[bayarearefugee]

That's only one flaw in the theory.

There are others, such as the unproven, narcissistic and frankly unlikely-to-be-true assumption that humanity continuing to exist is a net positive in the long run.

[adastra22]

"net positive" requires a human being existing to judge.

[bayarearefugee]

> "net positive" requires a human being existing to judge.

This is effectively a religious belief you are espousing.

[adastra22]

What do you mean? Religion seems like a total nonsequitur here. If anything I would argue the opposite: you would need religion or something like it for moral statements to have any meaning without the existence of sentient beings.

[christophilus]

A net positive for whom?

[bayarearefugee]

Everything. of which humanity is a miniscule part.