So part of my premise is occupations like pastors and therapists are Western society's way of making people well-adjusted (or feel meaning enough) to keep producing and consuming.

I don't know how I would be able to disprove this statement if I were to try to attack it. There are plenty of therapists and religious leaders who are not materialistic. I think if you were to ask these professions in a survey whether their goal was ultimately to produce better consumers and producers the overwhelming majority would say no. But then you could just say "well it's still true, but they don't recognize it."

I can accept that economics and wealth plays a very significant role in our society. But so does sex. So does physical appearance.

I don't know how I would be able to disprove this statement if I were to try to attack it. There are plenty of therapists and religious leaders who are not materialistic. I think if you were to ask these professions in a survey whether their goal was ultimately to produce better consumers and producers the overwhelming majority would say no. But then you could just say "well it's still true, but they don't recognize it."

I can accept that economics and wealth plays a very significant role in our society. But so does sex. So does physical appearance. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, that is the invisible hand at work. The pastor and therapist "thinks" they are doing X, but really it is to provide function Y. Similarly, drinking 8 beers may be due to thinking you will get plastered and have a good time, but it functions to blow off steam so you can get back to work and produce and consume your daily living items.

I can accept that economics and wealth plays a very significant role in our society. But so does sex. So does physical appearance. — BitconnectCarlos

Sex and being with a partner just leads to outlets to find entertainment and satisfaction in order to get back to work and produce. Physical appearance plays its own functions towards this effort. A non-lonely person will work better. The pursuit of a relationship boosts the economy in many ways. But most importantly, sex can lead to procreation which means making more people who can produce and consume. Society's goals and social controls is the name of the thread.

That isn't to say that on very few occasions we can't just sit there and "be" without needing anything, but I was saying that it is rarer than what you seemed to imply in your post. — schopenhauer1

But, "be-ing" doesn't mean just sitting there and doing nothing. You see, you can "be" at all times. Doesn't it make perfect sense? If one is not "be-ing", isn't one, simply, lost?

Similarly, drinking 8 beers may be due to thinking you will get plastered and have a good time, but it functions to blow off steam so you can get back to work and produce and consume your daily living items.

I feel like you're just viewing everything through this one lens. I could be equally dogmatic and say "the real function is to get you loosened up so you can have a better shot at having sex and procreating." There have been theorists who view everything through the lens of sex.

But most importantly, sex can lead to procreation which means making more people who can produce and consume.

I could say that people go out and get wealth and consume to heighten their sexual prospects even if they don't realize it. See, once I start making claims about things which aren't really provable it becomes difficult to have a discussion or an argument with me.

The system itself will inevitably use humans because our dissatisfaction brings about the demands of others, and we will once again bring about functional roles which will become the goals of the society to maintain and perpetuate in habits and in producing more people to enact these habits. — schopenhauer1

You are taking your usual course. :monkey:

I think antinatalism is one of those dead-end philosophies (and I am saying this being an antinatalist) which can counter almost all other arguments and bring their end. But, I am with @unenlightened in this thread, to push his POV a little further. You just do what is needed of you. A flower blooms and gives out fragrance not to appease anybody. It has no personal stake in it. The moon moves round and round. The birds, animals are perpetuating their routine without complaints. The human which took millions of years to evolve to what it is now, is suffering. So, certainly, it is a mis-step towards evolution. Either that, or he is not living up to his potential. What if the very acknowledgement of our condition is what is needed? What if we just need to realise that we are not anymore special than the cat or insect or bird? What if our very thinking ability, which is unique to only us, is making us the biggest sufferers? It does sometimes seem like a cruel joke. What if man's ability to come up with a theory such as antinatalism is what is flawed in our brains? What does this evolution amount to if all it has brought is more suffering? No matter how "successful" a man becomes I can say with certainty that he's suffering more than the chimpanzee.

That actually makes no sense. I don't eat to attain the goal of satiation. 'Often' I can accept, but not 'always'. I am not always future oriented, which is when goals have to be achieved if they are achieved. Believe it or not, sometimes my mere presence suffices me. — unenlightened

Okay, I can appreciate that reasoning. But it is hard today to imagine a community of people who do not share goals. I think when a group of people do not share goals the group falls apart. Just like a body stops functioning when its parts are not working together.

The US, and several countries around the world, provide us examples of what happens when people are not united by values and goals. Having armed men threatening those who oppose them is not a sign of a healthy nation.

But, "be-ing" doesn't mean just sitting there and doing nothing. You see, you can "be" at all times. Doesn't it make perfect sense? If one is not "be-ing", isn't one, simply, lost? — Zeus

I mean that we are always needing and wanting or the most part. Always becoming never being.

I could say that people go out and get wealth and consume to heighten their sexual prospects even if they don't realize it. See, once I start making claims about things which aren't really provable it becomes difficult to have a discussion or an argument with me. — BitconnectCarlos

Proof? Look how much consumption and production is expected and reinforced. You see, it's not that hard to see evidence of it.

I'm not going to let you characterize me as the spouter of assertions while you go ahead and try to make your own arguments look like hard-nosed realism. I call bullshit on your approach. Arguing out of bad faith as you are not accepting evidence. Education, the market system itself, marketing, the government, attitudes of the working/middle class, media, and almost everything can provide evidence. If you need me to pull articles to see this, then you definitely are arguing from bad faith.

Education, the market system itself, marketing, the government, attitudes of the working/middle class, media, and almost everything can provide evidence. If you need me to pull articles to see this, then you definitely are arguing from bad faith.

Lets examine two claims here:

"Western society is largely concerned with wealth, production, and consumption." - Ok. I think most people would find this reasonable. Note that this is true in other cultures as well.

"All services in western culture are ultimately concerned with making people better producers and consumers above all else whether the service providers recognize this or not." - This claim takes one facet of life (production & consumption) and elevates it above all the rest. That's why I cited my sex example. I wasn't intending on actually arguing it, I was citing it as a parallel to this type of claim.

"All services in western culture are ultimately concerned with making people better producers and consumers above all else whether the service providers recognize this or not." - This claim takes one facet of life (production & consumption) and elevates it above all the rest. That's why I cited my sex example. I wasn't intending on actually arguing it, I was citing it as a parallel to this type of claim. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, so what else do you think are the goals of the society? I did keep the questions open-ended in my OP. However, I will probably continue the case that largely, indeed consuming and producing is what we want. Managers need people to manage. Customers need people to buy from. Owners need capital and customers. I am not saying this doesn't come from something outside of consuming and producing, because it does (pretty much our individual demands that spring from desires for survival, boredom, and entertainment). But anyways, please provide what you think is the plethora of goals society wants from us (or the few goals it wants, or no goals if you wants.) And also answer the second question of the the social controls used to meet those goals. And don't forget the third question about if it is at odds with individual interests.

What if the very acknowledgement of our condition is what is needed? What if we just need to realise that we are not anymore special than the cat or insect or bird? What if our very thinking ability, which is unique to only us, is making us the biggest sufferers? It does sometimes seem like a cruel joke. What if man's ability to come up with a theory such as antinatalism is what is flawed in our brains? What does this evolution amount to if all it has brought is more suffering? No matter how "successful" a man becomes I can say with certainty that he's suffering more than the chimpanzee. — Zeus

Yes, well-put. Through the mechanisms of evolution, there is a species who can recognize itself regarding its own motives, and ponder why it does anything at all. That is an oddity. We can see that we are like in many ways that rock orbiting around and around. We don't just "do", we "know we do".

But here is the thing, despite our potential to acknowledge our position we still run society as if we don't know. Produce, consume, produce, consume. Need, want, need, want. Survival, maintenance, entertainment, survival, maintenance, entertainment. If we know or potentially can know what we know about this absurd repetition (not unlike the moon's orbit). We can romanticize the condition in something like Camus or Nietzsche, but c'mon. That's nice literature-sounding stuff, but how about real life? Real life is dulling it with more things to distract, etc. We are aware that we don't have to entertain ourselves, and we don't have to go to work, but we certainly will. We need to survive, maintain, and entertain. We putter, we zone out, we look for escape, we create more drama, etc.

Anyways, going back to this thread- certainly social controls are put into place to prevent people from seeing the absurd nature of the repetition. In order for people to survive, maintain, and entertain, which itself is absurd, it needs to push those efforts into a public forum through the labor and consumption markets which is that absurdity enlarged. The bigger cog of the economic needs turns from the smaller cogs of the individual needs. But it all goes back to that moon analogy. All doing the same thing. The moon gets to just orbit though. In order to do the same thing, we have to do a lot more.

Certainly, the managers need someone to manage. People need to survive and work to get money. Owners want customers. People want stuff to buy. This creates the system of people knowingly being free giving up their freedom. But it cannot be any other way. Our demands demand it.

Ok, so what else do you think are the goals of the society?

If we're talking what I'd consider mainstream American society - and keep in mind America is extremely diverse - I would have to say the main messages are graduate high school, find a stable job, and get married/have kids. I should mention that these are largely middle class values. The poor and the rich are sort of in their own little worlds.

2) What are the social controls in place to make this happen?

Keeping up with the Jones', for one (the natural human tendency to compete.) Also the pressure to not disappoint your parents or friends. At least those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head although there are probably more.

3) Are society's goals at odds with the interests/rights of the individual?

They may be or they may not be. It's iffy in my mind to talk about the individual's struggle with some abstract "western society." It makes much more sense to me to talk about an individual's struggle with an actual existing community. Some small towns in the US are known for being more close minded or rigid than others. Towns and communities call certainly impress values on individuals, and I think that deserves more attention than an abstraction we can western society. Personally, I've lived in rural Texas and consumerism/commercialism you tend to be stressing just isn't that present there. The pressures are different.

If we're talking what I'd consider mainstream American society - and keep in mind America is extremely diverse - I would have to say the main messages are graduate high school, find a stable job, and get married/have kids. I should mention that these are largely middle class values. The poor and the rich are sort of in their own little worlds. — BitconnectCarlos

Right.. and the that is actually more social controls. The outcomes of those goals is more production and consumption. It is the aggregate.. The individuals don't matter as much when we are talking about a society.. as long as enough individuals are following the social controls that have proven to lead to certain outcomes.. A manager and worker who inculcates the values of production will be all that matters here for large-scale goals.

Keeping up with the Jones', for one (the natural human tendency to compete.) Also the pressure to not disappoint your parents or friends. At least those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head although there are probably more. — BitconnectCarlos

Yep that's certainly part of it. But what I find interesting is also the "don't think about it too much" mentality either. If everyone saw the round and round of production and consumption, well that's an existential crisis. A few outliers doing this means statistically nothing. I don't even know what a large population of people in existential crisis is. Interestingly, I think the coronavirus pandemic is actually bringing more feelings of looking at oneself and society. As we debate things like numbers of people dying versus economic stability, we realize we are but just a very insignificant data point, in a much larger system that goes round and round, possibly dying from horrible pandemics in a very real way. Is life worth it? I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt that is more of a question before the virus.

They may be or they may not be. It's iffy in my mind to talk about the individual's struggle with some abstract "western society." It makes much more sense to me to talk about an individual's struggle with an actual existing community. Some small towns in the US are known for being more close minded or rigid than others. Towns and communities call certainly impress values on individuals, and I think that deserves more attention than an abstraction we can western society. Personally, I've lived in rural Texas and consumerism/commercialism you tend to be stressing just isn't that present there. The pressures are different. — BitconnectCarlos

Certainly being inculcated into being a good laborer is something that could be said to be against the individual if we look at the decision to procreate. Knowing that this is going to happen, and that we are not like other animals, we self-reflect on our situation, then it is possible that we can look at our situation and see that we are in this situation of an round-and-round economic data point.

What are we trying to do here by having more people have to keep the round-and-round going? I just don't except answers that we are doing it for personal reasons. People are almost always public entities as well. Humans are part of a society and as such, will be needed as a public entity as such. Procreating a new person is simply feeding more people to the round-and-round socio-political-economic system. In a sense that is using them as know this beforehand, yet we do it. This means we indeed want more people to keep the system going. But this is just a vicious absurdity of perpetuation. Keep it going to keep it going to keep it going.. Who cares if people suffer and have negative experiences in the process.

This means we indeed want more people to keep the system going. But this is just a vicious absurdity of perpetuation. Keep it going to keep it going to keep it going.. Who cares if people suffer and have negative experiences in the process.

I think suffering is just baked into the human condition. We could have the perfect society - whatever that might mean - and we'd still have suffering. Regardless of how society works, people die, people get sick, there's disability, there's injury, pain, mental illness, you name it. Suffering is part and parcel of the human condition.

And you can think "well, we ought to strive to eliminate all suffering and since I guess suffering is just part of the human condition then I guess we need to eliminate humans" but this is dogmatic thinking, in my opinion. While most humans generally strive to eliminate suffering - it does seem to be a common moral intuition - taking the elimination of suffering as the sole moral standard to me just seems arbitrary and dogmatic. It seems more sensible to me to say that it's one value among many. There are even lines of thinking that take a more lackadaisical attitude towards the subject of suffering. If that was the sole goal of morality couldn't we just go around painless executing people who were suffering?

And you can think "well, we ought to strive to eliminate all suffering and since I guess suffering is just part of the human condition then I guess we need to eliminate humans" but this is dogmatic thinking, in my opinion. While most humans generally strive to eliminate suffering - it does seem to be a common moral intuition - taking the elimination of suffering as the sole moral standard to me just seems arbitrary and dogmatic. It seems more sensible to me to say that it's one value among many. There are even lines of thinking that take a more lackadaisical attitude towards the subject of suffering. If that was the sole goal of morality couldn't we just go around painless executing people who were suffering? — BitconnectCarlos

It's a misnomer or misconception to think that antinatalists or philosophical pessimism's only stance is anti-suffering. I would imagine most antinatalists would put in high regard consent when it comes to things like radically changing another person's whole existential state of being, once already born. So that would be a straw man you are building to assume that is the case. Suffering certainly is the core of the argument, but it doesn't just end there.

And you admitted at least that suffering is part of the human condition. I am in agreement. Most pessimistic literature, and philosophies like Buddhism recognize this aspect of the inherent dissatisfaction of the human animal- amplified with self-reflection and existential knowing.

But I wonder, in the decision to have a child, any consideration that is not about "the state of unknown and known suffering in the world", it seems very suspect. Even such common reasons as the "happiness of the child" as that happiness doesn't come "free" as it were. It comes at the price of all the negatives, including aspects of suffering including things like the general dissatisfaction of human nature along with reasons posed by this thread such as being used as a laborer that is feeding the round-and-round socio-economic-political entities (examples of what I call necessary suffering). Also, the price is the obvious contingent harms you mentioned with disease, pain, mental illness, and just about any negative experience.

To go ahead and then procreate a new person anyway, despite these negatives (explained above as necessary..baked in, and contingent..likely suffering) I think is overlooking the person that is being created for some cause outside that person. Considering the suffering of the future person above other considerations (such as simply having someone who will have to navigate life or even perceived hope for "happiness" of the person) is actually respecting the future person. Not considering the suffering is overlooking that person- even in cases where "happiness of the future person" is the outcome desired (because again, of the cost of such happiness).

What's interesting is, no future person needs to go through the gauntlet of a life with suffering to achieve some moments of happiness, if that person wasn't created in the first place. By having a new person, you are creating that need for the need to be happy. You can simply bypass the need by not having someone who needs to pursue that need. Certainly preventing a future "sufferer" (not just small instances of suffering but a being with potential to suffer and suffer greatly), would be more important than creating a condition where someone will have to suffer, navigate life, experience known and unknown amounts of harm, in order to fulfill the original goal of trying to attain happiness. Believe me, no non-existing entity X will care or be deprived, if "they" don't exist to be happy. Happiness is only instrumental because an actual person has to exist to be deprived of happiness. Suffering seems absolute- it is always good if suffering can be prevented, whether an actual person knows that suffering was prevented or not. Thus preventing suffering is always good. Preventing happiness only matters if a person already exists to be the locus of such a matter. Thus there is an asymmetry. Please check out this argument more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

And again, to keep reiterating the point of the thread, to go ahead and procreate more people is to feed the necessary human system that needs more people in a population to be inculcated on an individual scale in enough quantities to be able to form the habits to produce and consume to keep the round-and-round absurdity going on an aggregate scale. Why be cosponsors of this kind of absurd perpetuation at the cost of making a new sufferer (a person who can experience suffering) in the first place?

So that would be a straw man you are building to assume that is the case. Suffering certainly is the core of the argument, but it doesn't just end there.

I'm not really arguing with the explicit intention of discrediting antinatalism. I engaged this thread to talk about society, not antinatalism. I think I've already talked about antinatalism with you anyway. Earlier I think you accused me engaging in bad faith and you would be right in one sense - I would be engaging in bad faith if I explicitly sought to argue with you on antinatalism, which I have no intention of changing stances on. Don't waste your time with me here if your intention is to change minds. I would engage you on society/social issues which I'm a little more open to and of course other topics. Regardless, the point of discourse isn't just to change minds; It can also be to flush out ideas and see if we can poke holes in some. I usually don't engage people with the explicit intention of changing their mind. I want to see if my ideas have problems or if maybe they have an interesting take on something that I can incorporate into my own ideas or explore further. I think that's much more productive.

Right now, I wouldn't really consider antinatalism one of my candidate ideas. I don't think my refusal to seriously engage this subject makes me a "bad guy" or "close minded" either. If it does, then if I were to engage you on any given topic you'd be required to be open to changing your mind about it which I think is practical absurdity. Nobody should be seriously open to changing their mind about literally everything.

Why be cosponsors of this kind of absurd perpetuation at the cost of making a new sufferer (a person who can experience suffering) in the first place?

As mentioned, I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about antinatalism. Do you have anything to add concerning my answers to your questions on society?

I'm not really arguing with the explicit intention of discrediting antinatalism. I engaged this thread to talk about society, not antinatalism. I think I've already talked about antinatalism with you anyway. Earlier I think you accused me engaging in bad faith and you would be right in one sense - I would be engaging in bad faith if I explicitly sought to argue with you on antinatalism, which I have no intention of changing stances on. Don't waste your time with me here if your intention is to change minds. I would engage you on society/social issues which I'm a little more open to and of course other topics. Regardless, the point of discourse isn't just to change minds; It can also be to flush out ideas and see if we can poke holes in some. I usually don't engage people with the explicit intention of changing their mind. I want to see if my ideas have problems or if maybe they have an interesting take on something that I can incorporate into my own ideas or explore further. I think that's much more productive.

Right now, I wouldn't really consider antinatalism one of my candidate ideas. I don't think my refusal to seriously engage this subject makes me a "bad guy" or "close minded" either. If it does, then if I were to engage you on any given topic you'd be required to be open to changing your mind about it which I think is practical absurdity. Nobody should be seriously open to changing their mind about literally everything. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't have the delusion that I'm going to necessarily change minds. I engage in discourse for similar reasons of flushing out ideas, honing them, or making a case and defending it if need be.

As mentioned, I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about antinatalism. Do you have anything to add concerning my answers to your questions on society? — BitconnectCarlos

I did..

Right.. and the that is actually more social controls. The outcomes of those goals is more production and consumption. It is the aggregate.. The individuals don't matter as much when we are talking about a society.. as long as enough individuals are following the social controls that have proven to lead to certain outcomes.. A manager and worker who inculcates the values of production will be all that matters here for large-scale goals. — schopenhauer1

I implied that your example of "goals" actually might fit under the social control factors that lead to certain outcomes.. mainly production and consumption.

I implied that your example of "goals" actually might fit under the social control factors that lead to certain outcomes.. mainly production and consumption.

Sure, I can accept that increased production and consumption is the upshot of these "social controls" or "social goals"... whichever one we want to call them. I think another upshot would probably be the happiness of the individual. I wouldn't be surprised if people with stable jobs and a partner + kids had better mental health than single, unemployed individuals. I think to view the upshot only in terms of economics is basically what Marx did.

Sure, I can accept that increased production and consumption is the upshot of these "social controls" or "social goals"... whichever one we want to call them. I think another upshot would probably be the happiness of the individual. I wouldn't be surprised if people with stable jobs and a partner + kids had better mental health than single, unemployed individuals. I think to view the upshot only in terms of economics is basically what Marx did. — BitconnectCarlos

So I already answered this as well:

What are we trying to do here by having more people have to keep the round-and-round going? I just don't except answers that we are doing it for personal reasons. People are almost always public entities as well. Humans are part of a society and as such, will be needed as a public entity as such. Procreating a new person is simply feeding more people to the round-and-round socio-political-economic system. In a sense that is using them as know this beforehand, yet we do it. This means we indeed want more people to keep the system going. But this is just a vicious absurdity of perpetuation. Keep it going to keep it going to keep it going.. Who cares if people suffer and have negative experiences in the process. — schopenhauer1

Procreating a new person is simply feeding more people to the round-and-round socio-political-economic system.

So that's all it's doing? We're just feeding more people to be ground up by the machine called society?
Because that's the whole of human experience, right?

Go on an international trip. Go explore some ancient ruins. Go take some mushrooms in the woods somewhere. Go to a rave. Go take a jog on a beautiful day in a beautiful park. Fall in love.

So that's all it's doing? We're just feeding more people to be ground up by the machine called society?
Because that's the whole of human experience, right?

Go on an international trip. Go explore some ancient ruins. Go take some mushrooms in the woods somewhere. Go to a rave. Go take a jog on a beautiful day in a beautiful park. Fall in love. — BitconnectCarlos

And I've answered this type of argument before too:

No, not quite boredom, unless existential boredom. It's more like this:
1) The sun goes up and down, round and round.
2) You go to bed and get up again and again.
3) You eat and shit over and over.
4) You read your book, watch your movie, do your exercise, talk to your friend, again, again, again
5) You make it a point to travel to "new" (to you) places again and again and again
6) You seek out relationships over and over and over
7) You go to work each day again and again and again
8) You do stuff for maintenance like laundry, dishes, over and over
9) You take that millionth walk/run around the block or on your treadmill

It doesn't matter how many "novel" things you do to stay ahead of the curb, it's all repetitive actions to fulfill our primal motivations of survival, comfort-seeking, entertainment. But this is just repetitive actions that fill time and provide the absurdity I talk about. It's all been done to the umpteenth time by billions and billions of people over and over. There is no need to keep repeating the repetition again and again and again... — schopenhauer1

And I've answered this type of argument before too:

Are we really even having an argument? You basically just have a jaded attitude which you justify to yourself on a cognitive level with the idea that "well, everyone's done this stuff nothing is novel...." You act like you've already done everything a billion times. Have you ever even had an experience that you considered meaningful?

Even if you were convinced you were right on this one, why do you care enough to spread your ideas? Isn't it just repeating the cycle?

Are we really even having an argument? You basically just have a jaded attitude which you justify to yourself on a cognitive level with the idea that "well, everyone's done this stuff nothing is novel...." You act like you've already done everything a billion times. Have you ever even had an experience that you considered meaningful? — BitconnectCarlos

Ad hom and you haven't paid attention to my arguments. That's the point of me posting other quotes. I've made my points pretty clear and you are slightly rewording them to try to again to put on the hard-nosed realist shtick. It's a sort of rhetorical tactic.

I've never denied "meaningful/happy" moments. I am however, claiming that society's goals are being perpetuated through the inculcation of people. It cannot be avoided, and it certainly should give pause to know you will be creating a new individual to simply be used as such for labor and production and perpetuating consumption, production, repeat...The "because meaningful/happy moments trumps any other considerations" argument doesn't take into mind that perhaps these happy/meaningful moments are just

Another example of what I'm saying is looking at reporting on economic activity. To the public- businesses, managers, customers, researchers, reporters, etc. we are all just points of labor or consumption or labor or consumption statistics. Perhaps the ruse is that private life is nothing more but about distractions and blowing off steam in the confines of more labor and consumption in order to enter back into the fray of the labor market.

Your doing crossword puzzles, reading that novel, taking that vacation, going to bars and restaurants, going to that concert, travelling the world are all just ways to distract and blow of steam (and are just elaborate forms of consumption) so that you can go back to thinking about your daily consumption for living and laboring. If this is what we are once born into a society, why not just bypass making new units of labor and consumption and people who have to blow off steam to go back to labor and consumption?

And this goes back to the idea of the absurd. We are here to produce, consume, blow off steam (which amounts to more production and consumption), and repeat. I'm not saying there is a better way than what we have. I'm just saying it is an absurd repetition that is kept perpetuated over and over. We produce and consume and produce and consume so we can produce and consume.. What's the point? Why are we trying to make new people, shape them into more consumption and production? Besides the fact that this is using people, it is silly. Those that don't mind using people, might say that people's efforts towards consumption and production brings technology. And then I would just say, what's the point of science and technology in and of itself? Because you like reading about it and discussing it on a forum? It "benefits man" is only relative as the more technology we have, the more ways we find to produce and consume it, thus simply reiterating the cycle. — schopenhauer1

And again, to keep reiterating the point of the thread, to go ahead and procreate more people is to feed the necessary human system that needs more people in a population to be inculcated on an individual scale in enough quantities to be able to form the habits to produce and consume to keep the round-and-round absurdity going on an aggregate scale. Why be cosponsors of this kind of absurd perpetuation at the cost of making a new sufferer (a person who can experience suffering) in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Even if you were convinced you were right on this one, why do you care enough to spread your ideas? Isn't it just repeating the cycle? — BitconnectCarlos

Ad hom.. I am interested in the conclusions and implications of philosophical pessimism and antinatalism and clearly I like engaging in the ideas of said philosophy. We went over why we have dialogue. It's also irrelevant to the ideas themselves...

So again, I asked in the OP:

3) Are society's goals at odds with the interests/rights of the individual?

This last question obviously has a lot to do with antinatalism. If parent's unwittingly (by their supposed "own" desires) want children, those children will become public entities (they will be used by the community as laborers at the least). Any general thoughts on these ideas and questions? — schopenhauer1

Ad hom and you haven't paid attention to my arguments.

I have paid attention to your arguments I just don't think our "disagreement" is over anything factual....it just seems to be over attitude which I wouldn't call a real disagreement. If I'm angry over some state of affairs and you're not are we really in a genuine, philosophical argument? It's not an ad hom either but I don't want to get sidetracked.

It cannot be avoided, and it certainly should give pause to know you will be creating a new individual to simply be used as such for labor and production and perpetuating consumption, production, repeat.

Oh, the terror....a child will probably have to get a job someday. He will be targeted with advertisements and treated like a mere consumers by society! Lets ensure that he never gets born.

Your doing crossword puzzles, reading that novel, taking that vacation, going to bars and restaurants, going to that concert, travelling the world are all just ways to distract and blow of steam (and are just elaborate forms of consumption)

Some people like their jobs and this is too broad in any case and doesn't account for every single human on Earth. You think someone who's financially independent and has retired needs to constantly blow off steam? How about the people who actually like their jobs? You portray humanity like everybody is a miserable worker bee. Plenty of people don't need to blow off steam.

We are here to produce, consume, blow off steam (which amounts to more production and consumption), and repeat.

Well, that's just like, your description, man. I say we are here to find love, have religious/transcendental experiences and find connection.

And then I would just say, what's the point of science and technology in and of itself? Because you like reading about it and discussing it on a forum?

Among others, because it can help with diseases and disabilities. I have a feeling if you had chronic pain or some other disability - not always one involving pain - lets say tourettes - you would find research on this front meaningful. A cure could revolutionize your life.

I have paid attention to your arguments I just don't think our "disagreement" is over anything factual....it just seems to be over attitude which I wouldn't call a real disagreement. If I'm angry over some state of affairs and you're not are we really in a genuine, philosophical argument? It's not an ad hom either but I don't want to get sidetracked. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not angry or not angry. It's "is" this the state of affairs or not?

Oh, the terror....a child will probably have to get a job someday. He will be targeted with advertisements and treated like a mere consumers by society! Lets ensure that he never gets born. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not so much advertisements or consumerism, the kind you hear all the time (like Black Friday shoppers or something like that). It is the system itself- the very fact that we are made public entities of production and consumption. I also think this will happen in any society- including hunting-gathering. It is just that the production/consumption of the public entity looks very different, obviously.

Some people like their jobs and this is too broad in any case and doesn't account for every single human on Earth. You think someone who's financially independent and has retired needs to constantly blow off steam? How about the people who actually like their jobs? You portray humanity like everybody is a miserable worker bee. Plenty of people don't need to blow off steam. — BitconnectCarlos

There are some thorny problems with this. First off, the goal is to align people with production and consumption. So if someone "likes" their job, they have thoroughly integrated their interests with the goals of society. That is indeed part of the goals being posited, right? The point is, whether the person identifies, accepts, or is elated by the system, they have been inculcated so as to be a laborer in it- keeping a third-party entity going and developing attitudes to best do this (including being a happy worker bee, if you would like to characterize it that way).

The point is to not overlook this fact that the person is going to be a laborer for the public entity and that this involves social controls to meet the goals. Overlooking this fact in the "hopes of happiness" for the future child, is actually not respecting the child. It is in a way using them as a public entity to add to the demands of the system in place. Preventing birth bypasses using people in such a manner.

It's not angry or not angry. It's "is" this the state of affairs or not?

Our "disagreement" is with the attitude more than it is with the facts. You seemingly really, really don't like the system of production & consumption that exists within any society.... to the point where you seemingly want to stop people from being born. I don't know what to say to that.

First off, the goal is to align people with production and consumption.

I could challenge you on whether society actually has a goal. I fully accept that economics plays a large part in life, but to say that THE single goal of society is production and consumption is taking things a little far IMO. People have goals. Communities might have goals. A culture could certainly have a goal. A religion could have a goal - these goals are found in authoritative documents. As far as I know there are no authoratitive documents concerning western society, which is already extremely broad. Sure we have laws... but in terms of day-to-day life? Let me know here if I'm missing something.

they have been inculcated so as to be a laborer in it- keeping a third-party entity going and developing attitudes to best do this

Have you ever considered that someone finding a job they love could lead to the fulfillment of the human being? Why do you describe someone loving their work as just them being inculcated by society instead of fulfilling some form of self actualization? My brother for instance has his own small business. He's his own boss, and he makes objects out of clay on a pottery wheel. He likes what he does. Apparently by your description though he's just a mindless worker bee who's been inculcated by the system into liking his work. Clearly he doesn't have any agency.

A lot of our "disagreement" comes down to how you describe actions or individuals. It's like we both see a beautiful garden and I say "think of the billions of insects which have died in here and the flowers which were forced to grow by the laws of nature."

Our "disagreement" is with the attitude more than it is with the facts. You seemingly really, really don't like the system of production & consumption that exists within any society.... to the point where you seemingly want to stop people from being born. I don't know what to say to that. — BitconnectCarlos

I claimed it is using people for a third-party entity- namely the production/consumption functions of a system. Whether growth happens doesn't matter, it is still the entity itself that is growing, perpetuating itself, so that would be circular response.

I could challenge you on whether society actually has a goal. I fully accept that economics plays a large part in life, but to say that THE single goal of society is production and consumption is taking things a little far IMO. People have goals. Communities might have goals. A culture could certainly have a goal. A religion could have a goal - these goals are found in authoritative documents. As far as I know there are no authoratitive documents concerning western society, which is already extremely broad. Sure we have laws... but in terms of day-to-day life? Let me know here if I'm missing something. — BitconnectCarlos

All of it is imbued in the economy or in relation to it- even illegal, underground activity.

Have you ever considered that someone finding a job they love could lead to the fulfillment of the human being? — BitconnectCarlos

That's the hope of social controls for the social goals :).

Why do you describe someone loving their work as just them being inculcated by society instead of fulfilling some form of self actualization? — BitconnectCarlos

I wonder if Maslow's chart fits right into those goals...

My brother for instance has his own small business. He's his own boss, and he makes objects out of clay on a pottery wheel. He likes what he does. Apparently by your description though he's just a mindless worker bee who's been inculcated by the system into liking his work. Clearly he doesn't have any agency. — BitconnectCarlos

No, but certainly he's able to integrate it in the broader goals. As far as social goals are concerned, that's all the criteria needs to be. Can he produce? Can he consume? But even that seems to be relegated to a minority. There are billions of jobs in the world. Not everyone is self-actualizing in them (not that I think that a legitimate idea really). A good majority just need to live because ya know, survival, comfort, entertainment is the human conditon.

A lot of our "disagreement" comes down to how you describe actions or individuals. It's like we both see a beautiful garden and I say "think of the billions of insects which have died in here and the flowers which were forced to grow by the laws of nature." — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, there is that too. Accepting it or not.

1) Are there discernible goals societies want from individuals? — schopenhauer1

Sure, to obey authority. The individual goals of the person(s) in charge may change from election to election, or even day to day depending on the stability of the leader(s), but the citizens are always expected to obey.

2) What are the social controls in place to make this happen? — schopenhauer1

Whatever personality traits the leader(s) possess. They use whatever tools they have available to appeal to the masses in order to gain/maintain election. Some leaders adhere to their promises (goals) better than others, but generally it is safe to renege on your promises once you are in office, as any serious threat or upheaval from the masses depends entirely on their being informed. And guess who gets to control the information...?

3) Are society's goals at odds with the interests/rights of the individual? — schopenhauer1

Sometimes. Some (most?) people don’t mind being led by an authority figure, perhaps regardless of his/her corruption. Authority provides answers, guidance, and comfort, and doesn’t require thinking for yourself. Also, the “truth” or validity of the authority figures claims need not be accurate or correct, because, again, the majority of the masses simply accept whatever position without thinking.

"Man's feeling of homelessness, of alienation has been intensified in the midst of a bureaucratized, impersonal mass society. He has come to feel himself an outsider even within his own human society. He is terribly alienated: a stranger to God, to nature, and to the gigantic social apparatus that supplies his material wants.But the worst and final form of alienation, toward which indeed the others tend, is man's alienation from his own self. In a society that requires of man only that he perform competently his own particular social function, man becomes identified with this function, and the rest of his being is allowed to subsist as best it can - usually to be dropped below the surface of consciousness and forgotten." — Zeus
Good quote, Zeus. The only addendum here I have to add is this quote implies that there is some solution or salvation to be had. "If only we designed society like X, we can get out of this". — schopenhauer1

Well yes I like this quote too.

My only suggestion for a 'solution' - if there is one - (and worth no more than 2p I expect), is that people at least try to speak the truth. And for other people not to believe the lies. When people lie and convince other people of the truth of their lies, their model of the world becomes distorted with the inevitable consequence of alienation from the world.

And everyone lies, from politicians to sales people and including moralists, theologians and even philosophers.

Sometimes. Some (most?) people don’t mind being led by an authority figure, perhaps regardless of his/her corruption. Authority provides answers, guidance, and comfort, and doesn’t require thinking for yourself. Also, the “truth” or validity of the authority figures claims need not be accurate or correct, because, again, the majority of the masses simply accept whatever position without thinking. — Pinprick

So one of my questions is whether any socio-economic system is good for the individual, since the individual is essentially used as labor by said system.