Venting We let this world exist—what does that mean?

[Darkover]

If we have the power to end the suffering, and we choose not to, are we complicit in that suffering?
To do nothing in the face of evil is to allow evil
the "evil" is existence itself—a system built on mindless pain and survival. If we don't intervene—if we let it continue—are we endorsing it by our inaction?
Humans have the technological capability to wipe out most of life on Earth.
If evil is causing preventable harm, then standing by as billions suffer could be seen as evil.
To allow life is to allow suffering.
To end life is to commit unthinkable harm.
If suffering outweighs joy—if the cost of existence is unbearable for countless innocents—then continuing life may be the greater evil.

What about animals ? They don't have free will, right ? They won't be judged will they ?
Animal kingdom is a system made by the natural universe without the intent of judging its members, yet it does have its part of horrible things.
Animals slowly eaten alive, babies rapes, unnecessary kills and sufferings, and so on.

This raises the question Why is there so much pain in the world?, is life evil?, nature doesn't have intentions—no malice, no kindness. It simply is.
Nature without a designer isn't moral or immoral—it's amoral. No intent, no blame, there's no one to be hold accountable
They suffer horribly—not because they deserve it, and not for some higher lesson.
Nature is brutally indifferent, and no one is held accountable for what happens in it.
A moral vacuum—a system that generates unthinkable suffering with no malice and no mercy
Nature may feel evil—but it's not evil in the sense we usually mean.
Evil implies intent—a desire to cause harm, a choice.
Nature doesn't choose. It doesn't want. It doesn't care.

This raises the question if life is not evil then is life profoundly wrong

Mass suffering is built in.
Suffering isn't a rare accident in life—it's woven into its very structure. For every moment of peace, there are countless moments of terror, starvation, loneliness, and agony, both in the animal kingdom and in human history.

Innocents suffer for no reason.
Babies die, animals are eaten alive, diseases ravage without mercy—no lesson, no justice, no redemption, just meaningless loss.

No one is held accountable.
There's no cosmic courtroom. No appeals process. No "greater good" behind the cruelty—just physics and biology playing out.

The ones who care suffer most.
The more conscious, empathic, and thoughtful you are—the more unbearable life can become. The weight of knowing, of feeling, makes the suffering harder, not easier.

Spoiler: High Infant Mortality Rates

Mammals with High Infant Mortality Rates

White-tailed deer fawns: Often 50–80% die in the first year, mostly due to predation, exposure, and abandonment.

Zebra foals: Experience 30–60% mortality in the first year; main causes include predation, drought, and disease.

Wild sheep (lambs): Have a 20–40% first-year mortality rate from exposure, predation, and starvation.

Elephant calves (wild): Roughly 20–40% die young, mostly due to starvation, predation, or disease.

Leopard cubs: Face around 40–50% mortality from infanticide, abandonment, and predation.

Lion cubs: Have a very high 50–70% mortality, primarily from infanticide by rival males, starvation, and disease.

Wolf pups: Suffer 30–60% early mortality due to starvation, disease, or predation.

Wild rabbit kits: Can experience 60–90% mortality, especially from predators and harsh environments.

Wild piglets (boar): Around 30–50% may not survive due to predation and disease.

Birds

Songbirds: Many species lose 50–70% of chicks due to predation, starvation, or falling from nests.

Ducks and other waterfowl: Often suffer 50–90% duckling mortality from predators like fish, birds of prey, and mammals.

Seabirds (e.g., terns): Lose 30–70% of chicks to weather, starvation, and predators.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Sea turtles: Over 90% of hatchlings die, often eaten by predators or disoriented by artificial lights.

Frogs and toads (tadpoles): Suffer over 95% mortality from predators, drying ponds, and disease.

Snakes: Hatchlings may face 60–80% mortality due to predation and exposure.

Fish

Salmon fry: Over 90% die early due to predators and harsh environmental conditions.

Small fish species (like cod or herring): More than 95% of larvae typically die from predation and starvation.

Invertebrates

Octopus hatchlings: More than 90% die young due to predation and food scarcity.

Insects (e.g., butterflies): Larvae suffer over 90% mortality, largely from predators and environmental hazards.

 

[dust-in-the-wind]

Well said. I agree with all you have written. Also, I think the more intelligent you are can cause more suffering. Most people must have something in them that filters out the harshness of the truth or they have extra feel good chemicals circulating in the brain.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Do we have the technology to wipe out most of the life on earth effectively and peacefully? Can we properly predict- if we do a bodge job say, what effect that will have? Say we manage to make a predator extinct but that means, the population of its prey animal explodes and creates a huge imbalance in the food chain. Surely, that will also create incredible suffering.

How many humans would you need left to kill everything else? Before they die themselves? How long will that take? Maybe we could task AI with the job. Perhaps they'll decide for themselves to do it anyway!

Do you really think it's possible to eliminate every living creature on the planet to the extent that none of them return? I have doubts myself. Even if it was the 'safest' thing to do morally, I'm not convinced it's possible- for us anyway.

As an idea though, I agree in terms of antinatilism. Plus, ideally veganism. Life does seem to contain unavoidable suffering. With the best will in the world, it's hard to prevent suffering for sentient beings. So, not birthing more here and, not eating them or butchering them to use their bodies as a resource and thereby, destroy the industry that does that would seem the most moral way to live.

Controvercially, suicide does fit into that same harm prevention. I'm conscious that all I'm really doing is consuming the world's resources and polluting it. My living causes suffering to other creatures. The problem being that that is less visible to the known suffering we can predict pur families will go through if/ when we CTB.

 

[Darkover]

Do we have the technology to wipe out most of the life on earth effectively and peacefully? Can we properly predict- if we do a bodge job say, what effect that will have? Say we manage to make a predator extinct but that means, the population of its prey animal explodes and creates a huge imbalance in the food chain. Surely, that will also create incredible suffering.

How many humans would you need left to kill everything else? Before they die themselves? How long will that take? Maybe we could task AI with the job. Perhaps they'll decide for themselves to do it anyway!

Do you really think it's possible to eliminate every living creature on the planet to the extent that none of them return? I have doubts myself. Even if it was the 'safest' thing to do morally, I'm not convinced it's possible- for us anyway.

As an idea though, I agree in terms of antinatilism. Plus, ideally veganism. Life does seem to contain unavoidable suffering. With the best will in the world, it's hard to prevent suffering for sentient beings. So, not birthing more here and, not eating them or butchering them to use their bodies as a resource and thereby, destroy the industry that does that would seem the most moral way to live.

Controvercially, suicide does fit into that same harm prevention. I'm conscious that all I'm really doing is consuming the world's resources and polluting it. My living causes suffering to other creatures. The problem being that that is less visible to the known suffering we can predict pur families will go through if/ when we CTB.

The "grey goo" scenario is a hypothetical doomsday scenario in nanotechnology where self-replicating nanobots consume all organic matter on Earth, leading to a planet dominated by these machines. It's essentially a scenario of uncontrolled molecular replication, often portrayed as a planet-wide disaster

These tiny machines are designed to replicate themselves using materials around them, similar to how bacteria multiply

The nanobots consume all organic matter, including living organisms, converting it into more of themselves

The scenario assumes that these nanobots are not properly controlled and their replication rate is so high that they quickly consume everything on Earth

The end result is a planet where all organic life has been consumed and replaced by the nanobots, effectively ending civilization as we know it

the Sun is destined to turn into a huge, glowing red giant star, potentially engulfing the Earth in the process. But long before that, the extra heat striking our planet will trigger the evaporation of sea water. That will drive up atmospheric levels of water vapour – a far more potent source of global warming even than CO2. And that, in turn, will make the Earth even hotter, leading to catastrophic 'runaway' heating that eventually evaporates the oceans.

Earth's habitability is a multifaceted question with both short-term and long-term perspectives. The planet will become uninhabitable for most lifeforms in about 1.3 billion years due to the sun's natural evolution


Can grey goo kill all land mammals? Yes (in theory)
Can it wipe out all life on Earth? Unlikely, but maybe
Is it peaceful? Not really
Can we build it today? No
Should we? That's the moral abyss you're staring into

 

[Permanoir]

Life experience is subjective, and even as an antinatalist myself, I wouldn't take the efilist route of annihilating all life on the planet. First, the potential for harm in doing that is likely greater than the good it could bring. Second, the fact that conscious beings haven't collectively chosen to end their own existence — and that this isn't a majority view — suggests that many people still see life as worth continuing. For me to unilaterally decide to end all of that would be unjustifiable.

 

[Darkover]

First, the potential for harm in doing that is likely greater than the good it could bring

it's a slaughterhouse by bring about the end of all life on this planet you would prevent the unnecessary suffering of trillions of lives each year
ending this cycle of birth and death once for all

Second, the fact that conscious beings haven't collectively chosen to end their own existence — and that this isn't a majority view — suggests that many people still see life as worth continuing.

who cares if a minority of living creatures want to live when there is a majority of living creatures who live miserable life full of suffering and pain

 

[Forever Sleep]

The "grey goo" scenario is a hypothetical doomsday scenario in nanotechnology where self-replicating nanobots consume all organic matter on Earth, leading to a planet dominated by these machines. It's essentially a scenario of uncontrolled molecular replication, often portrayed as a planet-wide disaster

These tiny machines are designed to replicate themselves using materials around them, similar to how bacteria multiply

The nanobots consume all organic matter, including living organisms, converting it into more of themselves

The scenario assumes that these nanobots are not properly controlled and their replication rate is so high that they quickly consume everything on Earth

The end result is a planet where all organic life has been consumed and replaced by the nanobots, effectively ending civilization as we know it

the Sun is destined to turn into a huge, glowing red giant star, potentially engulfing the Earth in the process. But long before that, the extra heat striking our planet will trigger the evaporation of sea water. That will drive up atmospheric levels of water vapour – a far more potent source of global warming even than CO2. And that, in turn, will make the Earth even hotter, leading to catastrophic 'runaway' heating that eventually evaporates the oceans.

Earth's habitability is a multifaceted question with both short-term and long-term perspectives. The planet will become uninhabitable for most lifeforms in about 1.3 billion years due to the sun's natural evolution


Can grey goo kill all land mammals? Yes (in theory)
Can it wipe out all life on Earth? Unlikely, but maybe
Is it peaceful? Not really
Can we build it today? No
Should we? That's the moral abyss you're staring into

I imagine a great many species- incuding plenty of humans will want to survive and will do whatever they can to fight these 'nanobots' plus, likely the people who created them. So- civil war and war against the grey goo. Are you certain the grey goo would win? We've done reasonably well against pandemics. I imagine it will be a case that the majority of scientific minds, the military etc. try to ensure hummanity survives.

I guess it would depend on just how quickly these things could overwhelm everything. There'd likely need to be multiple releases of the stuff, which means finding enough people to support the cause and not whistleblow the entire operation. They would also need to be developed and created somewhere initially in sufficient quantity with no one catching on. Also seems doubtful to me.

I don't think so many people are as willing to create total genocide! Also, the type of people who are brainy enough to develop this type of technology- I kind of feel like they're likely to be keen on continuing to live. Again, unless AI help I guess. I imagine there will be restrictions against them creating doomsday robots though. 3D print the apocalypse in a few easy steps.

who cares if a minority of living creatures want to live when there is a majority of living creatures who live miserable life full of suffering and pain

How do you know it's the 'majority' living in suffering and pain? Maybe you could argue that animals are too bound by instincts to decide against reproduction. Humans can decide though. Surely that's the greatest indicator. If it really was the 'majority' who were suffering against their will, why do they keep reproducing and, why isn't suicide more readily accepted as a reasonable choice?

How do you know how much pain a tree, jellyfish, ant feels? You're surely deciding that your own experience and perception of life is everyone else's too. Plus, there will still be people who are suffering but insist they still want to live.

As a different example, before all the crap that happened in your life- which I do feel really bad for you for, were you so keen on annihilating all life on this planet? Or, were you more focussed on game development, enjoying music etc? If you'd found out at that stage in your life that some scientist was about to release a substance that would consume all your living tissue and, everyone else's, would you have been so thrilled?

 

[Csmith8827]

To do nothing in the face of evil is to allow evil

You are 100% right, i didn't read the rest of your post but I am taking real action against the evil in my life....whether it's seen or unseen...I'll have to read the rest of what you said another time but it's late and i have to work tomorrow, but I will finish your post.

Just finished your post. Yeah life is basically evil but i think our goal should be to fight against the evil? Like....that's what i try to do everyday honestly...is fight against evil...