Pro extinction is even more hypothetical than any usual conception of a Utopia.

I watched one of the videos regarding Proextinction and It wasn't convincing enough.

You started the video on a wrong assumption that Animals and Human Beings suffer on the same scale, Schophenhauer in this instance has said that the rational ability of humans that make them introspective for the future and retrospective for the past mistakes, results into a suffering much more tormenting at the psychological level. Next you talk of Cosmic extinction while also including aliens or any other species not known to the mankind. So how are we asking to end the suffering of some species whose entire physiology and psychological structure could be entirely different than whatever we have known in this regard so far? It's like you are automatically assuming aliens to be on the same level as you and extrapolating the suffering you have seen around you to them as well. And I haven't even talked about the vastness of Universe, the cosmos itself isn't a limited entity, nobody knows how vast the entire universe is and how many species could be existing out there. How are we going to explore all of that and end it all? So your idea of Cosmic extinction doesn't sound too perfect this way. And quite an interesting theory about Vaccum Decay you'd put right there but you know what that sounds just as sci-fi thing as travelling through a worm hole or time travelling through a black hole. So your foremost way of causing extinction is a mere hypothesis at best afterall. Doesn't that make your entire philosophy hypothetical since It has been built upon abstract ideas seeking concrete changes? And if that doesn't work, what do we intend to do? Depend upon AI to research some Extinction bringing contraptions? Really bro. You really think AIs are that dependable yet that they would just undo the laws of physics and build a particle accelerator that apparently causes Vaccum Decay? And what baffles my mind is that you want to create generations of Extinctionists, I mean imagine the agony of reproducing when you actually advocate for no existence. So your entire gameplan is about perpetuating the already agonizing existence for god knows how many damn years masquerading as activists until Scientists finally figure out a way to tear apart the matter and bring the existence to nothingness in a jiffy? Ngl It sounds more pro life than Proextinction, because regardless of your aiming for cosmic extinction, you in a way are sanctioning the suffering of all the sentient beings for an inordinate amount of time in hopes of getting a Scientific breakthrough for something that's apparently even more complicated than the BigBang itself. I mean at this point we might just be closer to building a nuclear bomb for obliterating the entire planet instead of going for that matter eradication shit. Not to mention at this point scientists aren't even sure whether nothingness is a thing in itself or not. Your Activism and premises in that direction are entirely futile as they support for suffering of humans which are anyday more tormenting than suffering of any other species on the planet no cap (Read philosophers and Psychologists like Schophenhauer and Jacques Lacan to understand that suffering of animals can never be on par with suffering of humans, because it's a well understood scienctific fact that you seem not to be aware of) for almost perpetuity until that scientific chimera is achieved. That's why Antinatalism is a more practical Philosophy, because it can eradicate the suffering of humans in less than a century's worth of time.

Let animals suffer for their own ignorance, we owe nothing to them, and we were not responsible for them being brought to life either. After extinction of humans the planet will be left all alone to them.