Inescapable, etc. You can opt out of the surprise party if you really wanted. — schopenhauer1

You can also opt out of life if you really wanted. So "inescapable" doesn't seem to be it (in quotes because neither is inescapable). What else? Or are you saying a certain difficulty of escape is required for something to be wrong to impose?

I agree entirely. Frankly I think your posts are the most valuable and insightful on this forum. I have nothing further to add but to agree. It gives me a sense of community knowing others out there feel the exact way I do as well.

I agree entirely. Frankly I think your posts are the most valuable and insightful on this forum. I have nothing further to add but to agree. It gives me a sense of community knowing others out there feel the exact way I do as well. — Inyenzi

:up: Thank you Inyenzi. The same for your posts too.

You can also opt out of life if you really wanted. So "inescapable" doesn't seem to be it (in quotes because neither is inescapable). What else? Or are you saying a certain difficulty of escape is required for something to be wrong to impose? — khaled

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. The very call to not participate in something anymore is the very right taken away by the DE FACTO situation of the game itself. That is to say, sure, you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. Of course everyone cannot free ride otherwise even more dire consequences for the whole system of (used) workers. You don't have to worry about any of those dire consequences by not participating in this thread. However, a worker who decides they are done working cannot afford such luxury.

What's funny is the very fact that this is an obvious truth makes people think it is still okay to enact on others :rofl:. Just more political agenda. — schopenhauer1

I just wanted to add that even though you don't write much, when you do, I usually enjoy how you elucidate the human predicament. You seem to describe well the Schopenhauerian understanding of the world, which of course makes it pleasant to read for me.

Why is it you think that people often look away from these ideas? How is the injustice of putting someone else in the de facto nature of working-to-survive, not realized?

One of my main ideas lately is that people make a huge fallacy with how they view pessimism which goes something like:

"All injustices are immediately realized easily." As this injustice shows, it is not always the case that people catch on about what is indeed an injustice in this world.

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable — schopenhauer1

But that's patently false. It is not inescapable. You've cited multiple ways to escape it:

free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. — schopenhauer1

But that's patently false. It is not inescapable. You've cited multiple ways to escape it: — khaled

Stop taking it out of context...

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

The best way to understand what work is within modern human societies is to check the Greek word.
Δουλειά=work
Δουλεία=slavery.
the only difference is at the intonation of the word.Within human societies the act of working was always a way for a third person to gain profits from other people's efforts.

As you know, I can never follow your injustice angle because when the supposed injustice occurs there is never any victim of it. At no point in the continuum of procreation is anyone forced to do something against their will.

So I think it’s wrong to say someone is placed into this situation, as if taken from the city of god and positioned in the world by the whims of someone else. It presupposes a different existence. Rather, in the world is where we begin. Each of us start and end here. There is no other state of affairs.

I find the whole antinatalist project, at least insofar as it makes ethical claims, to be humbug on those grounds. There are many reasons to not procreate, but to not procreate in order to protect a person from suffering and pain and depression is nonsense.

inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

So above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. That's your current criteria?

No I'm not going to ask you what "dire" means and pretend that suicide does not qualify as a "dire" consequence, we can agree that it does. But just want to know if this is the current criteria by which you judge when an imposition is ok or not.

I personally don't see the need for work as wrong, but I focus more on how government forces us to use more and more time with it. We regulate things to the point that we force people who would be happy with less to have more, thus forcing them to work longer hours and more days in a week to afford it. One simple example, if I buy land in the middle of nowhere in Nevada and choose to build a house or shack, I'm required to make it 400 square feet. Why can't I live in 300 square feet? Or 200? Layer many such laws one on top of another and we have a society where we are forced to consume more, have more, pay for more, then work more to afford it.

I don't think anyone is really pro-work, just pro-civility. Let alone the examples of how one used to obtain something they want or desired.. what if you were the only human being on an untouched version of Earth, Adam in the Garden, we'll say. Or even here and now if every other human being suddenly disappeared. Nobody to compete with, disadvantage, create lost opportunities for, harm, what have you.

Food is not going to just rain down from the heavens and into your mouth, will it? Shelter isn't going to manifest itself as you need it, nor will it repair itself, even if you're fine with a cave you still have to search for one. What if it becomes too hot or too cold or arid or flooded? What will you defend yourself against the beasts of the Earth with and who will make and repair it? You can't avoid work with any economic model real or imagined. Life as a game or otherwise not worth living is far from a new concept, though any biases can be identified by a truthful answer to a simple question: Have you never experienced a moment or period in your life you enjoyed and wish to repeat?

Have you never experienced a moment or period in your life you enjoyed and wish to repeat? — Outlander

There is some good in this world, but it's not worth fighting for.

Why is it you think that people often look away from these ideas? How is the injustice of putting someone else in the de facto nature of working-to-survive, not realized? — schopenhauer1

Generally, people invest vast amounts of time and effort in order to distract themselves. Life as it is usually lived is, basically, all about distracting oneself from the painful realities of life.

There is some good in this world, but it's not worth fighting for. — baker

Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument.

You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same.

Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument. — Outlander

You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same.

I asked before, but nobody wants to reply:

Anyways, no this isn't about me not cleaning the dishes or wanting to do "my fair share.." The whole point is that it is unjust to be put in a situation where you cannot opt out unless you die of /degradation/ or suicide..
— schopenhauer1
As noted above, some people do believe, by default, that life is a blessing and worth living. Such people cannot relate to your concern.

You could perhaps specify your point and instead of making a wholesale indictment against humanity for procreating at all, focus on pointing at the fault of producing children while failing to instill in them the belief that life is a blessing and worth living.

I think this is the point that people fail at the most: Showing and teaching others that life is a blessing and worth living.

While many people will eagerly criticize anyone who is in any way pessimistic about life as such, they are quite unable (or just unwilling?) to persuade them otherwise. They'll even go so far as to claim that something is genetically or otherwise physiologically wrong with the pessmist and dismiss them. — baker

Are you slothful by nature, but have managed to overcome your sloth philosophically? — baker

Is happiness a matter of chance, or can it be learned?

A good essay on anti-work is Bob Black's The Abolition of Work.

The best way to understand what work is within modern human societies is to check the Greek word.
Δουλειά=work
Δουλεία=slavery.
the only difference is at the intonation of the word.Within human societies the act of working was always a way for a third person to gain profits from other people's efforts. — Nickolasgaspar

Noted, thank you. However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then.

So above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. That's your current criteria?

No I'm not going to ask you what "dire" means and pretend that suicide does not qualify as a "dire" consequence, we can agree that it does. But just want to know if this is the current criteria by which you judge when an imposition is ok or not. — khaled

Is it really veering from what I've described in past posts?
Unnecessary
Inescapable
Other people take more due care

The inescapable can further be examined (at least in the case of work) to mean -If not done, leads to dire circumstances.

As you know, I can never follow your injustice angle because when the supposed injustice occurs there is never any victim of it. At no point in the continuum of procreation is anyone forced to do something against their will.

So I think it’s wrong to say someone is placed into this situation, as if taken from the city of god and positioned in the world by the whims of someone else. It presupposes a different existence. Rather, in the world is where we begin. Each of us start and end here. There is no other state of affairs.

I find the whole antinatalist project, at least insofar as it makes ethical claims, to be humbug on those grounds. There are many reasons to not procreate, but to not procreate in order to protect a person from suffering and pain and depression is nonsense. — NOS4A2

This is simply self-servingly convenient ignorance.

Someone is placed in this situation as if taken from the city of god and positioned in the world by the whims of someone else.

That is more accurate.

There is no difference if the injustice is caused by the de facto situations of being alive in the world as a human animal or by the hands of a person. That is the big leap that's hard for people to understand. Do not put people in these circumstances in the first place. Why is that so hard? Can a human prevent this for someone else?

Also, why the hell would it matter if everyone started from the same unjust position? It's still unjust, just for everyone, instead of one particular set of people. Global antinatalism doesn't discriminate.

I personally don't see the need for work as wrong, — Derrick Huestis

This is where I'd disagree then. It seems unjust to put others in a circumstance X whereby X means if they do not do X, they will die or other dire consequences. Solution, don't put more situations of X in the world (don't procreate and thus don't put more workers in the world in the first place).

Food is not going to just rain down from the heavens and into your mouth, will it? Shelter isn't going to manifest itself as you need it, nor will it repair itself, even if you're fine with a cave you still have to search for one. What if it becomes too hot or too cold or arid or flooded? What will you defend yourself against the beasts of the Earth with and who will make and repair it? You can't avoid work with any economic model real or imagined. — Outlander

I'll just answer with what I said to someone else.

However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then. — schopenhauer1

Life as a game or otherwise not worth living is far from a new concept, though any biases can be identified by a truthful answer to a simple question: Have you never experienced a moment or period in your life you enjoyed and wish to repeat? — Outlander

This doesn't justify unjust positions on someone else's behalf (like putting others in a lifetime of X situation, like work, otherwise they die or other dire circumstances).

Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument.

You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same. — Outlander

Because in one instance (the antinatalist), no new person is put in an unjust (and harmful) situation. In the other instance a new person is put in an unjust and harmful situation. As my example of the happy slave shows, you can have unjust situations despite people's subjective reporting post-facto.

Anything that does NOT recognize the injustice of this situation simply has their own political agenda.. They want to see X society/way of life enacted just because they think it's somehow "good" or "necessary" (when it is neither).

While many people will eagerly criticize anyone who is in any way pessimistic about life as such, they are quite unable (or just unwilling?) to persuade them otherwise. They'll even go so far as to claim that something is genetically or otherwise physiologically wrong with the pessmist and dismiss them. — baker

This is just a weirdly veiled ad hominiem on me.. And doubly so here:

Are you slothful by nature, but have managed to overcome your sloth philosophically? — baker

How is it slothful? What do you even mean? Why does that even matter? Is this relevant to anything? Can you provide some context to this odd remark?

What makes this post frustrating is you are not paying attention to the argument. The persuasion here would be that it is okay to procreate people in X circumstances (like needing to work) that lead to dire circumstances if it is not followed. Is that just? Obviously my position is that is unjust, whatever people feel subjectively about work post-facto, like a happy slave scenario. You may not convince the happy slave (worker) they are in some way exploited, but that can be the case non-the-less and the non-recognition of this has no bearing on the injustice.

However, the weird ad hominem way you are making your argument seems like this point itself is not relevant. So what is your fuckin point? That clarification my help first, unless you are too slothful to fully make one.

A good essay on anti-work is Bob Black's The Abolition of Work. — werther

Yes I think I've read parts of it long ago.. I believe he is for anarchism of some sort. I still don't think it solves the inescapable work problem. As I've stated here:

However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then. — schopenhauer1

Ah. Go back. What you're quoting is from my brief discussion with , whose reply I'm still waiting for.

I was actually furthering your point.

It seems unjust to put others in a circumstance X whereby X means if they do not do X, they will die or other dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

By that standard, eating is unjust.

By that standard, eating is unjust. — Derrick Huestis

Indeed. He that doesn't work should not eat.

I was actually furthering your point. — baker

Ok, can you just summarize your main point in a simple paragraph then?

By that standard, eating is unjust. — Derrick Huestis

Indeed. He that doesn't work should not eat. — baker

Yes, now you are getting it.. Know of Schopenhauer's position on the matter?

But also, do you see a difference between food that was absolutely always available no matter what and the set of challenges of work to get the food (possibly what baker was alluding to).