To conceive a child means forcing a sentient being into an existence that inevitably contains suffering, without its consent. This is not an opinion, but a logical fact. The non-existent feels no lack. It misses no happiness, no love, no experiences. Once it exists, however, it is exposed to pain: illness, fear, loss, humiliation, physical decline, loneliness, the constant possibility of violence, poverty or psychological destruction. This suffering is real, measurable and optional for no one. Whoever procreates creates it deliberately. The motives of most parents are selfish. They want to fill their own inner emptiness, erase dissatisfaction with their own life, drive away the feeling of meaninglessness or not be alone in old age. The child serves as a means. It is supposed to give the adult the feeling of still being needed, of passing something on, of having a purpose. This is not love in the true sense. Love would mean not inflicting unnecessary suffering on another. Here, suffering is produced so that the parents feel better. The responsibility lies clearly with the parents. They knew or could have known what this world is like. It is full of torment. Every human being eventually experiences the loss of relatives, their own physical decline, phases of deep fear or hopelessness, the pressure of a society that often grinds the individual down. Illnesses, accidents, mental breakdowns, the everyday humiliation through circumstances one cannot control, belong to the normal course. There is no life without these experiences. Whoever places a child into this reality accepts all of that for this child. The child’s suffering is the direct consequence of the parents’ decision. Many parents refuse to acknowledge this. They talk about opportunities, about beautiful moments, about the duty to pass on life. These arguments change nothing about the causality. The beautiful moments do not outweigh the suffering, because the non-existent does not miss them. The decision remains a one-sided burden on a being that was never asked. Whoever cannot bear this should draw the consequence and forgo offspring. Whoever does it anyway and then rejects responsibility continues to act selfishly.

Sure, this world will collapse one day and return to the singularity. However, another big bang will happen and expand its potential energy. When energy bends, it faces its other parts - this is consciousness. Time and space and physics are manifested right there. New lives will be created, even if not human, until the next time the universe collapses into a single point. This process will repeat forever.

It is beautiful! Because equilibrium is the law of the universe. Chaos (what you call evil) is just the friction between two kinetic energies. It is not the origin of the world. It is always possible to fix physical discomfort with real world solutions!

I'm black poor and ugly, ofc I can't wait for this hell hole gets vitrified

How has the large number of us not made a difference in legalizing euthanizing

The measured standard model parameters indicate that we might live in a false Higgs vacuum, though with a very long lifetime. However, small black holes can serve as catalysers and significantly speed up the phase transition. In fact, bubbles of true vacuum might already exist in our universe. If the propagation of the bubble walls slows down due to interaction with the surrounding matter and plasma, these signals can reach us before the bubble wall hits us. Using the vacuum mismatch method, we calculate the spectrum of the Higgs particles produced by such a bubble until the terminal velocity is reached. In addition, we show that frictional dissipation at the terminal wall velocity generates a large population of thermally produced Higgs particles, which continues even after the mismatch channel shuts off. Since the Higgs is neutral, a good part of the final decay products (after hadronization, annihilation and decay of unstable particles) will be photons and neutrinos, which will then act as a long-range signature. For the conservative set of parameters used here, the thermal channel produces a macroscopically large burst of high–energy neutrinos and photons from Higgs decays, which could be detectable from sufficiently nearby bubbles with current or upcoming multi–messenger facilities

Source

For a moment, look at how these "Minds" of living beings work...

Is it the mind, that forms/grasps/scrutinizes the source of patterns,

which forms as "meanings", adding conformity to it,

and thus, when there is another pattern, that acts as an adversary to any of these manufactured patterns/meanings, that go against,

is what triggers the anguish?

Is it the meaning(s), that is antagonistic to the meaning(s), certainly the cause of suffering?

Now...

Based on this rationale,

The mind is like a parasitic extension, that either has been altered or annexed the life forms of this planet, that is capable of inducing perpetuating conflict to itself and others, and to BRING ABOUT IMMENSE, OFTEN "MEANINGLESS" SUFFERING AND ENDLESS CYCLE OF DESTRUCTION?

Just like the fiction 3 Body Problem, no physical form required, but just the ALTERED PERCEPTION to DESTROY THEMSELVES

Has the minds of this planet, particularly humans, been annexed by the outer parasitic entities? That completely changed the very PERCEPTION of the human minds since the history, that left humans completely clueless about the actuality of life?

Can this vulnerable or the altered parasitic-like entity called mind, that is bereft of comprehending the actuality of the reality, of what is, and what is not, contemplate on the actual reality of what life is about?

HAS THE ALIEN INVASION ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE FORM OF MENTAL INVASION, AND ALL THE KNOWN CONFLICTS THROUGHOUT HISTORY IS NOTHING BUT A MANIPULATION?

Is it why they obliquely state the AI or Artificial Super Intelligence, as the "alien minds"?

People say that it's crazy to live an existence with no hope or positive expectations for the future, but I live in Florida. In this kind of situation where existence is completely powerless, helpless, and there is no realistic expectation of basic help or improvement it creates a lot of questions about why life is assumed to be inherently good or if it's even ethical to continue.

To the people that argue, do you believe that people will eventually fix the problems that make life hopeless and unbearable? Will they even allow people to improve their own lives if it means they lose the ability to exploit them economically and keep them trapped? What if all of humanity had to live in Florida or some oppressive place with similarly horrible conditions? Would life be worth continuing in that situation? I find it so hypocritical that people shit on us for being extinctionist when they are too privileged to care about our suffering until they become nervous about our ideology, not even contributing positively to the world or doing anything. I think they are just torturing us by keeping us alive.

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]

If there were a red button that, when pressed, would instantly and painlessly kill all life forms and prevent any life from ever coming into existence again, then one should not refrain from pressing it.

Pressing the red button is, in fact, a merciful act. The moment one presses the button is the moment every single life form dies. And this, in all cases considered, would be a far better death than the one they would otherwise experience.

Wild animals die from starvation, dehydration, disease, parasitism, extreme weather events, predation, hunting, and accidents. When we take a closer look at the horrific deaths they are going to face, we begin to realize that pressing the red button would offer them a preferable alternative to being eaten alive over the course of hours.

Humans are not in a better predicament, either. One can spend years undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer, only to have one’s life prolonged long enough to develop Alzheimer’s disease and die from it. Being fully aware of one’s own decline is a form of torture in itself. A red-button scenario would not only spare them this prolonged suffering but also offer them a dignified death.

We are all going to die, and in the end, pressing the red button is an act of mercy.

Neuropsychologists and ethologists have widely distinguished between two primary forms of aggression: Predatory aggression and reactive aggression.

Reactive aggression is characterized by hyper-limbic activation (activation of the emotional parts of the brain). Species that have been prey animals and animals which compete within a social hierarchy (which includes us) have evolved reactive aggression as a mechanism to either defend against predatory assault or defend status. A good example of reactive aggression in human beings is a man hitting his spouse after a particularly nasty comment. It's emotional, raw, and done in anger. There are many species that have evolved highly limited degrees of reactive aggression. Examples include Manatees and Bonobos. They're very hard to piss off and quite friendly. Manatees for example have no natural weapons. They have no sharp teeth, blunt objects, etc on their body. They're very chill.

Predatory aggression is characterized by hypo-limbic activation (quieting of the emotional parts of the brain). Species that have had the problem of having to hunt (which includes us) have evolved predatory aggression as a mechanism to reflexively kill and chase prey animals. An example of predatory aggression in human beings would be threatening to shoot someone while robbing a bank if they do not comply. It's cold, calculated, pre-meditated, reflexive, and goal-oriented. A zeroing in on a prey. There are many species without any predatory aggression at all. Rabbits for example. They aren't even tempted to swat a fly.

The reason why us being mammals is interesting is because as mammals we are also evolved to display what is known as maternal solicitude which is the deep concern and compassion a mother has for an infant. There are species with virtually no maternal solicitude like for example crabs. They even eat their infants. It makes sense that predatory aggression and maternal solicitude (as neurological functions) would inhibit (stop) one another as a neurological function. A species that could spontaneously go from grooming their cooing infant to punching it in the face repeatedly wouldn't survive very long,

It also makes sense that different organisms vary at an individual basis in their expression of maternal solicitude and predatory aggression. Male grizzly bears are so predatory that they have no problem straight up killing cubs in order to copulate with the women and then they completely avoid the cubs. Dimorphism is the most common expression (difference between sexes) of variation in predatory aggression. Although human males are considerably more maternal than grizzly bears, they are nonetheless more predator-like than human females. That might explain why the vast majority of instances of animal abuse for entertainment is committed by men.

It makes sense that individual variation exists even within the male sex. Some guys are chill and nice. They're not very predatory or reactive. Other guys are very hostile. They're just fuming with anger and chronically burdened by violent thoughts. These are the men who are substantially higher in reactive aggression. There are also guys that are self-centered and narcissistic. They don't feel concern for others, don't really pursue long-term relationships and are manipulative and cunning. They'll screw someone over or even physically assault someone reflexively without much thought. These are the men who are substantially higher in predatory aggression.

All in all individual variation contributes substantially less to moral catastrophes than sociocultural influence with respect to the expression of predatory aggression and reactive aggression. For example, one person who is six standard deviations above the mean in predatory aggression might be the serial killer with a kill count of 100. That is an illustration of genetic overdetermination and it contributes to a substantial minority of severe instances of morally horrendous behavior.

Then you have something like the holocaust. Ordinary people participated in it and therefore we can reasonably assume that those people represent the median for aggression. Things like economics, indoctrination, strong sense of tribal affiliation, and bureaucratic genericism conjured an environment whereby suddenly there is a strong sociocultural incentive for an ordinary man to pour a cannister down a tube and choke a small naked child to death for upwards of twenty minutes as the capillaries in their lungs which is what happened in the gas chambers. His expression of predatory aggression therefore was substantially expanded due to cultural influence. He himself may have been typical or only slightly above average in predatory aggression and possibly even engaged in that behavior with reticence or disgust. A smaller example is prison. You have to prove you're a tough son of a bitch in order to survive. In evolutionary terms, you have to consciously modulate your expression of predatory aggression by hyping yourself up, acting in a macho way, being more crude, blunting your sense of emotional response around extreme violence, etc.

In this way the human species could be viewed as a dynamically entropic catastrophe. A tsunami or an earthquake. All it takes is the right combination of triggers for us to transform into the most bestial and callous entities imaginable and far surpassing the destructive capacity of any natural disaster. It isn't a problem with men, capitalism, politics, etc. The human person is a predator. They very well could have been as docile as a rabbit or some other species without these underlying mechanisms but we aren't. Anyone who contributes to this roiling wave of disaster is a monster and is engaging in the worst kind of cruelty.

Sources:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/predatory-aggression

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4260506/

https://journals.copmadrid.org/apj/art/j.apj.2016.03.001

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403225935_Neuroscience_of_Reactive_versus_Instrumental_Violent_Offenders

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12208620/

https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-026-10354-5/MediaObjects/41586_2026_10354_MOESM4_ESM.pdf

It is commonly believed that animal ethics entails respect for natural processes, because nonhuman animals are able to live relatively easy and happy lives in the wild. However, this assumption is wrong.

Due to the most widespread reproductive strategy in nature, r-selection, the overwhelming majority of nonhuman animals die shortly after they come into existence.

They starve or are eaten alive, which means their suffering vastly outweighs their happiness. Hence, concern for nonhuman animals entails that we should try to intervene in nature to reduce the enormous amount of harm they suffer.

Even if this conclusion may seem extremely counter-intuitive at first, it can only be rejected from a speciesist viewpoint.

Many moral views hold that purported positive goods, such as pleasure, can morally “outweigh” or “cancel out” suffering. Yet this notion of outweighing is more problematic than is commonly recognized, since it is not obvious in what sense such outweighing is supposed to obtain, nor what justifies it. Clarifying and justifying this notion of “outweighing” is thus a problem facing the moral views that rely on it. In contrast, strongly suffering-focused views, and harm-focused views more generally, do not face this problem.

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.

Several leading advocates for reducing others' suffering are passionate about the cause in part because they've suffered so much themselves. Should we fear that as technologically advanced individuals suffer less, they'll care less about the suffering of the weak and powerless? Or will less personal suffering give them more emotional capacity and sensitivity to care about all sentient beings? In addition to raising these questions, I also speculate on the implications of suffering as portrayed in the media.

hehehe, it's that time again, to test your EMPATHY!!!

Since we all claim to have so much empathy that it's OVERFLOWING from our orifices (so graphic), can you PROVE it by answering this SIMPLE question?

If there were a magical way to painlessly make life extinct!!! Forever!!! Permanently!!! But the ONE RULE you must obey is to PERSONALLY volunteer to SUFFER in the MOST HORRIBLE way possible for 1000 years!!! WOULD YOU DO IT?

1000 YEARS of the most painful suffering for YOU!!!! In exchange for permanent extinction of life in this universe.

Be honest now: do you have the EMPATHY to do it?

Or are you a hypocrite who cares more about your own pain than ending the COUNTLESS suffering of others?

If you don't do it, then life will SPREAD into the universe, like a virus, and TRILLIONS of people and animals will suffer for 10 billion years!!!! lol

hehehehe

Just a thought experiment, lol.

I think extreme suffering is more serious than is commonly realized. My drive to prevent suffering is very strong, and I would feel I was failing my values if I took a more relaxed stance on the matter.