suffering for the unfortunate. In Schopenhaurean terms, we are striving-but-for-nothing.. Manifestations of the general Will that is insatiable. Agustino's point is that we cannot stop it.. No doubt.. this was Nietzsche's point too.. But neither do we need to embrace it as they are saying. We may not ever be able to deny it either and live like an ascetic as Schopenhauer prescribed. This may be impossible from the start. However, we may at least just recognize it for what it is. I prefer Schopenhauer's method as its a rebellion and not being complicit more than we already are. One less person spared the absurdity. Again, it's that "angst" at the end of all things.. I'm following it to its conclusion.. bearing out the fruit of what its really telling you.. The absurd, repetitive, never satisfied feeling.

Well people who are "defensive" about the good of putting more people in the world usually fall into one of two camps.

Camp 1) Life does not contain that much suffering in the first place. This, I just think is plain wrong. Either the person is lying to make a point on an internet forum where its easy to spout off whatever you want and no one would know the better, or they are cherry-picking (choosing a few anecdotes/how they feel a the exact time they are posting), denying that OTHER people (including future people) can/would feel suffering and have a much different experience. This view to me seems disingenuous or simply not thinking it through beyond what is right in front of the person's face. I really do not have much to say to this except that if life is always great (again, seems to be disingenuous and tenuous), it may not be so for others. I would love to really know what's going on in that person's life outside the post itself to validate.. (not really.. but you know just rhetorically speaking of course).

Camp 2) Life has suffering but we have to allow future people to deal with it. I am more sympathetic to this view.. This seems to be Agustino's view for example. At least this one ADMITS there is suffering but tries to justify it. I still think this is not justified due to the fact that no one needs to go through any particular event. We are not the universe/god's willing servants to throw more people onto the stage, for what reason we do not know other than "experience" itself is deemed good. The only thing I can think is that people have a lot of existential angst (another source of very subtle diffuse suffering that humans face).. and children/family becomes an instant form of something to get caught up with.. of course.. that is even giving people the benefit of planning it out.. of course, most people are just thrown in the world with no real thought.

God has thrown man into hell to show him that not even the fires of hell can consume his soul. — Agustino

Sounds like you know what we are trying to accomplish, really.. You think more people should be brought into this world to experience the mix of pain and pleasure that is life. Why is this something that should take place? Why throw more actors on the stage? Does the stage need more actors or do you simply not like the idea of no actors on the stage?

If Trump is considered conservative, looks like he a counterexample of the patriotic conservative- unless patriotic to Russiaor his own finances.

Does getting caught up in a certain field last forever? Will this not too get bogged down in procedure? Perhaps we can all just be theoretical mathematicians/logicians/computer scientists/regular scientists and that will solve all our problems as we grapple with the esoteric nature of this or that logical statement or the next experiment?

It seems to me like your rationalising your state of mind. 'Most folks', said Abe Lincoln, 'are about as happy as they want to be'. I have always found that a very hard saying. — Wayfarer

So what are we trying to accomplish and is it worth creating more people to accomplish it?

2) Procreation is not always bad (try to deal with this one) — Roke

So, much of the antinatalism besides being against creating more harm (even in the self-evaluation of "net good" of life), is that it is way to evaluate the goals of life itself. Themes that keep popping up are that we do not know why more life is actually good or necessary.

What's funny is I'm just asking us to question what we are trying to do as a species who can self-reflect on why we want to continue life it all. The issues of why we think life is worth it and is supposed to be lived out by future people is the real goal. The philosophy of procreation just happens to be the best way to put the issues square and center. Why is it good to have more people is really asking "What are we trying to accomplish by having more people?".

Well, it is probably not getting haircuts and filling out forms, though the procedural stuff is much of life (sometimes a very large percentage). What is it about life that needs to be carried out so much by the next generation? What are we trying to do as a species? We know there's all this running around to get some sort of satisfaction, but why is that preferable?

I can hear anecdotes all day about how someone had this great experience, but just like the evening news that provides a heart-warming last segment, it's only a segment, and the news has to make decisions on what to edit, what to present, how to construct the narrative a certain way. How am I to know people do not just do that on a philosophy forum? Anecdotes can be like these segments, edited to make a whole life seem a certain way.

Are you accomplishing anything or being authentic in making this thread? Genuine question. — Thorongil

Just questioning why we want more procedures for more people. As for being authentic.. perhaps as I am not doing it out of some angsty feeling that this is what I should be doing, it is? Or perhaps just another release-valve until more procedure?