I genuinely can’t fathom the idea of wanting to be married in this day and age. The white dress symbolises purity, virginity and innocence in a woman and asking for a woman’s hand in marriage through their father or being given away by your father to another man which is how women were basically sold off to men just seems insane to me. So many people like the idea of marriage and falling in love but it really doesn’t appeal to me and I want to find someone who feels this way to talk to because I am fed up of being made to feel like an awful person for not wanting marriage, children and not believing I can fall in love. ( I am also pissed off at people telling me Ive just not met the right person and my opinion will change because I guarantee it won’t)

What I've noticed is that when some people make pessimistic remarks about the world, their reasoning tends to refer to contingent harms out in the world - wars, climate change, factory farming, inequality, etc. Although these are bad, I think what really makes being born a human regrettable is the structurally negativity nature of the human organism. That is, we are bodies with constant, eventually lethal material needs that cause us to suffer and die when not met. Needs for warmth, water, food, etc. Our bodies must struggle to survive our we suffer and die - from exposure, from hunger, from thirst, etc. And yet our struggle is lost from the start - we cannot win - as inherent within our bodies is an aging and dying process that will render us all lifeless corpses no matter how hard we battle against our nature, secure our needs, or hoard the material resources required to keep us alive. All the food and warmth and water in the world are powerless against the aging and dying process inherent within our bodies.

On top of this, we are always vulnerable to disease, sickness, and injury. So we spend our lives struggling for the material recourses we require to not suffer from want and die, in a state of constant vulnerability to whatever contingent or accidental harms that can befall us, and all this while our bodies wear down, age, and slowly die towards our final, inescapable nature as a lifeless corspe. The structure of the human 'life-cycle' is negative. We are born as these bodies (subject to the genetic lottery that to a large degree determines the quality of your life), are trained by the community we depend upon for our survival to talk, to act among others, to be obedient to the state, and ultimately are trained to produce for the society we are embedded within. We earn a check and trade it for material our bodies require to not suffer - for food, for clothing, for housing, etc. And yet, the struggle is lost from the start as the aging and dying process inherent within every organism can not be overcome. You are born, you struggle, you work, you age, and then you die. And that's only if some horrific contingent harm doesn't befall you along the way - cancer, car crash, house fire, murder, etc.

To be born a human is a horrific fate, and it's a fate that for the born, is inescapable and can not be overcome. For us already living as human bodies, our lot is to struggle for our bodily needs, while in a state of constant vulnerability to harm whose source can be both from the external world (eg someone attacks you), or from within our very body (eg, cancer, arthritis, etc), all while our bodies wear down, age, and slowly degrade towards our inescapable fate as a lifeless corpse. To be born a human and to suffer this fate is regrettable. It's better not to be born. So in recognizing the structurally negative nature of human embodiment we can decide not to procreate, to cut the problem at its root so that nobody else, at least via our hand, is born to suffer this fate. But for us, the already born, our lot is sealed - we will struggle for our needs, suffer the harms of human embodiment, and then die on this earth.

Life Has Been Terrible From Its Beginning Until Today

These are my ideas about life, organized by the AI Claude

Life is not tragic by accident — it was optimized to never be enough.

There's a way of reading existence that most people avoid because it offers no comfort: the idea that suffering isn't a bug in the system. It's the system's specification. Putting together what we know about natural selection, the neuroscience of pleasure, social structure, and the history of technology, a coherent picture emerges — and it isn't pretty.

1. You were born losing a lottery you never asked to play

Appearance, neurotype, and health aren't distributed by merit, choice, or justice — they're distributed by a blind process that optimizes genetic replication, not individual well-being. This produces real, measurable hierarchies:

Physical appearance functions as social capital from childhood on. Facial symmetry, height, testosterone/estrogen markers — all of it shapes social, romantic, and even professional opportunities, and none of these variables were chosen by the person carrying them. You are judged, constantly, by an embryonic lottery.

Neurodivergence (autism, ADHD, and the whole spectrum of atypical profiles) isn't just "neutral difference" in a world designed for neurotypicals — it's real structural disadvantage in practically every relevant social script: courtship, job interviews, group dynamics. The "neurodiversity as mere difference" discourse ignores that social scripts were evolutionarily shaped around the statistical majority, and whoever deviates from the norm pays the coordination cost alone.

Disease and biological fragility are the rule, not the exception — bodies are systems that begin failing structurally from birth (genetically programmed senescence) and are permanently exposed to random failures (mutation, pathogen, developmental accident).

None of this is injustice in the moral-social sense — it's worse: it's injustice with no author to hold accountable, embedded in the very mechanics that generate people.

2. You were born inside a chain that sustains itself through others' suffering

Zoom out. The entire planet runs on a system in which one organism's survival structurally depends on another's suffering and death. The food chain isn't a metaphor — it's the literal architecture of conscious life on Earth: the predator needs the prey to feel fear, needs it to suffer enough to stop fleeing. Billions of years of biological "design" converged, independently and repeatedly, on the same result: nervous systems that feel pain as a survival mechanism, trapped inside a network where some beings' pain is the metabolic fuel for others. If this were designed by a mind — and in the theological/misotheist debate this is precisely the hypothesis with the greatest causal adequacy given the observed distribution of suffering — it would be the design of a mind indifferent or hostile to the well-being of the beings it created, not a benevolent one.

3. You were built to never feel satisfied for long enough

Here is the most insidious core of the problem, because it doesn't depend on any specific injustice — it happens even to those who "won" the genetic and social lottery.

Natural selection never selected for happy organisms. It selected for organisms that keep competing, seeking, mating, and protecting themselves. Stable, permanent happiness is evolutionarily useless — worse, it's counterproductive: a fully satisfied organism stops seeking resources, stops competing for status, stops reproducing. That's why the reward system works through hedonic adaptation: any gain resets the reference point back to a baseline of relative dissatisfaction, forcing the organism to chase the next gain to feel the same brief relief. It's a treadmill, literally — dopamine functions mostly as a signal of anticipation and pursuit, not of satisfied possession. You weren't designed to arrive. You were designed to run, and the feeling of "arriving" is, at most, a chemical pulse brief enough to launch you back into the race.

This means no amount of success, wealth, relationship, or achievement solves the problem at its root — because the problem isn't in what's missing, it's in the architecture of the system that interprets "what's missing." Even the most objectively successful person on the planet is running the same evolutionary software of continuous dissatisfaction as anyone else. There's no patch for this because the "bug" is the core functionality.

4. And modern civilization took this already-broken system and hit the accelerator

Ancestral life at least had real periods of forced idleness — no artificial light, no excess stimulation, no social comparison against seven billion people. Industrial and post-industrial civilization removed almost all the natural rest of a nervous system already designed to never rest, and replaced it with:

Workdays structured around productivity, not well-being — the body treated as input, not as an end.

Social media that turned ancestral social comparison (a tribe of ~150 people) into comparison against the entire global elite, 24 hours a day, algorithmically optimized to maximize engagement — which in practice means maximizing activation of the same chronic dissatisfaction system described above.

Urbanization and social isolation, removing the community support networks that historically cushioned the psychological cost of existence.

The results show up in the numbers: rates of anxiety, depression, and burnout on a sustained upward trajectory over recent decades across nearly the entire industrialized world, with a particularly sharp rise among young adults. This isn't statistical coincidence — it's the evolutionary system of chronic dissatisfaction being squeezed by a social structure that multiplied the triggers for comparison while removing the ancestral buffers.

5. And technology isn't fixing this — it's trading one kind of suffering for another

The historical pattern is always the same: an urgent material problem gets solved, and in its place a problem of a different nature emerges, usually more diffuse and harder to name.

We solved caloric scarcity across much of the developed world → epidemics of obesity and eating disorders emerged, linked to excess stimulation, not lack.

We solved geographic isolation with instant communication → social anxiety emerged, mediated by constant comparison and permanent social surveillance (the feeling of always being "on").

We're solving repetitive manual labor with automation → and the horizon opening up isn't leisure, it's income precarity and existential anxiety around one's own economic obsolescence.

Every technological advance solves the previous generation's symptom and generates, as a structural side effect, a new symptom adapted to the new environment — because technology changes the scenery, but doesn't change the evolutionary software underneath it. You can renovate the cage infinitely. It's still a cage.

6. Why this has no solution — and why this is the most honest part of the argument

Social reforms, therapy, medicine, activism — all of this can reduce marginal suffering, and it's worth doing. But none of it attacks the root cause, because the root cause isn't a correctable implementation flaw. It's the base specification: a nervous system built by a process with zero commitment to well-being, running inside a trophic chain sustained by structural suffering, distributing advantage and disadvantage by amoral genetic luck, now accelerated by a civilization that multiplied the triggers without altering the hardware.

There's no reform that can change natural selection's objective function after the fact. The system is already running, and it was never optimized to "feel good" — it was optimized to "continue." Calling this a tragedy is still too optimistic, because tragedy suggests a deviation from something that was supposed to turn out right. There was no deviation here. The foundation was built this way.

Hi all,

A little while back, I had the opportunity to ask a question to an individual whom I believe has attained traditional Buddhist enlightenment.

As a result of enlightenment, this individual claims their phenomenological experience no longer contains a sense of self/center. This has reduced their personal suffering by 90%+.

They are capable of achieving a meditative state known as "Nirodha Samapatti," which is essentially meditation-induced unconsciousness.

They are aligned with philosophical pessimism in that they believe every state of mind is painful relative to Nirodha Samapatti/unconsciousness. And what the mind mistakenly classifies as "pleasure" is really the alleviation of some prior suffering.

After enlightenment/the getting rid of a sense of self, they experience the world as a "hive mind," and as a result, the "will to be" or the "will to not be" do not resonate at a deep level anymore, because they do not connect to some central column of being that can answer existential questions on behalf of the entire hive mind.

The question I asked him was: "You say that after enlightenment, the “will to not be” doesn't resonate at a deep level anymore. Given that there is no additive pleasure in conscious experience, wouldn't the “will to not be” become amplified after enlightenment? Even if the will does not connect to a central column of being, doesn't it make sense to shut the whole decentralized network of conscious experience off? Basically: what is motivating you to stay alive? Does this motivation make sense to the intellect or is it blind and irrational?"

His answer was: "Neither the will to be nor not be, because both are realised to be insufficient descriptions of reality. It links with the no self insight. There isn't an identification with being or non-being, or conscious or not conscious for that matter. I don't think about wanting to stay alive or die anymore. And when I ask those questions and look inside I find no perspective or aspect that can speak for the whole. The question does become quite a lot less interesting, because it's no longer related to as being ultimately meaningful. It's a bit like if I ask you "Who would win in a fight Batman or Iron man?". We can entertain the question and talk about reasons why we think one may win over the other, but hopefully we don't hold the question too seriously because we know its fictional. In fact, when we ask these hypothetical questions and someone does take them very seriously, we view that person as being ontologically confused about what's real and what actually matters. This ultimate nonsensicality of the questions is revealed when we access greater contexts and pop-certain bubbles - until then it seems absolutely real."

I am not encouraging suicide, but from the perspective of alleviating suffering, it seems suicide is still the most rationally self-interested action (presuming metaphysical idealists/panpsychists are wrong and death is unconsciousness). While the sense of a self/center seems to substantially worsen suffering, the root cause of suffering seems to be consciousness.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

I hate the the daily grind of existence. It wears me down. What are your views ?

One makes oneself cheap if they surround themselves with those of a more base, vulgar nature than themselves, as the only commonality between one and those others is the lowest, most despicable part of one's own nature.

I'll label this insight but

I've used, abused and experimented with a lot of psychedelic drugs.

I learned a lot. I became more than I could ever hope for, or expect.

I read a book from around 200 years ago. It was shocking. It was horrifying. I was speechless. I still am. I usually have something clever to say. Not this time.

MDMA made me fall in love with the world. With you.

Psilocybin gave me perspective, though not wisdom. I seek the wisdom of mescaline. Of DMT. Of the ancient wisdom that speaks no language, worships no God, it just is. I want it. I crave it. True wisdom. If only.

You know what I speak of. You have not the words, but you know and feel the same.

I will find it. I will go to the ends of the earth. I've read so many books, but I'm still a fool. The truth is exquisite and untouchable. A mystery wrapped in a dream.

Pessimism isn't merely a philosophy.

It is everything and more.

A truly competent man would avoid all contact with women, and a woman should seek a highly competent man who has overlooked this detail.

I know there are depressed people here, people who are chronic pessimists, but I really don't know which reddit sub to post this on.

We know that over 90% of people are either atheists or religious people who believe in a benevolent God. I belong to the third group of people who really believe that we are ruled by an evil divine force.

Why do I think so?

There are numerous testimonies of people who spoke about the sacrifice of people and children in the powerful circles of people who rule this planet.

Satanists said that they kill children, mutilate children, terrorize and rape in order to make Lucifer happy. Also, a man who was in those circles of people said that for them God is extremely real and they call him Lucifer and then they offered him to sacrifice a child in a satanic ritual. He couldn't do it. But there are many witnesses and stories about it.

Further, although I'm not the type of person to take the Bible because I don't believe it's credible, it also says that Satan is the God of this world.

Since the world has existed in the entire human history, there has only been war, war, war.. How can this be a coincidence?? There are over 20,000 different types of diseases that a person can get. How can that be?

Of course you will say that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. But you have to know that it is an immaterial being and that even God himself does not want you to know that it exists.

So many stories about demons scaring people and paranormal things and unexplained things.

Magicians like Dynamo who are openly Satanists. Musicians, politicians, who openly talk about it, there is also an interview about it.

I can say that it really affects me mentally. I don't even know what to do. I wish I was like the normies who only care about superficial things, who don't look at the world around them at all and look for short-term gratification.

The juice ain't worth the squeeze. Make money to buy food to eat today, so we may hunger again tomorrow. All while the body ages and degrades towards its inescapable fate as a corpse. Why bother with the struggle?

But here reveals I think one of the most brutal parts of being a human, which is the complete lack of any positive, correcting, or redeeming response one can make to a life not worth living. Your default state of striving for your bodily needs continues, regardless of whether you value it as not worthwhile. It's not worth the struggle to meet our basic needs, because life isn't worth living, we say, and yet we hunger and starve regardless. The brute reality of being an organism with constant, eventually lethal biological need is unaffected by our value judgments of whether it's worth it. I can judge meeting my bodily needs isn't worth the struggle.. but so what? My body will suffer and starve and thirst and shiver regardless. My condition is unaffected by my value judgments on its worth.

So what options are there? Carry on striving, knowing our lost cause is not worth its pains, or what else - we could kill our bodies, murder ourselves. Is this worthwhile? I'm not sure as we are future corpses regardless, and suicide is not without its own immense costs -> the terror, the violence (suicide is a lethal imposition of violence upon our organism), the harm and destruction it causes to anyone who cares about us. And what do we gain? Our bodies become corpses, which hardly seems like a solution seeing as though it was our fate regardless, except basically just traumatizes ourselves and our loved ones. We might say but if we die now, we don't have to struggle and strive anymore. This is true. But it doesn't strike me as a solution to our problem. The real solution is to never have come into being as a human in the first place, to never have had to suffer and strive or be placed in this position where death is our fate and the pains of life drive ourselves towards lethal self-violence, to bring it about sooner than it otherwise would be, despite its costs. Everyone can make their own judgments on what to do. Personally I just think once you're born you're just fucked. You cannot undo your birth, you cannot escape your fate as striving, needy, vulnerable, harming, dying being. Self-murder just violently imposes destruction upon yourself and others. Who is better off? Your loved ones aren't. I'm not sure even the decedent is, seeing as though the corpse left behind isn't cognizant of its supposedly improved state. Maybe in some sense we can say the suicidee is better off, because his or her suffering has stopped. That might be right, but others now suffer the loss of their loved one. I just think there's no costless solution to our human embodiment.

We judge the juice is not worth the squeeze, but what options do we have? Either continue on striving against death, knowing we die regardless, knowing our efforts aren't worth the payoff, or we murder our bodies and harm ourselves and others. It's just 2 bad choices. I guess I'm still living out of inertia, out of biological programming, maybe my suffering simply isn't desperate enough, or probably more likely - I am simply a coward.

Us born are the fallen. Existing as a body in a world with no good options, living imbued with suffering facing death as our fate. There's no fix or cure. The problem is being born in the first place. Preventing birth cuts the problem at its root. But for the living it's too late for us. We are simply fucked, have no good options, and will either continue striving knowing the struggle isn't worth its fruits, or murder ourselves, as a crude approximation of our actual desire -> to have never been embodied in the first place. But that is impossible and instead we leave a mangled corpse that suffered its death, and our loved ones suffer our loss.

>men are fundamentally competitive and acquisitive, not to be trusted too far; that the men most to be admired are those that have acquired most; that we treat others superficially as more-or-less physical and mechanical things whose value is that they can do a certain line of work efficiently. They may be “nice guys” withal, and we can join with them dedicatedly in the efficient pursuit of wealth and privilege.

The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man

Does a place of eternal suffering for humans finite lives really exist? Or is the portrayed idea just a tool to control people? Im hoping it doesn't exist.

You and me are human bodies. We have arms and hands (hopefully). When I analyze my hands, I recognize three different ways in which they are affected by harm. The first is that my hands are vulnerable to harm from both external (i.e., outside my body), and internal causes. Examples of external causes of harm are cuts, frostbite, burns, crushing injuries, etc. Examples of internal harm are cancer, arthritis, paralysis, etc. These are harms whose source is within the body. And of course, we are all subject to the ever-present aging and degrading process, which weakens, ages, and reduces the function of our hands. The point is that both the external world can harm our hands, while our hands are also subject to harm internal to our bodies, all while the ever present wearing down and degrading process ages our bodies (we are slowly dying and will become inanimate corpses).

Now, not only are our hands subject to harm, but they can also cause harm to others (or ourselves). Ranging from writing abusive texts to strangling, shooting, or bashing people to death, or ingesting poison to commit suicde. We are all capable of causing immense harm and death to each other through our hands. This potential to cause harm is inherent within all of us. It doesn't even have to be deliberate - merely making a wrong turn with the steering wheel can cause severe injury or death to another person.

Thirdly, the movement and control of our hands is dependent upon our bodies being alive. Our bodies live only via dependence upon material resources utterly steeped in harm. From the food we eat, produced via industrial supply chains steeped in animal exploitation and death, human wage labour and environmental degradation, to the horrible working conditions of those that produced the clothes we wear - our hands live only via our bodies dependence upon the harm and labour of ourselves and others.

This threefold way in which harm is imbued within our hands is inescapable. Whatever good our hands do, whatever goods we produce, they are tainted by the harmed and harming nature of our hands. I hug someone, and yet the hands I use are subject to injury, are always aging and degrading, are capable of violence and murder, and are part of a body that lives via dependence upon harm, exploitation and death to other organisms.

The overall structure of the human organism is negative. I use hands as just an example of the entire body. Our bodies are subject to harm, we cause harm, we are dependent upon harm, we age, and then we die. And even in death, we harm our loved ones via our loss.

I don't understand why the idea that humans are inherently selfish is so controversial.

I'm not saying that humans are incapable of kindness, love, cooperation, or sacrifice. Obviously we are capable of those things. But isn't a huge part of human behavior fundamentally driven by self-interest ?

Think about how society is structured. We have armies because humans organize themselves into groups that need protection from other humans. We have police because people steal, assault, murder, and harm each other. We have prisons because some people will continue harming others if there are no consequences.

Even everyday life seems full of small examples of selfishness. People compete for money, status, jobs, relationships, resources, and social approval. We often help others when it also gives us something in return money, appreciation, social status, emotional satisfaction, or simply the feeling that we're a "good person."

And even when someone does something genuinely altruistic, couldn't it still be argued that they are satisfying an internal desire to help, feel useful, avoid guilt, or maintain their own sense of morality ?

Obviously, cooperation is also an extremely important part of human nature. But isn't cooperation itself often something that evolved because it benefits the individual and the group ?

So what exactly am I missing ?

Why do so many people reject the idea that Homo sapiens are inherently selfish, while at the same time we live in a world where we need armies, police, courts, prisons, laws, and countless social rules to prevent humans from harming one another?

You know what ? Fuck it.

I think humans are inherently evil because selfishness is at the core of our nature, and selfishness itself is one of the most evil traits a being can have.

Should we just let the disaster continue until more and more people have less kids and we end up destroying ourselves .

Psychological Pessimism

Anthropocentric pessimism centered on the analysis of human psyche and it's contradictions. Core theme - suffering is the fundamental(base) state of human psyche due to mortality, meaninglessness, impermanence and desires. Human beings are in constant struggle to suppress this inherent knowledge.

Peter Zapffe

Ernest Becker

Herman Tønnessen

Miguel de Unamuno

Albert Caraco

Higesias

Schopenhaueran Pessimism

A tightly related group of 19th century German Idealist pessimists. Influenced by Kantian idealism and Ancient Indian Philosophy. Headed by Arthur Schopenhauer. Is very technically complex and concerns itself with the idea of the metaphysical Will.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Eduard von Hartmann

Phillip Mainlander

Olga Plümacher

Agnes Taubert

Poetic(Aesthetical) Pessimism

Philosophical pessimist ideas presented in poetical or aphoristic forms. Less technical than the others as it aims to explain truth through aesthetics and personal meditations

Al Ma'Ari

Omar Khayam

Giacomo Leopardi

Thomas Ligotti

Emil Cioran

Heroic Pessimism

Pessimism that empathizes personal struggle and agency in the face of the meaningless or a hostile world.

Albert Camus

Friedrich Nietzsche

Drew M. Dalton

Hegelian-Schopenhaueran Pessimism

Pessimism that combines the Schopenhaueran ideas with Hegelian ideas, instead of opposing Hegel like the Schopenhaueran group.

Carlo Michelstaedter

Julius Bahnsen

Quietist Pessimism

Pessimism that concerns itself with the limitations of human knowledge and action. Empathizes the futility of action and the false nature of knowledge in the face of ultimately unknowable reality.

Eugene Thacker

David E. Cooper

Christian Pessimism

Teleological pessimism that empathizes the inherent suffering of the observable world and it's relation to the Divine.

Blaise Pascal

Baltasar Gracián

Negative Utilitarian Pessimism

Pessimism that concerns itself with the assymetry between pleasure and suffering. Core theme: the absence of pleasure is simply not bad, while the absence of suffering is good. Therefore coming into existence is always a harm.

David Benatar

Julio Cabrera

Transcendent(Buddhist) Pessimism

Pessimism that centres on the direct non-conceptual insight into the reality of unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned phenomenona. Advocates meditation, asceticism and ethics as a way to understand truth and reduce suffering. Philosophical works can be very technical but are centered on the denial, establishing what reality is not instead of directly pointing at the non-conceptual knowledge. The oldest form of pessimism and had a great influence on all the other groups of pessimism.

Buddha and his followers

Nuclear Pessimism

Pessimism that philosophically advocates for the extinction of Humanity by means of the total nuclear warfare.

Ulrich Horstmann

Cosmic Nihilism Pessimism

Pessimism concerned only with the physical materialism, the idea of entropy and the inevitable Heat Death of the Universe. Considers other forms of pessimism too psychological and detached from material reality. Empathizes scientific rationality and rejects all the philosophical attempts to mitigate nihilism.

Ray Brassier

Anti-Humanist Pessimism

Pessimism that advocates against the idea of humanism, considering it irrational, destructive and a secular remnant of religion. Empathizes Gaia Hypothesis of the self-regulation of Earth instead.

John Gray

I've used the Wikpedia list of philisophical pessimists as a source for the list of notable pessimists though I understand that this list can be controversial. Would be glad to hear your thoughts on my attempt to classify them into groups.

Or are we mostly being dragged along by two incredible forces: the fear of death and the desire to have sex?

We romanticize survival as some profound will to live, but maybe that gives us way too much credit. Perhaps we keep going largely because our brains are hardwired to fear death, while simultaneously dangling one of their strongest rewards in front of us: sex.

Strip away all the philosophy and meaning we pile on top of existence, and maybe the machinery underneath is embarrassingly simple: avoid death and seek sex.

And somewhere along the way, we started calling that a “will to live.”

I dont like working for money. I feel like a Slave. What are your views?

Im curious how many of yall are anti natalists and why/ why not?

Say I own a large factory that produces mobile phones. However, the quality of the phones being produced is absolute trash. They're either slow or bricked, she screens don't work, the batteries catch fire in people's hands, they scratch at a level 1, with deeper grooves at a level 2, and basically all round they're just pieces of crap. Now, obviously, the factory should shut down the production lines, stop producing this trash, and issue a recall. But it refuses to, and the production lines keep running churning out vast amounts of shoddy and deficient products.

This is analogous to having children. The human body is a shoddy, deficient product. We are organisms with constant biological needs, always vulnerable to injuries and sickness, always have the capacity to cause harm, and are always aging and deteriorating towards an inevitable death. Procreation is the factory that keeps churning out bodies that have this same deficient and negative nature. Why must it go on running? I mean just look at yourself in the mirror -> an organism who hungers, thirsts and shivers and shits and needs to clean and maintain itself, who must strive and struggle to meet its needs, whose every part of which is vulnerable to extreme suffering via sickness or injury, who hands and actions can be the cause of harm to others, and whose own fate as a decrepit corpse is inevitable. It's a shoddy product. It's not good enough.

But the factory is no centralized production plant. Rather, it exists within our organism -> as reproductive organs and drives, which cause collisions between the sexes and the result is another shoddy product produced to suffer its fate. I suppose it would be an easier problem to fix if reproduction were done in a centralized plant: the factory could be bombed, the workers could strike, and the power could be cut off. But it's not. Within all of us, inherent in our sexual and/or reproductive drives is the potential for another shoddy product to be produced.

What to do? We can be careful about our own contribution to producing another human, but the rest of the world seems to cheer it on regardless, and the global population is skyrocketing.