> I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term.
> 4 billion humans dropped dead
> we'd all be better off
> 4 billion
So trivially we wouldn't "all" be better off, because this plan involves extinction of 2/3rds of humans, and they would assuredly be much worse off (being dead). It seems unlikely that the remaining third would be all that much happier about the situation.
I don't think your sentiment is all that common. Interestingly, the folks who believe it don't seem to start with the obvious (offing themselves), but instead find some religious purpose in subtly trying to spread this genocidal misanthropic philosophy.
Well, let me offer you an assertion: No, we wouldn't be better off. We'd be much worse off. The inability to act against a bunch of vague potential threats is more of a feature of our species, not a bug. It serves as a drive to develop systems where people, in contributing to the system, help both themselves and those around them. The only reason we can support this many humans enjoying life at the same time is because a lot of these systems already exist, in some imperfect form or another, and they have vastly decreased human suffering and increased human pleasure over a very brief window in history for humanity.
The reason the philosophy is so dangerous is that it encourages potential mass murderers to conspire with some nebulous goal of "future improvements". You can literally justify *anything* with such a philosophy. Why not focus on things that definitely help now and almost assuredly help later, instead of assuredly cause untold anguish, and maybe "help" later? It seems that the focus is driven by an intense desire to see others come to harm. The "we'd all be better off" is just to try to sell the poison.