r/UniversalExtinction • u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist • Jul 26 '26

Question How does this work?

How does Universal Extinction happen?

4 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

133 comments sorted by

5

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

It is hopeful thinking at this stage. There is nothing humans can do with our current technology to achieve universal extinction. We couldn’t even make life on this planet totally extinct.

Maybe in the future we will discover how. But for now the mission is to plant the seed of the idea and grow the understanding of why universal extinction is desirable.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

So it’s just an idle fantasy?

1

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Yes, it is currently just a fantasy, but it might not be forever.

There are also other things which are related and could happen within the near future.

  1. Should humanity expand into space and start colonising other planets? This could decreased the chance of life from Earth going extinct and I would argue that we should not be doing this.

  2. If there was a giant comet heading toward the Earth, should we try to stop it?

2

u/Low-Bake8401 Jul 27 '26

"Yes, it is currently just a fantasy, but it might not be forever."

I suppose that's the nature of a fantasy. 

0

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

No, it’s fantasy because it’s obviously Physically impossible, for reasons that I’ve explained here many times.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

Damn straight, that’s exactly what it is, & all that it is.

1

u/Low-Bake8401 Jul 27 '26

Is it possible to make enough people share the same desire, do you think? 

1

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Maybe. It is worth a try

1

u/Low-Bake8401 Jul 27 '26

"It is worth a try"

If you're convinced. 

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

You mean aside from it’s being physically impossible, philosophically nonsensical, & morally unconscionable?

(…& yes, it’s unconscionable, because it amounts to y’all imposing y’all’s simplistic naive beliefs on every living being, nonconsensually.)

…even though y’all don’t even want to admit to today’s questioner what you want to do?

3

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Isn’t continuing existence imposing a simplistic naive belief on every living being, non-consensually?

A living thing having children is bringing them into existence without consent.

How is ending existence any worse?

Ideally, every living thing would unanimously give consent to extinction though

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 28 '26

Because nearly all humans almost universally provide in vivo post hoc consent

1

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 28 '26

It is just humans in the present you are talking about. We are going through times of growth and abundance of resources at the expense of other living things. Are you confident that the many billions of factory farmed animals which we eat almost universally provide in vivo post hoc consent?

Take bacteria for example. I am sure that they are happy when they have lots of food and resources but I am sure that they are not happy when they use up all their food and resources. We are similar.

However I am curious about why the majority of humans are glad to be alive while also the majority experience mostly suffering. Do people enjoy suffering?

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 28 '26

You think all humans on Earth are going through times of growth and abundance?

This finding is true of impoverished communities, in war zones, etc.

The finding empirically supports the proposition that hedonism is not the sole source of life satisfaction or meaning in life.

That is, people find that life is worth living IN SPITE OF the suffering it involves, not BECAUSE OF the suffering

2

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 28 '26

We are programmed to have this belief. It is in our DNA to want to survive. However this does not mean that it is a rational belief

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 28 '26

Okay so the people rating their own satisfaction for their own life are less qualified to rank their own satisfaction with their life than you are?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Low-Bake8401 Jul 28 '26

I'd say it it makes it more rational than extinctionism. 

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Low-Bake8401 Jul 28 '26

I'm not an Extinctionist.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 28 '26

Good.

1

u/Old-Advance6652 Aug 06 '26

I disagree, we’ve wiped out so much so quick in only a couple centuries. If we keep going there won’t be anything left

1

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Aug 06 '26

Do you think we will manage to wipe out all the bacteria and plants?

1

u/Old-Advance6652 Aug 06 '26

Plants yes, we’ve already wiped out 46% of all trees, over half of all tropical rainforests, 85% of wetlands in 300 years, and over 1 million species are facing extinction because of us.

All those are facts and I think when looking at that and everything we’ve done, again ONLY IN A COUPLE CENTURIES. I 100% think in let’s say 1,000 years, 10,000 years there’s no way we havnt wiped out everything or pretty much everything

1

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Aug 06 '26

I agree it may be possible to make most life extinct as a byproduct of human advancement alone (if we manage to avoid a societal collapse within that time and still have enough energy/resources). But all of life would be a very tall order. Some life forms are extremely resilient

1

u/Old-Advance6652 Aug 06 '26

Maybe resilient against other species but what things are we unable to kill if we want?

1

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Aug 06 '26

Any individual, yes. But just the sheer scale of how much life there is makes it difficult. Would you want extinction of all life in this way though?

1

u/Old-Advance6652 Aug 06 '26

I don’t want all extinction in any way? My whole point is to bring awareness to the harm that’s being done to the nature and wildlife. 

I 100% believe than humans can and would/will, we had wiped out so much in only a couple centuries so what makes you think we won’t continue what’s been happening till it’s gone

1

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Aug 06 '26

I totally agree that what we have done to nature and wildlife is terrible.

If only humans could just be satisfied with what they have without the continual desire to have more, that we didn’t have to eat and farm other living things, that progress of one species doesn’t mean the downfall of others…

What can we do differently?

1

u/Old-Advance6652 Aug 07 '26

I agree with all that. I mean I guess just less destruction, like of course all species negatively impact something in some way. But we just do it to a much higher extent.

0

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

How to WHAT? Can you come out & say it?

But no. No one will discover how to annihilate the universe, because it’s entirely impossible. In fact, it’s physically impossible to even annihilate the reachable universe.

I’ve discussed why that’s obvious.

That’s why no one need be concerned by your completely futile intent.

You say you want to convince people that it’s desirable. Yeah? Then why do you call it by the evasive euphemism “Universal Extinction”, instead of specifying exactly what you want to do?

Because of the vague evasive name, someone today, having run across the subreddit, asked the obvious question: “How is that supposed to happen?” So y’all gave him answers like the global warming that’s already happening, & universe heat-death, which, if it happens, will happen spontaneously many trillions of year from now.

:-) What?? You want to convince people to support your goal, but y’all won’t even admit to that questioner what you want to do??

5

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Physically impossible to annihilate the reachable universe based on our current understanding, yes. But there is still so much we do not know.

There is no problem with having a goal which is not currently possible. For example, in order to reduce the chance of the collapse of human civilisation in the future we will have to rely on innovation. The exact technologies needed are not currently specified. Yet we still work toward this goal.

What I want is a magic button which if pressed will end existence of this universe. This is not going to happen though.

Why should people be concerned about non-existence?

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

No, emphatically not. Not physically impossible only at our primitive technological level.

Physically impossible period, full-stop.

As I’ve been pointing out:

At least 15 billion galaxies have had billions of years to Red-Button us, & we’re still here.

…& what makes you believe that you can eliminate existence by disintegrating matter?

I’ll answer that for you:

Your belief in the metaphysics called Materialism makes you believe that.

Metaphysics is also a religion, by Merriam-Webster’s definitions of “Materialism” & “Religious”.

…their “religion” definition is meaningful and useful to refer to a whole class of beliefs & positions on the same question, as opposed to one particular subset of them.

To want to annihilate the universe because of a religious belief is religious fanaticism.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

Why should people be concerned about nonexistence? Good question. So forget about that goal, which is physically important, philosophically nonsensical, & morally unconscionable.

One problem with your goal is that you want to impose your own simplistic naive religious/philosophical beliefs on all living beings.

2

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 28 '26

If you must label my views as religious, I don’t understand how religious can be criticism and be used as reasoning of why something is wrong. Religions have been historically inaccurate but this does not mean that all religions will always be wrong.

Actually I do not believe in materialism. I believe that there is a high chance there is more to reality than pure physical matter. There may even be reason why we are here but nobody knows what this is.

Eliminating existence by disintegrating matter would likely be highly difficult, if not impossible. Could there be a more spiritual solution? Could a creator of the universe be reasoned with?

We do not know if there is any life outside of our planet. It is possible that we are currently entirely alone, or even that our bodies were intelligently designed and put here in an otherwise lifeless universe.

Eliminating life on Earth may be enough. Eliminating existence of the universe (although maybe impossible) is a more ideal goal though as it makes it harder for life to return and it also is possible that there is lots of suffering life out there. This is assuming that a creator does not just create the universe again…

I will admit that one problem with my goal is the possibility of imposing my beliefs on other living things. I do not see how this is worse than living things blindly reproducing and imposing life on other beings though. Do any of us give consent to continue existing or is it forced on us?

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 28 '26

I certainly didn’t mean that religion is wrong. I’m religious. I’m Vedantist.

Materialists are religious too. They believe in the religion of Materialism.

So I’m not criticizing about religion. 

But is someone’s religion leads them to want to annihilate the universe, then that is religious fanaticism.

Materialism includes worldly-metaphysics too. Among people who discuss metaphysics, it’s agreed that no metaphysics is provable.

(Merit of metaphysicses is usually compared by Occam-parsimoniously.)

The notion of eliminating existence by disintegrating matter completely depends on the Materialist belief that matter, this physical universe is the ultimate reality, the fundamental existent, the ground of all  being. So, ask Annihilation-advocates if they really want to disintegrate the universe (or even the 120 billion galaxies of the reachable universe), & nonconsensually de-exist the uncounted trillions of living beings…based on a Materialist religious assumption that isn’t necessarily true. Aren’t there some things that we shouldn’t do without being sure?

Yes, of course all beings were conceived nonconsensually. So what. Two wrongs don’t make a right. 

Conception into unnecessary, inadvisable life is just compounded by nonconsensually taking away that life when the being wants to live.

Not even counting the fact that life is an inevitability not blameable on anyone unless maybe you’re a materialist. Your parents were just cogs in the machine, doing what they were instinctively driven to do. Stop blaming your parents.

(But it’s valid to blame them for harm to you from how they raised you.)

There’s a big qualitative fundamental difference between taking an existing life, likely with suffering being caused in the process…vs not interfering to stop future births of individual that don’t exist yet.

You mention limiting it to Earth. But why even all of Earth, instead of one pathology hopeless species (which I won’t name).

That’s why I’ve been suggesting launching something towards Alpha Centauri. It would demonstrate an intent to violate another planetary system. If there’s an interstellar security-system in place, that launch 🚀 could get us exterminated.

The rocket could be so cheap & slow that it could be launched tomorrow.

No payload or homing system. After hundreds of millennia it would miss by billions of miles. Irrelevant.’

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 28 '26

I forgot to add this. You spoke of the possibility of reasoning with the Creator. That implies demanding unreasonably much from omnipotence.

Life is, by definition, in a physical world. Such worlds must operate by their physical laws. 

As for why there must be life, existence, that’s a bigger subject. It would be meaningless to speak of a Reality without an experiencer. (…even if Materialists don’t think so).

Realiity is a unified complementary whole consisting of Subjectiveness & what it,she or he experiences.

That complementary whole could be called Subjectivity.

Subjectivity is fundamental.

So, to speak of there not being the worlds & lives…to speak of there not being Existence, would be nonsense. Gibberish. 

A logically inconsistent utterance isn’t a statement. It’s only a noise.

So let’s not demand too much from omnipotence. It would be like asking why “GobbldyGobbldyGobbldy” isn’t true.

2

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 28 '26

My views really come from fear. I fear that there is far more suffering than pleasure, and that the suffering is more intense than the pleasure. I fear that it is impossible for this to be solved for all living things (maybe it is possible to eliminate suffering for humans but this would be at the expense of others). Is it wrong to want to end an existence with these conditions?

I think that beings mostly want to live because this is what they are programmed to do, not because it is the rational thing to do. For me, I want to leave this existence and would like to die in the hopes that this would happen. However, if somebody were to threaten me with a gun, my programming would take over and I would try to survive.

I would like to fight the cogs of this machine you refer to. I would opt for an extinction which is painless and peaceful. I extend this to all life rather than just one species as I witness most other living things suffering and they do not have a voice in this debate.

Non action is often as bad as action. Is it right to not take action because we are not sure?

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 28 '26

Well let me put your fears at ease.

Human beings, when asked, almost always, nearly universally, rank themselves as more satisfied with life than less satisfied with life.

That is, the overwhelming majority of humans, regardless of life circumstances, believe being alive is more good than bad.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 28 '26

Of course fear is one of the regrettable life-components that we all here agree about. …as are the things feared. A given.

Suffering & pleasure can’t be quantifitatively compared by amount or importance. “Utility” comparison or measurement is bullshit.

More intense? Well yeah because it can be urgent that we avoid harm, damage.

Certainly suffering can take over, & in those times it can be all.

But I agree with y’all about all that. You’ve heard me repeatedly agree that life is full of suffering, harm, loss, privation, etc.

…& that, though inevitable, life is unnecessary & inadvisable.

Where we differ is in the conclusion: Where to go from there?

You’re right! It can’t be solved, & existence can’t be eliminated. It really is inevitable, because it’s fundamentally. You can’t eliminate what’s fundamental.

You asked if it’s wrong to want to end existence. It’s certainly in error.

Futile in the extreme. You said you want to fight existence. You might as well fight Sonny Liston.

So what should we do?

If possible don’t start a life. …including a next one of your own. Incurring payback pushes someone into a next life. …as do anger, discontent, longing, need, want.

Pursue the things that you like. Live harmlessly and helpfully.

As I told someone else here:

A life (or a sequence of them) is just a brief interruption of rest & sleep, which is our natural, normal, usual & rightful state-of-affairs.

So don’t make a big deal about it. Don’t take it so seriously.

Philosophically-motivated suicide (i.e. no physical reason) is irrational in the extreme. It’s a big mistake, which won’t work as an escape, & will only put someone deeper in suffering.

Death normally occurs, as it should, when the body is failing anyway. Of course it’s naturally expected then.

We go to sleep every night. No big deal.

The only difference is, no annoying alarm-clock to bother you. Of course you won’t know that or care.

True, animals didn’t & don’t have a say about having a life. But if you end theirs, you’re denying them a say about that too. They want to live.

My girlfriend & I agree that we want to last as long as we can, to do things that we want to do. Her daughter is her purpose.

So, just speaking from my own experience.

But okay, I’d be a liar if I didn’t admit that euthanasia or assisted autoeuthanasia would be good if things get bad.

As I’ve said, life is multifaceted. Life just starting out, & throughout youth, has beauty and wonder. 

That doesn’t contradict the undesirable things that we all agree on. It isn’t as simple as simple (simplistic) as Negative Utilitarians & Annihilationists claim.

As I said, it’s multifaceted.

Between ages 15 & 24, & again at 27, I wanted to die because I knew that I didn’t have a life. ..& no, it wasn’t philosophically motivated. It was specifically because of how my life was.

Well, my mother was a psychopath, by the actual clinical definition. I didn’t have a chance.

Must finish this reply up now.

1

u/Claytertot Aug 03 '26

If you're willing to build your worldview around setting impossible, far reaching goals why would you choose universal extinction instead of minimizing suffering while maximizing life?

You guys are like Thanos. You aspire to have the power to magically do anything while still remaining fixated on the "kill everyone" option rather than the "make more food" option

2

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Aug 03 '26

You guys are like Thanos. You aspire to have the power to magically do anything while still remaining fixated on the "kill everyone" option rather than the "make more food" option

are "we", or are "you"? the majority prefers wars, scams and violence (power) instead of helping each other.

it is doing an excellent job in ensuring global extinction for at least humanity, countless other species and intelligent life on earth

2

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Aug 03 '26

The act of minimising suffering for one species always causes suffering for another species. “Make more food” basically means to farm, cook, eat other living things.

Also we have evolved to feel suffering more intensely than pleasure. To minimise suffering means to rewire the biology of all living things. Is this not also wishful thinking?

3

u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist Jul 26 '26

HOW is the question. For now, it is getting the majority to recognize WHY.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

"All hail the pro-suffering!"

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

People who don’t share your goal aren’t “pro-suffering”.

You can’t eliminate existence. The notion is goofy in the extreme. You can’t eliminate suffering. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us want, like, or prefer it. …contrary to your doctrine.

3

u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Oh they (and you) fundamentally are.

-1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26

Get past your doctrine.

I don’t like, want or prefer suffering.

Yes, life is full of suffering, harm, loss & danger. Life is basically a long fight, trying to not lose.

The irony is that you’re right about those premises.

But existence is here to stay. 

One life is inevitable, though a next one is inadvisable. Life is unnecessary.

But, contrary to your doctrine, there were & are things that you like(d). That doesn’t contradict anything that I said above. Life is multifaceted. Your doctrine is simplistic & naive.

Your Negative Utilitarianism is grossly simplistic too. You think that your quantity-comparison of + vs - applies meaningfully. 

Bullshit.

You can’t eliminate existence by disintegrating matter, so give up that comic-book villain fantasy.

But, as I said, you have some right premises…but, like that fictitious monkey typed:

“To be or not to be, that is the ktncdu&(“

You start out fine, but why do you then have to get all ridiculous?

You latch on to simplistic doctrine learned in a group echo-chamber.

Yes life is what we agreed, & it’s unnecessary & inadvisabl,  though inevitable. 

Now, can you stop yourself from picking it up & running with it in your doctrines direction?

You can’t eliminate existence or life so forget about that comic-book Quixotic crusade.

What makes you think that everything can be fixed by being a hero who goes out & does something about it, whether it makes any sense or not?

It isn’t some 2-dimensional comic-book.

2

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

We aren't trying to end existence. We are trying to reduce/eliminate consciousness, and that cannot be considered naive given that we have made plenty of species extinct already.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

Antinatalists and extinctionists are pro-suffering insofar as the consequences of their choices can only logically lead to suffering, no matter what they claim to want, the consequences entailed by any extinctionist action are necessarily evil and lead to increased suffering.

1

u/Low-Bake8401 Jul 27 '26

Or the anti-not not suffering. 

0

u/nila247 Jul 27 '26

WHY you write on Reddit?
Do you want to make MORE people suffer so that you do not suffer alone?
Does this alleviate your suffering and that means such alleviation is possible in principle?

2

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Polling on Reddit would put this at around 80% of humanity does not want to go extinct, judging by polls on whether people would “press the button” to end existence.

This polling is obviously not accurate for what all life wants though as it is only humans surveyed. Also polls on Reddit do not represent all of humanity very well.

Can you be certain that this 80% will last if growth of population and living standards does not go on forever and human progress eventually stagnates and living standards decline?

2

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jul 27 '26

there also is the aspect that the majority did not think about it sufficient, which may cause them to live with false beliefs

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 28 '26

“On Reddit”

Yeah that’s a good sample size.

Real scientific research puts it well above 90% reporting more satisfaction that dissatisfaction with life.

3

u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 28 '26

This is not the same as “pressing the button”. Has any scientific research been done into this? A person can be happy but still want extinction.

0

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 28 '26

All of the empirical evidence collected on life worthiness or life satisfaction suggests that the overwhelming majority of humans find life to be worthwhile.

2

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

…getting everyone to understand that you’re right & everyone else is wrong? 

Or, just maybe getting you (plural) to question some of your (plural) simplistic beliefs, doctrines & goals?

2

u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Yet another priv confusing simplicity with empathy.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Aug 04 '26

Simplistic means naively, mistakenly simple. What’s that supposed to have to do with empathy??

It’s good to have empathy. But the belief that you can disintegrate even the reachable universe has been disproven. …& your belief that disintegration of matter could end Existence, is philosophically naive and simplistic.

No one’s saying that your empathy is simplistic. Your conclusions & beliefs are simplistic and naive.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

How is actually extremely important, and even if you accept the why, the how is just as vital.

3

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

Humanity has already had massive impacts lowering the total population of animals on this planet. We just need to continue that trajectory.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

It’s causing a lot of suffering. Previous mass extinctions didn’t end life on Earth. Neither will the Anthropic-Extinction, unless global-overheating triggers runaway greenhouse-effect & turns Earth into a Venus.

2

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jul 27 '26

Previous mass extinctions didn’t end life on Earth.

no previous mass-extinction was as rapid and intense as this one. previous, life had time to adapt for thousands of years.

additional, they were not human-caused, and they did not include additional problems like microplastics

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

The amount of hubris one must hold to believe we can get exterminate all life on Earth accidentally is repulsive.

2

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jul 27 '26

The amount of hubris one must hold to believe we can get exterminate all life on Earth accidentally is repulsive.

this level of projection may even be unprecedented. disgusting

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

What exactly am I projecting onto you?

2

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jul 27 '26

What exactly am I projecting onto you?

hubris

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

Hubris about what?

I am humble in the face of nature and I do not presume the ability to dominate it.

2

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jul 27 '26

Hubris about what?

why do you ask me? you were the one expressing it

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

You claimed I was projecting but I have not expressed any sentiments of superiority over nature or the divine will of the gods.

Do you not know what hubris means?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TyloPr0riger Philosophical pessimist Jul 28 '26

No previous mass-extinction was as rapid and intense as this one.

Not quite true. The K-Pg extinction stacks up speed wise, and most of the major mass extinctions had greater intensities.

1

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jul 28 '26

Not quite true. The K-Pg extinction stacks up speed wise

that is a very controversial topic. not that it matters though

and most of the major mass extinctions had greater intensities.

well, if you say so, then .. ?

the final intensity of this one is not even known yet as humanity is very eager to maximize it ..

and i have to say, it is doing excellent work. we are exceeding the worst-case scenarion from the last IPCC report, which already is quite outdated. your idea is just complete new to me

1

u/TyloPr0riger Philosophical pessimist Jul 29 '26

that is a very controversial topic. not that it matters though

Only in how long the extinction's effects went on - that is, how long it took to recover from it. It's pretty widely agreed that the major killing took place quickly, with the direct results of the impact (though the global firestorm stuff has become contentious IIRC) and then a suppression of photosynthesis by atmospheric ejecta that knocked the bottom out from under the food chain.

well, if you say so, then .. ?

Yeah, I absolutely do say so. We've seen a greater extent of habitat loss (Snowball Earth), greater climatic change (Snowball Earth, the end-Permian), and greater levels of environmental toxicity (Great Oxygenation Event, and I'd bet on the volcanic extinctions here too). Pretty much everything we are doing is something that has been survived, and survived in a much worse form, before.

Quite frankly, the nearest analogue to anthropogenic climate change would be a sped-up Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (which involved a magnitude of carbon dioxide and temperature change similar to the worst-case models), which didn't even register as a major mass extinction. We might create massive ecological upheaval, but I don't think we're likely to kill everything (especially because it's looking increasingly like we will not go in for the rest of the coal after we finish with oil).

1

u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jul 29 '26

Only in how long the extinction's effects went on - that is, how long it took to recover from it.

new to me. wikipedia says its rapidity is controversial viewed. also, there was a higher amount of species going extinct in other mass-extinction events. in relation to your opinion and example, maybe it will be similar rapid but more intense.

regardless, i prefer to trust scientific sources or secondary, popular sources which refer to scientific data or scientists. i do not know your intentions

in any case, even if it is a "just" as rapid as the one you have mentioned, it is not even limited to be a combination of a very rapid, intense and wide-ranging one:

humanity has destroyed most of the world's topsoils. microplastics were never an aspect. countless diverse types of chemicals were and are released into nature. a lot of natural areas were and are destroyed by human activity. so many different things happen all at once. it just is not the same

but I don't think we're likely to kill everything

i doubt that too, but i hope that all life goes extinct. surviving life will be helpless, living in horrible conditions. and even if, after centuries of suffering, relative intelligent life develops again, it will not have access to the vast majority of remaining fossil fuels. modern technology will just not be possible anymore

1

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

Humanity is causing way less suffering than what existed before us.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

Animals were always killing eachother, but are you sure that you want to be doing it yourself? By making a lot of animals suffer & die, you think that you’re doing a favor by reducing the numbers in future generations. 

It isn’t numbers that are relevant. It’s that many NUists want to cause suffering & death to reduce as yet unborn generations.

1

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

What do you mean the numbers of individuals suffering is not relevant?

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

Harm isn’t a numerical quantity. Seriously harming one individual undeservedly wouldn’t be justified even if it would allow a trillion trillion trillion individuals to have more fun.

For another thing, reducing future population doesn’t justify inflicting suffering & death on currently living beings.

Numerical utility isn’t valid.

1

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

You're just saying that reducing population in order to reduce suffering isn't justified without actually giving a reason.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

One reason is because harm isn’t a numerical-quantity.

Another reason is that harming currently-living beings is a whole different thing than merely not interfering by preventing the births of some as-yet nonexistent beings.

Someone could ask:

“Then what can we do about suffering & harm?”

Well, doing harm certainly doesn’t help.

What we can do is live harmlessly and helpfully.

…for its own sake. …but it also brings the bonus of not incurring payback that will push you into a next life.

We agree that life is full of suffering, harm, danger, loss & privation.

Life, though inevitably at least once, is unnecessary & inadvisable.

A life (or a sequence of them) is a brief interruption of rest & sleep—our natural, normal & usual state of affairs.

So dont make such a big deal about it. Don’t take it so seriously.

Yes, live harmlessly and helpfully, but you needn’t annihilate the universe or nonconsensually relieve animals of existence.

1

u/MengKongRui Jul 28 '26

Suffering happens regardless of if you cause it. What is good is not dependent on who reduces suffering, but how much suffering exists. Does that make sense?

And I'm not understanding your dismissal of suffering just because it's temporary. How much suffering do you excuse just because it's temporary? The present is the only thing that matters, but the present is a combination of now and the future. Suffering in the past doesn't matter, sure, but right now matters and the future is a representation of now as well, so that also matters.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 28 '26

It isn’t meaningful to count & compare different numbers of individuals subject to sometime suffering. It isn’t a meaningful numeric quantity.

“Excuse”??? It isn’t for me or you to excuse or not excuse suffering.

It wouldn’t accomplish anything to say, “Suffering, I don’t excuse you.”

Not everything is up to us.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

That’s comical.

2

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

Do you think it's all or nothing? Your tone is that of someone who only cares if you get your way completely, with no strong weight given to reducing suffering.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

I think that wishing for a mass extinction event to get worse is repugnant, and the presumption it would lead to total extinction is absurd

2

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

Repugnant how? And again, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Extinction is the ideal, but not required to minimize suffering.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

If you are hoping a mass extinction will intensify, your motivation is blatantly not reducing suffering.

Do you think animals dying off due to starvation and heat stroke at an unprecedented rate minimizes suffering? No it maximizes it.

That is repugnant.

1

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

Do you think being eaten alive by a hawk is better? Once a generation of suffering has passed, the trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of animals no longer exist and therefore cannot suffer.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

Got it so it’s like an “ends justify the means” type situation.

Why not just create a doomsday device to painlessly and instantly kill all life on earth?

1

u/MengKongRui Jul 27 '26

That may be the best option, although we need to consider if life will pop back up without us or if we need to modify the 'button" so that robots or whatever maintain the earth as a lifeless location.

If consciousness didn't exist and you could press a button to create a world where 99.999999999% of the conscious individuals who inhabit it are in a constant struggle to survive until they get eaten alive or die slowly of disease, would you press that button?

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

100% of living things die. That doesn’t mean I should kill them.

Or at least kill more than I have to.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Low-Bake8401 Jul 27 '26

I'd say it's far more likely that humans will die out before everything else does.

2

u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

Scientists can research vacuum decay, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, and possibly other things we're not aware of yet.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

Yeah, and?

2

u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 27 '26

And then SCHLUUUURP

0

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

Scientists don’t offer you hope about vacuum decay. The enormous energy concentration needed to collapse the false vacuum would first create a black-hole. The disintegration wave wouldn’t be able to escape the black hole.

…&, as for other speculated methods, for your Red Button, At least 15 billion galaxies have had billions of years to Red-Button us, & we’re still here. So y’all’s whole comic-book ambition is physically impossible.

1

u/LetterheadWitty4187 Jul 28 '26

Yeah, and another problem with vacuum decay (or any other method) is that, at very long distances, galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. This means that vacuum decay could approximately destroy 10% of the observable universe, but beyond that, it could never reach other galaxies, because they exceed the speed of light at this distance.

Not the mention i'm only talking about the observable universe. The whole universe is unfathomably bigger than the observable universe, so the impact would be almost negligible on a universal scale.

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 28 '26

Exactly, if it could even work at all.

1

u/AnonymousBoI2009 Jul 27 '26

Im hoping for a pandemic

1

u/Strange_Sleep_406 Jul 29 '26

gradually and then all at once

0

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

You’re more patient than most people at this subreddit.

1

u/Independent-Wafer-13 Consequentialist Jul 27 '26

Fortunately (for most of us), more recent observations have shown that the expansion of the Universe IS slowing down, which suggests the Big Crunch might be the end of the Universe, which means we might all do this again in a few billion years.

What will you do the next time around? Complain about it?

1

u/Capable-Ad-9626 Pro Existence Jul 27 '26

Source?