To the extent that social relations are ties that bind, it is because receiving without giving, whether in an economic or friendship context, is not a relationship at all, but an ossification. — Joshs

I don't really get what you're saying. If I was to interpret, you are saying people don't have to work, but they should. I guess the presumption is why should anyone be born at all to work? Why is someone existing to work better than not existing and no work?

I don't see how the repetitious maintaining of whatever systems, objects, processes, needs to happen. Novelty schmoevelty.. it's all the same- MAINTENANCE. — schopenhauer1

Are you ever going to deal with the reality that this could be your minority opinion. Maybe what you see as repetitious maintenance is something most folk are evolved to enjoy?

I mean, according to you, it would make no sense that I would ever have spent hours a day laboriously hitting a tennis ball back over a net, time after time. And if I couldn't find a hitting partner, I would even just use the wall. Yet no one ever forced me to do this.

Sure, you can also point to an imperfect world where jobs are dull and unrewarding. Life can involve a lot of necessary chores. But that just says something about those particular forms of activity. The fact that "work" and "repetition" can also be highlights of our existence means your basic thesis is flawed. The problem isn't with existence in general, it is with particular situations that we might feasibly improve upon.

I mean why do you keep repeating the same basic lament, laboriously re-typing the same sentiments? Why do you feel so compelled to maintain this system of anti-natal protest?

Is it work that you ... enjoy? :-O

It can't merely count as a distraction from the truth of existence if anti-natalism claims to be that truth.

I think you misinterpreted my comment, which was based on a counterfactual.

but the question being important — schopenhauer1

It certainly is, and I wish more people raised it, particularly philosophers and theologians. But that shouldn't inhibit one from seeking an answer. Having been on both sides of the debate, I feel the intractability of the question all too well. I presently regard antinatalism as false, but even if there is no definitive answer, that too is a kind of tacit rejection of it. There is a danger in believing that the profound and anomalous nature of the question in itself entails antinatalism's truth, as though such a question couldn't possibly admit of the answer the vulgar masses would give to it. However, sometimes truth corresponds to the intuition of the brute and not to the rarefied intellects who pose such questions, which isn't to demean the latter mind you. It seems to me that if one believes antinatalism to be true, one ought to robustly argue on its behalf.

There is a danger in believing that the profound and anomalous nature of the question in itself entails antinatalism's truth, as though such a question couldn't possibly admit of the answer the vulgar masses would give to it. — Thorongil

Yeah, I haven't given any robust arguments before... I prefer mine a bit pithier these days. I'm all ears if someone wants to expand though. As I've said, there is potential birth and death. Why does the stuff in the middle need to take place?

So, you need to to give an argument as to why you think it's not right. — Πετροκότσυφας

Do I? I guess I believe giving people work to do is not right. Giving someone a constant chore of maintenance is not a gift. To put a new person in a constant need for upkeep and stimulation where there was no need before, is no good. Why must an all new situation of expending energy need to take place? Let sleeping dogs lie.

Life can involve a lot of necessary chores. But that just says something about those particular forms of activity. The fact that "work" and "repetition" can also be highlights of our existence means your basic thesis is flawed. The problem isn't with existence in general, it is with particular situations that we might feasibly improve upon. — apokrisis

Life is not necessary, but it does indeed involve a lot of necessary chores. What is with this need for people to improve on things? Why expend energy in the first place, let alone needing to improve on the kind of energy output? Why excite the electron to the next level when you can just keep it at its lowest state :p. All this enthalpy.. running around, over and over. Is it good, or is it just what we know? Non-existence is tricky. People think of stifling darkness, disassociation, suffocation, etc. Of course the repetitive acts of survival, regulating comfort, and boredom seem "ok", it's all there is, in this animal's purview of what is metaphysically even fathomable.

I haven't given any robust arguments before. — schopenhauer1

I'm assuming this is sarcastic. From my perspective, you haven't adequately addressed and refuted the criticisms of such arguments. What you do is attempt to shift the burden of proof by asking different variations of the same question, namely, why do we need to have children? If there are people who say that we do, the question is certainly relevant to them. But there doesn't need to be a need to have children for antinatalism to be false, so your question is irrelevant to me and most people here.

I don't think work has anything much to do with maintenance, only at a superficial level. Rather than maintenance it's more like the will to power. People understand themselves in significant ways which disclose certain particulars in their world as mattering. One lives for the sake of their self understanding. And one of the things one does for the sake of their self-understanding/mattering is work. In this sense even alienated work is extremely meaningful.

I don't see how the repetitious maintaining of whatever systems, objects, processes, needs to happen. Novelty schmoevelty..

it's all the same- MAINTENANCE. Why provide a person to put forth the energy of maintaining their survival, finding entertainment, etc. — schopenhauer1

That's the conceptual way you look at it now. You're talking adult-learned concepts. But that isn't what life was when you were younger. You know that.

You aren't accurately describing life.

It just doesn't seem like a good thing to for someone else. It's not about the outcome in this case, simply the question. I don't care if people literally don't have any more kids as much as asking the question of why having more people should take place in the first place. This is where you fundamentally miss me.

Ok, that's your main emphasis. You're talking about whether life is/was a good idea. I don't think that can be discussed in the context of Materialism. Sure, the Buddhists and Hindus have said or implied in the negative. Nisargadatta said that birth is a calamity. But that's misleading. Hindus don't really say that, because they know that each subsequent life starts because the person is already involved, has already gotten involved, and isn't done. Some things, once started, can't be stopped till they're done.

But what about the the start of lives? The start of the whole involvement with life? Maybe you have a case there, in a way, but it's a moot point now, because we're already involved. By my metaphysics, as I said, you're here because there is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story whose protagonist is the hypothetical person that you were/are. Maybe that hypothetical person that you were was unwise to want, need, &/or be predisposed to life. But, as I said, that's moot now.

That's my answer to your question about the advisability of life. Whether it was advisable to start the sequence of involvement is moot now, because it's already a fait accompli and now you're in it, for better or worse, till you're done.

As for the unfairness of bringing new people into the world, I agree that it's undesirable to overpopulate this planet. There are already too many people,and it's highly commendable to not add to that problem. I'm in favor of antinatalism. It would be great if enough people would adopt it.

But, as regards the unfairness to your offspring,by bringing them into the world, you're looking at it from the Materialist perspective. By Materialism, it's as you say. But not by my metaphysics. Someone is born for the reason that I outlined above, not because two particular people created a life. That person was going to be born anyway.

Still, i wouldn't want to be part of the direct cause of someone being born, and so I'm inclined toward antinatalism for that reason too.

Other related topics:

I admit that, though it would be better to not live instrumentally, nearly everyone does, including all of us at this forum, at least to a large extent, much of the time. Though I talk non-instrumental living, it's to at least some extent all talk.

And actually my experiences largely support your attitude. For some reason (we'll never know exactly why) we were all born in this world full of really undesirable people to share a world with!

What did we do to deserve that? No one knows the details.

In my case, Ii wasn't resistant to it at all, and the thugs and trogs who mostly populate this world, the ones consisting of family, culture, and school peers, basically killed me just starting out.

And still now, of course, just like all of us, I still live in that world of thugs and trogs.

Of course now it includes the larger society, the political world that I ignore as much as possible. i want nothing to do with their hopeless and farsical politics.

I won't pretend to like that. But I don't have your attitude about it, because I realize that, for whatever reason, this sequence of involvement started, and, for some other reason, I drew a bad world this time. What can I do? Just make the best of it, while I'm in this one. Rejecting it won't accomplish anything, no matter what my opinion of the people I have to share this world with Just get through it, making the best of it.

That last clause, the emphasis on making the best of it, is the difference between our attitudes. The life-rejection attitude just wouldn't do any good, and would make things worse.

Michael Ossipoff

But there doesn't need to be a need to have children for antinatalism to be false, so your question is irrelevant to me and most people here. — Thorongil

Use your imagination. You can contemplate before-birth imaginatively, and death imaginatively. To simply ask why the in between matters as that is going on with you right now. It is deep down, a religious sentiment, or at least an axiological one.

Repeating that it is or asking me why it is not, does not help me much to understand what the problem is and if you don't care to explain yourself, then I don't need to try to make any sense of what you're saying and which appears to me as absurd. — Πετροκότσυφας

Let me ask it this way, why do you think it is permissible or right or a good idea to create a new being that must maintain its survival and regulate its comfort and boredom?

One lives for the sake of their self understanding. And one of the things one does for the sake of their self-understanding/mattering is work. In this sense even alienated work is extremely meaningful. — bloodninja

But isn't this just de facto what we do, because the counterfactual of suicide is repugnant? Just because suicide is usually culturally/biologically not an option for most, doesn't mean that the opposite (having things matter) is good. It is what we do yes, but why is mattering something good in itself other than its the default state of a human mindset?

That's the conceptual way you look at it now. You're talking adult-learned concepts. But that isn't what life was when you were younger. You know that. — Michael Ossipoff

Sure it was. It was preparing for maintenance. It was enculturation, cultural preparation.

I won't pretend to like that. But I don't have your attitude about it, because I realize that, for whatever reason, this sequence of involvement started, and, for some other reason, I drew a bad world this time. What can I do? Just make the best of it, while I'm in this one. Rejecting it won't accomplish anything, no matter what my opinion of the people I have to share this world with Just get through it, making the best of it.

That last clause, the emphasis on making the best of it, is the difference between our attitudes. The life-rejection attitude just wouldn't do any good, and would make things worse. — Michael Ossipoff

I just don't believe the narratives given about the mattering, mentioned earlier. We are trapped in a mattering cycle I guess. To know that is at least part of the key here. To flinch and give into the mattering stories as something that is necessary, desirable etc, is to miss the point that it is forced work that we integrate as wanted work. You mentioned children- it starts young and continues until you just get into a mattering pattern. Is it philosophical to not question this pattern? The final hurdle is the adulthood mindset- acceptance that the patterns of maintenance are what "matters". I don't think so. Just because it is in the realm of the pessimistic, does not mean that the worth of this questioning is suspect. Quite the opposite- it can be the enema of the mind necessary to clear and restore existential perspective.

seems as if most people are hardwired to feel life is good or "worth it" regardless of what their living conditions are like. — Philosophersstoney

If indeed most people are hardwired (by evolution's long project) to feel like life is worth it, then perhaps there is something right about people who feel life is worth living.

I mean, you have granted that it is normal, natural, to feel good about existing, then you sneer at the 98% or 99% who feel that way. Maybe you are sneering at the wrong group.

But this is the naturalistic fallacy. Isnis not an ought. Unless you think we individual human organisms are morally bound to carry out nature's program. Is it really feeling good that's going on, or just a default for living? This question is one step abstracted from the daily will to live that we clearly feel. It is rather, what is it about this will to live that needs to be carried out.

Use your imagination. You can contemplate before-birth imaginatively, and death imaginatively. To simply ask why the in between matters as that is going on with you right now. It is deep down, a religious sentiment, or at least an axiological one. — schopenhauer1

This isn't a response to what I said.

I think it's a little disturbing, especially when you consider that by modern standards quality of life for the vast majority of human history was awful. People will put up with terrible conditions and "enjoy" it because they don't know of anything better.

"That's the conceptual way you look at it now. You're talking adult-learned concepts. But that isn't what life was when you were younger. You know that." — Michael Ossipoff


Sure it was. It was preparing for maintenance. It was enculturation, cultural preparation.
— schopenhauer1

Of course. That's what i said about my own experience. And i agreed that, for some reason, we're born into a world with some really harmful, undesirable people to share a world with. Certainly they can successfully do their worst when someone's life is just starting out.

The things that you mention above are mostly from parents and school, but also from the overall culture around you.

But, as destructive as all that can be, it isn't life. It's a life-destroying environment, but don't confuse it with life itself.

I said that I won't pretend to like the adverse company we have in this world, but, as bad and pervasive and sometimes life-destructive (in various ways) it is, you're making a big leap when you adopt a life-rejecting attitude because of it.

About mattering, of course it legitimately subjectively matters to an individual what happens to him/her.

But that's it. I don't believe that talk about there being a meaning, or about there being a need for meaning. I guess people adopt that belief by reading certain kinds of philosophers,

(Would that be Existentialists? They're the ones people seem to usually talk about when they speak of the search for meaning, or the gloom of no meaning)

Life doesn't have meaning, or a need for it. If anyone claims life has or needs meaning, then the burden is on them to support their claim.

Sure, explicit and implicit indoctrination, early in life, about what matters is arguably what does the most damage.

Michael Ossipoff

But isn't this just de facto what we do, because the counterfactual of suicide is repugnant? Just because suicide is usually culturally/biologically not an option for most, doesn't mean that the opposite (having things matter) is good. It is what we do yes, but why is mattering something good in itself other than its the default state of a human mindset? — schopenhauer1

The opposite of mattering is not suicide, it's not mattering. Actually that is not quite correct. Heidegger says (using different terms) that even not mattering is a kind of mattering in the sense that they both involve world disclosure. A rock can neither matter nor not matter, since for it, unlike us, world disclosure is not possible. So the opposite of mattering (which includes not mattering) is "neither mattering nor not mattering".

Also mattering (and not mattering) is neither good nor bad, it just is. It is a default fact of our thrown existence; it is beyond good and evil as Nietzsche would say. Here is a profound point Heidegger makes: we don't choose what matters to us, rather we are thrown into it, which is why it is fundamental or basic; it is out of our control.

In this sense the only reason I can see why somebody would kill themselves is because of this "mattering". Either there would be a painful disconnect (impossibilities) between their world and their mattering, or due to angst or depression they would find themselves completely overcome with "not mattering" and see no point in carrying on.

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

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

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

This is about the gift being not a gift correct.

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

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

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

You speak for the rest of humanity?

You speak for the rest of humanity? — Philosophersstoney

Good point

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

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

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

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

I said it seems that most people are hardwired to feel life is good. You said "the rest of humanity does not think that having to work to survive is inherently problematic." I made an assumption about people in general, you stated as fact that the "rest of humanity" doesn't have a problem with working. I disagree, many people don't like working, that's common knowledge. I think quite a few people feel this way to some extent but you would never know because it's not a topic that often comes up in regular conversation and even if it was, I'm not sure how honest of an answer you would get due to the fear of being judged.