I agree with the ethical imperative to stop this world, but I think it is way too complicated

Out of all the questions in this FAQ and all the ‘arguments’ we’ve heard along the years, the only one we find really challenging is this one. The rest are mainly excuses for activists to keep doing what they are already used to. To those who internalized the moral imperative of stopping this world but are genuinely deterred by the extreme complexity of the mission, we wish to say that we totally understand why you find it hard to start.
As complicated, difficult and extremely imperceptible as it may be, you must constantly remind yourself that there is nothing more important than thoroughly examining the possibility of stopping the suffering for good. It is definitely worth the time it would take to at least make a more educated decision regarding the only option that truly faces global suffering, instead of hastily dismiss the option as way too complicated.

Obviously we are aware of the fact that it is extremely complicated, however nobody knows that it is way too complicated. None of you does and therefore you are morally obligated to try and figure that out.
The difference between way too complicated and extremely complicated is exactly why we created this movement. This is the gap between merely wishing for the world to be destroyed, as many activists do (stating it’s the best thing that can ever happen!), and acting to make it so.

It is important to approach the suffering abolition project while taking a break from your regular activism. That is despite that from our personal experience in many cases activism is exactly what brings activists to consider the annihilation option. Profound despair of the chances to ever change society, made many think that it is pointless to try and change humanity, and that the only way to change things for the better is to get rid of it.
We wish it wouldn’t be despair, hate or revenge that would inspire activists to look for ways to stop the suffering, but the vision of a suffering-less world. But in any case while you are examining the possibility of that, it is recommended not to do it while continuing with your conventional activism, as it is easy to be sucked back into your routine especially if the other mission is as demanding as this one.

The start would be very hard. It is very frustrating to learn about the outcome of past pandemics, historical climatic events and the record of asteroid and commits hits, but remember, none of the past events was engineered intentionally. The outcome of a well- designed plan could be entirely different.

Claiming humanity can overcome any threat is too Hollywoodian and very little reality based. If you read our short review of humanity’s reaction to past pandemics and even the reaction to the AIDS outbreak (which obviously is not relevant in our case but we can learn a lot about humanity from it) you’ll realize that humans tend to look out for themselves first and sometimes only (a recent case for that matter is humanity’s response to climate change, those in power don’t really care that other fellow humans are hurt and die because of the life style they lead and are perfectly willing to keep their luxurious life style on their expense).

However if you do think that humans can overcome a threat like a pandemic than it means causing a global pandemic is not enough on its own, and what is required is a combined effort made of several different routes.

Maybe what is needed is an army of activists spreading one pathogen while others are spreading a different one (for the case of a natural immunity of some humans for example), both followed by a simulations attack on the world’s institutions who are most likely to confront the pandemics (WHO, CDC and etc.). And all that can mostly be a cover up or a starting point creating the opportune moment for the efforts to make the entire planet gradually unhabitable by releasing the Methane Hydrate trapped in it, or darkening the earth’s surface to decrease the Albedo Effect or whatever combined global project you can think of. These are just examples, the point is that if it was a disbelief in the chances of one of the suggested routes, then there is a need to think of a combination of them, not to give up the only option to stop the suffering.

We know this scenario sounds absolutely far-fetched but consider that several decades ago it would have sounded absolutely ridiculous. With the rate of advance of technologies and possibilities, in a few decades from now it would seem less and less fanciful than it may seem to you now. And more importantly, it would forever remain far-fetched if all the activists keep focusing on the few more humans they can convert to veganism, instead of focusing on a realistic operating plan to end global suffering.

In a self-defeating cycle, the more activists excusing themselves from trying because the idea is unrealistic, the more unrealistic the idea seems to activists who continue to excuse themselves from trying because the idea is unrealistic.

Our goal is that the annihilation option becomes an acknowledged activism option. Our hope is that it would become activists’ first option. In fact it must. Stopping all the suffering is what should be our goal and thinking how we can do that is where we must start, not from advocacy which is an extreme compromise on the animals’ expense. You start from the best option and only after it turns out to be irrelevant should you turn to such an extreme compromise as a world with as many vegans as possible. And even a totally vegan world (which is totally unrealistic) is a horrible world as we explain in the article Vegan Suffering and in the article occupied territory.

Examining all the options and more importantly all the suffering sources in the world and how to confront them, necessarily leads to the conclusion that this world must be destroyed. Only after all the possible ways to achieve this goal were investigated and failed, you can argue that the solution we suggest is impractical.

We doubt that any of the activists who argue that the annihilation idea is impractical claim so after seriously examining the option. As long as we don’t know that the only solution to the world suffering is impossible, we all must try.

The vision, that groups of activists with a diverse set of implementations may someday work, is not more imaginary than that the whole world would someday decides to go vegan, that veganism would someday become truly cruelty free and that someday all the animals would decide that since they can’t survive without hurting other animals they would stop breeding.
While the first is theoretically possible, but practically extremely unlikely, the other two are not even theoretically possible.

The goal of our movement is to convince activists to waive the chance to stop some of the suffering that few of the humans they encounter during their lifetime are causing, and focus on stopping all the suffering that will ever be caused.

We know that most activists won’t join the suffering abolition project. Let them focus on making veganism more accessible to a few more humans and let yourself focus on making suffering a history.

Nothing can be compared with even the tiniest option of stopping all the suffering. Don’t focus on the small chances of such a plan to succeed, but on the chances that it can, but won’t, because no one tried it.

The only thing worse than talented and dedicated activists devoting their lives to stopping all the suffering project that had failed, is activists missing the option to stop all the suffering because they thought it would fail.