"Speaking of dystopian societies, maybe you should ask ChatGPT what it thinks about a childless future for humans," he said, sarcastically.

I am familiar with the plot, but have neither read the book nor seen the movie. Have you seen it? Is it any good?

In many apocalyptic-themed novels, people descend into barbarity pretty quickly--the Mad Max reference. There is a nice contrast in On The Beach by Nevil Shute. The world is dying as a cloud of radioactivity descends from the northern hemisphere towards the southern pole. Southern Australia is next in line, among the last to go. People behave with remarkable civility as they "carry on" either waiting for the radiation cloud to arrive, or swallowing the poison pill which is freely available.

We now have a real-world apocalypse awaiting us in the possibly uncontrollable heating of the planet. One exceedingly hot summer doesn't demonstrate how bad it will get, but it is suggestive. So far, people either deny the possibility or they live with low-level anxiety about the future. We know how to solve the problem, but we do not have access to the levers of power in corporations and governments. People seem to be living calmly in the face of this calamity--their children's certainly, or their own, if they are young.

You know that birth rates in affluent countries and/or among affluent layers of society are below the replacement level. Many breeding-age people in Japan, for instance, don't seem to be overly concerned. Some European countries are in the same situation as Japan -- demographically doomed. Older people are anxious about it, but not the younger ones, Seems strange to me.

I don't think most of the world has to worry about a childless future. The title of Jeff Goodell's book says it all: The Heat Will Kill You First.

If no one were able to reproduce, no new generations of humans, would society fall into a chaotic mad-max scenario, or would things continue as normal, albeit with some depressed folks who aren't able to have children? — schopenhauer1

I'm inclined to think on the large scale, the latter, with an added incentive to develop robots. But individuals deeply invested in replicating themselves do take it hard, even to the point of serious depression and self-destructive behaviour. (Having chosen not to do it myself, I can't really empathize, but I can sympathize from a safe distance.)

Rather oddly, while some nations worry about a 1% drop* in average sperm-count, others are still unable to grapple with their overpopulation; while we worry about the ageing population and decrease of future caretakers and taxpayers, we also worry about the unemployment automation is going to cause in the near future. All the while taking no definitive steps to alleviate any of these problems. .... and the forests are burning and the permafrost is melting and the ocean is heating up and the Gulf stream is collapsing and our lungs are filling up with microplastic....

Rather, the premise that reproduction represents an all-encompassing motivating force is flawed. — schopenhauer1

It would seem so. We have been failing spectacularly to secure any kind of future for the children we already made and the ones we're still making. And this is very much in keeping with the pattern laid down by our ancestors.

*My information was outdated. It's actually 2.6% per year now.

I first read the novel back in the early 90s and have seen the movie adaptation more than a few times; I have enjoyed both versions, though they diverge (mostly in narrative focus, IIRC), for the socio-political plausibility of the plot.

The idea is that the belief in a continuing future society serves as a driving force to prevent society from falling into chaos.

Is this assumption true, though? — schopenhauer1

It's quite plausible, especially in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. AFAIK, there aren't any grounds to doubt it. :smirk:

I am familiar with the plot, but have neither read the book nor seen the movie. Have you seen it? Is it any good? — BC

I saw it a long time ago but was reminded of it again recently. Yes it was good as far as dystopian sci-fi's go. I have no problem with the movie as far as directing, plot, acting, etc. Rather, I am just taking objection with one of the premises regarding how we would act if reproduction ended.



So let's say that the practical fallout was not an issue. That is to say, it was somehow all worked out how we would maintain society until the last person died. So in this case, it is just the "idea" that no future people would exist after this generation, with no practical extenuating circumstances to complicate how we would react. What about this "idea" would change things really? Consequences are still the same. You still need to have money to buy goods and services. You still do your hobbies and interests and pastimes and errands and chores and gatherings with friends and family. What exactly changes in your individual life? Nothing in my life (beyond the practical matter of workers sustaining the economy) is predicated on future generations. The idea does not cross my mind in a conscious way, nor dare I say lurk somewhere in the back of my mind ensuring me that existence is fine and dandy (though by definition, I guess that is impossible to substantiate).

In fact, if anything, this scenario shows us the real dark lurking secret. That is to say that, what is really the "problem" is we wouldn't have enough "workers" to sustain our way of life. So in the end, if we think of future generations at all, it is just plain old selfish, and very practical economic reasons. Rather, we would be worried (not sad) about the pyramid scheme of workers not fulfilling jobs to sustain the rest of the pyramid. @BC, you mentioned Japan isn't overly concerned, but they are in only the fact that they don't have a lot of workers on the bottom of the pyramid to sustain them. So as a demographic issue, it does. But I believe you are correct on the more numinous "existential" front.

At the end of the day, it is about cultivating and reproducing our workers to ensure our pensions and lifestyles don't go to shit. How lovely we all are to "allow" future generations the "chance" to keep this scheme going all these years. Throw more workers in the mix, comrade. We are running low! Life must be good.. It is good, right? See all the gadgets? Touch grass. Make friends. Climb the mountains. Take advice from gurus and internet people. COmMuNnITy!!! See all the phrases that make it so that is about existential issues and not demographics. We need our slogans to motivate. We are more clever than we think. Cultural tropes are epiphenomal. Rarely is it just made up de novo but are rehashed from previous tropes that worked, and in dialectic fashion, just get tweaked to the new circumstances, but with the same message.

So in this case, it is just the "idea" that no future people would exist after this generation, with no practical extenuating circumstances to complicate how we would react. What about this "idea" would change things really? — schopenhauer1

Some things, yes, I think so. The last couple of generations of super-rich would redouble their efforts to secure an immortality of some kind for themselves - whether as corpsicles or cyborgs or in the matrix or in a vat - they would probably explore all of those technologies to whatever degree their money and influence enable them. This would automatically mean withdrawing funds from political campaigns, long-term investments, sheltered bank accounts, trust funds and charities. I imagine the younger ones would splash out some spectacular end-of-the-world parties, and so would many people of lesser means. No more saving for the children's education, family health insurance premiums, term deposits: you can't take it with you and there's nobody to leave it to. Once the last generation of dependent young was out of the nest, the shape of coupling would change - no planning and providing for a family, so why bother with marriage and career? No eager young college graduates nipping at your job, so why not just coast?
Also, the enormous market in baby and child products would implode along with its retail outlets and advertisers; a number of large corporations would be wiped out. Overall, a massive redeployment of capital and an unrecognizably altered economy.
To some extent, the approaching climate doomesday is prompting similar behaviour: a world-wide closing panic, wherein the haves are gobbling up whatever is left of the world as fast as they possibly can and the more ruthless politicians are enabling them.

You still need to have money to buy goods and services. — schopenhauer1

With that redeployment of liquid assets, and a concomitant collapse of banks, I imagine a massive surge in unemployment - with an ever-changing profile of the unemployed population when it's joined by military and law-enforcement personnel the governments can't to pay anymore - neglect of infrastructure, fragmentation of power delivery and transportation, cessation of social services... and a huge rise in crime. As long as the rich can afford private armies, the rest of us would have to take what we need from one another, as we increasingly do now, but in a few years, there would be little or nothing left to own.
The small-footprint, self-reliant homesteaders and survivalists might do all right well into old age, if they joined forces. But they wouldn't; the survivalists would raid the homesteads and take their stuff, but no their knowledge.

What exactly changes in your individual life? — schopenhauer1

Besides likely curtailment of both your earning and the availability of goods: whatever the people you depend on stop doing; whatever the people who want your possessions take; if they're hungry enough, the loss of your pets and your pantry.

At the end of the day, it is about cultivating and reproducing our workers to ensure our pensions and lifestyles don't go to shit. How lovely we all are to keep this scheme going all these years. — schopenhauer1

Nothing new there! Why do you think major religions forbid non-reproductive sex? They've always wanted fresh meat for the congregations, for the army, for the tax-collector, for the factories and fields. Elites need the lowest two or three tiers of society to be the most numerous and least valued, so that they can be kept perpetually at one another's throat, anxious, suspicious, jealous. Fear, loathing and the worship of their betters is what keeps the peons compliant. Even though, in pragmatic terms, they should have backed off that policy a few decades ago, they can't seem to let go of it as a divide-to-conquer political issue.

So in the end, if we think of future generations at all, it is just plain old selfish ... — schopenhauer1

The Iroquois word for this ahistorical statement, schop1, is BULLSHIT (same word, btw, in countless other languages over dozens of millennia of countless indigenous peoples):

The Seventh Generation Principle is based on an ancient Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)* philosophy that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future. 

Excerpt from
https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/seventh-generation-principle

From an old thread "What is the goal of human beings, both individually and collectively in this age?", a post wherein I sketch out an ethical application of the Iroquois' (anthropological) principle ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/572299

I suspect PD James took this 'inter-generational principal' seriously and her novel is a speculation that when it breakdowns for whatever reason (IIRC, she doesn't give one and neither does the film) the consequences will be dystopian (e.g. fascist, nihilistic). A cautionary tale about "just plain old selfish" unsustainable, philistine, presentism – a decadent civilization growing morbidly obese from cannibalizing its young (its future) – in the late 20th / early 21st century. In other words, like an old song says

You ain't gonna miss your water until your well runs dry ...

a decadent civilization growing morbidly obese from cannibalizing its young (its future) – in the late 20th / early 21st century. In other words, like an old song says — 180 Proof

It goes back much further. Since the beginning of urban, stratified civilizations, the young have played a sacrificial role. The first four biblical commandments are about the god; the next one is reverence for parents, with the patriarch just one step below the god (look what happened to poor old Ham for accidentally finding the old man drunk! He and all his descendants were reduced to servitude.) Nowhere does that ancient legal system - nor any other that I'm aware of - say "Cherish your children and grandchildren". Kids have been bought and sold, beaten and exploited and browbeaten since long before the industrial age. Jesus had a good word to say for them - just the one, mind you - but that got turned into starched collars, much kneeling and interminable silent Sundays even for the offspring of privileged burghers.

Even today, the well-off western middle class drives its kids to emotionally crippling competition and lavishes vast quantities of money on their dressing, housing, feeding and preening, all the while poisoning those same precious babies with urban industrial lifestyle... and sending the children of the less well-off into unwinnable, pointless wars that seamlessly dovetail one into the next.
There is no kind of reason or logic to this.

:up:

This is an impressive performance, but the force of it comes from your audience recognizing that

Kids have been bought and sold, beaten and exploited and browbeaten since long before the industrial age. — Vera Mont

is wrong, which means we are expected to recognize there is an alternative. I have not sold, beaten, exploited or browbeaten any of my children, nor have I forced my religion onto them or sent them to die in a pointless war. Am I doing it wrong?

You do have an argument here -- I'm not saying it's just rhetoric -- that there are pressures, there are interests that drive the exploitation of the young. I don't deny that. But those interests are not the whole story, and it is not impossible -- or at least not shown here -- that those interests will not always be decisive.

I have not sold, beaten, exploited or browbeaten any of my children, nor have I forced my religion onto them or sent them to die in a pointless war — Srap Tasmaner

And I'm sure you've done everything in your power to clean up the world they grow up in, prevent their less affluent playmates being sent off to war and insure a stable planet for them to grow old on. Unfortunately, this not the universal practice of humankind, and hasn't been for some 6000 years. Child sacrifice has been with us just about as long. Today, they're more useful for sex, spare organs and cheap labour in carpet factories, but they also make dandy targets for drug dealers and politicians determined to stop illegal immigration. But, of course, there's also a brisk trade in healthy infants who will be offered all the advantages of affluence.

But those interests are not the whole story, and it is not impossible -- or at least not shown here -- that those interests will not always be decisive. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know how long that 'always' will be. From my current perspective, it looks like a short future.

Unfortunately, this not the universal practice of humankind, and hasn't been for some 6000 years. — Vera Mont

I think we can do better, and I suppose one reason for believing that is that some people do better by their descendants. Whether it will be enough to save us, I don't know. It's hard for me to believe we have, in such a short span, already exhausted the possibilities for humanity.

Some things, yes, I think so. The last couple of generations of super-rich would redouble their efforts to secure an immortality of some kind for themselves - whether as corpsicles or cyborgs or in the matrix or in a vat - they would probably explore all of those technologies to whatever degree their money and influence enable them. This would automatically mean withdrawing funds from political campaigns, long-term investments, sheltered bank accounts, trust funds and charities. — Vera Mont

You propose interesting scenarios there but I guess this gets to the heart of the matter. Why would future people being born or not born dictate what the rich would do any more than currently (all practical things being equal.. as I said, the practical issues are worked out in this scenario as far as the economics).

I imagine the younger ones would splash out some spectacular end-of-the-world parties, and so would many people of lesser means. No more saving for the children's education, family health insurance premiums, term deposits: you can't take it with you and there's nobody to leave it to. Once the last generation of dependent young was out of the nest, the shape of coupling would change - no planning and providing for a family, so why bother with marriage and career? No eager young college graduates nipping at your job, so why not just coast?
Also, the enormous market in baby and child products would implode along with its retail outlets and advertisers; a number of large corporations would be wiped out. Overall, a massive redeployment of capital and an unrecognizably altered economy.
To some extent, the approaching climate doomesday is prompting similar behaviour: a world-wide closing panic, wherein the haves are gobbling up whatever is left of the world as fast as they possibly can and the more ruthless politicians are enabling them. — Vera Mont

But why would there be doomsday parties anymore than the parties that go on now when in this scenario, all the practical considerations are accounted for in a "soft landing"? Why does the idea of no children really change anything? Also, the presumption that marriage is only to procreate seems pretty old-fashioned, even at this point. Since the 60s it's increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, a personal choice, a legally recognized love interest or companion. It hasn't represented "the continuation of the family line" for quite some time, I'd say (in the Western world at least).

With that redeployment of liquid assets, and a concomitant collapse of banks, I imagine a massive surge in unemployment - with an ever-changing profile of the unemployed population when it's joined by military and law-enforcement personnel the governments can't to pay anymore - neglect of infrastructure, fragmentation of power delivery and transportation, cessation of social services... and a huge rise in crime. As long as the rich can afford private armies, the rest of us would have to take what we need from one another, as we increasingly do now, but in a few years, there would be little or nothing left to own.
The small-footprint, self-reliant homesteaders and survivalists might do all right well into old age, if they joined forces. But they wouldn't; the survivalists would raid the homesteads and take their stuff, but no their knowledge. — Vera Mont

Right, so which is why in this scenario I made sure to mention that the practical problems were figured out to see if we can isolate if just the idea of no children really changes anything existentially, personally, or individually.

Besides likely curtailment of both your earning and the availability of goods: whatever the people you depend on stop doing; whatever the people who want your possessions take; if they're hungry enough, the loss of your pets and your pantry. — Vera Mont

Ibid

Nothing new there! Why do you think major religions forbid non-reproductive sex? They've always wanted fresh meat for the congregations, for the army, for the tax-collector, for the factories and fields. Elites need the lowest two or three tiers of society to be the most numerous and least valued, so that they can be kept perpetually at one another's throat, anxious, suspicious, jealous. Fear, loathing and the worship of their betters is what keeps the peons compliant. Even though, in pragmatic terms, they should have backed off that policy a few decades ago, they can't seem to let go of it as a divide-to-conquer political issue. — Vera Mont

Yeah, very true. People need to not think about why they do it in order for the scheme to carry on. I'm very disheartened at how developing countries and immigrants to Western countries sometimes are seen as "determined" whereas the fully integrated Westerner (whether that includes recently integrated immigrants orther upper classes of the developing world), tend to be seen as having free will agency. As if traditional cultures negates any sense of self-reflection. They are just completely alien to the concept apparently. And this, unfortunately, to some extent, may be true.

I suspect PD James took this 'inter-generational principal' seriously and her novel is a speculation that when it breakdowns for whatever reason (IIRC, she doesn't give one and neither does the film) the consequences will be dystopian (e.g. fascist, nihilistic). A cautionary tale about "just plain old selfish" unsustainable, philistine, presentism – a decadent civilization growing morbidly obese from cannibalizing its young (its future) – in the late 20th / early 21st century. In other words, like an old song says
You ain't gonna miss your water until your well runs dry ... — 180 Proof

Right, we are going to disagree as to where the selfishness lies here. The next generation is used to support the current one because it must. However, as to the reaction to the news of no future generation, if the material economic aspects were not relevant, there is no "existential" or individual reason we would change much of our behavior. The "doomsday" part is from the fact that no people will be around to keep the economy going. But the idea of, "Oh no! What shall I do if there isn't a future generation" doesn't seem to be a factor in our individual habits or behavior. Sure, it can be a cultural feature like the Iroquois but that's more a cultural feature, not a necessary part of our daily thought patterns (unless one fully enculturates that type of ethos perhaps, but that can be said of anything).

is wrong, which means we are expected to recognize there is an alternative. I have not sold, beaten, exploited or browbeaten any of my children, nor have I forced my religion onto them or sent them to die in a pointless war. Am I doing it wrong? — Srap Tasmaner

You don't have to do that for @Vera Mont to be right. He might have used the extreme cases, but just being born presents the (almost) necessary feature of keeping the economic engine (in whatever form tribal or industrial) going. The practical part of the doomsday in the movie displays this threat (of no next generation to continue the economy) well.

Why would future people being born or not born dictate what the rich would do any more than currently — schopenhauer1

Not about future people in general; it's about more copies of themselves. They still have dynasties: their DNA goes on into the future, controlling their financial empires. The certainty that their (super-special aristocratic) blood-line comes to an end with them is very likely to refocus them on the now, on the eternal survival of their own or their immediate offspring's continuation.

(all practical things being equal.. as I said, the practical issues are worked out in this scenario as far as the economics). — schopenhauer1

Only that doesn't work. Nothing is equal and nothing is worked out.

Why does the idea of no children really change anything? — schopenhauer1

It doesn't. It's not some theoretical 'idea' of children that's being proposed; it's the certainty of no more children. In a matter of one decade, the effect would be altogether too tangible to ignore.

In any society we know, the idea cannot possibly exist in isolation.
If it could be isolated as philosophical proposition, I suppose it would more likely divide the world into hedonists and mystics.

If it could be isolated as philosophical proposition, I suppose it would more likely divide the world into hedonists and mystics. — Vera Mont

What do you mean by this? Do we not have that now?

It would be devastating for society (meaning the economy), not because of a lack of workers, but because of a lack of customers, long before they would have reached the age to join the workforce.

Of course, it would be fantastic for the planet.

The "doomsday" part is from the fact that no people will be around to keep the economy going. But the idea of, "Oh no! What shall I do if there isn't a future generation" doesn't seem to be a factor in our individual habits or behavior. — schopenhauer1

Well, since the genre is, in effect, a Dystopia-Dying Earth hybrid, "individual habits or behavior" are only, even primarily, symptoms of accelerating societal collapse which, of course, included labor-consumer collapse. The Children of Men is a speculative novel, not a psycho-sociological treatise. I applaud the author for dramatizing a shift in perspective from taken-for-granted self-centered immediacy to the loss of existential longtermism. As she said clarifying the central idea of the novel ...

It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words 'justice', 'compassion', 'society’, 'struggle', 'evil', would be unheard echoes on an empty air.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070526121608/http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/bowman.htm — P.D. James, interview (2007)

What do you mean by this? Do we not have that now? — schopenhauer1

Of course we don't. The vast majority of us now are drones: wage- and debt-slaves, with no time for either hedonism (the prerogative of the rich and the adolescent children of their catspaws) or mysticism (the luxury of a few ascetics unencumbered by family).

That P. D. James quote is brilliant.

I recently reread Beowulf, and one of the peculiar features of that society is that there seems to be a prize for honor and heroism and this is why they are good: fame. Over and over again, we are told that the point of slaying monsters and gaining treasure is future generations singing of your deeds, and I don't recall any hint that an explanation is required for why you would, in turn, want that. The highest praise is that your fame will never die.

It's a companion to the point Conrad makes:

You can't understand. How could you?--with solid pavement under your feet, surrounded by kind neighbors ready to cheer you or to fall on you, stepping delicately between the butcher and the policeman, in the holy terror of scandal and gallows and lunatic asylums--how can you imagine what particular region of the first ages a man's untrammeled feet may take him into by the way of solitude--utter solitude without a policeman--by the way of silence, utter silence, where no warning voice of a kind neighbor can be heard whispering of public opinion? These little things make all the great difference. — Heart of Darkness

Conrad's neighbor speaks to you, but only of what people would say about you, not of Heaven and Hell, not of the Categorical Imperative.

And as the individual must keep in mind what others will say, so each generation must keep in mind what future generations will say. It is the same dynamic, arranged across time rather than space.

And as the individual must keep in mind what others will say, so each generation must keep in mind what future generations will say. — Srap Tasmaner

The great and famous may be concerned about their legacy, as the rich are concerned about preserving or enshrining their fortune down through time - statues and art galleries with their name on. Most of us will not be remembered at all. Many of us have no descendants who will look at old curled photos and wonder who that old geezer or crone was - besides, today's digital images will have been erased much sooner. We don't expect any generations to sing about us. That won't change when there are no more generation to not sing.

It would be devastating for society (meaning the economy), not because of a lack of workers, but because of a lack of customers, long before they would have reached the age to join the workforce.

Of course, it would be fantastic for the planet. — LuckyR

Yep, we cannot forget the reproduction of the consumption side of things- the necessity for more demand. More customers.

Well, since the genre is, in effect, a Dystopia-Dying Earth hybrid, "individual habits or behavior" are only, even primarily, symptoms of accelerating societal collapse which, of course, included labor-consumer collapse. The Children of Men is a speculative novel, not a psycho-sociological treatise. — 180 Proof

Agreed. I was riffing off some of the implications of the themes, I was not claiming the author or director was explicitly making it about this alone. Obviously it takes place within the context of a collapsing labor-consumer structure.

It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words 'justice', 'compassion', 'society’, 'struggle', 'evil', would be unheard echoes on an empty air.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070526121608/http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/bowman.htm — P.D. James, interview (2007)

Cool quote. But this then goes back to my main question regarding the theme of the "hope" of a new generation and its affect/effect on society. Do people generally live their daily lives because of future generations? And would it matter in any moral/psychological way (that is to say, beyond the economic collapse of the system)? People do things in the broader society, generally to get paid. People act ethically in the personal sphere because they have some sort of notion internally, whether that be an internalized principle/directive, a feeling, or an intuition (of course all ripe for meta-ethical exploration). Sometimes you can combine them, and a principle or feeling drives someone to pick a career associated with things that "help" people (e.g. social worker, nurse, etc.). However, the idea/principle/notion that "future generations won't be around" motivates any of this- that is a stretch.

The only area left is a sort of "political ethics". These are ethics regarding collective actions for the future (e.g. climate change, economic longevity, world peace, etc.). However, these would simply drop by the wayside as unnecessary. Political ethics, however, are not driving personal ethics, let alone most (or any) aspects of our daily interactions per se. It affects those who desire to have children and those whose lives revolve around that idea, but that's not some innate motivator. All the examples given thus far are epiphenomal/contingent and cultural. There is nothing about it that would make us, upon instantly knowing there would be no new generation, give up and start blowing shit up, or even changing much about our daily lives.

It actually gives too much credit to the average person who apparently doesn't self-reflect about purpose all that much. People rarely go into such existential despair that they give up on life. As a pessimist, I would encourage people to pursue the limits of existential purpose in Cioran fashion, but as Zapffe laid out:

- Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[5]

- Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[5] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.

-Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[5] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.

-Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation. — Wiki

P.D James is positing that Zapffe's psychological mechanisms would collapse, and people would feel existential dread (and apparently destructive nihilistic despair) upon realizing there is no future generation. In Zapffean terms, she thinks that "future generations" are some sort of foundational "anchoring mechanism" that if done away with, would devastate the human psyche. I am just questioning that notion because of our pretty immediate way we go about the world, generally non-reflective that is. She gives us too much credit, if anything. However, it does make for cool fiction.

@Vera Mont @Srap Tasmaner @BC

I don't share your broad cynicism, but I'm cynical enough to believe that anything I say in response will be met with some variation on "All is vanity," so I think I'll leave you to it.

Having a family and being able to contribute to the survival of humanity (and all that is good) can indubitably be a source of hope and happiness for many. However, as an optimist, I don't think that blindly romanticising procreation is a wise idea. Life has a beauty that possesses a strikingly diverse nature. It is possible the slope to be an enchanting mountain, even if that recognition depends upon one's current position and taking a few steps back.

Do people generally live their daily lives because of future generations? — schopenhauer1

Not for some hypothetical future generations. But they are strongly motivated by the welfare of their existing and hoped-for offspring. Fathers and mothers stick with jobs they hate in order to feed and shelter their children, save for their children's education, go into debt to give their child a wedding or vehicle or trip abroad or business opportunity. Obviously, the very existence of dependent young, especially infants, entails a great deal of extra work for parents, less leisure time and surplus energy.
Their behaviour is influenced, too: they drive more carefully, take fewer risks, drink less, try not to swear or set a bad example; hide their less laudable actions and fear their children's censure.
Not all parents, of course, but I think the majority do, to whatever extent their social position permits.

Collectively... That's a very difficult term for me, like the oft-heard "we". I don't see humanity as any kind of coherent collective. Individual communities, yes, even nations, ethnic blocs, professions can be coherent units moving in the same direction - for some brief period of time.
Many people do seem to ponder and wax passionate about the future of the human race as sort of nebulous concept embodied in strands of DNA. So concerned that they are seriously considering packing 'our' genetic material into space or to seed other planets. Or burying it in vaults to wait out the post-collapse era. Less fancifully, making strongholds in mountains or deep underground to survive the crisis, [url=https://www.archdaily.com/786293/6-structures-designed-to-save-humanity-from-itself[/url] or as the elite say, 'the event' - not just the super-rich [url=https://spyscape.com/article/billionaire-bunkers-the-worlds-most-exclusive-safe-houses[/url] but of the species. Some of the people working on these projects are making pots of money in the present, but many more are truly investing their effort in some distant future they won't live to see.
I may be cynical; they're obviously not. I have to think that's the 'selfish gene' at work.

Their behaviour is influenced, too: they drive more carefully, take fewer risks, drink less, try not to swear or set a bad example; hide their less laudable actions and fear their children's censure.
Not all parents, of course, but I think the majority do, to whatever extent their social position permits. — Vera Mont

Presumably that is for the immediate upbringing of the child who is already born. You don't "not swear" for example, because of a not-yet-born child. People wouldn't save or make plans for a future child, but would that put someone in existential despair? It's simply a desire thwarted. That happens all the time. We would be reifying the concept of no child if we made it a bigger deal than any other thwarted desire.

People wouldn't save or make plans for a future child, — schopenhauer1

They do so! I've witnessed it close up, young couples laying elaborate plans for the babies they intended to produce.

but would that put someone in existential despair — schopenhauer1

Some people, yes. They can become quite obsessed with procreation.

It's simply a desire thwarted. — schopenhauer1

Desires thwarted account for a very great deal of human despair, mental illness, homicide and suicide.

They do so! I've witnessed it close up, young couples laying elaborate plans for the babies they intended to produce. — Vera Mont

Right, if there wasn’t a prospect of children I meant…

Some people, yes. They can become quite obsessed with procreation — Vera Mont

Some people are obsessed with a lot of different things.

Desires thwarted account for a very great deal of human despair, mental illness, homicide and suicide. — Vera Mont

The dream to do X is conceptual and there is anything inherently different about this desire other than cultural cues which is my point.