Venting Life is awful for the vast majority of animals on this planet

[Darkover]

Nature is brutal. Most animals live short, painful lives filled with hunger, disease, parasites, extreme weather, and the constant threat of being eaten. Even those at the top of the food chain still suffer from injuries, infections, or starvation if they can't hunt effectively.

The sheer amount of suffering in the wild is staggering, especially considering that most animals die young—many right after birth. Evolution doesn't prioritize well-being; it only ensures survival long enough to reproduce. From an antinatalist or pessimistic perspective, existence for most creatures seems like an endless struggle with little reward.

This is why i advocate for the destruction of the world

if existence is inherently full of suffering, then eliminating it might seem like the most ethical choice.

But destruction on a global scale would also cause immense immediate suffering, which contradicts the goal of reducing harm.

From a purely numerical perspective, —ending all life would mean no future suffering, whereas allowing life to continue guarantees countless more beings experiencing pain, fear, and misery. If suffering outweighs pleasure, then preventing future births could be seen as the most ethical choice.

But total destruction also erases any potential joy, meaning, or beauty that might exist, even if fleeting.

if suffering is the dominant experience for most beings, then occasional joy might seem insignificant or even cruel, like a brief distraction from an otherwise unbearable existence. If the vast majority of life is suffering, then even the "good moments" might just serve to keep the cycle going rather than truly balance out the pain.

the existence of any joy doesn't justify the immense suffering that comes with life.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I wonder how animals do feel. I can't imagine life can be all that easy or fun and yet- they keep reproducing too. Governed by their intincts I suppose.

I can't say I'm mad keen on the whole: 'I'll make decisions for all of you. I know best.' In any regard. Either when people are pro-life and they try to 'save' everything. Or, they're too pro-control- they enslave animals and people into factory farming with no real regard for their quality of life- which we all likely participate in to varying degrees. Or, they're promortalist and want to obliterate everything in sight. I think we're very nuanced creatures. What may look intolerable to you may be gratefully accepted by another.

That said, I suppose logically speaking- were it even possible to snuff out all life simultaneously and peacefully- I suppose it could be viewed as the safest, kindest option.

No matter how much you advocate for it though, I think we're way off that kind of technology! So- all we can do is try to minimize the hurt we cause while we're alive I suppose.

 

[Eudaimonic]

I couldn't agree more. Wildlife suffering is a massive, neglected problem with no simple solution.

However, advocating for world destruction may not be the wisest choice as a suffering-focused advocate!

 

[2messdup]

Nature is brutal. Most animals live short, painful lives filled with hunger, disease, parasites, extreme weather, and the constant threat of being eaten. Even those at the top of the food chain still suffer from injuries, infections, or starvation if they can't hunt effectively.

The sheer amount of suffering in the wild is staggering, especially considering that most animals die young—many right after birth. Evolution doesn't prioritize well-being; it only ensures survival long enough to reproduce. From an antinatalist or pessimistic perspective, existence for most creatures seems like an endless struggle with little reward.

This is why i advocate for the destruction of the world

if existence is inherently full of suffering, then eliminating it might seem like the most ethical choice.

But destruction on a global scale would also cause immense immediate suffering, which contradicts the goal of reducing harm.

From a purely numerical perspective, —ending all life would mean no future suffering, whereas allowing life to continue guarantees countless more beings experiencing pain, fear, and misery. If suffering outweighs pleasure, then preventing future births could be seen as the most ethical choice.

But total destruction also erases any potential joy, meaning, or beauty that might exist, even if fleeting.

if suffering is the dominant experience for most beings, then occasional joy might seem insignificant or even cruel, like a brief distraction from an otherwise unbearable existence. If the vast majority of life is suffering, then even the "good moments" might just serve to keep the cycle going rather than truly balance out the pain.

the existence of any joy doesn't justify the immense suffering that comes with life.

Pet animals have a horrific existence too. Most of them bored out of their skulls. No opportunity to express their natural behaviours. Either kept with others when they prefer to be solitary or kept alone when they need company of their own kind. Fed to obesity. Neutered, ears cut off, tails cut off. Dressed up in clothes. Trained using pain and fear. Kept in enclosures far smaller than they need to express natural behaviours. Fed species-inappropriate food. Most owners have no idea about the behavioural and emotional requirements of their pets - they are baby substitutes and treated as such.
And world destruction - no, just get rid of humans. The human race has ruined this world and made life intolerable for virtually all animals, both domesticated and wild. Immediately ban all human reproduction so we die out like the dangerous dogs were meant to. Leave the world to more deserving species.

 

[Kalista]

nature is neutral. it's 'brutal' to the eyes of someone with an opinion. nature operates without intent or judgement. it's human perspective that casts these ideas of brutality towards the natural world itself.

human intervention on the other hand is what causes most of the world's problems. its human action that disrupts the natural course of both the living and non-living due to the fact that we have the ability to think, plan, and deliberately change our surroundings to however and whoever we want -- which sets us a part from the animal kingdom.

humans are the problem, not nature

 

[Eudaimonic]

nature is neutral. it's 'brutal' to the eyes of someone with an opinion. nature operates without intent or judgement. it's human perspective that casts these ideas of brutality towards the natural world itself.

human intervention on the other hand is what causes most of the world's problems. its human action that disrupts the natural course of both the living and non-living due to the fact that we have the ability to think, plan, and deliberately change our surroundings to however we want -- which sets us a part from the animal kingdom.

humans are the problem, not nature

It is nevertheless filled with suffering. Perspective does not change that.

 

[Pluto]

 

[niki wonoto]

Life is not fair. People often say this phrase, but I don't think they have ever think (or feel) deeply about it. I've personally come into conclusion that the fact that life is unfair in itself, should already be obvious that it's not a good thing. There are people who suffer immensely, but on the other side of the spectrum, there are people who live happily. Where's the goodness in that? It can only be 'good' if you're lacking empathy, to be honest. And this also extends to the nature & animal world as well. It's eat or be eaten world. I don't know if whether god exists or not (& the same with all any other 'spirituality' universe systems such as karma, Law of Attraction, etc2). but if it does, then I honestly think/feel that this existence is just not a 'good' one, let alone a 'perfect' one (nor the "best possible world" argument made by some people). It's not heavenly, paradise, nor utopian. It's not a sunshine & rainbow world. Wake up to reality! It's harsh, cruel, cold, limiting, stupid, absurd, chaotic, & depressing.

 

[JesiBel]

Well, all living beings struggle to survive, even microorganisms. Some may feel pain, or have consciousness or thoughts... and may perceive suffering better.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Almost every animal died by being eaten alive by other animals, parasites , or bacteria.

Even a lion or wolf got old diseased or injured then other animals attacked the defenseless creature and slowly ate it alive

All this technology including houses , shoes , clothes, tools, any product , hospitals , did not exist 30,000 , 100,000 years ago. Humans were like another animal sleeping at night in the dirt with all the ticks , tapeworms , mosquitoes, spiders , molds , bacteria, other parasites etc on top of them.

even today there are trillions of microscopic bacteria , other parasites living inside and on the skin of humans for example on the face live face mites : all this can be internet searched. i worked in a nursing home it is possible for them to keep alive a human in constant unbearable pain as from incurable skin sores from age 60 to 90, alsheimers, dementia, stroke , cancer ,diseases, why is all this and everything i ever posted hidden but they just say "life is wonderful look at the stupid sunset and burn your retina but it's so "pretty" : fuck all that shit and all of existence . fuck eating a sandwich the extreme pain possible dwarfs anything

Ticks have the Lyme disease bacteria. Even today I've seen several just on this site want to commit suicide Lyme disease is so horrible

100.000 years ago Humans were cold , hungry all the time like most animals are .

U were hungry had to walk miles every day no shoes in rain heat or snow to try and kill an animal with a rock and eat it raw.

U wanted clothes or shoes u had to invent them and make them out of sticks as and rocks : good luck with that.

Life was even worse 50,000 years ago for humans

nature is neutral. it's 'brutal' to the eyes of someone with an opinion. nature operates without intent or judgement. it's human perspective that casts these ideas of brutality towards the natural world itself.

human intervention on the other hand is what causes most of the world's problems. its human action that disrupts the natural course of both the living and non-living due to the fact that we have the ability to think, plan, and deliberately change our surroundings to however and whoever we want -- which sets us a part from the animal kingdom.

humans are the problem, not nature

Almost every animal quadrillions died by being eaten alive. Extreme torture including being eaten alive or tape worm , Lyme , kidney stones , cancer , Alzheimer's 100's of other horrors is not neutral but very horrible for the human or other animal undergoing extreme torture. There is no reason for all the extreme suffering only that random chemicals combined 4 billion years ago

Evolution created unbearable pain to drive the human or other animal to tend to avoid injuries or do the very laborious work of hunting to temporarily Alleviate hunger

This world is a hellish torture dungeon

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

Primates like us are animals too. The vast majority of human beings cannot get enaugh of life and I cannot imagine that we differ so much from the rest of our relatives. I claim that at least my dogs had good lives, the one snoring between my feet seems to feel quite comfortable.

 

[DivineSpark]

For animals in zoos it is even worse than being in nature. Many animals suffer from something called zoochosis. Mental illness.

 

[WeDontKnowTheFuture]

personally i have an opposite view on what have been said, even if i agree that the natural world is full of painfull experience. What i think is different is that animals in their ecosystems generally doesn't suffer much from psychological pain as we do because they they are not accountable to a society, have no timetable to respect, are free to go whenever they want and do whatever they want. They are completely free and live in a relation to time in wich they are not constantly remembering the past or projecting them in the future, they are in a stade of being where they just do what they have to do in the present in order to survive. I' m not saying that they never anticipate or remember things but that they don't overdo it like us cause they haven't the time for that, and probably neither the neccesity. The survival mode they are in make their existence meaningful because they can enjoy have a meal after doing the work of hunting, have a nice rest after escaping predators. I'm sure they can feel the joy of being part of an ecosystem and can feel connected with this whole thing.
It should be great to be part of a jungle and not having to deal with administrative matters or respects all these arbitrary social code. I'm sure it is the human race wich is nowadays evil and the way their societies works, it will definitily change in the centuries coming. If we could just reconnect with our animal nature we would all be much happier. For the moment we take ourselves for gods who want to impose our vile desires on the planet.

 

[cme-dme]

Sometimes I also think destruction of the world would be good. Billions would die but it would prevent the future suffering of billions (trillions?) of future lives. It feels gross evaluating life in this overly logical way but I guess at the end of the day it's just a thought experiment. Life will continue to propagate on this Earth until the sun explodes I suppose.
It all feels like some fucked up game. Life is full of suffering and pain and yet we are programmed with instincts to reproduce and thus continue the endless cycle. If God is real, he is one sadistic bastard.

 

[genie]

That's the philosophy of efilism and antinatalism. I think animals must be anxious most of the time of being hurt. They probably don't sleep well either. Some species like penguins are probably so far removed from predators, famine etc that they suffer least.

 

[divinemistress36]

Almost every animal died by being eaten alive by other animals, parasites , or bacteria.

Even a lion or wolf got old diseased or injured then other animals attacked the defenseless creature and slowly ate it alive

All this technology including houses , shoes , clothes, tools, any product , hospitals , did not exist 30,000 , 100,000 years ago. Humans were like another animal sleeping at night in the dirt with all the ticks , tapeworms , mosquitoes, spiders , molds , bacteria, other parasites etc on top of them.

even today there are trillions of microscopic bacteria , other parasites living inside and on the skin of humans for example on the face live face mites : all this can be internet searched. i worked in a nursing home it is possible for them to keep alive a human in constant unbearable pain as from incurable skin sores from age 60 to 90, alsheimers, dementia, stroke , cancer ,diseases, why is all this and everything i ever posted hidden but they just say "life is wonderful look at the stupid sunset and burn your retina but it's so "pretty" : fuck all that shit and all of existence . fuck eating a sandwich the extreme pain possible dwarfs anything

Ticks have the Lyme disease bacteria. Even today I've seen several just on this site want to commit suicide Lyme disease is so horrible

100.000 years ago Humans were cold , hungry all the time like most animals are .

U were hungry had to walk miles every day no shoes in rain heat or snow to try and kill an animal with a rock and eat it raw.

U wanted clothes or shoes u had to invent them and make them out of sticks as and rocks : good luck with that.

Life was even worse 50,000 years ago for humans

Almost every animal quadrillions died by being eaten alive. Extreme torture including being eaten alive or tape worm , Lyme , kidney stones , cancer , Alzheimer's 100's of other horrors is not neutral but very horrible for the human or other animal undergoing extreme torture. There is no reason for all the extreme suffering only that random chemicals combined 4 billion years ago

Evolution created unbearable pain to drive the human or other animal to tend to avoid injuries or do the very laborious work of hunting to temporarily Alleviate hunger

This world is a hellish torture dungeon

I enjoy reading your posts. When I think Im being irrational I see your posts and realize our bodies are made to suffer and that nothing really matters

 

[inconstantprayer]

Life is like a dance. If you aren't part of it, you don't understand it. And looking in from the outside is no good, nor does it give you the right to decide that it should all just be destroyed merely because it does not meet your small-minded understandings or expectations.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Well, at least it's generally the final bit of an animal's life that tends to be bad. I'm not sure we can say that entire stretch (however long that lasts).

I've never encountered a scientist who professionally deals with ecology and animals who was emotionally affected by these observations. If anything, the stance of "nature sucks, sorry" seems to prevail.

 

[Durandal's Slave]

Reading these discussions on the purpose (or lack of) life and suffering reminds me of the end of the game Arcanum.

 

[Darkover]

nature is neutral. it's 'brutal' to the eyes of someone with an opinion. nature operates without intent or judgement. it's human perspective that casts these ideas of brutality towards the natural world itself.

nature is neutral in that it doesn't choose side in a battle but it's inherently a bad life also forcing creatures to battle each other for survival isn't neutral standing point

destroyed merely because it does not meet your small-minded understandings or expectations.

yes you are small minded in that you treat your own well being as being most important: over the insurmountable suffering all life on this planet goes though