Yes, you can have depressed animals, but not ones that wish they were never born. Not ones that know they don't live in a utopian world. Not ones that can at any moment, hate what they have to do to get by. — schopenhauer1

So let's address these ideas.
First of all, "not wanting to have been born" is stupid. Is it the same as not wanting to continue living? No, one is an act of a desperate or sick person, the other is a whining, childish, poor little me, type of selfishness.

Why do humans wish that they had never been born? Usually because for some reason their life is miserable or beyond that. These reasons are often similar to the ones that make people want to kill themselves.
Why are they miserable? Usually because their lives do not live up to the expectations of what their life should be.
Why does their life not live up to their expectations? There could be many reasons, you found out you were adopted, hubby or wife beats the shit out of them everyday, they don't have the nice house or money that they think they should have, people bully them for wearing different clothes/ black/ yellow/ being short/ fat/ too tall/ red haired/ bald/ gay/ crippled/ liberal/ poor/ etc., they don't get enough likes on farcebook or twatter. You name it, it can be a reason for being miserable, even some of these stupid people that rise to fame and fortune and have everything they could possibly want can be miserable because money, fame, and likes are not everything in life.

Now, why would these people get miserable about these things? Not all but a lot of them are just plain social constructs, nothing at all to do with real life.

Do you think that many of the animals have these problems in their lives? Surely if they don't have the same reasons for not wanting to have been born, or for wanting to kill themselves then they would not think about it.

Why do humans think that they do not live in a utopian type of world? Usually for the same reasons they are miserable. Humans can also think that they live in a less than perfect world because it is no longer the way it was because of our behaviour. We have certainly managed to screw up the world in the last couple of hundred years, but how many people actually think about it?

Do animals have the same problems to think about? They are born, they grow up and learn from their parents, then they go out and live their own lives. Humans look for a nice house to live in and have a family, they build a nest, dig a hole, find a gave and start a family. for them it is utopia.

I doubt that any animal could hate what it has to do to get by, because everything that it does is for that reason. You on the other hand hate what you do because you picked the wrong job, the wrong wife, had too many kids, have a habit that is expensive and cannot afford to pay someone to cut the grass.

When I was a young man I worked for a small local council in the garbage collect department. I spent 3 years working there. The job sucked, there were none of the fancy wheelie bins and special collections like today. But I made a lot of money working there, and we were well respected for doing a very good job. I hated doing it, really hated it, but it served its purpose, paid for a part of my education and I had a lot of great clothes.
May be that is what is missing from the people that hate what they do, they cannot see the benefit of doing it. If there is no benefit, why are they doing it?

I wrote you a really long response which I've ended up putting into my book. Would you like to read an excerpt and also let me know how you would prefer to be addressed in the Acknowledgements section? My current plan for that is to thank firstly the forum by name and then individual users by name. Would this be acceptable to you as well as footnotes on the pages you are cited, pointing to your UN here?

Existential dread sure is inconvenient in a sense.

On the other hand, Sisyphus pushes the stone and Atlas carries the world. Purpose appears to be a force equal to our permanent tendency towards sorrow.

And I believe that having the opportunity to choose whether we die fighting or just die is beautiful.

What do you think?

And I believe that having the opportunity to choose whether we die fighting or just die is beautiful.

What do you think? — dussias

I think that it is the sick kind of bullshit that society is guilty of constructing.

@Sir2u

Why? What's the alternative?

it assumes human consciousness is the highest degree of consciousness that can be attained by animals, it is highly likely there exists non-human animals elsewhere with higher degrees of consciousness to where "existential thoughts," do not plague or exasperate them. — Cobra

No, this is an assumption you are making about my argument. I never said human consciousness is the highest degree..

I would say "existential thoughts," are quite primitive and come from neurotic lower degrees of consciousness, in fact, I'd even say it arises from being one of the most stupid, in comparison to a more advanced brain. — Cobra

That is an assertion, ok.

you begin calling the moral framework of animals into question — Cobra

I hadn't done that anywhere.

Now, why would these people get miserable about these things? Not all but a lot of them are just plain social constructs, nothing at all to do with real life. — Sir2u

Humans socially construct almost all cultural elements- which we use to survive.

Do you think that many of the animals have these problems in their lives? Surely if they don't have the same reasons for not wanting to have been born, or for wanting to kill themselves then they would not think about it. — Sir2u

That's assuming animals can have "reasons" in ways that humans do.

May be that is what is missing from the people that hate what they do, they cannot see the benefit of doing it. If there is no benefit, why are they doing it? — Sir2u

This goes beyond the job itself to the needs behind needing the job. Remember group-think. Are you going to put out defenses, like a squid its ink, that reinforce not resenting the situation because of X reason (Don't be a whiny bitch.. etc.)?

Would this be acceptable to you as well as footnotes on the pages you are cited, pointing to your UN here? — MSC

ok

And I believe that having the opportunity to choose whether we die fighting or just die is beautiful.

What do you think? — dussias

It's just dealing with one damn thing after another. And then we are supposed to like the game because there's no choice.

That's valid. Actually, we don't have to like it. We don't have to anything, really, other than stuffing food into our and our loved ones' face and hope for the best.

It's just dealing with one damn thing after another. — schopenhauer1

Like this guy says, it's "always something":

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PPLgy0k0Cbw

Why? What's the alternative? — dussias

Not having to fight to stay alive. How can having a choice of how you die be beautiful?

It might be attractive to fight to live, but "going out fighting" is just dumb.

Humans socially construct almost all cultural elements- which we use to survive. — schopenhauer1

A lot of them yes, but not all help us to live better.
Having a job is a social construct, designed to help us survive. But, as you say, lots of people hate what they do. Getting married is a social construct, designed to manage the properties and belongings of the people and to a certain degree stop bad genetic problems. But how many people hate being married?

Lots of these social constructs make your life suck. Taxes, social security, pension plans, mortgages, child support, alimony, credit cards, were all designed to make life, survival easier. But a lot of them don't do that, even if they are as some say "necessary evils"

Political parties(not politicians), armies, professional groups, social groups suck up peoples money and time and most people do not benefit in the least from them except as a pay check recipient or a most liked idiot on the site.

And not fitting in to, not agreeing with, not living up to the expectations, or not getting what you expected from these social constructs is what makes people hate things.

Why would anyone want to waste time and energy hating something, just because we can. Is it because we can reason?

That's assuming animals can have "reasons" in ways that humans do. — schopenhauer1

I doubt that anyone would say that they reason like humans do, because they are not humans. But the question is do they reason in some other way?
As I said, they do not have the reasons not hate the social constructs of their society like humans do. They accept that their life is for living as best they can and get on with it.
Lots of animals live social lives that have rules, restrictions and hierarchy as well as benefits. In a pride of lions, the old alpha male rules. But the younger males watch and wait for a chance to take over. Is the knowledge of when to attack innate, instinctual. Are they born with the signs of debility programmed into their brains? If that is so, then just how much of what we do and know is innate as well?

This goes beyond the job itself to the needs behind needing the job. Remember group-think. — schopenhauer1

The needs behind needing the job? And how does that work with group think?

Are you going to put out defenses, like a squid its ink, that reinforce not resenting the situation because of X reason (Don't be a whiny bitch.. etc.)? — schopenhauer1

Defense mechanisms help us to survive as well. And lots of people use them to stay same while they are doing the job they hate for the boss they hate even more. They go home and take out their frustration and resentment of the wife and kids because they cannot risk losing their socially constructed survival method. Why would a lion wait around for a chance to kill the king, could it be because of resentment and frustration at not being able to get laid? Or does instinct make them hang around?

Not having to fight to stay alive. — Sir2u

What would you have instead? Uploading your conscience to a computer?

Like this guy says, it's "always something": — Inyenzi

Excellent video! I like his quote at the end, "It wears on you over time- that's life".

A lot of them yes, but not all help us to live better.
Having a job is a social construct, designed to help us survive. But, as you say, lots of people hate what they do. Getting married is a social construct, designed to manage the properties and belongings of the people and to a certain degree stop bad genetic problems. But how many people hate being married?

Lots of these social constructs make your life suck. Taxes, social security, pension plans, mortgages, child support, alimony, credit cards, were all designed to make life, survival easier. But a lot of them don't do that, even if they are as some say "necessary evils"

Political parties(not politicians), armies, professional groups, social groups suck up peoples money and time and most people do not benefit in the least from them except as a pay check recipient or a most liked idiot on the site.

And not fitting in to, not agreeing with, not living up to the expectations, or not getting what you expected from these social constructs is what makes people hate things.

Why would anyone want to waste time and energy hating something, just because we can. Is it because we can reason? — Sir2u

So this is the real issue. Since we are an animal of social constructs (mediated through a highly plastic brain), we can deliberate and constantly struggle doing things we don't want to. Of course, we can try to follow culturally-instructed habits of mind to repress or sublimate these feelings, but we can have them none-the-less. Because so much of life is socially constructed- because so many things we do are acts of deliberate, conscious decisions, we decide at every moment whether we want to keep doing something. Usually, even if we don't like it (and are highly aware of this!), we might still do it anyways because of the needs for survival, comfort, entertainment in a socio-cultural-historical milieu. We know we have to do certain things, in other words, if we want other things to happen. We might resent doing these things, but there is little way around it because there are even worse alternatives if we don't. And yet, even if we follow the course, and do these things we don't want to do to get more optimal end outcomes, other unintended things pop up which create more harm, and we have to deal with, and then we must contend with those, so we can get back to doing the sub-optimal things to get to the more optimal outcome. And on and on the "dealing with" cycle goes. And again, all in our own full awareness of how we might not like these things. And then, inevitably, the self-help people will try to make the "dealing with" sound like it's your problem, because what alternative is there except being a pessimist? Yet, we are aware of all these sub-optimal circumstances as we do them. This is where we find ourselves.

This is where we find ourselves. — schopenhauer1

Yep, that about sums it up.

We have more complicated decisions to make than a rabbit. Do we want a house or a mansion? But have you ever heard of a rabbit digging its burrow into a swamp? Do they have innate knowledge of where to build their house, or do they reason that it would be safer uphill from the wet ground?

Either way it puts human into a bit of a pickle. Is our reasoning ability based on innate knowledge or do we learn to reason?

What would you have instead? — dussias

Err, just being allowed to live would be OK with me.

But dying is always on the menu, isn't it? Have to spend that time in between somehow.

being allowed to live — Sir2u

Why do you say this?

Where do you live? I live in Caracas and I'm of the lucky few that can say "live comfortably." Communism is a kick in the balls to your whole life. People just die and all your options fade away progressively.

When you say "being allowed to live" I can only agree with you if you live in a really shitty situation, where you are controlled to an important extent. Do you know about life in North Korea? Cuba? This is why I ask; not to mean ill.

I want to know who carried out that study with the dogs - sounds like the ethics board was asleep for that study...

From a mental health point of view, ‘living in the moment’ or ‘mindfullness’ is a good antidote to many of the depressing thoughts that people have. Having to concentrate on the moment, such as when kite-surfing, or knitting, say, stops the mind from folding in on itself.

I’m also curious about what it must be like to be in the mind of someone with depression. Thankfully, I’ve suffered sadness, but never depression, but to be in that position must be awful. Now, not to belittle depression, but I have seen when animals get depressed, sometimes through incessant pain, or a terrible environment, and whilst they might not wish to kill themselves as we would think it, they can just ‘waste away’.

I think humans are the only animal that can be bored (though I do think my cats look pretty glaze-eyed sometimes). How one can be bored with so much interesting stuff going on around you, with the infinite variability of reality and existence to experience?

Do they have innate knowledge of where to build their house, or do they reason that it would be safer uphill from the wet ground? — Sir2u

Depends on the animal. A rabbit is probably closer to innate.

Either way it puts human into a bit of a pickle. Is our reasoning ability based on innate knowledge or do we learn to reason? — Sir2u

If you mean innate knowledge of what to do, no. The ability to deduct, inference, predict, may be different in us due to linguistic-minds that allow for higher degrees (or degrees at all) of constant deliberation and decision-making. This means I can have a thought about a whole variety of things that something like a rabbit cannot. "I want to put a green monkey on a blue house in the middle of winter". A rabbit doesn't generate ideas like that. However, with these greater degrees of freedom we have, we are still (mainly) driven by certain necessities (survival, comfort, entertainment). So here we are with this highly deliberative/deliberating brain that must contend with unmovable circumstances. Thus you have a gap in this particular human animal, not seen in the rest. Here is the existential gap.

I never said you did.

Me to not be
is to not suffer, see
And to be
is to suffer, me
Yet to suffer
is to death fear
To ask not to be
To be suffering free
Is to ask for water
and be given fire

I think most animals have innate knowledge hard wired into the brain through Millenia of evolution. As do humans, but we can question some of it.

Why do you say this? — dussias

Because I am sick of people insisting that they know the right way to live, that they know the purpose of life, that I should do things their way, that they know how I should die peacefully.

All I want to do is live MY life. And I do not want to fight everyday to do so. Why should I go down fighting instead of loving?

Where do you live? — dussias

2,357.30 km (1,464.76 mi) west by north of you. If you cross the Caribbean you will come to my front door. I too live a reasonable life, though things are getting harder all the time.

When you say "being allowed to live" I can only agree with you if you live in a really shitty situation, where you are controlled to an important extent. — dussias

It does not matter where you live, or in what situation you live as long as no one tries to control you. That is what I mean by being allowed to live.
I know lots of poor people and some that are beyond poor. But most of them do actually prefer not to work to hard to change things. The really sad cases are the ones that are stopped from doing something like getting an education because they have to work just to eat and there is not really a lot of work right now.

Do you know about life in North Korea? Cuba? — dussias

I have one ex-student studying in South Korea, they have told me about life up north. Several ex students have studied in Cuba, medicine in Cuba is exceptional.

Depends on the animal. A rabbit is probably closer to innate. — schopenhauer1

So if a simple rabbit knows these things without learning them, why are humans so dumb? Surely we should have a lot more innate knowledge than them because we have much better minds.

If you mean innate knowledge of what to do, no. The ability to deduct, inference, predict, may be different in us due to linguistic-minds that allow for higher degrees (or degrees at all) of constant deliberation and decision-making. — schopenhauer1

So the poor rabbit has no idea about why he should not build his house in a certain place, just that he should not do it. It would seem more reasonable that he could know about the places to build house, then review the piece of ground to see if it fits the template. That would mean that he had to compare his ideas to the information about the ground and come to a conclusion, which is reasoning. Just because his ideas are not in a language that we can understand does not mean that he cannot make deductions.

However, with these greater degrees of freedom we have, we are still (mainly) driven by certain necessities (survival, comfort, entertainment). — schopenhauer1

The same as any other animal.

So here we are with this highly deliberative/deliberating brain that must contend with unmovable circumstances. Thus you have a gap in this particular human animal, not seen in the rest. Here is the existential gap. — schopenhauer1

What are these unmovable circumstances that you talk about? Are any of them socially constructed by chance? I cannot think of anything in nature that humans alone have to face.

I know it’s been a while since anyone commented here, but I’m going to anyway. I’m not an anti-natalist or a pessimist, but I’d say I am at times charitable towards the view (a lot of what I’ve learned on it is thanks to @schopenhauer1, whose done a fantastic job explaining their viewpoint). @Zn0n mentioned something about efilism, and in my opinion antinatalists should distance themselves away from that movement.

The YouTuber Inmendham (the creator of efilism) has argued once that he would murder a woman if he ended up getting her pregnant to prevent further suffering, and has also stated it’s a moral good to kill the outdoor cats that roam near his property. Not only that, but in the various debates he’s had on YouTube he never argues in good faith, and usually ends up leaving the debate in a fiery, screaming rage littered with abusive remarks. His actions are anything BUT ethical, and he makes antinatalists out to be a super villain death cult. Luckily Inmendham is very obscure and rarely gets attention these days, but I don’t think it’s a good thing for antinatalists to accept his conclusions