User blog comment:Zurre2004/PE Proposal: Karl Stromberg/@comment-39032584-20190616195031/@comment-39032584-20190616214437

I understand what you're getting at, but without giving an actual reason for believing nuclear war is necessary, like, say, the wars people have already initiated, upon revision, it comes off to me that he believes what he's saying because.... he personally prefers sea life to humanity, maybe? Rather than trying to give a more convincing argument for how restarting civilization under the sae will actually better the world, such as presenting himself as an environmental extremist who's trying to save nature, wildlife, sealife, or all the above, his reasoning seemed to amount to "that, in of itself, equals a better world." It may clearly be a better world to him, but without any given reason relating to how it would objectively improve the world (which is to say, outside of what he, himself, prefers), it automatically comes off as "not so well-intentioned" to me, and more of a mission to make the world better according to what he would prefer to see it like, at the expense of humanity itself.

Anyway, that's the conclusion that I come to, but I haven't seen it in a while either, so maybe he does give a reason beyond merely thinking "civilization under the sea automatically equals a better world", but that's all I remember for sure. And again, it's probably ambiguous enough that it's more of a matter of how one chooses to interpret the information that's given, rather than there being an actual right and wrong answer/choice.