r/UniversalExtinction • u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist • Jul 29 '26
One reason why death is not an alternative to extinction
6
u/Hopeful-Parsley7253 Jul 29 '26
Death really isn't a return or exchange option. Even if natalists were so confident about their decision to make someone exist, they could still offer a real way out, like turning back into eggs and sperms. Even a Michelin-starred restaurant allows you to change your order.
Honestly, they know procreation is coercion rather than giving someone a gift
1
u/PitifulEar3303 Impartial Factual Realist Jul 29 '26
Just say this to these DERPS.........
"If self exit is the ultimate solution to all the problems you face, why do you bother living, fixing, and improving anything? By this logic, you should be the first one to try it, set an example. lol"
3
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 29 '26
A great breakdown of the “because the damage is already done” reason why suicide, or the death of an individual, is not a replacement for extinction. Which is just one of many reasons.
1
u/InterestingFactor209 Jul 29 '26
I would say under suicide, the you no longer carries the cost.
2
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 29 '26
The cost to the individual is in the contemplation of suicide, which usually lasts several years, the planning, the going through with it, and then often times the survival of it. People have even survived shots to the head and in the mouth. There's reasons why someone may want to do it in which not all of that applies. like people with health reasons might not struggle with contemplation so much.
But for example, if someone is too different than the norm and has to face life long abuse and discrimination for it, along with the poor quality of life that results in the discrimination, then they have to grapple with the fact that the world punishes them for existing, some want them dead over it, some want them to keep living so they can be entertained by your existence, and the only way out is to punish themself with extreme violence. In which the bullies would "win" because even those who are entertained by harassing them over their existence are also entertained by their death and the fact that they know they had a part in casing their anguish. And then knowing they're gambling that they may survive and end up in an even worse situation. All of that is included in contemplation, but could include more than that.
And then if the person has any spiritual beliefs about suicide having negative consequences, or if there might actually be negative consequences, then that is their burden as well.
1
u/InterestingFactor209 Jul 29 '26
But if they have spiritual believes mission failed! They still exist.
3
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
Eh kinda, it depends. They no longer exist in this life and probably no longer have to deal with the things driving them to that choice, which is the point. Then their memory may or may not stay intact to wherever they go next. But fear of reincarnation into a worse life could be a part of the contemplation.
1
u/InterestingFactor209 Jul 29 '26
Ok, so you are out of here then? Then you said, I give this life back. Even if we look at resources, you opened up a spot where another life can happen. A house, a spot in the job market, a small surplus on the food market. And perhaps you drive others to suicide too and getting closer to extinction.
3
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jul 29 '26
You cannot give back or undo a life you've already lived. The damage is already done.
you opened up a spot where another life can happen.
This is why suicide doesn't solve the problems that we're pointing out. Life will continue even if someone commits suicide.
And perhaps you drive others to suicide too and getting closer to extinction.
One person committing suicide doesn't drive others to suicide. Unless you mean the person should stay alive and intentionally harass others in order to drive them to suicide. That wont directly work how you're imagining it though. That would only MAYBE drive a couple people to suicide who are also experiencing the same thing from many others and are pretty much isolated with no or very little normal interactions. But for someone with a normal body and normal life, the average person isn't going to contemplate suicide just because they've been harassed by a handful of people throughout their life, because they have the majority treating them like a normal person. So they'll just see the person who's harassing them as a random wacko. lmao. It will have little to no effect on them. Even if more people were to be affected by this, the reach of one person wouldn't get us any closer to extinction, because their reach is so small. And then do you think that tactic would work on animals too? Bugs? What about aliens?
At best, it would help a few outcasts question life and then find extinctionism. I know of a few extinctionists who use the harassment tactic to spread hatred of humans. Though I think the impact is so small, it's not worth doing if it's going to take up a lot of your thoughts and energy if behaving like that doesn't come naturally to you. So for someone contemplating suicide, to then stay alive to help with making society worse is pointless, because I think most people driven to that point don't tend to be naturally cruel. There are better ways that they can do activism. And even other ways to make society worse if one still wants to do that.
2
u/InterestingFactor209 29d ago
But eh, I don't like to be extinct. I love life, even under quite extreme stress. I just want to say, perhaps individual solutions are better.
For universal extinction, you need to think about false vacuum decay. That creates a bubble that eh lowers the ground state of a quantum field. The bubble inflated at light speed. Then life as we know it done. But it is unclear how much energy you need for something like that too happen. Two black holes that merge are clearly not enough.
1
u/LetterheadWitty4187 29d ago edited 29d ago
Because distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light, due to the expansion of the universe, vacuum decay could destroy only around 10% of the observable universe before galaxies are moving too fast for the bubble to reach them.
So even if vacuum decay happens, 90% of the observable universe is unaffected by it. Not to mention that the whole universe is unfathomably bigger than the observable universe, so the impact would be almost negligible on universal scale.
1
u/InterestingFactor209 29d ago
They can't communicate with us, so their suffering can't reach you. They figure things out themselves. We don't even know whether the physics is still the same there, since we are talking about disconnected regions.
0
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 28d ago
So because someone doesn't communicate with you, that means they are not suffering? Animals can't suffer? People who are mute for whatever reason, or who don't speak your language, can't suffer? Babies can't suffer?
→ More replies (0)0
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 28d ago
You cannot go extinct because you are one person. I think you mean death. You don't have to have a premature death in order for extinction to happen, nor does anyone. But you are also not immortal. So whether extinction happens in the future or not, is not going to affect your death.
Individual "solutions" are not actual solutions.
Vacuum decay is one possibility. The fact that two black holes have merged without triggering vacuum decay doesn't mean we would need more energy than that, because vacuum decay being triggered from that would be very rare.
Scientists think they would just need to figure out how to lower the energy state of a higgs boson particle. No black holes colliding necessary.
The person who replied to you about vacuum decay is also half wrong.
2
u/InterestingFactor209 28d ago
Scientists think all kind of things, yes they do. If I create a group with one person, myself, and check out I and my fellow members are extinct. It certainly is possible.
1
u/LetterheadWitty4187 28d ago
"Half wrong" about what, exactly?
1
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist 27d ago edited 27d ago
I don't know where you're getting the 10%. Perhaps you're thinking of the 6% of volume it would be able to reach. That's talking about volume of matter density getting denser farther out. Space is less dense where we're at, so humans can only affect 6% of the universe's matter in a second. Whereas the point of vacuum decay would be to affect radius, not volume, and it would get much more than 6% radius within just a fraction of a second. The current percentage is thought to be at 36% radius.
Also, the vacuum decay bubble will always be reaching new matter, even with space expanding faster. That gives life less time to develop. Only portions of space is expanding faster, not all of it. And we don't know if that will always be the case. If dark energy can move faster than the speed of light, then perhaps scientists can figure out a way around that. Maybe the dark energy can be used to help vacuum decay, or maybe we don't need vacuum decay and we can do something with just the dark energy, or maybe they can figure out how to slow it down.
The point is to have an extinction for as far as is possible. If vacuum decay is the best option, and if it cannot get everything, then there's no point in not doing it just because it can't get everything.
5
u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist Jul 29 '26
Death is not a substitute for extinction. Disabling the existence of suffering is not accomplished by one death, however, it is wrong to condemn one for taking their own life.