My question is, & in a Nietzschean vein, is there value in continuing to suffer so that in the future we may have unanimous consent to self-eradicate as a species?

The value is an eventual unanimously consensual annihilation of our species, and an increase in autonomy in the interim due to increased normativity of others acting toward the same goal. I have run into Sorites paradox with this line of reasoning: n people in agreement is not unity; n+1 people in agreement is still not unity.

Unity of mind increases autonomy for the group in agreement, but begins to dwarf autonomy for those outside of the group, especially if the group is the large majority.

​

I don't think my thought process overcomes the reasoning for antinatalism in your version of negative utilitarianism, but perhaps a slow extinction due to partite participation in pro/anti-natalism increases FNF to a degree (both for existing & non-yet-existing persons) that there are additional duties for some not-yet-existing individuals to be born.

​

I am not an accredited philosopher in any sense of the word & I understand if you find my question frivolous. I wanted to note that your essay (article?) reinvigorated my interest in philosophy, as well as my participation in denouncing contemporary normative society as you have shown that the burden of proof lies upon the hegemony. I am looking forward to reading many of your other publications.