u/PitifulEar3303

WOW, Existentialism is LESS THAN 200 Years old.

Extinctionism/Antinatalism are EVEN more recent, maybe less than 50 years.

Which means it is still POSSIBLE for the majority to adopt some form of Anti-Life moral ideal in the future.

DEMOCRATIC EXTINCTION WINS!!! lol

Maybe give it 300 years or less, when climate change and other crazy disasters make life on Earth so bad that it becomes HOPELESS for most people.

hehehehe.

I am impartial, just an observer of existence, but this possibility is quite interesting, is it not? Time will tell.

HOWEVER......it is ALSO possible that humans may invent some form of immortality, create a self spreading AI species or even merge with AI (Praise Omnissiah!!! and become an eternal sentient that cannot feel pain/suffering or die. GASP!!!

Either way, this is GOOD NEWS, right? Kinda. lol

Either we DEMOCRATICALLY go extinct in 300 years OR we become immortal cyber sapienZ that will always be happy or some shyt. lol

Source:

Existentialism traces its conceptual roots to the 19th century in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard (around 1841) and Friedrich Nietzsche (around 1878), while the full movement and name came together in mid-20th-century France after World War II. [1, 2]

Key Timeline of Events

• 19th Century (Roots): Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard and German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche laid the philosophical groundwork by focusing on individual choice, personal responsibility, and a lack of pre-determined meaning. [1, 2]
• Mid-1940s (Naming): The French Catholic philosopher Gabriel Marcel coined the term "existentialism" around 1943–1945. [1, 2]
• October 29, 1945 (Popularization): French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre publicly adopted the label during a famous lecture in Paris called Existentialism Is a Humanism, launching it into a global intellectual movement. [1]
• Post-World War II (Peak): The movement surged in popularity as writers and thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus used literature and essays to address human freedom, anxiety, and the absurdity of life in the wake of World War II. [1, 2]

This is basically the opposite of "Would you stop someone if they were about to invent a doomsday device and cause the extinction of life?"

Most natalists and "regular" people would say yes, that's just their nature to reject extinction.

But what if this question becomes "Would you stop someone if they were about to invent immortality and remove our ability to feel pain/suffering?"

What would anti-life people say to this?

Stop them or let them succeed?

It's not because they are mindless, stupid, primitive, animalistic breeders.

It's not because they are immoral bastards.

It's not because they don't know anything about the reality of life, including the risk of suffering, the tyranny of luck, and inevitable death.

Don't tell me most people still don't understand how life/reality works after 200 thousand years of humanity, lol.

They KNOW, but they still want life, still reject extinction. Why?

Well, according to my research, it's because.............the SEXPERIENCE is......lol.......just joking, ok?

Ok, let's get serious.

It's because the EXPERIENCE of life is generally "good" enough for them to "want" more life, despite the struggles and other harmful stuff. This is the HONEST truth about most people and how they feel about life.

Most people simply don't live in literal hell, and due to evolutionary biology (selecting for psychologically resilient genes), this is enough "goodness" to keep them going and ask for more 'life".

They may complain about shyt when things get tough, but statistically speaking, they still "FEEL" good enough to want more life.

Simply put.....it's their NATURE. hehehe

They will only reject life when conditions get EXTREMELY bad and hopeless, personally.

Wait...........does this mean...........those who reject life, despite living in relatively "good" conditions, are NOT natural?

NO, lol, that's not how "nature" works. Nature INCLUDES both the norm (majority) AND the rare (minority). In fact, evolution is all about the rare that survived selection to become the norm. That's how life went from a majority of a single-cell "norm" to a multicellular "norm".

We are ALL "natural", even those who reject life.

So the important question becomes...........will the rejection of life become the norm of the majority in the future? The answer is........No idea. lol

Because nature selects for perpetuation of life, we have not seen any evidence for the selection of features that favor termination of life. lol

BUT, fret not, my fellow life rejectors, hehehe, because there is ONE Donald Trump card left to play. One card that nature couldn't account for........the card of TECHNOLOGY.

Even if the majority never evolved to reject life, it is still quite possible for future tech (AI, nanobots, particle physics, etc.) to "Grant" us the ability to THANOS life into extinction. lol

And it does not require the majority agreement to happen. Just enough powerful world-ending tech and "some" people who are willing to use it.

Heck, it may not even be Antinatalists/Extinctionists who use it, because humanity has many nutty minorities with "world-ending" goals, including religious ones. (e.g., the evangelicals).

TLDR; most people reject extinction and prefer life because it's their nature + the condition of life is not bad enough. Some people prefer extinction because it's also their nature, regardless of life's condition. Both are natural and valid feelings.

Wait.................

However..............

Technology is unpredictable and many-sided, with many possible paths. It is ALSO possible that humans (with the help of AI) may invent ways to live FOREVER, and even disable our ability to feel pain/suffering, both physical and mental.

This means, at least, "Some" humans may end up becoming happy immortals after merging with AI using nanobots or whatever, spreading across the universe like viruses. lol

Ending remarks:

Regardless, it is in BOTH our NATURE to WANT life and REJECT life. We can't help it. The tyranny of determinism controls our feelings like puppets.

Why? Because it's the ONLY way to make sure NOTHING ever suffers again.

Utopia is impossible.

No life = no suffering = eternal peace.

If you disagree, then trade your life with the life of a child grape victim on Epstein Island with stage 4 bone cancer.

You will not, because you know her suffering can never be justified.

Extinction guarantees eternal peace.

hehehe.

I mean, absolutely healthy and rich people keel themselves over emotional problems, which is the best proof that we have evolved to ONLY satisfy our emotions and desires, right?

Look at some primitive animals running on pure reflex and DNA if/else conditions; they would do anything to survive and breed, even when their bodies are put through absolute hell.

But humans, we KEEL ourselves when our emotions and desires cannot be satisfied, even when our bodies are absolutely healthy, and we are living in wealth.

Right?

We have evolved to become slaves to our emotions and desires. True? False?

According to Harry Porter. lol

Let's err.......celebrate?

I don't get the appeal?

Is this biological or psychological or both?

Physicist	Contribution to Disproving Local Determinism
John Clauser (1972)	Conducted the first actual Bell test experiment using photons. His results showed a clear violation of Bell's inequality, providing the first physical evidence against local determinism.
Alain Aspect (1982)	Advanced the experiment by changing the detector settings while the photons were already in mid-flight. This closed the "locality loophole," proving that the particles couldn't be subtly communicating or exchanging signals at the speed of light.
Anton Zeilinger (1998+)	Closed the remaining "freedom-of-choice" loopholes by using completely independent, unpredictable systems—such as light from distant cosmic quasars—to choose the measurement settings. This ruled out any localized environmental interference.

Physicist	Contribution to Disproving Local Determinism
John Clauser (1972)	Conducted the first actual Bell test experiment using photons. His results showed a clear violation of Bell's inequality, providing the first physical evidence against local determinism.
Alain Aspect (1982)	Advanced the experiment by changing the detector settings while the photons were already in mid-flight. This closed the "locality loophole," proving that the particles couldn't be subtly communicating or exchanging signals at the speed of light.
Anton Zeilinger (1998+)	Closed the remaining "freedom-of-choice" loopholes by using completely independent, unpredictable systems—such as light from distant cosmic quasars—to choose the measurement settings. This ruled out any localized environmental interference.

hehehe.

But Redditors keep telling me that Buddhism is a religion and Buddha is their god or something.

Are Redditors derpy?

UPDATE: WOW, some of you derps are trying REALLY hard to equate Buddhism to other major religions. You guys do realize that BUDDHA HIMSELF said he was not a god/deity or that he had supernatural divine powers, right?

Nihilism is neither optimistic nor pessimistic; it simply is the raw condition of the universe.

Optimism = bias, subjective, coping.

Nihilism = the way the universe is, with or without people.

Optimistic nihilism = I'm subjectively biased, coping, and hoping for a better future of the universe for people like me.

A huge asteroid or cosmic ray may hit tomorrow, deterministically, BOOM, all dead. The nihilistic universe does not give a shyt.

lol.

Right?

The universe is nihilistic, so what?

Do we no longer prefer similar things all the time? Subjectively? Is this not the ultimate goal we all share?

As long as we prefer similar things most of the time, till the end of time, then nihilism changes nothing for humans, right?

Avoid harm, get pleasure, breed like idiots, enjoy hedonism, etc. lol

Unless antinatalists/extinctionists, they prefer the big kaboom and everybody dies. lol

What say you?

Is consciousness a mistake and we should go kaboom? lol

I mean, just look at all the mega churches, politicians, companies, etc.

They are making BIG MONEY from their religious leanings and religiosity, yet they behave like atheists in their day to day operations. lol

Is this why more and more content creators and influencers and celebs are "becoming" religious?

lol

Easier to get donation, sponsors, and business deals when you are "religious"? Especially if you "converted" from atheism?

hehehehe

You ONLY have TWO choices:

1. Press a button that erases life on Earth, painlessly, including yourself.
2. Do nothing; you will suffer for years, if not longer, while other people live happy lives.

Note: You cannot self exit in this thought experiment, either you erase life on Earth, or you suffer for years.

So........is life still precious enough for you to suffer for years, if not longer? Answer honestly, don't be a hypocrite.

THE RESULTS ARE IN!!! Most of you would press the BUTTON to erase life on Earth.

THIS MEANS you have NO ARGUMENT against Antinatalism and Extinctionism. hahahaha

You've been morally gotcha!!!!!

Every year, MILLIONS of people suffer incurably and ONLY extinction could stop their suffering, because Utopia is impossible.

This means Antinatalism and Extinctionism are morally RIGHT!!! GOTCHA!!!!

lol

This is their argument:

1. A harmless utopia is impossible; somebody (and many animals) will always suffer.

2. Nobody wants to be the victim; nobody will swap their lives with the victims.

3. It's not fair or moral to perpetuate life if we can't create a harmless Utopia with no victims.

4. If we have empathy for the victims, then we are obligated to make life extinct. Because no life = no more endless cycles of victims.

What do you say to this argument based on empathy?

Or as long as humans could survive the future. Maybe 1 billion years.

Why?

I thought most nihilists don't wanna have kids or don't believe life is great, so why do YOU personally want life to go on for many, many million billion gazillion years into the future?

It's not like you would be alive to see it?

What for?