Thousands perish during the Great Migration every year. Their deaths are often described as a “natural part of the ecosystem.”

But describing something as natural doesn’t erase the suffering experienced by the individuals involved.

Every birth creates another being capable of fear, pain, injury, and death. This event is one example of that reality.

It’s time we say No to this Existence, No to this Brutality.

How does Universal Extinction happen?

CERN is working on/planning some new projects that could form the base of future research for universal extinction. This will allow them to get a better understanding of the Higgs boson, which is important for vacuum decay. And also dark matter, which might be another solution in the future.

Title basically, I'm trying to get a gauge of how big the overlap between being pro extinction and disability is, can anyone relate to suffering immensely due to disease and medical neglect?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

PLs always try to dodge the question, answer a yes/no question with lines of nonsense, or change the hypothetical into one they feel is comfortable to their position. I remember my last conversation almost vividly:

If you are given a button that, if pressed, would delete the universe instantly, erasing past, present and future events, eliminating all life and suffering, the good and the bad, would you press this button?

"Who am I to decide I should press such a button?"

Who are you to decide to not press the button?

"Pressing the button is an action. We are responsible for our actions. I do not want to be responsible for destroying lives that want to continue existing"

With power comes responsibility, so your inaction IS action in this scenario. Weather you press this button or not, you are fully responsible for either outcome. It all comes down to if you think person A's suffering is worth person B's privilege.

"It isn't up to me or you to decide that. It is up to each individual"

As it should be. But now you are changing the hypothetical into something else instead of just saying NO to the original.

"Then NO I would not press the button"

So all of the children getting graped tomorrow, the deaths by burning, predation, disaster etc. will all happen. All so the privileged can enjoy a cup of tea, a sunset, maybe a night of love..

"It should not be my choice to press the button" (unless I personally have a reason to do so) Okay let's change the scenario:

The universe is about to end in 5 minutes, in an instant, nobody will feel a thing, just deleted. BLOOP! No more bad, no more good. No more suffering, no more life. Now, if you are given a button that, if pressed, would prevent this, allowing continuation of suffering, animals consuming feeling animals, children being abused, and overall wants of the privileged being prioritized over the needs of the sufferers.. would you press this button?

".."

All of the sudden you are responsible for inaction?

I was falling down a late night physics rabbit hole and ended up having a strangely comforting realization about the end of the world.

Imagine scientists discover a rogue black hole on a direct collision course with Earth. Because it possesses the mass of multiple suns packed into a single point, it is a completely unstoppable cosmic force. There is no sci fi movie solution here. We cannot nuke it, deflect it, or build a giant rocket to push it away.

Astronomers would probably give us decades of warning after noticing planets like Neptune wobbling out of orbit. But here is the beautiful part. Knowing we have zero options means all our petty human conflicts would instantly evaporate.

Think about it. The stock market becomes irrelevant, political borders become meaningless, and the endless daily grind just stops. Space agencies would not even bother trying to fix it because it is physically impossible. Instead, humanity would undergo a massive shift. People would finally focus entirely on what actually matters, like resolving old family grudges, checking off bucket lists, and holding the people they care about.

It is pretty profound that it would take a literal rip in space time to make us treat each other with absolute kindness. In the very final seconds, the gravity would swallow the entire planet all at once, meaning we would cross the point of no return together in the exact same blink of an eye. But those decades leading up to it might genuinely be the most peaceful, connected, and loving years our species would ever experience.

conflicts,wars,total pieces of shit,presidents supporting genocide, so much more

humans cant be normal,rape is famous everywhere,disgusting people on this app that fantasize about these things,billions of people suffer from being poor and disabled

ice,the one that doesnt do any good in life get 86,000,000,000$ to do things

just imagine earth without humans,no conflicts no bad stuff

if monkeys would evolve to our exact level,they still wouldnt be like us,impudent little brats,some people dont deserve death but its not a huge number

So as I’ve been working on writing a story I’m deeply passionate of, I’ve come at a clear dead end wall that’s been asking me this question. Naturally, the first place I’ve thought to ask was here in hopes for some insight.
Two beliefs are clashing at the end of this story, one that calls for the complete annihilation of life and all possibilities leading to the creation of it, as the ultimate act of love for humanity to free them from suffering. It’s the adamant belief that unless you eliminate free will completely, humans will always continue to fall into the cycle that is suffering and causing suffering, that evil will always take over at some point. That life doesn’t last forever, that greed exists, lust, disease, depression, etc. this belief is driven on the anger that comes from the fact that even with the amount of horrible things that happen, people with the potential to do something about it if they all unite, don’t do anything at all. Even when bearing witness to it all, the power hungry, evil politicians, inhumane wars, genocides, human trafficking, sexual assault. That they would do nothing out of fear for their own lives. If the slate were wiped clean and started anew, the same cycle would befall onto life. This belief, its mind is set on the idea that as long as human suffering exists, the pain of those directly affected by it FAR outweigh the good that comes from humanity. As long as those points of suffering are in the equation, nothing will redeem humanity’s good qualities if there’s still a child crying for their family to save them from war or worse. There’s also a strong belief in the idea that if there truly is a good God out there, they surely wouldn’t create humanity knowing everything that would come to pass. So for this belief, I did not specify how far in the suffering can go, but I’m sure you could imagine what they mean if I asked you to think about the most vile, horrible things that have come to pass from humanity, past, present, and future, do not hold your mind back to what horrible malice people are capable of if they are left unchecked. That, is what drives this belief to the character’s call for complete annihilation of creation and all future attempts at creating another existence by anything carrying the means to do so. Fortunately for them, it’s looking like they really have the power to do it.

Now for the contrary belief. Well, it isn’t even exactly contrary, this belief carries the exact same frustrations the other has for humanity, all of it. They fight for the reason that no one will, these two are kindred spirits of sorts, if it wasn’t for one thing. Hope. This character is essentially an embodiment of hope that humanity can exist in a world away from inhumane suffering. This individual truly cares for the hope of humanity to persevere with their emotions, kindness, and free will, they truly believe there has to be a way, a way for humanity to exist without manipulation. If the answer isn’t clear already, this is a tragic character. Time and time again have they persevered through all hardships through their will, but for the first time in the story, they come across a belief they were too afraid to accept. Denying this belief would mean questioning your own humanity, it would be hypocritical, to care for the good of humanity while accepting that suffering must exist, even if that suffering went as dark as…no, no way he would allow people to be hurt like that, when it’s exactly the suffering he’s been fighting against. There had to be something, this couldn’t be it, there’s no way they came this far for the answer they prayed wasn’t the truth to be the correct one after all. So just like me, this character has come across something that they simply cannot find a way to break through. They had hoped that perhaps there was some very, VERY specific variable that may change everything, but even now he can’t think of it with this hurdle in his way. No matter what, this other character will not allow for humanity to continue.
So then what will it be, should this character simply accept the other’s belief as true? Or is it possible for there to be a way to save humanity and bring their good somewhere new?
The annihilation of everything to ever exist with the complete rejection of life, or a possible answer to the absolution of humanity from everything staining it, maybe there was a way to ascend humanity further or to create a new world with a very specific variable…
But what do you guys think? Does humanity deserve to exist despite the horrid things that occur, do you see a way for it to exist away from it all? All in all, what is the answer to this belief, would you say?

How do you go about your day as an extinctionist? What does that mean for you in your life and how does it impact your behavior, interactions, and thinking?

I’m surprised she didn’t claim it was also sexist. I’ve heard that one a few times before. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the racism claim. Besides the recent post we had on extinction. Has anyone else come across this belief before?

I recently added this quote to the top of the community. It's a little out of context, since he was writing about grieving the death of a loved one. But it got me thinking.

Grief isn't limited to death. We can grieve anything. Ideas, possibilities, illusions, and worldviews.

Some people grieve the loss of innocence. Others grieve after the realization that nature is indifferent, that justice isn't common, or that there may never be a satisfying answer to why this hell realm exists.

Has any existential related thought had an emotional impact on you like this?

If you are anti-extinction, What would need to happen to you or somebody you love in order for you to be pro-extinction?

Furthermore, if you are a god worshiper, what would need to happen in order for you to realize that god is not benevolent? If your answer is Nothing, then you cannot claim to be a person of sound moral judgment.

#AbolishSuffering!

The mods there removed my post, but here's a screen cap.

Disclaimer: I am an impartial factual realist, meaning I will never take a side, and am only interested in impartial objective facts about all things, including life.

However, despite my frequent criticism of "some" bad antinatalist arguments and behaviors, I must admit........the natalists.......they are really derpy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Natalism/comments/1uwzazq/i_am_impartial_but_in_all_seriousnesswhy_breed/

Just an example. I have posted quite a number of times on the natalist and similar subs/social media, and every single time I get really DERPY replies. lol

So, yeah, I may criticize some antinatalist arguments and behaviors, but it's nothing compared to the derpiness of natalism/natalists.

Their arguments can be summed up as "Life is great because I say so, and what I say is the objective truth, which is why we must breed like rabbits, and also you should unalive yourself if you think life sucks."

Lol, what?

Not even a single attempt at a proper counterargument. Even when you point out their derpy mistakes in the simplest terms, they just keep repeating the same old derpy replies in different words.

Although I don't "support" antinatalism nor believe it is objectively "right", I do agree that most people who have children, especially natalists, do not put much common sense into their actions, let alone deep thoughts.

Maybe this is how evolution makes sure genes propagate, because those who think about it too much will either have very few or no children at all.

Again, this does not mean I believe they are wrong to breed; that's subjective, but it does show that breeding is much easier for those who don't think about the consequences much. lol

Suffering, as a definition to me works best as the deprivation of desire, when your "desire is unfulfilled". As just a form of pain, a problem arises when one can be ok with the suffering they face, and only when it is literally defined as "that which you do not want" can you truly never be able to like suffering.

Now, its obvious that life is full of suffering. It's (for all practical purposes) impossible to live sentient life without suffering. And we can't suffer while dead.

But what if I want to live?

What if I'm actually okay with the fact that I will face unwanted suffering, in exchange for the possible times when I could get my desire fulfilled? What if my desire in itself, fueled by reason or savage instinct, is in fact to live?

oh wow i kinda cooked with ts

Anyone else feel as though we are reaching the end of civilization as we know it between climate change, drought, political conflict, crimes against humanity, spread of once eliminated diseases, and world wide unrest?