The effectiveness-accessibility trade-off of instant, fast and slow collapse

When I think about pressing the red button, it is clear that the ideal scenario is an instant collapse e.g. multiple asteroids hitting Earth at the same time thereby incinerating the planet and wiping out all life instantly and likely painlessly. However, in order to achieve something like this, incredible advances in technology would be needed e.g. the ability to change the routes of asteroids. This may be a project for future generations of efilists.

Then there is what I term "fast" or "slow" collapse, which include catastrophic outcomes such as nuclear war or even consequences of climate change. These outcomes can happen suddenly and dramatically, but collapse can also happen more gradually and may result in a slow decline followed by extinction.

Imagine if collectively efilists decide that they should focus on accelerating climate change. Collectively they all invest in bitcoin, convert their cars to V8s, etc and those who have more influence and power look at ways to mine methane hydrate deposits as a new source of fossil fuels. This would accelerate climate change, and there are two scenarios: fast collapse and slow collapse.

Fast collapse would be caused by a sudden and dramatic increase in global temperatures, such as might be caused by a feedback loop. Feedback loops are processes that amplify the effects of climate change, and they can be triggered by a variety of factors, such as the melting of Arctic sea ice or the release of methane from permafrost.

Slow collapse, on the other hand, would be caused by a gradual increase in global temperatures over time. This would lead to a series of cascading effects, such as more extreme weather events, crop failures, and mass migrations.

It is clear from this analysis that there is a trade-off between effectiveness and accessibility. Instant collapse is the gold standard as it is fast, instant and painless. For efilists, the red button is the gold standard. However, instant collapse is not accessible to anyone or to anybody at the moment. We do not have access to technology that can modify the route of asteroids. As we reduce the speed of collapse, the options available become more accessible e.g. each of us can contribute to accelerating climate change e.g. by investing in bitcoin, driving V8s etc.

There is also another trade-off which is based on suffering. Instant collapse would be close to painless. Fast collapse would be a sudden and violent event, and it would likely lead to widespread death and destruction, which if it results in eventual extinction of all life then the pain is minimised and is followed by a long period of peace and painlessness caused by non-existence. Slow collapse, on the other hand, would be a more gradual process, but it would also be more protracted and painful. A slow collapse may not get rid of much life and result in extreme suffering for the survivors.

We also need to consider that a slow collapse can have inequitable outcomes. For example, gradual pollution e.g. through release of microplastics, PFAS, carbon and methane emissions, etc can cause extreme weather, crop failure, declining sperm counts and infertility etc but the rich and powerful will be able to protect themselves while the poor as well as animals will suffer most. However, something else to consider when thinking about rich, poor and powerless is that the rich become rich mostly through exploitation, and when the poor and powerless are extinct, it is uncertain how rich the rich can still be when there is no one to exploit.