Venting There is more suffering than happiness in the world, and we would be better off overall if the world came to an end

[Darkover]

Consider what the best reasonable case for a human being is. They will be born into a world of loving parents. They will go to school, graduate, and find a career that (most likely) will be bearable, but not something they actually want to do for its own sake. They will start a family and grow old, then retire.

Amongst all of this, they will struggle with stress, nightmares in their sleep, social relationship problems (divorces, bad friends), probably financial hardship at some point (even in developed countries). They will grieve after the loss of loved ones, run into health problems, and experience physical discomfort on a regular basis (weather is too hot, too cold, physical labor at work or sitting at a desk most of the day). They will spend their time off work towards more obligations they don't want to have to deal with: cleaning their home, going grocery shopping, health care visits, cooking, managing their finances, etc. Some might like a couple of these, but I doubt most people truly enjoy most.

The picture I'm trying to paint is that most of the time we spend is dedicated towards sustaining ourselves, our careers, and our homes. Most of what we do is something we'd rather not be doing. But that's not happiness. That's endless work, and very little time to relax and truly enjoy life. And there's no getting out of this unless you die.

Now notice that is the BEST reasonable case for a human. Most humans have it worse. The global median GDP per capita is under $13,000.. That is not enough to live a comfortable lifestyle at all. This is where you have to worry about keeping a roof over your head and getting food.

And what's even worse than that is the lives of animals. They suffer immensely in the wild, from incurable diseases, predator attacks, starvation, injuries that won't heal and leave them decapitated, etc. And animals easily outnumber humans.

The state of the world is predominantly made up of creatures that are born to suffer most of their lives. That is not a world that should exist. And it's more than likely that if it continues to exist, that's what we'll have.

 

[Richard Langford]

I can appreciate you and indeed others are unhappy. I am myself. However, as has been said to you many times in response to your numerous venting missives on this subject plenty of people live perfectly happy and contented lives in this world.

Yes they may struggle and face stressful periods in their lives but I'm sure the overwhelming majority will tell you they much prefer to be alive rather than dead nonetheless. The positives of their lives outweigh it's negatives.

You may as you have said have unpleasant personal circumstances that make your life unbearable. Many do here. But please let's not generalise and wish for 'world destruction' as a result - suchlike can only serve to provide ammunition to critics of this forum. While life may be hard, many I am sure are entirely happy existing nevertheless.

 

[Darkover]

I can appreciate you and indeed others are unhappy. I am myself. However, as has been said to you many times in response to your numerous venting missives on this subject plenty of people live perfectly happy and contented lives in this world.

Yes they may struggle and face stressful periods in their lives but I'm sure the overwhelming majority will tell you they much prefer to be alive rather than dead nonetheless. The positives of their lives outweigh it's negatives.

You may as you have said have unpleasant personal circumstances that make your life unbearable. Many do here. But please let's not generalise and wish for 'world destruction' as a result - suchlike can only serve to provide ammunition to critics of this forum. While life may be hard, many I am sure are entirely happy existing nevertheless.

I get why people push back against these ideas. Most are invested in life, either because they genuinely enjoy it or because their survival instincts make them cling to it. But the fact that some people claim to be happy doesn't negate the overwhelming amount of suffering that exists. Even if a minority of people are "content," that doesn't cancel out the billions of humans and animals enduring relentless hardship.


And yeah, I see why some people don't want discussions like this happening, especially in public forums—it makes them uncomfortable, or they think it gives critics ammunition. But just because an idea is unpopular doesn't mean it's wrong. And dismissing generalizations in this case is like saying, "Well, not all passengers suffered on the Titanic, so let's not call it a disaster." The scale of suffering matters.


At the end of the day, people who are content will defend existence because they have a reason to. But that doesn't mean the system is good or justifiable—it just means they're lucky enough to be on the better end of it.

 

[divinemistress36]

All the chores make me want to die in itself. My parents are retired and instead of enjoying it they just spend it fixing stuff around the house and chores. I dont understand human nature

 

[Dante_]

Many do here. But please let's not generalise and wish for 'world destruction' as a result - suchlike can only serve to provide ammunition to critics of this forum.

Richard, while I understand your concern that this will only further provide ammunition against the forum, it's already a little too late to be worried about that since critics of the forum have already shown that they do not care to discuss ss in a fair and consistent manner, considering that various ctb examples have been linked to the site with information that has been shown to not be true so the narrative is the narrative, it's already over and it can't be changed, people opposed to this forum would rather see everyone as a monolith rather than try to understand that not everyone is the same, much like you don't agree with Darkover.

 

[Richard Langford]

Richard, while I understand your concern that this will only further provide ammunition against the forum, it's already a little too late to be worried about that since critics of the forum have already shown that they do not care to discuss ss in a fair and consistent manner, considering that various ctb examples have been linked to the site with information that has been shown to not be true so the narrative is the narrative, it's already over and it can't be changed, people opposed to this forum would rather see everyone as a monolith rather than try to understand that not everyone is the same, much like you don't agree with Darkover.

But we're still here, standing. It wouldn't take much though to knock us over (and out and off the www). There's definitely plenty who want to do that. Lets not make it easier for them to actually do that.

 

[Boots2Scoots]

Sounds selfish but I've always lowkey hoped the world would end in my lifetime. Def gets rid of the FOMO from dying.

 

[Crematoryy]

Your thesis is based on the premise that all suffering is bad, which, when analyzed closely, is not true. Suffering can be benign or malignant, as I will illustrate: the suffering of feeling cold after getting out of the shower is necessary for biothermal regulation; the suffering of waking up early in the morning to start a routine; the suffering of gathering and preparing a meal even though you are hungry. All of these sufferings frustrate immediate gratification but highlight the meaning of happiness. They exist to benefit those subjected to them and to facilitate growth.

However, the part about this lifestyle being the "BEST" and that there are worse sufferings is fundamentally correct. I believe you referred to the malignant suffering that occurs without a reason for existing; when natural rights are violated or curtailed; when the unpredictability of nature generates accidents. Whatever you put on a scale of "gains or losses", the losses are certainly greater.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Depends if you prefer the idea of democracy or autocracy.

I suppose you could argue that birthing a being here is an autocratic act. The child had no choice in it. However, once they're here- they do get to choose.

So then- which is more fair? A democracy where the majority vote chooses the outcome? Or, one person- you in this case- choosing what would be best for every living creature?

I'd go with the majority vote. No one being should get to make decisions for everyone else. I have a feeling the majority vote would be either pro-choice- let individuals choose for themselves or, pro-life. Not so many people are pro-mortalist on behalf of every living being. Not even here on this forum.

If the majority really were so in favour of mass extinction, we wouldn't see so much opposition to assisted suicide, abortion, the prospect of war and the climate change crisis. Plus, no one would be reproducing. The evidence all around us shows that the majority of people have less of a problem with existence than we do.

 

[Darkover]

I suppose you could argue that birthing a being here is an autocratic act. The child had no choice in it. However, once they're here- they do get to choose.

So then- which is more fair? A democracy where the majority vote chooses the outcome? Or, one person- you in this case- choosing what would be best for every living creature?

I'd go with the majority vote. No one being should get to make decisions for everyone else. I have a feeling the majority vote would be either pro-choice- let individuals choose for themselves or, pro-life. Not so many people are pro-mortalist on behalf of every living being. Not even here on this forum.

If the majority really were so in favour of mass extinction, we wouldn't see so much opposition to assisted suicide, abortion, the prospect of war and the climate change crisis. Plus, no one would be reproducing. The evidence all around us shows that the majority of people have less of a problem with existence than we do.

If every sentient being truly had a voice and the ability to choose whether to continue existing, it's likely that many—perhaps the majority—would opt out. The sheer scale of suffering, particularly among animals in the wild, is immense. If they could consciously weigh their experiences, free from survival instincts, the result might indeed be mass extinction.


But since they don't have a choice, life perpetuates itself through blind processes: biological drives, reproduction, and survival instincts. Even humans, despite our intelligence, are largely driven by these same forces. The opposition to assisted suicide, abortion, and extinction isn't necessarily a rational endorsement of life as good—it's often a product of fear, societal conditioning, and evolutionary programming.


If suffering outweighs happiness on a large scale, then existence is more of a burden than a gift. A truly fair world would at least allow individuals to opt out freely. But as it stands, existence is mandatory, and suffering is the cost of admission.

 

[offbalance]

The evidence all around us shows that the majority of people have less of a problem with existence than we do.

how though. I'm a traumatized person and I admit that and I probably do have a chemical imbalance. I guess that would explain why I can't move on from things that others can. But I can't help but feel my despair is a rational reaction, and that's what keeps me suicidal and stuck. Im genuinely wanting to know what keeps people above water and Im starting to think it is just brain differences (and or trauma) obvious conclusion yeah, I guess Im just trying to philosophize my way out of suicidality. Many people on this forum would say the happy ones are delusional, but it seems maybe they're just better able to hang on to meaning/a purpose. Idk. Just rambling.

 

[Darkover]

Your thesis is based on the premise that all suffering is bad, which, when analyzed closely, is not true. Suffering can be benign or malignant, as I will illustrate: the suffering of feeling cold after getting out of the shower is necessary for biothermal regulation; the suffering of waking up early in the morning to start a routine; the suffering of gathering and preparing a meal even though you are hungry. All of these sufferings frustrate immediate gratification but highlight the meaning of happiness. They exist to benefit those subjected to them and to facilitate growth.

However, the part about this lifestyle being the "BEST" and that there are worse sufferings is fundamentally correct. I believe you referred to the malignant suffering that occurs without a reason for existing; when natural rights are violated or curtailed; when the unpredictability of nature generates accidents. Whatever you put on a scale of "gains or losses", the losses are certainly greater.

That's a nuanced way to break it down—there is suffering that serves a purpose (like temporary discomfort that leads to long-term well-being), and then there is suffering that is purely destructive, senseless, or excessive. If all suffering had a meaningful function—if it were always part of some greater benefit—then perhaps it would be more justifiable. But as you pointed out, much of the suffering in the world falls into the malignant category: illness, accidents, violence, loss, and existential despair that serve no clear purpose beyond prolonging a cycle of more suffering.


Even in cases where suffering has a "growth" aspect, the question remains: Is the happiness gained from overcoming suffering truly greater than the suffering itself? If life were structured in a way where suffering reliably led to more happiness than it took away, then maybe it would be a fair exchange.

 

[Forever Sleep]

If every sentient being truly had a voice and the ability to choose whether to continue existing, it's likely that many—perhaps the majority—would opt out. The sheer scale of suffering, particularly among animals in the wild, is immense. If they could consciously weigh their experiences, free from survival instincts, the result might indeed be mass extinction.


But since they don't have a choice, life perpetuates itself through blind processes: biological drives, reproduction, and survival instincts. Even humans, despite our intelligence, are largely driven by these same forces. The opposition to assisted suicide, abortion, and extinction isn't necessarily a rational endorsement of life as good—it's often a product of fear, societal conditioning, and evolutionary programming.


If suffering outweighs happiness on a large scale, then existence is more of a burden than a gift. A truly fair world would at least allow individuals to opt out freely. But as it stands, existence is mandatory, and suffering is the cost of admission.

I agree with you but I still suspect the majority wouldn't. We know humans can rationalise- so- why do they keep reproducing? Why doesn't everyone support assisted suicide? Because they are less rational than you? I'd say Stephen Hawking was likely a rational human. Likely more intelligent than all of us here. He had three children.

As for animals, it's not always so clear on how they feel. For instance:

'There are an estimated 10 quintillion individual insects on Earth, which is more than a billion times the number of humans. ' (Quick Google search...)

How can you be so sure you know what a wasp or spider wants or even feels? Just in terms of the quantity of lives there are in the insect population, they should get a say- no?

But, you've decided that they can't think rationally enough to decide. Your thinking is in fact exactly the same- just opposite to pro-life thinking. As in- these people don't hold the same view as me. Their thinking is irrational. Therefore- I will think for them. My argument is that both polarities are extremist and autocratic.

We are also in the weaker position, seeing as many of us have diagnosed problems with our brains. Isn't it somewhat fair to say that certain things like depression may be affecting the way we see the world?

Even if it's based on what you deem rational, killing something that wants to live is murder. Should we even bother prosecuting for murder if it's doing someone a favour?

Not that it actually matters anyway. I doubt any human has the power to obliterate all life. Anymore than the pro-lifers can stop all of us terminating ourselves.

I do absolutely agree with the last part though- we can't consider this world fair if we're not given the very basic right on whether to live or die. In that sense, I am very much an antinatilist. I also don't believe it's fair to conscript a sentient being into such a precarious world.

how though. I'm a traumatized person and I admit that and I probably do have a chemical imbalance. I guess that would explain why I can't move on from things that others can. But I can't help but feel my despair is a rational reaction, and that's what keeps me suicidal and stuck. Im genuinely wanting to know what keeps people above water and Im starting to think it is just brain differences (and or trauma) obvious conclusion yeah, I guess Im just trying to philosophize my way out of suicidality. Many people on this forum would say the happy ones are delusional, but it seems maybe they're just better able to hang on to meaning/a purpose. Idk. Just rambling.

I don't know either but, I don't personally think they are delusional or stupid. I've known fairly happy people in life. Not that they had everything easy but I suppose they had enough to hold on to. They were very good at appreciating it too. I don't have to agree with them to be able to respect their view on life.

That's really what it comes down to I suppose- respecting other beings right to choose for themselves. I neither like the pro-life or pro-mortalist standpoint because it tries to impose that view on others. I think our right to choose is the most important right we have.

 

[Valhala]

That is true, but the world does not exist for us to be good or better, but to suffer

 

[Worndown]

Well, we have two world leaders actively working toward this goal. A few other leaders are assisting as much as possible.
I say we have a 50/50 chance. These guys are pretty focused on their wayward plans and can deflect reason at all times.

 

[cassie]

well yes, there is alot of undeniable unjust suffering, ofc - i guess the only real choice we have is how we respond to it - whether we try and manage to create meaning where there isnt any or if we decide the whole thing isnt worth it. neither option is easy, and honestly, i dont think theres a ,,right,, answer. its just a matter of what feels tolerable to each person. and noone else should make the decision for them.

 

[Darkover]

I agree with you but I still suspect the majority wouldn't. We know humans can rationalise- so- why do they keep reproducing? Why doesn't everyone support assisted suicide? Because they are less rational than you? I'd say Stephen Hawking was likely a rational human. Likely more intelligent than all of us here. He had three children.

As for animals, it's not always so clear on how they feel. For instance:

'There are an estimated 10 quintillion individual insects on Earth, which is more than a billion times the number of humans. ' (Quick Google search...)

How can you be so sure you know what a wasp or spider wants or even feels? Just in terms of the quantity of lives there are in the insect population, they should get a say- no?

But, you've decided that they can't think rationally enough to decide. Your thinking is in fact exactly the same- just opposite to pro-life thinking. As in- these people don't hold the same view as me. Their thinking is irrational. Therefore- I will think for them. My argument is that both polarities are extremist and autocratic.

We are also in the weaker position, seeing as many of us have diagnosed problems with our brains. Isn't it somewhat fair to say that certain things like depression may be affecting the way we see the world?

Even if it's based on what you deem rational, killing something that wants to live is murder. Should we even bother prosecuting for murder if it's doing someone a favour?

Not that it actually matters anyway. I doubt any human has the power to obliterate all life. Anymore than the pro-lifers can stop all of us terminating ourselves.

I do absolutely agree with the last part though- we can't consider this world fair if we're not given the very basic right on whether to live or die. In that sense, I am very much an antinatilist. I also don't believe it's fair to conscript a sentient being into such a precarious world.

You raise important contradictions that challenge the idea of enforcing a single perspective—whether pro-life or pro-extinction. If we argue that most beings would choose not to exist, we risk making the same mistake as those who claim that all beings should want to live. Both positions assume authority over the choices of others, which is inherently problematic.


Humans continue reproducing for many reasons—biological instinct, societal conditioning, personal hope, or even just lack of deep reflection. Intelligence alone doesn't make someone immune to these forces. Stephen Hawking, despite his brilliance, still lived within the framework of human emotions, relationships, and cultural norms. Rationality doesn't mean reaching one universal conclusion—it just means applying reason to whatever assumptions a person starts with. If someone assumes life is a gift, they will rationalize reproduction. If someone assumes life is a burden, they will rationalize not bringing life into the world.


The issue with insects (and other non-human creatures) is that we don't have a reliable way to gauge their experience of suffering. Some argue that because insects lack complex nervous systems, their suffering is minimal. Others argue that sheer numbers make even minimal suffering a massive ethical problem. But again, deciding for them—whether they should live or not—is a form of overreach, just like forcing humans to exist without consent.


Your point about mental health is also worth considering. If conditions like depression make people more likely to see life negatively, should we trust those perspectives less? But then, if happiness or optimism is also a product of brain chemistry, should we trust those perspectives less as well? If our views are shaped by neurological conditions, neither optimism nor pessimism can claim to be the "true" perspective—only different ways of processing the same reality.


And yes, you're right that total extinction is beyond our power. The real fight isn't about eliminating life—it's about ensuring people have the choice to leave it when they no longer wish to endure it. Antinatalism makes sense because it prevents the imposition of suffering on the unborn. But once someone is here, bodily autonomy—including the right to die—is the only real ethical solution.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

I will just say that, if some world ending man made disaster comes around, it's not because of coincidence and neither it is a tragedy, it's something we have brought on ourselves. You wish that the world comes to an end because they have the gift of conscience but they still act like brutes and you are not necessarily wrong, it's just that brutes will beat themselves to death on their own, it's like wishing for a bumblebee to die in a month. And the most annoying thing is, you'll get what you want but you won't get it the way you want. You know?

Picture this: you beat a murderer and make him scared of you, he will stop murdering, but you didn't want him to stop out of fear, you wanted to make him stop out of rationale, you lose even if you win. You probably don't really wish death upon all humans but consider the death of all humans as a just punishment in proportion to what they have done given the resources and the brain power that they have, yet , even if that destruction happens, it will never be out of good faith or self punishment, it will be a "mistake" that they made and they will die thinking that they DON'T deserve it.

 

[Ligottian]

All the chores make me want to die in itself. My parents are retired and instead of enjoying it they just spend it fixing stuff around the house and chores. I dont understand human nature

Before he got too old, my now deceased father loved to do yard work and pretty much any chore he could do, both before and after he retired. To him it seemed something enjoyable, not work or toil. I definitely didn't inherit THAT from him! I certainly hear you about chores.

 

[Darkover]

I will just say that, if some world ending man made disaster comes around, it's not because of coincidence and neither it is a tragedy, it's something we have brought on ourselves. You wish that the world comes to an end because they have the gift of conscience but they still act like brutes and you are not necessarily wrong, it's just that brutes will beat themselves to death on their own, it's like wishing for a bumblebee to die in a month. And the most annoying thing is, you'll get what you want but you won't get it the way you want. You know?

Picture this: you beat a murderer and make him scared of you, he will stop murdering, but you didn't want him to stop out of fear, you wanted to make him stop out of rationale, you lose even if you win. You probably don't really wish death upon all humans but consider the death of all humans as a just punishment in proportion to what they have done given the resources and the brain power that they have, yet , even if that destruction happens, it will never be out of good faith or self punishment, it will be a "mistake" that they made and they will die thinking that they DON'T deserve it.

If humanity does bring about its own destruction, it won't be out of some noble reckoning or conscious acceptance of responsibility—it will be through sheer recklessness, denial, or self-interest gone too far. And when the end comes, most will see themselves as victims rather than agents of their own downfall.


It's frustrating because, in a way, it means there's no real justice—just cause and effect. If humans were to acknowledge their failures and willingly step aside, that would be a meaningful act. But if they destroy themselves while still believing they were on the right path, it's just another layer of absurdity.


It's like watching a gambler lose everything and still thinking the next hand will turn things around. They don't learn, they don't reflect—they just keep playing until there's nothing left. If the world ends, it won't be because people realized it was the right thing to do; it'll be because they kept making the same mistakes, right up until the last one.

 

[Forever Sleep]

You raise important contradictions that challenge the idea of enforcing a single perspective—whether pro-life or pro-extinction. If we argue that most beings would choose not to exist, we risk making the same mistake as those who claim that all beings should want to live. Both positions assume authority over the choices of others, which is inherently problematic.


Humans continue reproducing for many reasons—biological instinct, societal conditioning, personal hope, or even just lack of deep reflection. Intelligence alone doesn't make someone immune to these forces. Stephen Hawking, despite his brilliance, still lived within the framework of human emotions, relationships, and cultural norms. Rationality doesn't mean reaching one universal conclusion—it just means applying reason to whatever assumptions a person starts with. If someone assumes life is a gift, they will rationalize reproduction. If someone assumes life is a burden, they will rationalize not bringing life into the world.


The issue with insects (and other non-human creatures) is that we don't have a reliable way to gauge their experience of suffering. Some argue that because insects lack complex nervous systems, their suffering is minimal. Others argue that sheer numbers make even minimal suffering a massive ethical problem. But again, deciding for them—whether they should live or not—is a form of overreach, just like forcing humans to exist without consent.


Your point about mental health is also worth considering. If conditions like depression make people more likely to see life negatively, should we trust those perspectives less? But then, if happiness or optimism is also a product of brain chemistry, should we trust those perspectives less as well? If our views are shaped by neurological conditions, neither optimism nor pessimism can claim to be the "true" perspective—only different ways of processing the same reality.


And yes, you're right that total extinction is beyond our power. The real fight isn't about eliminating life—it's about ensuring people have the choice to leave it when they no longer wish to endure it. Antinatalism makes sense because it prevents the imposition of suffering on the unborn. But once someone is here, bodily autonomy—including the right to die—is the only real ethical solution.

All of these points are why I try to be pro-choice down the line. I don't blame people for their pro-mortalist or pro-life viewpoints but I don't think it's great when either side start trying to think and decide for the other.

As a philosophical idea though- the whole- 'Would it be better if nothing existed?' Is an interesting one. It would seem a whole lot simpler. But then, it also relies on there being no spiritual side to life. That there was in fact no reason, benefit or larger plan for life springing up in the first place. That may well be the case of course. I just wish I was that certain about the entire universe, creation etc. to feel confident enough to say- it would be better if nothing existed. I'm just not 100% certain there isn't some bigger picture. I'm hoping there isn't I suppose though.

 

[Kbeau]

For me, personally, after 55 years I can honestly say I'd prefer to not have been born. Whatever times that were fun or interesting or rewarding were short lived and in-between was a lot more crap, boredom, sadness, pain, etc. That said, others seem to love life so bless them.

 

[hereornot]

In my opinion, the mere fact that therians exist shows that at least humans are deteriorating, on their way to the end. And they simply exist.

 

[Saponification]

Your thesis is based on the premise that all suffering is bad, which, when analyzed closely, is not true. Suffering can be benign or malignant, as I will illustrate: the suffering of feeling cold after getting out of the shower is necessary for biothermal regulation; the suffering of waking up early in the morning to start a routine; the suffering of gathering and preparing a meal even though you are hungry. All of these sufferings frustrate immediate gratification but highlight the meaning of happiness. They exist to benefit those subjected to them and to facilitate growth.

However, the part about this lifestyle being the "BEST" and that there are worse sufferings is fundamentally correct. I believe you referred to the malignant suffering that occurs without a reason for existing; when natural rights are violated or curtailed; when the unpredictability of nature generates accidents. Whatever you put on a scale of "gains or losses", the losses are certainly greater.

This only proves that suffering has at most an instrumental value. When we refer to the feeling of suffering itself it has an inherent value.
For example, when you put a hand on a hot stove, the pain makes you move your hand away instinctually, which is good, obviously. But the feeling of burning your hand is in itself bad, since you inherently want to avoid that feeling.