The Medium Has Your Soul: Why Sburb is irredemably Evil (and what to do about it)

[orngjce223]

Sburb is a game.

It needed creators, unless you think that it arose out of its own informational paradox, which is a concept that has problems of its own.

But let's start at this question: Who would create a game like this?

I take the name of Skaianet Laboratories and imagine a world in which it is the company that creates this game that ends worlds to create universes. I create characters in that world and let them speak.

What they tell me is that they are doing it because Lord English eats universes and this was the only thing they could find that created universes.

As to why the game is structured like it is, meteors and all? I probe further, and their morality looks like someone decided that Social Darwinism, along with a smattering of meritocracy and Buddhist practices, were perfectly good principles upon which to base a philosophy.

But it's used to defend their point, that the meteors are needed to prevent everyone from entering the medium and passing information to people who Enter after them; it's supposed to be a test of ingenuity. Just like the Frog Temple, and the coded messages upon its faces, is a test of sentience, to see if the species they want to call up has intellectual resources enough to comprehend the game that will be played.

They call this a company religion, now. Because it's too hard to control independent multiple-god-tiers without hitching their souls to fanaticism.

The characters in question hail from Sburb Patch Notes, which is linked to in my signature.

[temporalMessiah]

There have, throughout the 4 billion-some years of Earth's existance, been many, MANY species, each consisting, naturally, of many, MANY individual members, even assuming we only treat animals with any moral weight. At this point on the Earth's history, the amount of life currently alive is below 1% of all life that Earth has ever hosted, again including if we only treat animals with any moral weight. If 4 billion years is a typical timeframe for a planet to have developed to Sburb, then his theory is very much reasonable, that 4 billion years worth of life and evolution, not just on a planetary scale, but on the scale of an entire universe, is quite a significant trade-off for the loss of one planet. Skaia isn't concerned with one planet's survival, it has the creation of an entire universe to deal with. A universe full of life, with umptillion planets that will exist throughout its lifetime, holds infinitely more moral weight than a snapshot of all life to exist on any individual planet.

[wolftamer9]

I'll ignore the arguments and philosophy and whatnot and just post my theory on everything:

It's not a random coincidence that in Homestuck the universe is depicted as a living organism (a frog). Sburb wouldn't exist in a plain universe-universe. The genesis frog is actually so evolved that it takes the form of a universe, and thus it can't reproduce the way normal organisms do. Instead, it uses Sburb as its "reproductive system," forcing players to ectobiologically breed its offspring. Unfortunately, as the universe is a living organism, it is just as susceptible to disease as a normal frog is. This particular disease is a virus that takes the form of Lord English, (who is actually a biological virus as opposed to a computer virus as was previously implied) who destroys the universe he is born in and then inserts himself into the created universe's genetic code so that he can carry on into that universe. (as well as sending his servants in to prepare for his arrival.) The problem here is that some viruses can cause unwanted side effects, namely cancer. Cancer can be caused by a cell losing the gene that limits its growth. And Jack Noir just happened to lose the mental barrier that stopped him from taking the black queen's ring by the insertion of an unsavory dress code. Thus his growth continued without limit.
So really Sburb/Sgrub shouldn't normally destroy the universe, just the home planet of the players. Normally it's for the greater good, but the local life just gets the short end of the deal. But in this case, it's bad for everyone.

TL;DR, Sburb is Billious Slick's reproductive system, LE is a cancer-causing virus, and Karkat's uncontrollable use of the word "Fuck" is actually symbolism for the genesis frog's reproductive process.

possible explanation of other elements:
1. Winning players who get to control the new universe normally act as that universe's "brain."
2. First Guardians and the green sun represent radiation that could cause mutation.
3. The scratch represents... I dunno, twins?

[Oblivion]

A universe full of life, with umptillion planets that will exist throughout its lifetime, holds infinitely more moral weight than a snapshot of all life to exist on any individual planet.

I have to strongly disagree. You talk about possibilities. There's no confirmation of complex or civilized life outside Earth. What are the odds? How long would it even take to achieve something like what we have here?

At least in Alternia's universe, there IS confirmation of other life. Alternian imperial conquest has claimed planets and overthrown other civilizations in the past. So in the context of Homestuck, it's probably safe to assume Earth's universe - prior to Noir destroying it - had the same properties. Furthermore, Betty Crocker's empire in the post-scratch Earth is referred to as "multiglobal", so at the very least humanity has colonized other worlds; chances are they've encountered some manner of extraterrestrial life in the process.

[Oblivion]

The problem is you're looking at them from the position of one mortal to another, which is a perfectly logical way to observe it... except when one of the participants isn't mortal, it's something much much greater. To Sburb/B.Slick, we aren't of any value. We are less than ants, less than bacteria. Do you weep when you step on bugs on the sidewalk? Do you lament for the germs you kill when you wash your hands? I very much doubt it, and that is the comparison you should be making in this case.

To Sburb, it is just a creature going along with its lifecycle of reproduction and multiplication. Our planet just happens to be the cell chosen to become its new offspring, obliterating the existence it used to have as just another building block in the puzzle to instead have the opportunity to become something greater, producing a new life, a universe of its own. And not always successful, as in any other pattern of reproduction - sometimes the embryo fails to fertilize, sometimes it's stillborn, sometimes there's complications.

[Quirk]

That doesn't justify murder! Yes, murder! With all due respect, there is no explanation for meteors hitting only habited areas! Anyway, the idea of trading lives for lives is immoral, but the idea of trading lives for possibilities is simply monstrous!

As stated before Skaia is neutral. It's a part of nature. And the thing about nature is that it doesn't care. Nature is trying to kill you. Look at Australia. There are dozens of things out there in the cosmos that could wipe out the entire planet in a microsecond. But that's not murder. It's just a random bit of the system, and your number came up.

We live as part of that system, and as such can't have the liberties of the perfect solution. People will have to die, regrettable as it is.

Also, sorry about earlier. That was unprofessional.

EDIT @ Oblivion, that is a wonderful post right there.

[Loreweaver]

The virus analogy fails because the virus in your analogy would have to be creating new cells for it to infect.

For those who've expressed anger at the predetermination evident in Homestuck, let me remind you that the kids have broken free from the normal course of the game and things are now (hopefully) headed towards undetermined action.

For the full cycle of universal death and rebirth, let's look at it from another angle. Say you want to finish the game and create your universe. Well, sucks to be you, knowing that the lives you're directly responsible for creating are going to be wiped out by the mechanism of their creation. You get to create a world, but one whose life will be snuffed before its time. Say you want to stop the cycle, end the death and destruction here. Well, sucks to be you, knowing that the whole world you've come from is gone and all that's left is you and your friends, and possibly some other players in a different session you'll never encounter. If you end the cycle, you face the horror of damning the entirety of existence; you don't know for certain that there are other players, and horrible as it may be the death of your world has already happened. There is nowhere to go but forward.

If whomever or whatever designed Sburb is still active, then it is certainly malicious. Designing such a system--because Skaia wiping your world clean stopped being a stopgap solution and became a system the moment it happened in multiple sessions--is nothing short of monstrous. There are certainly better ways, ones that enable the birth of many more frogs and the universes they contain.

[Oblivion]

I very much doubt it, and that is the comparison you should be making in this case.

That's a really bad comparison. Do I kill a whole species of insect or bacteria? Are they sentient? This is a conscious act? It's necessary for survival? This is a consequence of limitations? The game is all powerful and deals with possibilities, I'm incredibly limited and talk about actual lives. This isn't negotiable, no matter what.

Can you rewrite that with less question marks? I can't tell what's an actual question and what's a statement to make a point.

[Wessolf27]

@Loreweaver: Maybe if there were ways of creating universes that weren't as inherently destructive as SBURB, then maybe there wouldn't have been a need to resort to such measures, but the fact is, there hasn't been, in story, any alternative process to creating a universe without the destruction of a single planet. But maybe the kids might find a way to break this cycle of destruction.

@safetyboots: I am stating a logical extreme to your statement for the moment, but would you really wish to kill the very same nature that--though it amorally devastates us with her natural calamities and the competition for survival--is the very same nature that nourishes and allows us to exist and grow? If you wish to destroy SBURB, then what happens will be that it will cause the destruction of a natural cycle. To say that you would willingly extinguish that is to limit the potential for creation, the limit that even if this cycle continues, there might still be a chance of creating a total break in the cycle that would ultimately create a more stable form of universe creation.

Nature states that the fittest and strongest survive? Why is this so? This is so that her organisms may evolve to withstand the problems that surround them. So that, there will be a continued existence of life as we know it. Or life as it has been ever since the beginning. If SBURB was to not exist, then there would have been no growth, no potential for creation, nothing that could ever help in finding a way that maybe one day, there will be a time when we wouldn't need SBURB to create more universes.

[Loreweaver]

Actually, it's simple logic. Remove the trappings of the game, leave only the frog breeding, and you have an inherently harmless means of propagating realities. Add in all the stuff the game involves, though, and you've got malice and horror.

[newGenesis]

Sburb doesn't normally destroy universes, just planets. Our universe died because of the combined failures of the troll and human kids which made Bec Noir, the cancer. And then the troll universe was destroyed due to the machinations of Doc Scratch. In fact, I think it's pretty likely that Doc Scratch and Lord English arranged the cancer in our universe, as well - they needed two universes to fuel the Green Sun.

What seems to be the norm is, a new universe is created at the cost of life and civilization on a single planet, but that planet is repopulated by Exiles (as happened on Alternia) and the main species of that planet repopulates from the players, so despite the billions of deaths, normally there's a net gain.

And the thing about nature is that it doesn't care.

That's my point! We challenge it! Every day! If some all stupid and powerful thing wanted to erase humanity, I would kill it or die trying!

"If you do not perish,
the possibility of the emergence of a possible universe can not occur."
"That doesn't even make sense! Die Monster! You don't belong in this world!"

That's how things roll in my head.

I'm kind of confused here. How do you fight the game? I'm sure the kids would have been happy to save the Earth, but they couldn't. It's impossible and inevitable. The only thing to do from there is to play the game and make something positive come out of all the death.

Trying to kill the game is like trying to stop gravity through sheer willpower. You're not gonna, so there's no point in trying. "Kill it or die trying," if there's a 100% chance that you can't kill it, is not a constructive use of your time, even if it might be emotionally satisfying.

Incidentally, we don't know who or what created Sburb/Sgrub/etc., or why they did it, if there is even a creator in the first place, or if it's a bizarre natural process of the multiverse - so it's hard to really judge. For all we know, the designer made it so that the game destroys the surface of its players' planets for very important greater good reasons. The game seems to be the only way to actually fight entropy. If we look it at it long-term, it's a choice between life in the multiverse continuing infinitely at the sacrifice of an infinitesimal blip, or absolute, eternal extinction. I know what I'd do.

[Wessolf27]

Actually, it's simple logic. Remove the trappings of the game, leave only the frog breeding, and you have an inherently harmless means of propagating realities. Add in all the stuff the game involves, though, and you've got malice and horror.

But where do you find the frogs necessary for the creation of other universes? And if Frog Breeding were to become the norm, what if there would be the off chance that it creates a malformed Billious Slick just because the person who performed the breeding duties doesn't even have any idea about the complexities of creating them? What of the chance that there will be mulitple mutations of universes that would be paradoxical towards each other, and create forms even more malevolent than Lord English? Furthermore, the moment that you do create Billious Slick, where is the environment necessary for Billious Slick to fully grow and mature?

If anything, SBURB is the womb of the universe, it entails that the creation of a universe must be done by the right proponents and people. If anyone were to simply perform the breeding duties, there can be a large number of problems that might do more harm than good.

EDIT: newgenesis made a good point, yes, a whole civilization and species might have perished, but there is still a very good chance for the survivors of this civilization to still have a chance to propagate and regrow.

[temporalMessiah]

A universe full of life, with umptillion planets that will exist throughout its lifetime, holds infinitely more moral weight than a snapshot of all life to exist on any individual planet.

I have to strongly disagree. You talk about possibilities. There's no confirmation of complex or civilized life outside Earth. What are the odds? How long would it even take to achieve something like what we have here?

It would take a species of human intelligence, get this, 10,000 years, to go from primitive life to Sburb, and to get there, it took 2.5 billion years from the first evidence of life to that point. We can only see 4.5 billion lightyears into a constantly-growing universe that, as of now, is something like 3 times that size. If it's true that nothing can surpass lightspeed, well, no shit you don't have evidence of extraterrestrial life. The universe is too damn huge for that. Those ARE possibilities. REAL possibilities. Enough reason to believe even one other planet has reached our level. It's complete bullshit to believe that a universe THAT big with THAT much time available can only produce ONE intelligent civilization.

Ending civilization and ecosystems means condemning to absolute meaninglessness everything that ever lived on this planet, all the universal events that allowed the emergence of life here. Remember that the players come from a completely different reality from that of the doomed planet.

Strictly speaking. Cultural progression shapes a person, it really does. A German boy raised by a Japanese family will grow to conform to Japanese culture. It will shape him, his German origins be damned. This takes that to a planetary level. John is a human, raised from April 13, 1996 in Washington State, USA, even if he was born on a meteor outside the Earth's temporal stratum.

The simple act of weighing lives is immoral. For all that I care, these infinite unborn universes can continue without being born. They aren't worth a single life.

That's a pretty odd statement, considering that every cell in your body is alive, genetic material included. Is it immoral to reproduce, to have a child? And how many sperm had to die for the one to fertilize the egg, to make it grow? You are more than 2 cells Far more. Hell, you can fit the number of cells that had to die for that egg's fertilization in your hand. You will die whether you reproduce or not. If you could reasonably do so, would you not reproduce because that unborn, no, unconceived child is not worth the life of any one of those sperm?

It's a hard thing to contemplate, the necessity of one death for the survival of even two others. It forces one to put a moral decision into the hands of such unfeeling, disinterested logic as math, which will, in this case, force you to take a decision which would normally be evil. As much as my heart runs my decision-making, I know: Sometimes, logic makes the best moral guide.

EDIT

Anyway, yes. Besides all its inherent cruelty, I would destroy nature if it demanded sacrifices. Luckily, she doesn't.

If you eat, a sacrifice was made.

[Oblivion]

You also must remember that, within the context of realities within Homestuck, there is no overruling objective force of good or evil. There is no God - those referred to as "gods" in-story are either First Guardians or Godtier Players, and neither of which has the ability to do anything than help along the process of creation, they cannot undo or stop the progression - even Scratch could only "aid" Lord English in eradicating a single universe; he couldn't do that little on his own, much less unmake many others or SBurb itself. There is no deific force of Biblical caliber who determines what is good and what is evil. This is not a matter of debate as it is in real life, it is objective fact - or, if there IS such an entity/entities in Homestuck, they are completely and utterly uninvolved with the chain of universes that have been created from Sburb's eons of propagation, so for all intents and purposes they don't exist.

Thus, reality is not governed by good and evil. It is perfectly, completely amoral. It does not care about intelligent life, or preservation of existence, or any of that. It does not regard individual value - in fact, I would be perfectly confident in saying that it is not aware it exists outside of the singular group of operators that produced it, and the singular group of operators that will produce its offspring. As far as B.Slick knows, the only intelligent life that ever existed outside of itself are the players that it saw as a tadpole and those who its code will create in the future when it is ready to reproduce.

It is neither good nor evil, unless you equate complete amorality with evil. Those concepts are meaningless to it. It does not fathom them.

Control, cheat or break it. Even if it takes an eternity. Even if for this I have to make the ultimate sacrifice: to leave behind my own existence.

Which you can do. And the process of existence and propagation of life will continue on with or without you. Again, it does not care.

[CSJ]

I have created a monster.

I think I'll destroy it in a few years time after carefully lording over its evolution, then trapping a select few readers into an epic struggle for survival, doomed to engage in a obstruficated quest whose struggles are but a charade over what is in actuality a game where 'success' is the only option.

And then they will spend the rest of their existence developing a new thread in the mirror image of this one, nurturing and tending to it as I have, prolonging the echoes of my thoughts on Homestuck like a cosmic parrot. AND YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM CSJ, When I Lay My Vengeance Upon You....

JKS

I am aware that Homestuck is a story, so let's be civil to each other, since having a difference in opinion about fiction is a good thing. What I hope we can all explore is a deconstruction of Sburb and the impliations of a theoretical construing of the 'game' of Sburb as 'wrong', 'evil' or whatever negative descriptor you feel is appropriate.

This is not a place to defend Hussie's work. For all we know, he could be reading this now and giggling in a fit of trolling euphoria. It is not an attack on Hussie's work, either as to consider the theoretical implications herein does not mean that Homestuck itself is bad or whatever. Let's keep it that way and ALL GLORY AND HONOUR TO THE BATTERWITCH.

There is no deific force of Biblical caliber who determines what is good and what is evil. This is not a matter of debate as it is in real life, it is objective fact - or, if there IS such an entity/entities in Homestuck, they are completely and utterly uninvolved with the chain of universes that have been created from Sburb's eons of propagation, so for all intents and purposes they don't exist.

But this begs of course, the question of who/what created the game in the first place. If such a being or beings exist, then there does exist moral implications for the processes undertaken by its creation. The players can be compared to lab rats bred to undergo experimentation for the duration of their lives, living an existence entirely determined by individuals beyond their comprehensive and under whose terms they exist and eventually, cease to exist. The case of Sburb is one of a deterministic universe which (if it is considered a construct) was designed in such a way that it forces those captive to it to 'play or perish'. If the acts of Sburb can be considered objectively wrong, then those responsible for its existence may be 'bad' and anything which alters the nature of Sburb and reduces the 'badness' of it would be considered 'good'. Is a deterministic existence whereby some become immortal at the expense of billions better or worse than a doomed non-deterministic existence?

Here's another question:
What right to existence does Skaia have that outweighs the existence of anything else in the Universe in the eyes of Derse? Does the fact that Derse has no free will ameliorate them for said destruction? Does the projected reality of Sburb deserve precedence over the reality that supports it?

[temporalMessiah]

This is not a defending of Hussie's work. It is not an attack on Hussie's work. Let's keep it that way and ALL GLORY AND HONOUR TO THE BATTERWITCH.

Were we doing either?

...Must have missed the subtext.

[newGenesis]

Nature states that the fittest and strongest survive?

You'll excuse me, but I will not discuss this. Not with these terms.

Anyway, yes. Besides all its inherent cruelty, I would destroy nature if it demanded sacrifices. Luckily, she doesn't.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. "Nature" isn't a thing. It's not an object or a person. It's a term that describes all universal processes. Physics, math, chemistry: that's what nature is.

And you know what one of the laws of physics is? The Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy in a closed system (the universe) can only increase. Over time, all energy becomes unusable. That's the heat death of the universe. That, in basic terms, is the "sacrifice" that nature demands - all life in the universe has to end at a certain point. What are you planning to do about it? I'm interested.

How do you fight the game?

Control, cheat or break it.

Even if it takes an eternity. Even if for this I have to make the ultimate sacrifice: to leave behind my own existence - in other words, become an omnipotent creature, something like the Lord English or even more powerful.

And what if you don't understand the stakes you're dealing with? None of the kids can see the big picture. They decided that they had to cheat the game just for their own survival, only after discovering that their session was barren. But breaking a game that is this powerful and this high-stakes could have unimaginable consequences that they wouldn't know about. It already seems pretty clear that the only way to fight entropy in the multiverse is to create new universes through the game. Isn't that worth the deaths of a few billion people and other organisms, who in the grand scheme would die anyway? Skaia has to think about the big picture (if Skaia even "thinks" at all).

[newGenesis]

You also must remember that, within the context of realities within Homestuck, there is no overruling objective force of good or evil. There is no God - those referred to as "gods" in-story are either First Guardians or Godtier Players, and neither of which has the ability to do anything than help along the process of creation, they cannot undo or stop the progression - even Scratch could only "aid" Lord English in eradicating a single universe; he couldn't do that little on his own, much less unmake many others or SBurb itself. There is no deific force of Biblical caliber who determines what is good and what is evil. This is not a matter of debate as it is in real life, it is objective fact - or, if there IS such an entity/entities in Homestuck, they are completely and utterly uninvolved with the chain of universes that have been created from Sburb's eons of propagation, so for all intents and purposes they don't exist.

Thus, reality is not governed by good and evil. It is perfectly, completely amoral. It does not care about intelligent life, or preservation of existence, or any of that. It does not regard individual value - in fact, I would be perfectly confident in saying that it is not aware it exists outside of the singular group of operators that produced it, and the singular group of operators that will produce its offspring. As far as B.Slick knows, the only intelligent life that ever existed outside of itself are the players that it saw as a tadpole and those who its code will create in the future when it is ready to reproduce.

It is neither good nor evil, unless you equate complete amorality with evil. Those concepts are meaningless to it. It does not fathom them.

Control, cheat or break it. Even if it takes an eternity. Even if for this I have to make the ultimate sacrifice: to leave behind my own existence.

Which you can do. And the process of existence and propagation of life will continue on with or without you. Again, it does not care.

OK, I kind of have to disagree with this argument. Morality doesn't exist because of the grand cosmic order; there is not and never has been an objective morality (I suppose some religious people would disagree with me, but let's note that there are a lot of religions that all claim to be the objective morality, so you can't really go by that, though your own personal moral code can be based on religious principles). Morality is a social convention that we use to treat each other in a civil way. And just because a perpetrator doesn't think that they're doing something wrong, they can still be wrong from a moral standpoint.

But Skaia is just too big for that, I think. What it does is different from murder. Life as a whole doesn't gain anything from senseless death. Life as a whole clearly does gain something from Skaia's games, and those games come at a price. If there's a way to keep the benefit without the cost, then the kids should go for it, definitely, but if not, don't try to destroy it just because it hit people with meteors, because in the process you'd be giving the multiverse a massive abortion.

[temporalMessiah]

I should probably note: The guy responsible for forcing Skaia to open the defense portals is the guy who wants to stop the frog from being bred. Your planet is destroyed pretty much because this chump doesn't want you to make your universe. Take from that what you will.

[CSJ]

This is not a defending of Hussie's work. It is not an attack on Hussie's work. Let's keep it that way and ALL GLORY AND HONOUR TO THE BATTERWITCH.

Were we doing either?

...Must have missed the subtext.

Let's just call it an 'inb4', because someone is bound to make this mistake sooner or later as the thread continues. For some, disengaging one's consideration of a fictional work from the subject matter of said work is difficult. Though there is nothing wrong with that, it does lead towards discussions like this slowly falling into the abyss.

And that's difficult enough to prevent as it is. :P

[newGenesis]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

It would take a some time to explain and even I am not too sure about this convoluted idea. Anyway, yes. Nature as in everything.

And what if you don't understand the stakes you're dealing with?

That's the thing. I don't care. Really.

With absolute certainty that it's impossible to save my planet, I certainly would abandon everything and destroy this game.

OK, so, you're an amoral bastard, is what you're saying (in this hypothetical scenario, that is!). You'd be sacrificing infinite lives for pointless, non-constructive revenge. Reminds me of when Eridan destroyed the Matriorb. Hopesplode!

Anyway, if we exclude morals and values, there is no reason to even consider the "importance" of this game. It's absolutely null, just as much as anything else.

I, personally, am not excluding morals and values. I'm just not thinking in ridiculous absolutes. If we consider the continued propagation of life to be more moral than mass extinction, when we have a say in it, then the game is morally good, if not entirely unambiguous.

[CSJ]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

It would take a some time to explain and even I am not too sure about this convoluted idea. Anyway, yes. Nature as in everything.

And what if you don't understand the stakes you're dealing with?

That's the thing. I don't care. Really.

With absolute certainty that it's impossible to save my planet, I certainly would abandon everything and destroy this game.

OK, so, you're an amoral bastard, is what you're saying (in this hypothetical scenario, that is!). You'd be sacrificing infinite lives for pointless, non-constructive revenge. Reminds me of when Eridan destroyed the Matriorb. Hopesplode!

Of course, acting amorally in defiance of an amoral existence within an amoral universe is totally understandable, right?

And as many fictional works will tell you, just because an act is futile does not make it 'pointless' or 'meaningless' by default.

[newGenesis]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

It would take a some time to explain and even I am not too sure about this convoluted idea. Anyway, yes. Nature as in everything.

And what if you don't understand the stakes you're dealing with?

That's the thing. I don't care. Really.

With absolute certainty that it's impossible to save my planet, I certainly would abandon everything and destroy this game.

OK, so, you're an amoral bastard, is what you're saying (in this hypothetical scenario, that is!). You'd be sacrificing infinite lives for pointless, non-constructive revenge. Reminds me of when Eridan destroyed the Matriorb. Hopesplode!

Of course, acting amorally in defiance of an amoral existence within an amoral universe is totally understandable, right?

And as many fictional works will tell you, just because an act is futile does not make it 'pointless' or 'meaningless' by default.

No, because just because the universe is amoral (and I believe ours is, because the laws of physics aren't going to change to avoid hurting someone) doesn't mean the people who live in it have to be amoral. The void doesn't have to respect life, but life can and should respect other life.

And destroying the game with no regard for the consequences isn't just futile, it's destructive. Prematurely, anyway. Like I said, it's aborting the future multiverse to make yourself feel better, and there's no way that's right.

[newGenesis]

You'd be sacrificing infinite lives for pointless, non-constructive revenge.

Infinite possible lives, yes! I can make some myself, really! Without destroying planets, even! Just give me some time!

Anyway, I edited my previous message. Perhaps it makes more sense now.

Except you said that you were going to destroy the game without caring about the stakes, or in other words, without providing a better option. So.......

[temporalMessiah]

If you eat, a sacrifice was made.

Wow! Just wow! I'll repeat myself.

The game is all powerful and deals with possibilities, I'm incredibly limited and talk about actual lives. This isn't negotiable, no matter what. I'm adamant about this. This is more than my survival. It's my life all it means.

That had nothing to do with your statement on nature not demanding sacrifice. The fact that you eat proves that nature quite clearly DOES.

Which you can do. And the process of existence and propagation of life will continue on with or without you. Again, it does not care.

"Leave behind my own existence!" as in "Throw away what I am now, my humanity and everything else!". You can't turn all powerful without breaking some eggs.

Nor can you save as much of life as you can. It's a Noah situation. The world is ending. Save what you can.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

It would take a some time to explain and even I am not too sure about this convoluted idea. Anyway, yes. Nature as in everything.

I don't think you quite understand what nature is. Nature is not some object you can find. Nature is not a tree or a bird or a rock or some New Age shit like that. To be cold about it, Nature is cosmic law. You can't beat cosmic law. The least of the universe's power can kill you. Hell, it's codified in Nature that it can kill you. You can't overthrow that.

And what if you don't understand the stakes you're dealing with?

That's the thing. I don't care. Really.

With absolute certainty that it's impossible to save my planet, I certainly would abandon everything and destroy this game.

That is cowardice. Just because you can't bring back that which was killed does not mean you don't try and make something come from it if you have the option, and you are given that option. In fact, you aren't. The entire point of the game is to make something come of it.