The Harm of a Non-Ideal World

So there seems to be a hidden "tyranny" (for lack of a better term) of the sociological phenomenon of human existence. By "sociological phenomena of human existence" I mean human institutions such as government, family, economic institutions, etc.. [Let us assume for the moment that sociological phenomena like the aforementioned institutions are "real" in some way]. These are huge social realities that are absolutely integral and necessary in human life; they can never be changed by one individual, whether it is their wish to or not. They are unmovable conditions one must contend with.

Being an individual human with my own thoughts and ideals, I can never have my ideal world whereby all the sociological phenomena is set up to my personal preference. For example, I would prefer a world where there was no such thing as work in any formal sense (for a company, government, group of people etc.). In my ideal world, the institutions would be completely different or perhaps even non-existent altogether and replaced with some other ideal circumstance whereby that institution is no longer needed.

However, I live in the real world. In the real world, I must learn to cope with the challenges and conflicts of living in my non-ideal sociological reality. In order to survive and thrive, I have to "make the best of it", "change my initial outlook", and adapt and align (in at least some way) my goals with the real-world's ideals. I want the abolishment of the institution of work (or the need for it in the first place)- who doesn't want this in their ideal world, right? Of course, this silly wish is not going to happen in the real-world. Realistically, I can only make incremental changes based on my real-world situation (where I live, what I am working with psychologically, monetarily, socially, geographically, etc. etc.). I have to find my way within the system's already-existent set-up (none of them containing my ideal-world reality); I have to follow the dictates of an already-existent, historically derived social reality that I didn't ask for.

---

With this understanding, when we bring people into the world (by procreation), we are using them as a means to an ends. The ideal goals of an individual, de facto, from living in a world with an already-existent sociological set-up, will never be realized. The billions of people would have billions of variations on how they would like to see the world "set-up". Since the almost infinite amount of variations on sociological set-up can never be realized for each individual, it seems to me, unethical to bring a person into the world.

Once you bring a person into the world, their ideal sociological set-up is negated for the already-existent society. Now, the child must live by the dictates of other people and either learn to accept it or live a miserable life, never happy with his/her lot.

1. Is it ok to knowingly bring children into the world if you know that a person's ideal sociological set-up can never be realized for that individual?
2. Is it ok to knowingly and purposefully bring about a child who faces challenges and conflicts with the sociological structures of the world in some sort of hope that they will thrive in the already-existent set-up?
3. Even if "most people" accept the real-world sociological institutions and learn to adapt accordingly, is it ok to procreate if there is the possibility that someone might never accept the real-world sociological institutions?
4. If the world can only be changed incrementally from within the established system, and can never be able to be arranged to the dictates of an individual's ideal sociological set-up (which is an impossibility from the get-go since billions of people have different versions of what an ideal world is), then is it ok to make a child and "force" him (directly or indirectly) to adapt to the dictates of the established system?
5. If one must struggle and experience many conflicts that are harmful and unpleasant in the real-world, in order to achive some (modified) version of happiness, then is knowingly bringing someone into this situation of strife and conflict with the real-world acceptable?

I propose that the answer is "no, it is not ok to bring a person into a situation where their ideal world can never be realized". They are now being used by family, society, economy, civilization, group, etc. to keep those institutions going. The ideal world of the individual can never be realized in light of the already-existent real-world set-up.

Bizarrely, we allow social institutions to perpetuate their own needs at the expense of the individual's. Even if a majority of people accept it and cope, there may always be people who will feel cheated of never being brought into their ideal world. The tyranny of social institutions that already-exist will rule over that individual his/her whole life. They are now the means to the already-existent social institution's ends. This is an extreme violation of the deontological ethical principle that one should try to refrain from using people for another's ends.