Ill take a stab at trying to help your point as i see it... imagine that the subscribers to this belief are or feel like ants or automatons, or beings or something that are small and inconsequential, and the reducible of all things from to 1 and 0 isn't a large leap of number crunching. from infinite down to zero, more like something small down to zero (Reduce before reducing) continuing in the system as the small who feel smallest see it, to work/live struggle to further add to suffering et al would seem unconscionable so long as suffering et al (you use the perennial trolley problem) would be continuing to grow even as a byproduct of any work or efforts.

In this particular zero sum trap... which I take it you seem to find more funny than tangible as a working philosophy (not saying I disagree)... annihilation is like a death wish.... I think a more fair evaluation would be what is annihilated is the effort and motivation to continue contributing to living (which isn't quite a death wish but no less problematic, I hope we can agree). Like a bug that won't work, or a piece of a system or robot that lies down or spins in place instead of finishing its task/job. The death of traction, or motive to build or create or add to anything is their illness, and that illness can only be described (to them) as suffering.

Which is to say the valuation of that philosophy is that its a problem akin to depression or mental illness that probably doesn't need to be laughed away or casually dismissed but Rather dissected carefully like in an autopsy and studied closely.

its also ego death, and tough to recover from. building and maintaining a sense of self after that sort of epiphany is a different kind of ill that philosophy is still trying to cure. Almost every trans-formative self narrative or post crisis identity salience is still at best slightly vulnerable and at worst fragile as hell.

I might have lost the plot along the way in this thread what was the question

I might

Agreed only the pattern seeking nature and the human inability to distinguish between abd avoid lumping all or miscategorizing this shit from that shit... can lead to a mistaken sense of a single shit source which while still unknowable could potentially be deduced *(im liking this more and more) a single cruel source negates random and amplifies unfair. The cruel piece of shit fact then becomes inescapable maybe life isnt a toilet we the observer are shit

This, but i take it as the observer of shit happens, takes the issue with existence of shit without knowing who or what is doing the shitting. If sourcing the shit becomes an encompassing preoccupation it might help to examine that knowing where the shit is coming from will never be useful in stoping, changing, or affecting the shits source nor will it affect the shit thats already happened

Electric fence doesnt always have to be turned on, only once.

The healer had no business calling appointing themselves a specialist in a field that was new or alien to them. Arwen's compassion while virtuous and seemingly noble is akin to my dog's friendliness and eagerness to cheer me up. His specialty in this thought experiment should be limited only to what he knows to be true and work effectively and the rubbish about him speaking a verbal handshake disclaimer to moloch is where the problem lies. The allegory begs the question that if people's experiences are inherently different works only if we cannot rule out yhat human anatomy and brain chemistry isn't more close to uniform than an alien monster dialogue.