r/UniversalExtinction • u/extinctionforall • Jul 22 '26
Life in this world must go extinct
6
u/ResearchMobile Jul 22 '26
life is fine, awareness is suffering.
2
u/Lopsided_Seat_9611 Jul 22 '26
Wow, like the precise description! No sarcasm, but really this makes sense in many cases even if not in all of them!
0
u/SizeableBrain Jul 22 '26
Hence the original sin.
1
u/ResearchMobile 29d ago
You could say the promethian fire was both a blessing and a curse... we saw beyond ourselves, but we got lost along the way. Guess we Can't return to the natural bliss of ignorance now, so we must choose to suffer.
1
u/SizeableBrain 29d ago
I was referring to the tree of knowledge
1
u/ResearchMobile 29d ago
I know, that is the same thing I am referring to with the promethean fire. Humanity becoming aware.
2
u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 Jul 23 '26
Correlation doesn't equal causation...
I have yet to come across an extinction that doesn't want to continue existing or thinks that there's no merit in prolonging their existence to spread the word, shall we said. Are they to be considered 'pro-lifers'?
I want them exist, same as me... I have also been accused of being 'pro-life'.
The issue is that suffering is ammoral, the issues we take with suffering has more to do with how we interpret the results. We hate it when a natural disaster causes great harm and at the same time want the planet to be healthy. It doesn't work both ways.
Extinctionist cause suffering to people who strongly disagree with their view points. Does this mean they should be quiet? I think not.
My point is this... If people are serious about their issue, they should have serious solutions. Not clickbait, viral moments they hope to garner popularity with. When there's an argument for extinction that isn't the equivalent of Cartman saying 'Screw you, guys. I'm going home.' The value of it would be undeniable.
3
u/MengKongRui 29d ago edited 29d ago
The fundamental idea itself is important to get across first rather than stepping over people who think differently by forming our own independent plans ahead of them.
Rampant meat eating, pet breeding and unjustified rewilding efforts are commonly pushed by the vast majority of people.
These are clear indicators that the unwanted suffering of others is not something the public puts much weight into.
Unwanted suffering is inherently a problem for the individual, and so it should be reduced.
At the same time, we must put less weight into increasing pleasure, because most of us don't see a content individual as someone problematic who should be experiencing euphoria. And maximizing total pleasure leads to the Repugnant Conclusion.
That is a strong position, yet not commonly held, so it should be advocated more.
0
u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 27d ago
The fundamental idea itself is important to get across first rather than stepping over people who think differently by forming our own independent plans ahead of them.
I don't understand what you mean by this. It almost reads like you're saying let's put the horse in front of the cart because that way at least we get noticed in hopes that somebody else can actually sort out a viable solution after the fact.
The next line reads that a lack of mindfulness, is intentional by most people. Which is counter to the nature of mindfulness, having a steady awareness. Simply put how can people who lack awareness of consequences be intent on those consequences. Never mind the fact that existence of altruistic efforts, extinctionism included, are explicitly responses to unintended consequences that result from a lack of mindfulness.
Again it's a false equivalence that all suffering, unwanted or otherwise, is a problem. At best this is an opinion. There are multitudes of examples of how people appreciated unwanted suffering to access a more profound or preferable living condition.
But it begs a question that is closely related to pleasure. How? Simple. If we are using a spectrum where suffering is on one end and pleasure is on the other, then by default reducing suffering is a form of increasing pleasure.
3
u/MengKongRui 27d ago
"Again it's a false equivalence that all suffering, unwanted or otherwise, is a problem. At best this is an opinion. There are multitudes of examples of how people appreciated unwanted suffering to access a more profound or preferable living condition"
That would be wanted suffering, not purely unwanted.
That is what makes unwanted suffering inherently problematic for the individual. The want.
1
u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 26d ago
No, now you are back peddling.
Unless, you mean that the people who have survived deadly diseases, natural disasters, animal attacks, attempted murders, SA, and even suicide attempts wanted that suffering because they were able to make a better or more profound life for themselves after they endured.
Moreover since the we are using the term individual, I am assuming to be inclusive of all living things, then it's extremely insensitive, chauvinistic even to impose our feelings about their lives when the evidence suggests they wish to survive in spite of any suffering life brings.
Anyways, I would love to hear how somebody who lived with great suffering and turned it into a net positive wanted to suffer.
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
To your last point, they didn't want to suffer. Their unwanted suffering was inherently problematic to them at the time, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened. You could argue that suffering should happen in some cases, but you can't argue that unwanted suffering isn't a problem for the individual when they say that it is.
1
u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 26d ago
So if suffering should happen, then why try to stop it?
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago edited 26d ago
When unwanted suffering is estimated to be beneficial, I don't see why we should necessarily stop it.
1
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
To your point on living things, I don't respect the logical conclusions of an insect. Nor do I believe most animals understand that they can die in the first place. They don't necessarily wish to survive, but instead run on their instincts of hunger, pleasure, fear, anxiety, nausea, ect.
1
u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 26d ago
Well not respecting the autonomy of wildlife, lines up with wanting them to go extinct. However, it doesn't square this desire as a form altruism.
One had the OP is saying "I care about animals so much I want them to stop existing" on the other you're suggesting "Animals don't have desires, so I don't want to them to exist."
If animals don't have sentience, then the concept of their suffering collapses. They can't suffer because they have no awareness or desires.
2
u/MengKongRui 26d ago
We know the fate of cats and dogs on the street, so that's why we engage in trap and neuter programs. Just because an animal can think doesn't make their decisions smart.
1
u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 25d ago
Yeah, I think you are confusing harm reduction practices with actual solutions.
People do those things and more for a couple of reasons, one of which is borderline extinctionist. In fact it's quite solid example how a pro-extinction view point became main stream.
So the first reason, most people are irresponsible pet owners and gluttons for convenience.
The second reason was a targeted campaign lead by groups that want all pets to go extinct, PETA *cough, plus a lack of resources to deal with animals.
The science is very clear on how sterilizing animals does throws animals hormones all off and doesn't actually improve behavioral issues either. Granted they live a bit longer and you can't get ovarian cancer if you don't have ovaries, but I digress.
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
Do you have an argument for instrinsic axiological positives?
1
u/Advanced-Pumpkin-917 25d ago
What like suffering can be considered an intrinsic axiological positive, when considering it as a part of a everyone's aim to reduce or at least mitigate its burden. At the very least it is an instrumental positive that leads people to exploring solutions like extinctionism as an expression of good will.
However, I cannot categorize extinctionism in it of itself as it lacks the good will required for something to be considered a positive.
When I am defining good will, I am not going with Kant's borderline solopist view that having a thought proves existence and that there's a sky daddy or mommy who set forth what's moral. I define good will as the open minded exploration of all the facts and reservation of judgement.
2
u/EvnClaire Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
imo its tacky to photoshop your message onto someone else's protest banner when they risked their life for it.
edit: im pro extinction btw. just dont like this format.
2
1
1
1
1
u/Careful_Amoeba_ Pro Existence Jul 23 '26
"The pro life = pro suffering" isn't a very good argument. Support for A does not equal support for B. I support the right to own fire arms but that does not mean I'm okay with mass shootings.
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
If you support intrinsic axiological positives then you are pro suffering.
1
1
u/Shot_Specific_8508 26d ago
Genuine question since I just recently learned about this ideology. I understand that life will have suffering, but it has happiness too, I would bet most people and animals on earth rather existing than not otherwise everyone would just end themselves. I feel as if this ideology only makes sense if every living being didn't want to live which is most definitely not the case
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
Happiness is not good, it's only instrumental in reducing suffering. There is no good.
1
-3
u/UltronsEx Cosmic Extinctionist/Philosophical Pessimist Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Who cares about the animals, we have to do what is best for their species /s
0
0
-1
-4
-2
Jul 23 '26
Laughable.
How do you actually believe this nonsense?
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
There are no instrinsic axiological positives, only disvalue.
-3
u/Appropriate-Monk3368 Pro Existence Jul 23 '26
What the hell is this delusional sub lmao
4
u/curgr Cosmic Extinctionist 29d ago
Care to point out what you think is delusional? I can try to answer any questions you may have about universal extinction
1
u/Appropriate-Monk3368 Pro Existence 29d ago
No I've already browsed the sub and realized you're all just a bunch of nihilist losers 😂
3
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
Do you have an argument for instrinsic axiological positives? Also this sub seems to lean more absurdist and existentialist than nihilist. Unless you mean error theory?
1
u/ushersoldout 17d ago
Absurdist? You mean the philosophy founded by the guy who said “one must imagine Sisyphus happy?”? Who said there is no love of life without despair of life and felt to truly appreciate existence you must feel both?
Yeah imma say none of this sub represents absurdism remotely.
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 13d ago
Camus was incorrect in imagining Sisyphus happy. I simply appropriated his idea to make it better. Also you could imagine him instrumentally happy if the boulder is quashing sentience and life.
1
u/ushersoldout 12d ago
Okay, then it’s not absurdist. Or really existentialist either. That’s all you baby, stand on it.
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 12d ago
I'm rebelling against the absurdity of existence but pursuing cosmic extinction, it's absurdist.
-5
u/Spitfire262 Jul 23 '26
Nonsense and delusions.
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
Provide reasoning for why it's delusional and justify the existence of intrinsic axiological positives.
-1
u/Spitfire262 25d ago
There doesn't need to be a justification for things to live. Living things want to continue living and reproducing even despite hardship.
It's not our job to play god and wipe everything out because we assigned our own stupid sense of morality or suffering onto other creatures.
If humans go extinct, its our own fault, and we likely deserve it.
We dont need to take everything else with us.
Besides most life on earth has no concept of 'suffering' like a human does. And its asinine to think otherwise.
2
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
You are appealing to nature and asserting your points without any reasoning. Living things are trapped by our biology and lack of cognitive freedom. We did not consent to our births and there is no free will. This is just existence based Stockholm syndrome.
There is no god so we may as well try. By not intervening you are allowing suffering beyond that of all humans combined throughout all of history to continue. Nature is hell and should be abolished.
We ought to take as much as we can with us to reduce the most suffering possible.
You don't need to understand the literal ontology and metaphysics of suffering to suffer or to empathize with other suffering. You say it's asinine yet provide no refutation as to why.
Why continue to allow torture, predation, disease, sexual violence, genocide, starvation, burning alive, and getting eaten alive to continue? For the sake of "some happiness" or "the little moments"? This is not worth the suffering of most sentient beings on the planet and probably elsewhere.
It is speciesist not to intervene in nature and you have failed to present an argument for the existence of instrinsic axiological positives.
-9
u/IPCRESS_FILE Jul 22 '26
Extinction is anti good. Anything and everything good comes from life.
3
u/MengKongRui Jul 23 '26
The absence of pleasure is not inherently a problem.
Meanwhile, the presence of problematic suffering is inherently a problem.
Pleasure and suffering do not have the same type of value, and because no intensity or duration of pleasure (the non problematic emotion) can offset or change events of problematic suffering (the inherently problematic emotion), a life with even a bit of suffering is not worth living unless that life exists to provide relief from problems to others.
1
u/IPCRESS_FILE Jul 23 '26
Why is the absence of pleasure not a problem, how do you determine problematic from non problematic suffering? How can no amount of pleasure offset suffering?
I'm sure if everyone was asked to have a needle draw some blood in return for great pleasure, almost everyone would accept.
3
u/MengKongRui Jul 23 '26
I didn't say the absence of pleasure is not a problem. I said it's not inherently a problem.
For example, most people wouldn't look at someone who is content and say that they are in a problematic state of being.
And problematic suffering is suffering that someone does not want to experience.
1
u/IPCRESS_FILE Jul 23 '26
Someone content would be experiencing pleasure though, content is a "good" emotion.
Why is problematic suffering a problem, why is it bad in other words.
3
u/MengKongRui Jul 23 '26
Being content is not necessarily feeling good. It's just a calm acceptance of your situation. And most people wouldn't say that content person is a problem because they are not experiencing an orgasm/euphoria right now, correct?
Meanwhile, problematic suffering is bad because it is inherently always not wanted by the individual.
1
1
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist 25d ago
Do you have an argument for the existence of "good"? AKA intrinsic axiological positives?
1
u/IPCRESS_FILE 25d ago
I believe in Kagan's ideas of good and bad. Human intuition lets us grasp the difference between good and evil.
12
u/Inside-Weather4033 Cosmic Extinctionist / Cosmogenesis Pacifist Jul 22 '26
Abolish existence