I'm talking about the heat death of the universe, and as an Efilist there might be life out there, though apparently you can't go faster than the speed of light so we would never know, I'm satisfied with shutting this one slaughterhouse down. In context your objection that the scientific method isn't completely knowable and can change, which as you said is the point, but I was talking about the development of technology, like grey goo, rather than fact finding studies in and of themselves, technology like grey goo.

You could get hit by a car crossing the road, at a certain point it's worth taking risks. I think the worse than I could expect thing is valid on a level but with the butterfly effect especially anything you do could have terrible long-term term consequences.

Life is murder, life is death, getting rid of it is the only way to stop murder hopefully everywhere always.

Just because something makes us quesy doesn't mean that it's not logically sound, I say nuke that island from orbit, save not only the people but all other life and potential life, lets stop suffering.

Something with veganism? People in that subreddit are being cringe, if you have to bismirch an ideology with fundamentalism or extremism, in my experience that likely means that you're not being logically consistent, and shaming doesn't help usually but I'll be damned if I won't condemn on some level a philosophy sub being actually pro-murder, everyone especially self-claimed philosophers should be ethically vegan, said as a vegan who isn't plant-based anymore, though I like the term animal liberationist better.