When I encounter someone who has a "Life is a pain in the ass attitude" I genuinely try to change their attitude about it, at least while around me. The negative attitude is like a parasite on a healthy being and negative attitudes osmosis into those around them if they allow.
My ex-fiancé used to say "Life's a bitch and then you die" which was a catch phrase back in the late 80's but that attitude was his mantra and I got tired of trying to swim upstream to change him. It wasn't too far after that, that he said, you deserve better than me. Which true or not was one hell of a statement coming from him.

Life is a pain in the ass...
But to deny it, people are wont to pass
On they go, children in toe
'Til the pain gets enlarged en masse — schopenhauer1

Life is a pleasure in the groin...
It's what keeps our species going,
If we all thought life was only a pain in the ass,
we'd all kill ourselves en masse

I wonder if Camus ever wrote about procreation. Is giving birth a form of rebellion against life's absurdity? — Marchesk

I would think it's the opposite. Preventing birth is a rebellion against the life of the absurd. It's a middle finger to "more existence".

I think the endless possibilities are what makes it worth the going, but I agree that if this was it, if it couldn't get any better than this, then it wouldn't be worth all of the pain and suffering. But there is a very real possibility that in the not too distant future the situation could improve drastically and in the longer term it might even get good enough to justify the long bloody slog of life through the eons. — Sivad

Are humans just fodder for some future utopia though?

Life is a pleasure in the groin...
It's what keeps our species going,
If we all thought life was only a pain in the ass,
we'd all kill ourselves en masse — Harry Hindu

Many people confuse the issue you see
About the difference in what it is to be
Life worth continuing not worth parting
Different than life not worth starting
Thus dear lad its not 'bout the end
Its about new life, and whether to send

Are humans just fodder for some future utopia though? — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't say fodder, human existence has some intrinsic positives, it's just not entirely an end in itself. We're an evolutionary pathway for a process with the potential to develop into something unimaginably profound.
The thing to keep in mind is that this process can't be stopped, history has demonstrated that even a mass extinction is only a temporary interruption, and the process is likely occurring on billions of worlds throughout the universe. So there's no sense in resisting it, the only rational thing to do is to embrace it, fully engage with it, and make the best of it.

LULZ!

Good point regarding Camus, but I do like the idea of intelligent life in the universe evolving into a much better state, even if it makes us fodder. Not saying I believe it, because who knows. Maybe all life goes extinct before then. But then again, can't entirely discount what technology has accomplished so far.

Schopenhauer, sweet honey comes from bees that sting. Listen to Bernstein's Candide

Life is a pleasure in the groin...
It's what keeps our species going,
If we all thought life was only a pain in the ass,
we'd all kill ourselves en masse — Harry Hindu

Quite succinct. Here'sLeonard Bernstein's musical version (from Candide)about how everything works out for the best, even having syphilis in exchange for chocolate and tobacco.

Dear Boy lyrics

PANGLOSS
Dear boy, you will not hear me speak
With sorrow or with rancor
Of what has shrivelled up my cheek
And blasted it with canker; [syphillis has rotted away his nose already]

Twas Love, great Love, that did the deed,
Through Nature's gentle laws,
And how should ill effects proceed
From so divine a cause?

Dear boy:
Sweet honey comes from bees that sting,
As you are well aware;
To one adept in reasoning,
Whatever pains disease may bring
Are but the tangy seasoning
To Love's delicious fare.
Dear boy.

CHORUS
Sweet honey comes from bees that sting.

PANGLOSS
Columbus and his men, they say,
Conveyed the virus hither,
Whereby my features rot away
And vital powers wither;

Yet had they not traversed the seas
And come infected back,
Why, think of all the luxuries
That modern life would lack!

Dear boy:
All bitter things conduce to sweet,
As this example shows;
Without the little spirochete,
We'd have no chocolate to eat
Nor would tobacco's fragrance greet
The European nose.
Dear boy.

CHORUSA
ll bitter things conduce to sweet.

PANGLOSS
Each nation guards its native land
With cannon and with sentry,
Inspectors look for contraband
At every point of entry,
Yet nothing can prevent the spread
Of Love's divine disease;

It rounds the world from bed to bed
As pretty as you please.
Dear boy:
Men worship Venus everywhere,
As may be plainly seen;

Her decorations which I bear
Are nobler than the croix de guerre,
And gained in service of our fair
And universal Queen.Dear boy.

CHORUS
Men worship Venus everywhere.Dear boy!

Not saying I believe it, because who knows. Maybe all life goes extinct before then. — Marchesk

Yeah, given all the natural and man-made existential threats our species is confronted with, and in light of the fermi paradox, the long term survival of intelligent life might really be a matter of threading the needle. The thing we have to be aware of though when considering propositions like anti-natalism, is that life, along with all the pain and suffering that it entails, is most likely a constant feature of this universe. Life is very hard to eradicate, even after the most destructive global cataclysms it always comes roaring back. And even if this planet was permanently sterilized of all life, life would still exist elsewhere in space and time. So since the issue of suffering can't be resolved through voluntary extinction, it becomes an ethical imperative for some species or entity to thread that needle and reach something like Tippler's Omega Point and overwrite the current cruel and indifferent natural order and establish a much more benign cosmos in its place.

So since the issue of suffering can't be resolved through voluntary extinction, it becomes an ethical imperative for some species or entity to thread that needle and reach something like Tippler's Omega Point — Sivad

Voluntary extinction was never realistic for humans, either. Best the anti-natalists manage is to convince some people not to breed. Not as if that will be a problem for continuing the species.

Well yeah, but if we're taking anti-natalism seriously then it's something to consider.

Many people confuse the issue you see
About the difference in what it is to be
Life worth continuing not worth parting
Different than life not worth starting
Thus dear lad its not 'bout the end
Its about new life, and whether to send — schopenhauer1

Then ask the new life - the children,
"Would you prefer that you had never been?"
Their response might be something like,
"Life is but a game. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
One thing we look forward to,
when we reach a certain age, is the fun with booze."

Life is but a game. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. — Harry Hindu

Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules.”

“Yes, sir. I know it is. I know it.”

Game, my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all the hot-shots are, then it’s a game, all right—I’ll admit that. But if you get on the other side, where there aren’t any hot-shots, then what’s a game about it? Nothing. No game. — Catcher in the Rye

Which side is the "hot-shots"? The side that gets overthrown every once in awhile by the overwhelming numbers of those that aren't "hot-shots"? The "hot-shots" are only so hot as so much as the teeming masses are willing to allow them to be. There simply aren't enough resources for everyone to be "hot-shots". Either everyone would have to be wimps, or we have a few "hot-shots" that we allow to hold the reins of power and determine the use of resources for everyone.

If all resources were divided equally among all citizens of the world, everyone would only receive about $16,000 annually, and even then most of that is tied up in commodities and property. In other words, we can make life a pain in the ass for everyone, or we can make life better for some. Which would be the greater good?

If all resources were divided equally among all citizens of the world, everyone would only receive about $16,000 annually, and even then most of that is tied up in commodities and property. In other words, we can make life a pain in the ass for everyone, or we can make life better for some. Which would be the greater good? — Harry Hindu

What's the source for this? It doesn't really make sense to value the total resources of the planet in terms of dollars. There's definitely enough for everyone to live comfortably, we have the technology and the resources to provide a high standard of living for every person on the planet, it's our current system of dollars and cents that creates the massive disparity. We could have a post-scarcity world now if we really wanted it, but most people prefer the zero-sum game of winners and losers because they believe it offers them the chance to become rich.

There's definitely enough for everyone to live comfortably, we have the technology and the resources to provide a high standard of living for every person on the planet, it's our current system of dollars and cents that creates the massive disparity. We could have a post-scarcity world now if we really wanted it, but most people prefer the zero-sum game of winners and losers because they believe it offers them the chance to become rich. — Sivad

Maybe in theory, but what in practice will motivate enough people to be average to make this post-scarcity world work? A lot of incentive comes from being able to start your own business, or rise to the top of a company, etc. And a lot of people do want to own more than the Smiths, or live in a nicer location, etc. Status is important to human beings.

Also, without money, how do the markets know what resources to allocate? How many widgets from factory X should be produced to be delivered to stores Y & Z? Is the government going to determine production?

And then you have to problem with different political, religious, and cultural practices. Maybe untouchables or women aren't allowed to have equal stuff. Perhaps the local leaders would rather keep their power, etc. Maybe the natives don't want to plant crop XYZ for the good of people living in region ABC.

My point was that extreme inequality is not a necessary evil or the best we can do. I agree that human nature is an obstacle, no doubt about it.

Also, without money, how do the markets know what resources to allocate? How many widgets from factory X should be produced to be delivered to stores Y & Z? Is the government going to determine production? — Marchesk

Capitalism has enormous allocation problems of its own. In addition to being prone to a range of market failures, it produces mountains of waste and useless crap, it leads to massive inequality and poverty, and it ignores many problems that don't offer a strong profit motive(pharma r+d for orphan diseases is a good example). But it's not necessary to abandon the market mechanism, there are many types of market socialism which do rely on it.

A lot of incentive comes from being able to start your own business, or rise to the top of a company, etc. And a lot of people do want to own more than the Smiths, or live in a nicer location, etc. Status is important to human beings. — Marchesk

There are other ways to achieve a high social status that don't require conspicuous consumption, it just depends on the ethos of the society. And even without the possibility of making lots of money there are still incentives for starting a business or excelling in your profession, in fact profit usually works as a perverse incentive which corrupts and distorts the process and product of most fields of work.

What's the source for this? — Sivad

Google, "what is the GDP of the world".

It doesn't really make sense to value the total resources of the planet in terms of dollars. — Sivad

Of course it does. Dollars is how we measure wealth.

There's definitely enough for everyone to live comfortably, we have the technology and the resources to provide a high standard of living for every person on the planet, it's our current system of dollars and cents that creates the massive disparity. We could have a post-scarcity world now if we really wanted it, but most people prefer the zero-sum game of winners and losers because they believe it offers them the chance to become rich. — Sivad

No, there isn't. You seem to think that the world population can keep growing at the same pace and we can just make more dollars, but that just makes dollars worth less, which makes everything else cost more. We could have a post-scarcity world if we killed off half the world's population say, in a nuclear war. At that point we could afford to pay raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Right now, we can only afford $8/hr. What offers people the chance to become rich is the freedom to do with your money as you please without the elites in govt. controlling your choices of what you can spend and can't spend and on what.

Life is neither a pain in the ass nor a breeze in the park, it's a bit of both.

You seem to think that the world population can keep growing at the same pace and we can just make more dollars — Harry Hindu

I think that because it's true. The money supply has to expand with the economy or deflation sets in.

Right now, we can only afford $8/hr. — Harry Hindu

Even if that were true the obvious solution would be to cut compensation for shareholders and executives rather than working people for less than a living wage. That would be happening if people had an effective labor movement. That's how it was not so long ago, the size of the current wealth gap is unprecedented in modern history. We can afford it, we just opt to allow the obscenely rich to keep the lion's share of the surplus.

I think that because it's true. The money supply has to expand with the economy or deflation sets in. — Sivad

Dollars are worthless when there aren't enough resources to sustain the population. Even if everyone had a million dollars, it would do them no good when there isn't enough food and living space for everyone. The ink and the paper to print money has to come from somewhere and that isn't infinite. The problem is that socialists seem to think that resources are infinite. How "idealistic".

Even if that were true the obvious solution would be to cut compensation for shareholders and executives rather than working people for less than a living wage. That would be happening if people had an effective labor movement. That's how it was not so long ago, the size of the current wealth gap is unprecedented in modern history. We can afford it, we just opt to allow the obscenely rich to keep the lion's share of the surplus. — Sivad

Even then, there isn't enough money that we can take away from the obscenely rich to pull everyone out of poverty. Who do you choose to keep in poverty? Like I said, we either make everyone poor, or keep things like they are with some tweaks.

Life is very hard to eradicate, even after the most destructive global cataclysms it always comes roaring back. — Sivad

Do you have any actual evidence to support this contention?

Even then, there isn't enough money that we can take away from the obscenely rich to pull everyone out of poverty. — Harry Hindu

There's a difference between money and wealth. Wealth is the real tangible resource, money is just an abstraction. Putting a dollar value on the world's wealth is sort of asinine, the dollar is the vehicle of an inefficient, wasteful system of artificial scarcity driven by pathological greed. The dollar is the symbol of a tyrannical inequity, it's not an objective measure of the Earth's abundance.

Who do you choose to keep in poverty? Like I said, we either make everyone poor, or keep things like they are with some tweaks. — Harry Hindu

There's not enough money to make everyone rich but the wealth of the world is vast, there's more than enough for everyone to be comfortable and secure. Nobody has to be kept in poverty, mass poverty is the result of pathological avarice run amok.

The problem is that socialists seem to think that resources are infinite. How "idealistic". — Harry Hindu

The problem is that socialism depends on people not being giant A-holes, that's all that's "idealistic" about socialism. I'm not a socialist because I know people are incorrigible assholes that can't be saved from themselves, and I'm over it. Socialism is the rational way to go, unfortunately we're a race of fuckheads with fucked up priorities.

Even then, there isn't enough money that we can take away from the obscenely rich to pull everyone out of poverty. Who do you choose to keep in poverty? Like I said, we either make everyone poor, or keep things like they are with some tweaks. — Harry Hindu

Liquidating the wealth of the rich and distributing it evenly among 7 billion people isn't what is being proposed. Certainly, the rich would lose their wealth, especially capital assets like land, factories, shipping, retail properties, etc. They will also be divested of any interests they have in capital assets. What they will be left with is a box of personal property (i.e., their favorite blanket) an outbuilding to live in, and odds and ends.

The capital assets of the formerly rich will be turned to produce for the needs of the people. Food, clothing, housing, mass transit, cultural goods (books, music, etc.), and such basic things. The People will need to take charge of this production, because the rich will no longer be hiring overseers. This presents no problem. Hired hands already perform all of the labor that creates wealth. Everyone from managers to janitors is already at work in the plants.

The tricky part will be coordination. Resources, factories, and needs will have to be sorted out and matched up. This can be done through a sort of market system.

The problem is that socialists seem to think that resources are infinite. — Harry Hindu

Some socialists seem to think this, and some capitalists also think so.

Human ingenuity is a great thing, but we should have learned by now that there are serious costs to using up resources that are readily available, and going after resources that aren't so readily available. Surely, the planet still contains a lot of resources. Just as surely, the easy materials have been extracted.

Do you have any actual evidence to support this contention? — John

Good one.