Talk:Negative utilitarianism

Appropriateness of certain citations
Some of the citations in this article are to unpublished primary sources such as blogs. These include all of those attributed to the Foundational Research Institute, Brian Tomasik, socrethics.com, Toby Ord's blog, David Pearce's website (hedweb.com), and the "Negative Utilitarian FAQ". Are they appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Due to the weight given to these sources, I have added the "undue weight" tag. GojiBarry (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Benevolent world exploder" section is missing one obvious response
One of the most obvious responses to the benevolent world exploder scenario is that of simply "biting the bullet" and agreeing that destroying the world would be the appropriate course of action if it could be achieved painlessly and in an instant. I'm sure a few authors have taken that positions and should be listed here. The "Life could evolve again in a worse way" argument kind of goes in that direction by shifting the question to whether destroying all possibility of life instead of just Earth wouldn't be more appropriate (and thereby implicitly agreeing with the general idea of the world exploder), but it's not explicitly spelled out. --92.209.35.171 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I personally don't know of any academic sources that have this viewpoint, but I've heard that they're called efilists/omnicidists on some parts of the web. Maybe digging through those names someone can find something relevant? Paradox Marvin (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , this article contains a historical overview of omnicidists:
 * https://theconversation.com/solve-suffering-by-blowing-up-the-universe-the-dubious-philosophy-of-human-extinction-149331
 * 157.35.45.237 (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)