The next time you think that you’re a failure, you can take comfort in knowing that you haven’t failed as hard at the person that we’re laughing at, today.

That would be Guy Edward Bartkus, the suspect in the Saturday Palm Springs attempted bombing of a fertility clinic.

Guy believed that life wasn’t worth living, for himself or anyone else, probably because he was grounded when he wanted to attend a concert, or something about as mundane.

Guy had extreme nihilistic beliefs consistent with some anti-natalist cult. If you’re wondering what anti-natalism is, it’s the belief that life is so intrinsically painful that its considered immoral to bring more people into the world.

Guy took his beliefs to extremes, and attempted to destroy a fertility clinic with a car bomb. But he botched his efforts. Hard.

For one thing, he attempted to live-stream the bombing, but failed to properly set it up. When you see the kind of people who spout off their own naive ideas on how to run a society on social media, that puts Guy’s level of ineptitude into perspective.

Second, while his car detonated, he failed to kill anyone else nearby, and none of the embryos in the clinic were damaged. So, he failed in his endeavor.

Third, his own charred remains were found outside the car. This suggests an attempt to escape, which failed. As much as Guy hated life, he apparently attempted to spare his own, but failed.

If you wonder what I mean when I say “he rolled a zero”, that’s a D&D colloquialism. In that game, checks are often performed with a 20-sided die, with possible outcomes being the range of natural numbers from 1 to 20. Because a zero is impossible to roll without penalties, rolling a zero implies a disastrous failure that seems like it’s outside the range of possibilities.

Guy Edward Bartkus rolled a zero. Three times in a row.

He desired an infinite universe that’s devoid of life. But the only life he succeeded in ending is his own.

Also, his microbiome and whatever parasites which required his continued life to survive. Which was a bummer for them.

Look, it’s normal to feel sad from time to time. But there’s nothing wrong with enjoying the things that you like. For example, plushies. Also, grownup drinks.

While some of the things that you like might end up in a landfill one day, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying them in the time being.

But as for life, philosophers through the ages have struggled to understand it. I think it’s a valid question why some 25-year-old would claim to have it figured out, and conclude that there’s no purpose.

Through basic observation, it should be evident that life experiences the universe. Each life is a different vantage point through which the universe is experienced. One of the functions of life is the creation of new vantage points. If a person sees this, and still insists that there’s no purpose, they’re just not willing to see it.

But there are people out there who reject the universe as they see it because it has pain, or it doesn’t appeal to their sensibilities. For example, some object to the consumption of life by other life, which humans do to live. It’s best to come to peace with the universe as it is, which can come by appreciating that life went into your own sustenance.

As for what’s beyond this life, that’s something we can’t humanly perceive at this time. But I think it makes intuitive sense that there would be a continuity of life, even if in a different form, considering that if the universe were to continue onward, the continued existence of life would be needed for it to be experienced. And if the universe is not experienced, then it truly becomes pointless!

So, life is precious and valuable, even if only for its capacity to experience the universe.

Anti-natalists are wrong, and it’s a matter of basic observation.

UPDATE: It was brought to my attention that Guy was a vegan. Which would mean that he had yet another left wing fringe ideology, though not as much on the fringe as anti-natalism.

I don’t know for certain which ideology acted as a gateway to the other in Guy’s case, but either way seems plausible: perhaps he embraced anti-natalism in the interest of reducing suffering, then determined that veganism would be a natural choice by the same reasoning, or perhaps veganism was the pipeline to anti-natalist extremism, expedited by mental decline by reason of nutrient deficiency.

In either case, it seems like it’s a fringe leftist yet again, and I’m getting sick of it.