All life should be ended. But how?

[JustSwingingTheD]

I think it's our moral obligation as the spearhead of evolution to destroy all life on earth. I base my opinion on the simple fact that all life at it's core is unnecessary suffering for nothing. Humanity alone going extinct would solve nothing in the long run, life would go on and evolution would eventually create a species close to our intelligence again.

Euthanasia for the whole planet would never be a result of a democratic decision, but some madman with enough resources and intelligence could achieve it. Let's all hope and pray that this madman soon appears. But how exactly could he achieve this?

By utilizing global warming? I must confess i'm not that educated on the subject, but somehow i don't believe the situation is yet that bad. I think that there will be huge problems caused by global warming, but the runaway greenhouse effect is going to take a lot more warming up than we have in the forecast. Artifically warming up the planet would take a huge amount of resources and wouldn't be a convenient way of bringing the end, so i'm sceptical about the usefulness of this method.

By causing a nuclear holocaust? Yeah, no. A global nuclear war would just make our already shitty planet more shitty. But no extinction, not for humans or for most species.

I'm sure that if some of the top physicists of our time could be convinced that this should be done, then it would be relatively easy to find a fast and easy method for the whole planet to CTB. Some chemicals that dissolve the atmosphere extremely effectively for example, just create huge amounts of those.

Your ideas are welcome

 

[Darkover]

grey goo

 

[Shadowlord900]

grey gooView attachment 100003

That looks like being eaten alive by thousands of tiny insects. That would be an incredibly painful way to go. I'd much rather have a meteor shower big enough to smash Earth into hundreds of pieces, at least that death would be quicker.

 

[leeloosnow]

i think life's ahead of you on that one friend- death's a guarantee.

rats will rise!

 

[Dead Ghost]

But are you aware that the universe works like this everywhere? The only purpose of a species is to impose itself over the others and achieve sufficient technological development so that before the resources of the mother planet run out it can colonize others and thus spread to other places and compete again for hegemony over other species in a constant struggle, infinite and full of pain.

If it were not the human species, it would be another species that would do the same, I mean that if humanity does not manage to leave that planet soon, another species will take over and will try as long as there are resources within its reach.

On the other hand, the human species (as an entity) is above each of the individuals that make it up, it will never allow a collective suicide unless it finds itself in a serious situation of unviability by itself.

//

Pero ets conscient que l'univers funciona així a tot arreu?. L'única finalitat d'una espécie es imposar-se sobre les altres i aconseguir prou desenvolupament tecnológic perqué abans que s'acabin els recursos del planeta mare pugui colonitzar-ne d'altres i estendres així a d'altres indrets i competir de nou per la seva hegemonía sobre d'altres espécies en una lluita constant, infinita i plena de dolor.

Sinó fos la humana sería una altre espécie la que faría el mateix, vull dir que si la humanitat no aconsegueix aviat sortir d'aquest planeta, una altre espécie li prendrà el relleu i ho intentarà mentre's disposi de recursos al seu abast.

Per d'altre banda, la espécie humana (com ens) està per sobre de cadascún dels individus que la conformen, no permetrà mai un suicidi col·lectiu a menys que es trobi en una greu situació de inviabilitat per si mateixa.

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

But are you aware that the universe works like this everywhere? The only purpose of a species is to impose itself over the others and achieve sufficient technological development so that before the resources of the mother planet run out it can colonize others and thus spread to other places and compete again for hegemony over other species in a constant struggle, infinite and full of pain.

If it were not the human species, it would be another species that would do the same, I mean that if humanity does not manage to leave that planet soon, another species will take over and will try as long as there are resources within its reach.

A good point. But so far we are only aware on life on earth.

On the other hand, the human species (as an entity) is above each of the individuals that make it up, it will never allow a collective suicide unless it finds itself in a serious situation of unviability by itself.

This is where i have to disagree. It's not about "being above" something, it's simply the lack of neuroticism and empathy in the general population that prevents the collective suicide from ever happening. It has been studied that more conservative, less empathic people are on average happier and less depressed. People who have no problems with letting others suffer so that they could live comfortably.

 

[makethepainstop]

A good point. But so far we are only aware on life on earth.

This is where i have to disagree. It's not about "being above" something, it's simply the lack of neuroticism and empathy in the general population that prevents the collective suicide from ever happening. It has been studied that more conservative, less empathic people are on average happier and less depressed. People who have no problems with letting others suffer so that they could live comfortably.

You are so right! They deny us easier methods to end our pain, but after that they don't give s damn about us.

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

Come on, there must be some amateur physicists here? Let's end the world here, brainstorm.

 

[BruhXDDDDD]

One word: BIOWEAPONS.

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

One word: BIOWEAPONS.

How would you eradicate all life on earth using life? I don't get it.

I mean i guess viruses aren't technically alive. But i'm sure there is no virus that would kill all animals on the planet. And even if there were that still leaves plants, fungi, and smaller organisms.

 

[BruhXDDDDD]

How would you eradicate all life on earth using life? I don't get it.

I mean i guess viruses aren't technically alive. But i'm sure there is no virus that would kill all animals on the planet. And even if there were that still leaves plants, fungi, and smaller organisms.

Genetically modified superdiseases. You can nuke people all you want but it would take a helluva lot of them for some kind of global nuclear winter to happen (and there are a lot of uncertainties regarding how bad it would actual be. Regardless, it's not something people couldn't bounce back from, even if it takes a few generations. With a superdisease or something similar you can't go anywhere near anyone else unless you're sure it's safe, so you'd have to be almost totally off the grid to survive.

 

[theboy]

We are born to die. The endless cycle.
We all want to die in peace. And by everyone, I mean every single person in this world.

 

[Ethereal Knight]

I agree that life should end, but I think this outcome is out of our hands.

The easiest way would be to just wait for some random spacial event to destroy Earth. Like random meteors, black holes, star explosions etc…

Nothing makes sense. It's all chaos. So may luck be on the side of those who praise the Nothingness!

 

[makethepainstop]

I think it's our moral obligation as the spearhead of evolution to destroy all life on earth. I base my opinion on the simple fact that all life at it's core is unnecessary suffering for nothing. Humanity alone going extinct would solve nothing in the long run, life would go on and evolution would eventually create a species close to our intelligence again.

Euthanasia for the whole planet would never be a result of a democratic decision, but some madman with enough resources and intelligence could achieve it. Let's all hope and pray that this madman soon appears. But how exactly could he achieve this?

By utilizing global warming? I must confess i'm not that educated on the subject, but somehow i don't believe the situation is yet that bad. I think that there will be huge problems caused by global warming, but the runaway greenhouse effect is going to take a lot more warming up than we have in the forecast. Artifically warming up the planet would take a huge amount of resources and wouldn't be a convenient way of bringing the end, so i'm sceptical about the usefulness of this method.

By causing a nuclear holocaust? Yeah, no. A global nuclear war would just make our already shitty planet more shitty. But no extinction, not for humans or for most species.

I'm sure that if some of the top physicists of our time could be convinced that this should be done, then it would be relatively easy to find a fast and easy method for the whole planet to CTB. Some chemicals that dissolve the atmosphere extremely effectively for example, just create huge amounts of those.

Your ideas are welcome

How about we evolve in to a better species than we are now. We both win life as we now know it is gone. I get my wish that humanity evolves into a better species.

 

[Gloom]

Nukes will probably do the job. You say all life has to die but you also don't want to cause damage to the earth? I'm guessing you just mean humans then. It's gonna be hard to be selective

I don't have much to say except global warming is a major issue in undeveloped countries. People are being displaced because of flooding and because the weather is being increasingly unpredictable crops are failing and people are starving. Natural disasters and heatwaves are more dangerous too. The west hasn't seen the consequences of global warming but soon enough there are going to be mass migrations due to increasing unlivable conditions in parts of the world.

 

[actual_fox]

I would disagree but the idea of humanity 2.0 scares me. Maybe there is a way to stop It like: Killing all the primates including humans or modifying all edible grasses (like wheat of barley or rice) in order to create inedible versions of them after few generations (no more agricultural revolution).

Then we could stop civilization from happening again AND save the planet from humans 2.0.

Life is not suffering inherently, suffering is not all that is. But humans do suffer more than any other animal (except animals farmed by humans), so we might just get rid of them. All wildlife should remain- they live much more stress free life and shorter lives. And are actually properly equipped to live on this planet.

 

[Sunset Limited]

If you create an invasive species that will drive the ALGs out of the ecosystem, all life could end. Because we owe oxygen to them. Maybe that life form is waiting frozen at the poles right now.

 

[Ashu]

No. To each his own. This is the highest law.

 

[Maudlin]

Here's a question, D. Is sentient A.I. in your definition of life?

Gotta define your target.

 

[JustSwingingTheD]

Here's a question, D. Is sentient A.I. in your definition of life?

Gotta define your target.

It doesn't exists yet, if it ever will, so your question is pretty irrelevant.

 

[LucyB]

I think it's our moral obligation as the spearhead of evolution to destroy all life on earth. I base my opinion on the simple fact that all life at it's core is unnecessary suffering for nothing. Humanity alone going extinct would solve nothing in the long run, life would go on and evolution would eventually create a species close to our intelligence again.

Euthanasia for the whole planet would never be a result of a democratic decision, but some madman with enough resources and intelligence could achieve it. Let's all hope and pray that this madman soon appears. But how exactly could he achieve this?

By utilizing global warming? I must confess i'm not that educated on the subject, but somehow i don't believe the situation is yet that bad. I think that there will be huge problems caused by global warming, but the runaway greenhouse effect is going to take a lot more warming up than we have in the forecast. Artifically warming up the planet would take a huge amount of resources and wouldn't be a convenient way of bringing the end, so i'm sceptical about the usefulness of this method.

By causing a nuclear holocaust? Yeah, no. A global nuclear war would just make our already shitty planet more shitty. But no extinction, not for humans or for most species.

I'm sure that if some of the top physicists of our time could be convinced that this should be done, then it would be relatively easy to find a fast and easy method for the whole planet to CTB. Some chemicals that dissolve the atmosphere extremely effectively for example, just create huge amounts of those.

Your ideas are welcome

Evolution is dumb and a joke. Yes its an actual joke courtesy of our captors. No one "evolved" we were brought here and our memory erased. This is not the real world that's why it's so fucked up. No one wants to do anything about it except me tho. We can get the fuck out of here if enough of us came together.