Does suicide and homicide have moral value?
With 372,000 births each day, I find vasectomies are the best method of birth and population control. I want to make that clear now.
I take the church of Euthanasias stance on suicide; the less people, the more resources available. However I also extend this concept to mass homicide within 1st world economic zones such as the United States, Europe, Metropolitan Asia, ect.
There is evidence to suggest that for every person raised in a 1st world economy, 5-8+ people could be raised without malnutrition or neglect in a 3rd world economy.
Should we really place any moral value on individual human life? Personally I can see no value. I understand mass murder/suicide; it screams the truth, that our lives mean nothing to the universe, and that their is no innocence, just as their is no guilt. There is no right or wrong, there is only whats desired, and whats not desired.
I take the church of Euthanasias stance on suicide; the less people, the more resources available. However I also extend this concept to mass homicide within 1st world economic zones such as the United States, Europe, Metropolitan Asia, ect.
There is evidence to suggest that for every person raised in a 1st world economy, 5-8+ people could be raised without malnutrition or neglect in a 3rd world economy.
Should we really place any moral value on individual human life? Personally I can see no value. I understand mass murder/suicide; it screams the truth, that our lives mean nothing to the universe, and that their is no innocence, just as their is no guilt. There is no right or wrong, there is only whats desired, and whats not desired.
Comments (52)
Quoting XanderTheGrey
Hello. I see a contradiction between these two statements. If humans have no "moral" (I think you mean ontological) value, then your argument in the first quote has no effect. 1 x 0 = 8 x 0 = 0.
The more resources for who? Individuals who have no value?
I say this a lot; you can't have soft nihilism. If individuals have no value, then resources for those valueless individuals also have no value.
Xander - this is a really disturbing post. It sounds like you are really serious about this. Is it something you have plans to put into practice? I've only said this to one other person on this forum - if I knew how to contact them, I would tell someone in your life what you have said. Have you told anyone else?
Please be kind to the people around you and to yourself.
I agree with you on an emotional level, but we need to be able to make arguments against this kind of nihilism. These kinds of arguments should be welcome at the table. If these arguments aren't given a hearing then they continue to fester and grow.
Every human at some point values someones life.
You all make a good point. I forgot to add perhaps; that even if I had no values, it would make sense for me to expetiment with adhereing to diffetent "patterns" as it were, rathet than devoting myself to the behavior of a loose unit.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the greatest precived common values of the greatest precived majority of mankind: seen convoluted and construed in many areas, including this one; suicide, and homocide.
The Earth is rather isolated in outer-space. Those of us in the 1st world suffer from a terrible delusion that our everyday lifestyle choices are not responsible for the vast amount of suffering on the otherside of the globe; that its "someone else's fualt" that there are "bad guys" to blame. Meanwhile a group of people were locked in a room together with enough resources to last each one 90+ years, it would be considered wrong if a smaller group claimed the majority of the resources as their own. Would it be wrong to those few people so that more of the others could survive?
When it comes to superiority, I think the average person from a 3rd world lifestyle has more potential than one from the 1st world. They are generally healthier, more physically fit, ect. Regarless of any possible malnourishment.
But to answer your qeustion and clear my name I'll tell you the same thing I said to the docs; "I have many plans, many thoughts, desires, and urges, but I have no intent".
I'll need to do some reading and become more familiar with "secular" philosophy, I feel I could be more familiar with the word.
But yes, you could say I find propose in something greater than myself, which is simply desire. It adds up doesn't it? We will all risk our health and our lives for something we desire, even give them up willingly. "Desire" is greater than ourselves it seems.
My desire is to not adhere to concepts that are so saturated in hypocrisy and convolution. I recognize that hypocrisy and convolution cannot be avoided completely, but the topic of suicide and homicide are utterly saturated with it.
Or if you wan't to go still further: isn't it anyhow the case that the people at the shit-end of, say, capitalist exploitation (say, in another country) have no effect on your or your close circles lives, so they have no value, and we shouldn't care about them. Well. No. Obviously the non-shit-end only is at it is thanks to exploitation, so it's dependent on it. This seems another type of way to give value to people, as parts of a system, but in this case the usefulness is upholding an institution very much bound to your survival in the present state, e.g. the economy.
Now, if you say that this is not moral value, I'll just add that survival is better when the survivor is happy, so the circle of people, and the machine-people under capitalism are still connected to your happiness, of which the first is so directly, the other indirectly. (Also, an unstable system won't survive forever, so happiness of the machine-people is also of consequence.)
The point is, people are (I think naturally) put into order of value to your happiness, and everyone has their own ordering. There are people that have value to you and that you don't know about, since they have a possible effect on the lives of people you know. Since we're not omniscient, you never know, and I think an assumption of moral value is more natural than that of no value, especially since the limits between enemies and non-enemies are no longer very clearly cut in many instances. In people insofar as they are not related to others I don't think there is moral value, and too much of it is placed on some people (e.g. by condemning all instances of capital punishment).
As the world progresses into more of a unity and your present way of existing is bound to more and more people, I think assumed value of them is more reasonable than no value. Whether this has meaning as far as the universe goes hardly makes a difference... This got too long. If someone reads it, sorry.
Yes, I agree. It takes most humans a while to find truth in its purest form, uncorrupted by others.
In a serious and convincing voice, Xander has proposed mass murder as a political tool. I don't think he means 10 people, I think means millions. Otherwise his political goals would not be met. How is this different from the Nazis under Hitler, the Soviets under Stalin, The Chinese under Mao, or the Khymer Rouge under Pol Pot? From my point of view, the difference is that he means to apply it to me and my children. I guess I don't mind this being discussed here, but its sickening to have all the usual pseudo-philosophical suspects act as if the idea is not monstrous.
I mean "either or" actually; 10 people here, 20 people there, and perhaps even a holocaust, yes. To me its a higher level of sanity to consider such things. No doubt however; war is an incredible waste of resources, I have to wonder what the footprint of ISISs human sluaghter houses are. Likely its far smaller than Hitlers holocaust. I wish I was educated in applied mathematics. It's probbably most similar to Saloth Sars ideals, but very different. I think the most I would ever seek to do is help create an online movement that encourages mass murder, and murder-suicide, and addresses its true effects on the rest of the population.
How would that make sense?
Quoting XanderTheGrey
Too many typos; not sure what you mean.
Quoting XanderTheGrey
Maybe make an argument about this? Instead of stating it as obviously true.
Quoting XanderTheGrey
I think this is really the meat of your argument, right? Distribution of resources is a difficult moral dilemma when faced with real inequality that threatens lives. The issue here, within your specific argument, is again the same logical problem I brought up before when I asked "The more resources for who? Individuals who have no value?" Your argument begins with the emotional assumption that all individuals deserve proper resources. That emotional argument assumes individuals have value. You're beginning form a non-nihilistic perspective without realizing it, and erroneously arriving at a nihilistic conclusion because the inequality is so great when viewed emotionally. But you only think you're a nihilist because of your erroneous conclusions, because you haven't acknowledged the unconscious non-nihilistic assumptions you're making in order to begin to make your argument.
Given his response to you, I think you might be right.
Resources for who? Your statement suggests that resources are valuable, but you admit that you think individuals are not valuable. What makes resources valuable, given that people are not?
Quoting XanderTheGrey
Why? What predicates the value of mass murder? "We need less people on the earth" in order to achieve what exactly?
1) The "Utility Monster" argument: Perhaps it is the case that the pleasure and happiness a murderer experiences by killing somebody outweighs the future pleasure and happiness lost by his victim and the grief caused for the victim's family and friends.
2) The "Benevolent World Exploder" argument : Perhaps the most compassionate action to minimise future human suffering is to commit genocide and wipe out the human race.
The problem of course is how to define and estimate the net-utility of a person's continued existence as a whole - a utility value which should take into account how the individual feels about his own life, and the expected net-utility of that person's potential offspring and their offspring etc.
Is it even meaningful to talk about utility in the absolute way these arguments demand?
For while we can estimate *the relative* utility of an individual's actions by observing the average choices they make when repeatedly presenting to them the same set of choices with their associated consequences, there isn't any means by which to evaluate whether or not being dead is a "good choice", since this state cannot be re-entered and re-evaluated.
My conclusion is that murder and suicide, in being non-repeatable events cannot be assigned a utility value on behalf of individual victims. Utility can only compare states of satisfaction of the living, who on average appear very much opposed to the consequences they experience with respect to murder and suicide.
Quoting Noble Dust
Quoting Noble Dust
I think something people do not understand is that I'm not claiming to put 0 value on everything and anything. When I speak of random individual human lives having no value, possibly even negative value; its essentially for the same reason any other comidity would seise to have, or even negate its value.
Lets qoute Jacque Fresco on "gold" for example.
"If it rained gold, people today would be putting it in their closets and cellars and hoarding it. But if it rained gold for months and months, they would be shoveling it out of their house."
-Jacque Fresco
Quoting Hand In Hand
So as you see above, ofcourse I place value on human life, but all values we place on things are conditional, and subject to adjustment, and change.
Why make an effort to behave differently everyday? Even if I had no values, behaving differently everday would not achive any good results would it? For example; prescribing value to my life one day, and declaring it worthless the next. That wouldn't get me very far, I would still need to behave in certian patterns to achive anything; and I value achivement. So you see: I'm not valueless anyway, just as I never claimed to be; to my knowladge atleast, I put value on things according to a certin set of perimeters.
Seem*
Abstinence and rejection of and from suicide and homicide, both on small and massive scales; is a "common value" in our culture. Why? I'll work on gathering information that acts as evidence to support my theroy; but I'm saying that there is evidence to suggest that it's a convolution to have this value.
Human lives have become of negative value with the current misallocation of resources, there is an artificial scarcity of resources due to the dynamics of "supply and demand" within our money based economy. When supply is too high, the commodity becomes worthless even to the point of pestilence(negative value).
We plow over fields of food if a particular crop is becoming abundant to the point of lowering the market value. We burn diamonds when we find caches so great that they would cause a drop in their value. The same kinds of things are done with dog breeds, cattle, dear, bear, ground hogs, wild boar, ect.; why not humans? Perhaps we do, and perhaps that is called: genocide.
I applaud you on your candor. This is not a subject that most people feel comfortable talking about as raw as you did.
I think that human life, like any other form in the universe, is neither worthless nor priceless.
All these so called laws and moral and ethical codes we have contrived are simply guidelines and not absolute truths. How can they be absolute truths when they were artificially created ? They are required in society for structure, but the problem arises when people mistake them for absolute truths and are shocked when "criminals" violate them :)
That said, I don't condone homicide, but I don't consider killers "evil" either ... I consider them unconscious ... i.e. unaware (on a deeper level than the superficiality of the mind) of what they're doing. I laugh every time the news immediately labels a mass murderer "evil". What they're doing, of course, is what is easiest to do - label someone without any investigation or understanding whatsoever. "He killed 10 people, and he is therefore evil. Case closed." This is because of laziness ... no one wants to know the deeper truth behind what actually happened. Also, the action is mistaken for the person performing the action. An evil act is mistaken for an evil person.
There is a beautiful saying in the Bible (I think). "Forgive them for they know not what they do." What this means, according to Eckhart Tolle, is that no person in his/her right mind would hurt another. (and I use "mind" in a deeper sense, not just meaning the brain). Don't judge someone based on their actions. The action is not the essence of the person.
Not everyone who kills is evil, and not everyone who goes to church and never harms a fly is innocent, either. So, I think homicide is bad, but there are evils that are orders of magnitude worse than homicide. They look harmless or even noble on the surface, but are far worse than homicide. When you subject another person to suffering (mental, emotional, physical) and force them to live their entire life with that suffering, that, to me, is far worse than putting that person out of his/her misery.
I'm not against suicide; I think that life is overrated, as I mentioned earlier. Whether or not it is the right choice for someone is entirely dependent on the individual. The only pain one can measure is his/her own, so one has no business judging another person's choice to commit suicide.
One of my favorite songs, although I'll only listen to it on Mondays:
LOL. I'm assuming that the song is, in some form, a response to what I said ? If it is, do elaborate, because it flew over my head :D
Quoting Aurora
They can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need
It's a clever song, but I don't really see it as funny. As a matter of fact, I find it moving. Sometimes, maybe most times, people do things for no reason at all. Recognizing the emptiness inside people is an act of empathy, compassion, although the Boomtown Rats may not see it that way. I'd like to think they do.
Hmm ...
I think that people are puppets of/to their conditioning. It's almost like they're robots/machines on autopilot ... executing their instructions without any questioning. You're an engineer (as am I) ... you can appreciate that.
You reminded me of my father there for a second. He was an engineer too. We had a lot in common, but the way we saw people was really different. He had a somewhat mechanistic vision of how people work that seems similar to yours. He loved Myers-Briggs type testing and other sorts of metrics. That doesn't mean he didn't treat people with kindness and friendship. I, on the other hand, have a very intuitive, impressionistic understanding of people.
How does your understanding of the mechanistic lives of people jibe with your dismay about their inauthenticity? Is that where the inauthenticity comes from?
Good question.
Being mechanistic ... inauthenticity ... it's all directly related, in my view.
A lot of my understanding of human behavior comes from direct observation and experience (not unproven theory), but I have also been influenced greatly by the spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle whose teachings really speak to me and reinforce that what I have observed is true.
The true essence of a person is consciousness, prior to its contamination by societal/cultural conditioning. So, newborn babies are closest to that true essence; they have not yet been conditioned with concepts, language, and other artificial constructs that most people blindly adhere to and mistake for absolute truths.
So, the "mechanistic" behavior of humans, that derives from their conditioning is also 100% the cause of their inauthenticity. In fact, the inauthenticity is the conditioning ... that part of a human being that is not part of his/her true essence. Eckhart describes this conditioning as a mask obscuring the true essence.
If you recall my grocery store example in my thread about inauthenticity, we have been conditioned, like robots, to reply to the question, "How are you?" with the response "I'm good. How are you ?". This is what makes it inauthentic. It comes from a superficial place within us ... that mask or layer of conditioning that hides our true essence.
Hope I made some sense.
I don't know if you remember my response to your story - what you called inauthentic behavior, I called ritual language which signals a sense of community.
Quoting Aurora
@apokrisis has some interesting things to say about this over on the thread about the experience of awareness - . I don't know if you saw it.
If I may paraphrase, all those "authentic" things you are talking about are culturally mediated too.
I wrote that response to Xander almost a month ago. I've thought about it since then and come to the conclusion that I treated him in a condescending manner by not addressing his argument on its own terms.
Vasectomies, IUDs, long term birth control implants, diaphragms, abortion, and ordinary pills and condoms all help reduce the population growth rate. It's still growing, but not as fast.
Reducing the world's population is probably a good idea in the abstract. In concrete terms, not so much. Besides, the world's human population will be reduced in the fullness of time (which means on nature's schedule, not yours). When there are too many humans, not enough food to go around, given disease and environmental stresses (global warming) the human population will crash. If you are wise, you will hope not to be around when it happens. It won't be pleasant.
Hmm ... I will take a second look at your responses to my inauthenticity thread and also what apokrisis has to say.
And, I disagree that the part of us that is authentic is also culturally mediated, because by definition, authentic means uncontaminated, untouched, unaffected.
Now, what I think you're trying to say, and I'll agree, is that a 100% authentic interaction is impossible, because we need structure in communication and interaction. That implies the necessity for language, social norms, and other forms of "cultural mediation".
So yes, all interaction is culturally mediated, and we can almost never have a truly authentic interaction. But, my gripe is with how inauthentic most interactions seem to me to be. But hey, I live in Southern California, and you know what that means :) Maybe things are better elsewhere in the US ... I would hope so.
Yes, we should. We should because individual human beings are the only creatures that have sufficient moral reasoning capacity to do good, and not coincidentally, to do evil.
Quoting XanderTheGrey
That is literally your problem. I don't take you altogether seriously, however, but some of your posts are skirting the reportable.
Quoting XanderTheGrey
Of course our lives mean nothing to the universe. The universe is not a meaning granting institution. You are, I am, everyone here is, that's what humans do. They give meaning.
Quoting XanderTheGrey
Bullshit.
Some people are guilty, everyone is responsible. Yes, there is right or wrong -- because we meaning-granting humans have defined some things as as right (like being kind to people), and some things as wrong -- like mass murder, for example.
Yes, and... why, Mr. Amoral, do you care?
I gather you have some mental health problems. You also have some moral problems. Encouraging mass murder and/or mass murder-suicide, is likely to lead to your receiving mental health services either behind bars (in prison) or in a high security mental hospital.
It is one thing to fantasize about people dropping dead--along the lines of "I've never killed anybody but I have very much enjoyed reading certain obituaries." Lots of people read apocalyptic fiction about plagues wiping out most of humanity. The thing about these stories, though, is that there is usually no actor in charge, no mad scientists scheme. The mass die-off is a plot device to get to the point where a few people can start over.
If I were you, I would pay close attention to the kinds of ideas that flit through your mind, and try very hard to not entertain the ones about mass murder. Think about something else. If they seem to be taking up more space in your head, you should give your psychiatrist a call and let him know what is happening.
I should probably go to bed.
I wasn't saying what I thought was true. I was trying to paraphrase Apokrisis. I don't agree with him, but I don't have good responses to what he was saying. He uses rhetorical tricks and gimmicks to win arguments - stuff like facts and things like that. It's not fair.
I've done that several times. That's what happens when someone resurrects an old thread. I appreciated the opportunity to give my mea culpa.
Haha. Will have to read some of his posts.
Yes, I resurrected this thread because I found it worth a read and response.
As you indicate, values are not absolute, but I think some are fundamental to our nature as human beings. Among those fundamental values is the value placed on human life - both for individual humans and for humanity as a whole. By calling a value "fundamental" I mean two things. First - I think they are built into the physical, biological, and genetic structure of who we are. We have evolved as social animals. We have no choice but to like each other. Second, no society could survive without these fundamental values. These are not "guidelines." They are bedrock foundations for human social life. No group of humans could survive for long without them.
Well, ok. As a person who can see the end of his life on the horizon, I agree that there are many things worse than my death. Are you willing, as XandertheGrey is, to extend that to the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people? Are there things worse than that? What are they? I think I understand XtG's answer to that question. His take is utilitarian. Kill all the people who use more than their share of resources so that people who have access to less than their fair share will have a chance. Is that ok with you? In principle if not in practice?
I agree that chaos would quickly ensue, without certain values. But, what I meant by those values being "guidelines" and nothing more, is a bit deeper than immediately meets the eye or the mind.
No matter what rule/law/whatever we come up with, there is no power in this universe that is going to enforce them or guarantee that they are followed or adhered to without exception. It is well and good to say, "Thou shall not kill." Is there any guarantee that that rule will never be violated ?
The reason for pointing out that this is a guideline is a hint that says, "Don't think of this rule/law in absolute terms. There is no guarantee that it will not be violated." You might think this is a silly and unnecessary little footnote, i.e. it is obvious to everyone that this is not an absolute guarantee, but then if it is so damn obvious, why are people so friggin shell shocked when something goes wrong in their lives ? Getting robbed, car getting vandalized, family member getting murdered. If they know that no law is absolute, what's the problem ?
That was a rhetorical question. I know the answer - because people expect and demand that these laws are always obeyed. So, it is best for people to remember that those so called laws are not absolute truths, and that people can rest assured that they will be violated. i.e. They are just guidelines that suggest, not enforce, a certain code of conduct.
A lot of suffering can be avoided by simply remembering that these are guidelines. That's what this is really about - avoiding suffering. Expectation = suffering. So, by not expecting/demanding that this guideline be always followed, a lot of suffering can be avoided.
Hope this clarifies things.
My response about homicide had nothing to do with the OP advocating mass-murder. I just shared my opinion, in general, about homicide. By saying that there are things far far worse than homicide, I'm not saying, "Ok, let's go wipe out a bunch of people."
Are there things worse than mass-murder ? Abso-friggin-lutely !!! This is the easiest question you've asked me all week :) Answer - Mass-suffering ! Think about what people in workplaces, schools, social circles, and unhappy marriages do to each other day after day after year after year. Worse than murder ? Any day of any millennium.
What could possibly be worse than the suffering people inflict on each other ? Bullying, harassment, alienation, discrimination, objectification ... ??? I can't think of anything worse, and I've spent 34 years trying.
To live and suffer is orders of magnitude worse than death, in my opinion. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shot dead by my worst enemy than be treated like crap by my fellow man every single day for 80 (or whatever) years. Oh, this is an easy choice for me :)
I don't find this very satisfying. I think it misses the point. Of course people murder each other. Of course the families of the victims are shocked, sad, and angry. What I'm trying to say I think is more profound. It's not a law. It's not a rule. It's not a guideline. It's not absolute. It can be violated or ignored - People are willing to kill not just someone, but millions of people. That doesn't change the fact that it is who we are. What we are. We are not human without it. We love each other. Like each other. Want to be with each other. It's not moral, it's existential. It's human. I feel it every moment of every day. If you don't, so be it. Maybe you're just not aware of it. I'm sure there are some people who don't have it. Maybe you're one of those.
I just edited my post (the one you responded to). I added a paragraph about expectation/suffering. Maybe that will clarify what I said. The point is to remember that whatever "this" is, is not absolute, and that one cannot expect/demand it always holds true.
What I'm trying to say is also profound and fundamental - no moral/ethical codes that we artificially contrive can always be upheld, so don't expect/demand that. This will save you a lot of suffering.
Maybe guideline is not the best word. Pick any word in any language that implies, "This is not an absolute rule/guarantee, but just a hint/suggestion on how to behave with your fellow man and how your fellow man might treat you."
You get to choose the values in your own life. If you think it makes more sense to end your life than to live with the suffering, well, knock yourself out. You don't get to choose for others. A billion bad marriages is reason to kill a billion people? A lot of life stinks. A lot is ok. Some is wonderful. Suck it up.
I don't understand why you keep putting words in my mouth. For the last time, I'm not making any kind of choice for anyone else. Frankly, I don't give half a horseshit what anyone else does with his/her life.
I'm only answering the question - "What is worse than xyz ?" You asked, I answered, you misunderstood, I clarified :)
If you ask me, "What tastes worse ? Olives or dog shit ?", I'll say, "Olives". That doesn't mean I'm going to run outside and find me some dog shit to eat. It just means I think Olives taste worse than dog shit.
This is a thread which is, at least partly, about mass murder. My question - What is worse than mass murder? not what is worse than xyz?, is what you responded too. I think you said that the death of thousands, or millions, or billions of people is better than the suffering of thousands, or millions, or billions of people. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you did not speak clearly enough. A billion people will not decide individually to die. That decision will be made by Joseph Stalin, Donald Trump, or XandertheGrey.
I see. But, your question is a bit ambiguous. The answer depends on if the answerer (me) is the one making the decision for the masses or if I'm simply a bystander/observer who doesn't get to decide.
Ok, so if I had that power and had to make that decision, I'd say, "Let the billion people live and suffer" as opposed to "Let the billion people die (by my hand)." for the obvious reason that I don't want to kill anyone.
But, if I were a neutral observer and it were totally out of my hands, I'd say that it is worse overall, for the people, for the planet, and for the universe ... for those people to stick around and suffer vs for them to die (assuming those are the only 2 choices available and that living and being happy is not an option).
Another way of saying this is that of the 2 crimes listed below, #2 is far worse:
1 - Inflicting mass murder
2 - Inflicting mass suffering
This is what I said, quite clearly in my opinion, in my previous responses.
Does that make sense ? The answer really depends on what my role is.
That brings a number of things to mind.
I guess my answer is based on my view of the current situation in the world. Given (my view of) how things currently are, I think it is worse for people to stick around and suffer.
Quoting T Clark
When did I say I wouldn't want to include myself in the hit list ? :) I'd happily be #1 on the list. But I didn't see that option as part of the question. This whole question scenario is hypothetical to begin with, so I was simply saying that if I were put in the role of a 3rd person or bystander, I would choose XYZ. However, if there were a 3rd option (put myself on the hit list), I would happily be #1 on the list. In fact, if option #4 was to save all others by being the only person on the hit list, I'd blissfully choose that.
(About not wanting to kill others) Make no mistake about it - we are all, every one of us, hypocrites, at one time or another, about one subject or another :) Yes, I would never hurt another human being (to this day, I have never punched another person ... I let an 80 lb girl whoop my ass in martial arts sparring for this reason), so it would not be fathomable for me to ever kill anyone. Whatever weapon I were given to kill others, I would turn on myself (if I had no other choice) rather than hurt others.
Quoting T Clark
Quite the opposite :) As I said above, I'd happily be the only person on the hit list and save all others.
Quoting T Clark
Yes, big time ! When a person suffers, that suffering is externalized in different forms, and the suffering spreads not unlike a viral epidemic. Heard the saying, "Misery loves company." ? I have witnessed, first hand, this externalization of suffering.
There are also far subtler forms of this externalization of suffering. What might seem, at first glance, to be a bunch of people enjoying themselves at a party by being so loud that they disturb the whole neighborhood, is more than likely just the result of noisy human minds that need the noise to feel fulfillment or enjoyment because they can't get it from the tranquility of sitting in their rooms and being considerate towards their neighbors.
Suffering is externalized, and mental noise is externalized.
Obnoxiously loud music, noisy lawn mowers, saws cutting down our forests, nuclear weapons and bombs ... what are they but an externalization of human suffering (the ego not being satisfied with the present moment) ?
So, the planet and the universe would do better without sufferers.