u/PitifulEar3303

Most super-deadly diseases/viruses end up killing their hosts before they can spread far and wide.

BUT, is it possible for natural selection to create a disease/virus that infects everyone but stays dormant for decades......and then get triggered by a certain natural mechanism to KILL EVERYONE at nearly the same time? Causing the extinction of a species, like humans?

Is this even biologically possible?

Most experts believe it's not possible. They believe only a lab-engineered disease/virus/nanobots can do something terrible like this.

A time bomb that will only explode after it has infected everyone.

Is this the problem of corrupt liberalism or just the corrupted elites of the economy and politics pretending to champion liberalism?

Because I don't think the average liberals changed their ideals much.

Also, Fareed dunking on democratic socialism like it's some extremist ideology, lol.

Regardless of how some people feel about RDK, they are doing good work for UKR.

Birds were dinos, literally millions of years head start compared to humans.

Also, they had fingers and possibly thumbs.

Why did they not evolve faster and smarter than humans?

Apparently, he wants to be couch shagger's friend.

Bill is definitely biased, in all the bad ways.

Question: If Superman is great at saving the world, but sometimes does really corrupt and terrible things to people, should we still praise Superman?

中国好多了，不可能学这些人吧？

对不？对。。。。不？不？

To go extinct or go on forever.

It's easy to say life is precious and great when you are not suffering with no cure or hope.

But what about the millions of victims that suffer from the worst fates possible?

If YOU were born into such terrible fate, would you still say life is great and precious and should go on forever?

Or would you become a hypocrite and say life sucks?

Extinction Vs Perpetuation, which is more moral, from the victim's perspective?

Extinction = no more future victims.

Perpetuation = lots of victims, and you could be ONE of them if you were unlucky.

I feel like I always have to avoid them, unless I know them well.

Nick Freitas, self-proclaimed devout Christian and "rational" conservative.

Is this dude a grifter or something?

He sounds too smart and too educated not to know what he said is grifty and dishonest.

And also a pro-Trumper.

People laughed at me months ago, when I suggested using cheap high-altitude balloon swarms to overwhelm RuZ defenses.

Now who is laughing?

Missiles, bombs, drones, the balloons can carry them all, cheaply and for ultra-long distances.

End suffering and create Utopia/heaven on Earth for 1,000 years, but life will go extinct after that.

Is it moral or not moral to use this ability?

Is life worth 1000 year of suffering?

People keep telling me that a truly happy life (overall, on their deathbed) is not only possible, but it's also the norm for most people.

Is this REALLY true? Are most people truly happy in the end? Until the last breath?

How do we know? Have we asked all the people who died?

Maybe nobody is truly happy in the end, and we are all just lying to ourselves, coping?

真的有这手段？

每当中共丑闻或遮不住问题时，就拿男女仇视来搞？转移焦点？

那女人当替死鬼？挡箭牌？

Serious question/discussion about life.

If there were a magical BUTTON that, if pushed, would permanently and painlessly erase all living things in this universe, would you push it? (Life will not return, lifeless universe, forever)

If you don't push it, then life will go on as usual, with a very uncertain future, and billions, if not trillions, of people and animals will continue to live through all the good and terrible experiences in life for MANY centuries to come. Extinction is still possible in this future, for a variety of reasons; it's just not going to be due to a button.

The pro-extinction people argue that we should push this button, because..........

1. There are too many victims of horrible lives, including animals, both wild and domestic. 6 million kids suffer and die young each year. Trillions of wild and domestic animals suffer horribly every year; most don't even make it to adulthood.
2. Utopia is impossible; even if we could somehow create bodies that are immune to pain (unlikely), the mind can still suffer, and we have no cure for mental suffering.
3. "But people who suffer still wanna live." - say the critics. But many people suffer and DON'T wanna live; what about them? Life is never great for everyone, and some victims will always hate their terrible lives. A life they never asked for, because nobody ever asked to be born.
4. So, in conclusion, if we truly care about the victims of life and empathize with their suffering, we should push the button so that nobody has to suffer ever again. Preventing future suffering can justify the extinction of life, because NOBODY wants to be the victim, so nobody should become the victim.

The pro-living people argue that we should NOT push this button, because........

1. Many people still enjoy their lives, including "some" animals. Their "Pleasure" somehow outweighs the horrible lives of the unlucky victims, a positive utilitarian argument.
2. Yes, Utopia is impossible, but that's ok, because we still have "progress". As long as we have progress, then it's acceptable for some unlucky victims to have terrible lives. Even if this progress will never reach every single person/animal on Earth.
3. Life is "inherently" precious and valuable, so we should not let some terrible lives get in the way of preserving life for as long as possible.
4. So, in conclusion, since "most" (citation needed) people want life to go on forever, then we should not push the button, even if millions of victims hate their terrible lives.

What about YOU? Do you think we should push the button to end all suffering or should we keep life going into an unknown future without Utopia (and lots of suffering, tragedies, pain, etc).

Serious question/discussion about life.

If there were a magical BUTTON that, if pushed, would permanently and painlessly erase all living things in this universe, would you push it? (Life will not return, lifeless universe, forever)

If you don't push it, then life will go on as usual, with a very uncertain future, and billions, if not trillions, of people and animals will continue to live through all the good and terrible experiences in life for MANY centuries to come. Extinction is still possible in this future, for a variety of reasons; it's just not going to be due to a button.

The pro-extinction people argue that we should push this button, because..........

1. There are too many victims of horrible lives, including animals, both wild and domestic. 6 million kids suffer and die young each year. Trillions of wild and domestic animals suffer horribly every year; most don't even make it to adulthood.
2. Utopia is impossible; even if we could somehow create bodies that are immune to pain (unlikely), the mind can still suffer, and we have no cure for mental suffering.
3. "But people who suffer still wanna live." - say the critics. But many people suffer and DON'T wanna live; what about them? Life is never great for everyone, and some victims will always hate their terrible lives. A life they never asked for, because nobody ever asked to be born.
4. So, in conclusion, if we truly care about the victims of life and empathize with their suffering, we should push the button so that nobody has to suffer ever again. Preventing future suffering can justify the extinction of life, because NOBODY wants to be the victim, so nobody should become the victim.

The pro-living people argue that we should NOT push this button, because........

1. Many people still enjoy their lives, including "some" animals. Their "Pleasure" somehow outweighs the horrible lives of the unlucky victims, a positive utilitarian argument.
2. Yes, Utopia is impossible, but that's ok, because we still have "progress". As long as we have progress, then it's acceptable for some unlucky victims to have terrible lives. Even if this progress will never reach every single person/animal on Earth.
3. Life is "inherently" precious and valuable, so we should not let some terrible lives get in the way of preserving life for as long as possible.
4. So, in conclusion, since "most" (citation needed) people want life to go on forever, then we should not push the button, even if millions of victims hate their terrible lives.

What about YOU? Do you think we should push the button to end all suffering or should we keep life going into an unknown future without Utopia?

Update: Seems like Alex is right. This problem is unsolvable; just read the replies below. Everyone has their own idea of "how much life is worth". Some cannot stand it, some wanna suffer forever, lol.

Serious question/discussion about life.

If there were a magical BUTTON that, if pushed, would permanently and painlessly erase all living things in this universe, would you push it? (Life will not return again, lifeless universe, forever)

If you don't push it, then life will go on as usual, with a very uncertain future, and billions, if not trillions, of people and animals will continue to live through all the good and terrible experiences in life for MANY centuries to come. Extinction is still possible in this future, for a variety of reasons; it's just not going to be due to a button.

The pro-extinction people argue that we should push this button, because..........

1. There are too many victims of horrible lives, including animals, both wild and domestic. 6 million kids suffer and die young each year. Trillions of wild and domestic animals suffer horribly every year; most don't even make it to adulthood.
2. Utopia is impossible; even if we could somehow create bodies that are immune to pain (unlikely), the mind can still suffer, and we have no cure for mental suffering.
3. "But people who suffer still wanna live." - say the critics. But many people suffer and DON'T wanna live; what about them? Life is never great for everyone, and some victims will always hate their terrible lives. A life they never asked for, because nobody ever asked to be born.
4. So, in conclusion, if we truly care about the victims of life and empathize with their suffering, we should push the button so that nobody has to suffer ever again. Preventing future suffering can justify the extinction of life, because NOBODY wants to be the victim, so nobody should become the victim.

The pro-living people argue that we should NOT push this button, because........

1. Many people still enjoy their lives, including "some" animals. Their "Pleasure" somehow outweighs the horrible lives of the unlucky victims, a positive utilitarian argument.
2. Yes, Utopia is impossible, but that's ok, because we still have "progress". As long as we have progress, then it's acceptable for some unlucky victims to have terrible lives. Even if this progress will never reach every single person/animal on Earth.
3. Life is "inherently" precious and valuable, so we should not let some terrible lives get in the way of preserving life for as long as possible.
4. So, in conclusion, since "most" (citation needed) people want life to go on forever, then we should not push the button, even if millions of victims hate their terrible lives.

What about YOU? Do you think we should push the button to end all suffering or should we keep life going into an unknown future without Utopia?

Serious question/discussion about life.

If there were a magical BUTTON that, if pushed, would permanently and painlessly erase all living things in this universe, would you push it?

If you don't push it, then life will go on as usual, with a very uncertain future, and billions, if not trillions, of people and animals will continue to live through all the good and terrible experiences in life for MANY centuries to come. Extinction is still possible in this future, for a variety of reasons; it's just not going to be due to a button.

The pro-extinction people argue that we should push this button, because..........

1. There are too many victims of horrible lives, including animals, both wild and domestic. 6 million kids suffer and die young each year. Trillions of wild and domestic animals suffer horribly every year; most don't even make it to adulthood.
2. Utopia is impossible; even if we could somehow create bodies that are immune to pain (unlikely), the mind can still suffer, and we have no cure for mental suffering.
3. "But people who suffer still wanna live." - say the critics. But many people suffer and DON'T wanna live; what about them? Life is never great for everyone, and some victims will always hate their terrible lives. A life they never asked for, because nobody ever asked to be born.
4. So, in conclusion, if we truly care about the victims of life and empathize with their suffering, we should push the button so that nobody has to suffer ever again. Preventing future suffering can justify the extinction of life, because NOBODY wants to be the victim, so nobody should become the victim.

The pro-living people argue that we should NOT push this button, because........

1. Many people still enjoy their lives, including "some" animals. Their "Pleasure" somehow outweighs the horrible lives of the unlucky victims, a positive utilitarian argument.
2. Yes, Utopia is impossible, but that's ok, because we still have "progress". As long as we have progress, then it's acceptable for some unlucky victims to have terrible lives. Even if this progress will never reach every single person/animal on Earth.
3. Life is "inherently" precious and valuable, so we should not let some terrible lives get in the way of preserving life for as long as possible.
4. So, in conclusion, since "most" (citation needed) people want life to go on forever, then we should not push the button, even if millions of victims hate their terrible lives.

What about YOU? Do you think we should push the button to end all suffering or should we keep life going into an unknown future without Utopia?

List them here, and let's fight about them. hehehe

Personally, I really dislike his views on consciousness and the "why" problem of science.