It's also inherently problematic. There are many soul sucking jobs that must be done to keep society afloat and that means that a large number of people spend the majority of their day 5/7 days of the week doing something they don't want to be doing. It's problematic because there is no choice once you're alive, work or starve. There will always be people who are miserable because of the system itself.

Yes it does. Without those crappy jobs to keep the whole thing running there wouldn't be any opportunity for better more satisfying jobs that actually relate to ones interests. Someone always gets shafted. As I said before the fact that one has little choice in the matter is more than enough to make it inherently problematic. I don't want to work, yet I have to, therefore it's problematic.

Okay fine the system in which work is distributed is inherently problematic because there will always be low paying, mind numbing jobs that no one actually wants to do other than because they need a paycheque. Work is a forced activity that most people choose to partake in so they can fund their life outside of work, that's it. Clearly many people think the trade off is worth it (or have no other choice) but that doesn't make the work itself any less miserable.

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

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

I feel like your philosophy doesn't go far enough. Death is not bad for the one who dies. Because it ceases the thing (you) that it would be bad for. There is no 'you' to be harmed by death, deprived of the 'good' in life.

Suffering is bad. We suffer in various ways, near constantly. Sometimes very mildly (bodily discomfort, thirst, hunger, boredom,work, etc), sometimes majorly (mental illness, massive bodily harm, despair, abuse, exploitation, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).

We don't want to suffer. Suicide will end your suffering, and the resulting 'death-state' will not harm you (because there is no you to be in that state).

So here we have suicide putting an end to a bad experience (life in general), with no real downside. There is no you existing anymore to be deprived of the good in life.

Why bother even caring about these non-existent 'potential lives' you are trying to prevent from coming into existence, when right now you could literally just prevent your future suffering from being experienced by necking yourself.

Life is mostly bad.
Death isn't.
Ergo, end it.

Why not just bite the bullet and advocate full blown suicide. Anyone with any shred of compassion already advocates for antinatalism. Why bother convincing the non-compassionate. Given that antinatalism is the right course of action, what's the course of action for the living? Suicide?

It is better to have lived and never worked at all.

"I think that most people find most kinds of effort meaningful and enriching". Big assumption.

I like hard work. On Saturdays I volunteer planting trees, tearing out invasive plants, and carrying water buckets. It beats office work. I get that some people enjoy being lazy, but that just describes some people. Feel free to go about being lazy, and I'll go about feeling superior, and we'll just carry on as always.

I like hard work. On Saturdays I volunteer planting trees, tearing out invasive plants, and carrying water buckets. It beats office work. I get that some people enjoy being lazy, but that just describes some people. Feel free to go about being lazy, and I'll go about feeling superior, and we'll just carry on as always — Hanover

Awful, condescending post that entirely misses the point of the thread. Jog on.

No, it simply points out the obvious, which is that some find the business of living a positive experience.

At the risk of being condescending, I am going to say that I think it's probable that most people drastically overvalue the degree to which they actually experience life as a positive experience.

I like hard work. On Saturdays I volunteer planting trees, tearing out invasive plants, and carrying water buckets. It beats office work. —

Note how you qualify your enjoyment of this manual labour in relation to the negativity of office work. You aren't saying "this is good in itself", you're saying "this is good in contrast to how bad this other thing is".

I get that some people enjoy being lazy, but that just describes some people. Feel free to go about being lazy, and I'll go about feeling superior, —

You now get some sort of satisfaction about feeling better than idle people. Again it's not the hard labour you are enjoying, but the sense of superiority you have in your mind thinking you are better than others.

which is that some find the business of living a positive experience. —

Note the words choice, the "business" of living. You might as well be writing the "task" of living, the burden of living.

At no point do you discuss the joys of back pain slogging water buckets, the sweating and tiredness of hard digging, etc. Why?

Note here I genuinely hope to be completely wrong and you do genuinely enjoy life. I just have these deep suspicions that a lot of people have these walls of cognitive biases, optimism biases, entrenched pollyannaism - an almost religious fervor that life is above all good - nay great!

Perhaps we are just born on either side of the bell curve. Perhaps some people are just born with an innate ability to experience more pleasure than others. Perhaps not.

Also I apologize for being blunt and rude in my previous post, it was uncalled for.

Life is beyond good and evil. Also giving someone a burden creates in them a sense of purpose. How is this intrinsically bad? There are no intrinsic values. The more burdens the better!

There is no escaping making others work really (unless the hermit scenario) if we are to live as humans usually do (in a society, that is). — schopenhauer1

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

However, not having new humans eliminates this dilemma of being forced into working for others demands (and vice versa). Thus antinatalism prevents people from having to work. No need for need if there is no one to need. — schopenhauer1

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with getting rid of Protestant work ethic. But my definition of work is really much broader than just survival related activities.. it is regulating comfort and seeking entertainment. It is about the maintenance of one's life. I don't think creating people who have to maintain their lives, including survival but not only survival-related activity, is not a good thing. Nothing wrong with no one existing. I don't believe in creating a problem for someone (of maintaining life) is a desirable thing. — schopenhauer1

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

By the way, are you a fan of David Benatar?

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

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

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