No news, I know, but still. This barbaric rule of Planet Earth dictates EVERYTHING.

As mundane as it sounds, I already had this realization as a child observing red and green traffic lights. Green for one side means red for the other. Winning in one game (most games are competitive) means that another person loses.

On the most microscopic level, our bodies constantly fight bacteria and viruses. Thinking about this, because I suffer from a painful UTI right now.

Even our body cells sometimes fight each other.

Did you know that cancer origins in a cell breaking the "cell contact" and tries to override other cells with its script? It may ignore signals telling it when to stop dividing, evade programmed cell death, and eventually expand at the expense of surrounding tissue.

Fleeting peace can only exist at the expense of someone else or when two equally strong forces temporarily compromise.

No thanks. Earth 2/5 ⭐, never again.

(It's not one star because people would opt out otherwise and Earth would be quite empty)

"Are there different possible outcomes given the present state of the universe? One might think that much depends on our answer to this question. For example, if there are no alternative possible futures given the present state of the universe, one might think that ethics and efforts to improve the world would cease to make sense."

“Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last. Imagine that you are doing this but that it is essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature...in order to found that edifice on its unavenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me. Tell the truth.”

― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

This has been stuck with me for a while, and every time I'm lost or feeling down, I always come back to this thought.

The probability of you dying is 1 in 1 — it's guaranteed. You will die, one way or another. But the probability of you being born as exactly who you are is something like 1 in 400 trillion. Those are the odds we're up against, and I think most people don't even realize how rare we are — how lucky we are to be born as ourselves, to the parents we have. I know some people might disagree, given how their life is right now, or their relationship with their family. But the fact that you exist, as you, is a miracle by any measure — and I'm not bringing any god into this. I'm saying: don't waste it on something so silly, because everything ends. Even the very earth we stand on will meet its end one day.

Speaking of that — the fact that we're out here fighting over and capturing land that will eventually be destroyed, either by our sun or by ourselves, will always be the biggest comedy that the future of humanity comes up with, if we ever find a way to survive long enough to look back and laugh.

1. Since you admit you don't yet have the numbers to make extinction a reality, what are some things you're doing in the meantime? Whether it be trying to convince people extinction is the way to go or helping to stop cases of suffering whenever you can?

2. Many popular and successful ethical frameworks take multiple values into account. Extinctionism only focuses on suffering (rather, the abolition of it). Explain how other values (such as autonomy, justice, achievements, etc.) fit into extinctionism.

3. Why are you focused on obliterating the universe? I understand that there's the big freeze, the big rip, etc. But triggering it while humans are still around is just comically absurd even if you do have the numbers. Best you can do is eliminate all life on Earth. And the end of the universe will come with time.

4. Can you actually stress test your philosophy in an actual debate? I'm not talking about James' TikTok debates where he talks to unprepared people who haven't thought this through. I'm talking an actual debate with a philosopher with debate experience. This can either make or break your movement.

Is there a name for this and if not should we make one?

It seems to be beyond normal masochism.

Despite humanity only being here for 300 thousand years, and human civilization for only 12 thousand, we have managed to sprint directly toward a self-imposed finish line. Where the dinosaurs spent 165 million years pacing themselves in a long, sustainable equilibrium with the planet, humans chose acceleration over longevity. In a mere geological blink, we overrode the natural checks and balances that govern other life, replacing a stable evolutionary plateau with a volatile, vertical spike.

Humanity conquered disease, bypassed geographic limits, and engineered an artificial world powered by the compressed energy of deep time. But we didn't really beat the system. We just compressed our timeline.

By overriding nature's self-regulating loops, humanity has compressed millions of years of ecological impact into a few turbulent centuries. On our current exponential trajectory, we are not just facing an uncertain future; we are actively engineering an incredibly short-lived burnout.

Warning: this is quite a depressing post.

If society collapses (maybe due to climate change disrupting food supplies, global war, running out of fossil fuels…) most humans and domesticated animals would likely starve and we would lose most modern comforts.

A question for pro-existence people: would you keep your belief that existence of the universe is desirable if society was to collapse, even if you were one of the starving?

A question for the extinctionists: do you believe that society will never collapse and that humans could eventually develop the technology to at least make life on Earth extinct?

My views: I am 70% sure that society will not collapse in the near future. If humanity makes it and we still have sufficient energy resources, we could eventually develop the technology to make all life on Earth extinct in a painless and peaceful way. However it is unlikely that we will develop and use it unless the extinction movement grows and becomes a majority.

Edit: minor clarifications.

Whenever i see some bullshit going on i just think to myself that nothing is eternal. I wanna let time do its thing and chill. Ultimately the goal for a antinatlist is unachievable (at least within my lifetime). What is achievable is me refusing to be a part of this suffering perpetuation machine and thats all i have strength for, if i were a perfect person id also try to relieve some of the pointless suffering but alas im not. Do any of you actually work towards "universal extinction", or is that more like an ideal?

Hartmann thought humanity would have to pass through three major illusions before it could finally reject existence. First in earthly pleasures and goals (dopamine), then we move hope to an afterlife, and finally we place it in future progress through science, technology, and social reform. He believed humanity would eventually exhaust all three and then realize that the problem is life itself.

Which is more convincing to you? Hope in pleasure, after death, future technology and policies, or extinction?

I’ve been thinking about how people compare what’s happening now to past mass extinctions like the asteroid or major climate shifts. Everyone focuses on losing apex predators or iconic animals, but I feel like we’re missing the actual structural problem.
Complex life didn't evolve over billions of years just because top predators died off and got replaced. It worked because Earth built a huge, unsexy middle layer of species. All those mid-sized, moderately reproducing, specialized organisms acted as a buffer during crazy environmental shifts. They kept energy flowing and held the system together long enough for complexity to build back up over time.
What we’re doing right now is different because our expansion works like a weird filter. Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and chemicals don't hit everything equally. They gut that exact middle layer.
What’s left is just extreme polarization. You get a few struggling top-tier species at the top, and a flood of hyper-resilient generalists and pests at the bottom.
Without that middle buffer, the system loses its ratchet mechanism. If the top tier collapses from current stress, there's no step-down fallback anymore. The whole thing doesn't just pause—it resets back hundreds of millions of years because the stepping stones required for complex life to re-emerge are simply gone.

Let's see.

View Poll

Scientists are exploring ways to extend human life dramatically, but what if immortality becomes possible? Discover the hidden dangers, ethical dilemmas, and psychological consequences of living forever.

Pure hypothetical.

If humanity's survival depended on half the population dying, and there was genuinely no other way, would you think it's the right decision? Or would you rather refuse to make that choice, even if it meant eventual extinction?

I'm more interested in the reasoning than the answer.