From proconsul heseloni to homo sapiens, as a species, we have brought about nothing but destruction and catastrophe on this planet. From torturing animals on a daily basis in slaughterhouses for our luxurious meals to making entire species go extinct to waging wars and killing fellow species to slavery, we have done nothing good. Say a circumstance were to come bestowing upon you the final choice, the decision that ends us all, the choice to let humankind as a whole perish (painlessly and instantaneously), should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator

Does not matter one way or the other.

And why would that be?

And why would that be? — TheSoundConspirator

Humans are no more or less moral than anything else in the universe.

The human mind is an agent of extinction, the human heart is an agent of conservation. An assassin is the best bodyguard! :snicker:

... as a species, we have brought about nothing but destruction and catastrophe on this planet. — TheSoundConspirator

Evolutionary processes (e.g. chrysalis) are prodigeously wasteful – entropic. We're either fit enough to survive 'becoming an extraterrestrial species' or soon enough we'll take our (overdue) place in the terrestrial fossil record. Every skeleton on the higher slopes of Mount Everest must have once belonged to a highly-ambitious specimen.

Sure, humans are destructive, but humans are also currently the best bet to leave earth and expand into space, securing the continuation of life after an earth destroying event.
With your logic you probably would have chosen to destroy the first cyanobacteria which poisoned 99% of life on earth with their free oxygen.

From proconsul heseloni to homo sapiens, as a species, we have brought about nothing but destruction and catastrophe on this planet. From torturing animals on a daily basis in slaughterhouses for our luxurious meals to making entire species go extinct to waging wars and killing fellow species to slavery, we have done nothing good. Say a circumstance were to come bestowing upon you the final choice, the decision that ends us all, the choice to let humankind as a whole perish (painlessly and instantaneously), should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator

Sure, I'll kill my children; my wife; my brothers and sister and their children; my step mother; my friends; people I respect and admire; and then eight billion more. All so I can be sure to finally kill Dr. Phil and make sure anti-natalists and depressive eco-dorks won't have to feel guilty and alienated any more.

Say a circumstance were to come bestowing upon you the final choice, the decision that ends us all, the choice to let humankind as a whole perish (painlessly and instantaneously), should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator

No. I don't subscribe to a dictatorship.

Here is a song about the end of humanity in a Nuclear War. The last line echoes

Does not matter one way or the other. — Jackson

But it does so with huge passion, great beauty and sadness. In the end, it doesn't matter, we can go for a last walk together in the radioactive morning dew, But it sure as fuck matters that in the end it doesn't matter, because it is not the case that

we have brought about nothing but destruction and catastrophe on this planet. — TheSoundConspirator

Our destructiveness cannot justify our destroying ourselves. We have brought destruction and catastrophe, but also this:-

Antinatalists should give thanks for their existence because without it, they would be unable to complain to the rest of us about their and our existence.

...

As long as a single human experiences suffering that outweighs all their enjoyment of life, then the value of human life has been disproven.

At this point, we can only choose to look the other way and manufacture a view of the world that does not include the suffering individual. To embrace this reality fully is to acknowledge that the human experiment has failed in the one dimension that matters to us. Pulling the plug is the only way to keep your integrity. You can continue living, but you will always be a traitor to your kind.

But To begin with, the interference of human beings in the lives of other species has brought about destruction and human beings have in fact brought about nothing but destruction as evidenced by our past and present. Now, this hypothetical did not deny the brutality of nature nor did it deny that other animals are destructive as well, rather, it was a spotlight on the industrialized and mechanical torture of other species. And thirdly, no, I do not feel an obligation to pass on this knowledge to the future. Human beings have accumulated such vast knowledge, but to what end? At the end of the day, on the outskirts of the mechanical way of life, it does not matter to our inner peace.

The human experiment has indeed failed evidenced by the multiple catastrophes that have been brought about in our wake.

Well, ArmChairPhilospher, why discuss the safety of the continuation of life if currently and in the past, we have put our self-interests above all else betraying the trust of many? From an evolutionary perspective, one might put forth the "survival of the fittest" concept, but as human beings, the species that coined the term "humane", shouldn't we attempt to do justice to it?

The human experiment has indeed failed evidenced by the multiple catastrophes that have been brought about in our wake. — TheSoundConspirator

So, time for God to flood again, eh?

....

but as human beings, the species that coined the term "humane", shouldn't we attempt to do justice to it? — TheSoundConspirator

Of course we should - but not by committing suicide. Humanity is destructive through its numbers, its ignorance and its inability to elect honest leaders, not through malicious intent. Most people are good most of the time. That's a good basis. That they are also lazy, ignorant and cowards are things we can deal with through education.

We are barreling toward extinction within a minute breadth of geologic time. No need to arrogate the right to end others lives. That's a punk nihilistic move.

It's all going to happen again anyway. Being is inevitable and we have no control on where and what we might appear as in the next happening.

That sounds like a purely utopian standpoint. Human beings do in fact act out of malicious intent in the majority of circumstances. That is a fact that cannot be denied as it has been proven time and again by humans themselves.

"The right to end others lives", isn't that something we bestow upon ourselves and abide by every single day through the conflict amongst humans, the slaughter of animals, abuse, and every other malicious crime we commit?

Such an opinion can only be formed through extreme bias. Of course, malicious actions stand out but that is the bias. You don't read it in the news when billions of people just have a boring, normal day - but that is exactly what's happening.

You would first have to back up the claims made (which you cannot).

Basically this OP looks like gibberish because it is gibberish. If you ere just looking to see if someone could point this out I am sure many above already have? I haven’t actually looked but hope I am correct.

The OP seems to be suggesting that the destruction and catastrophes brought about by humans is adequate justification to let humans go extinct as and when the opportunity arises. We do execute (mass) murderers but the death penalty is slowly but steadily becoming outmoded (Malysia recently abolished capital punishment).

If humans are so bad, why should this post of you be considered different?

The idea that humans have brought nothing but destruction and catastrophe was likely written by a depressed person. Thinking beyond the statement as emotional poetry shows us the absurdity of the statement. Did you not just write a thought provoking and emotionally laden piece of work? Was that destruction and catastrophe?

No, humanity has created a world in which people may sit around the internet and postulate imaginary scenarios. We're doing fine.

Firstly, the "we are doing fine" is a statement that doesn't even wholly pertain to the current state of human beings, let alone animals.

Can't I, I like sushi? Let us start at the beginning, we initially began as hunters and gatherers foraging for food, dwelled upon how better the planet could benefit us, began digging the Earth for fuel sources, industrialized the process of slaughtering innocent animals for nice sushi and steak, waged wars on one another, committed heinous crimes against individuals, etc (In no particular order). If you'd like further historical pieces of evidence, I can cite them.

↪Philosophim Firstly, the "we are doing fine" is a statement that doesn't even wholly pertain to the current state of human beings, let alone animals. — TheSoundConspirator

Well, let me back that statement then. Right now you are able to communicate with someone across the world in a way just 40 years ago would have most likely been impossible for you. We have modern conveniences of air conditioning which has only existed in the last 100 years. You likely live parasite free, which is a convenience most humans did not have.

We live in a time where war is at its lowest in human history. We can travel into space. Education and knowledge are at people's fingertips with the internet. Opportunity for business and creative enterprises are more than they've ever been. We've created technology that pulls energy from the sun and the wind.

So where are we not doing fine? I ask you to qualify those statements now.

should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator

Of course not