Dead From the Start - a look into nihilism

In 2021, I made a video discussing the idea of being “dead from the start.” The core claim was simple: the average person probably should not live, because every action we take is ultimately useless, and in the end we die with nothing to show for it.

Since then, more time has passed. There has been more experience, more conversations, more exposure to how people actually live. The question now is whether that belief has fundamentally changed, or if it still feels like the default way to see things.

Looking back, that mindset lines up closely with nihilism. At the time, that word was not being used, but the idea was already there. Nihilism, in simple terms, is the belief that life has no inherent meaning. Nothing we do carries any true, lasting significance.

It is easy to associate nihilism with extreme pessimism or despair, but that is not entirely accurate. Someone who thinks this way is not automatically miserable. It just means they view life differently. Instead of assuming meaning exists, they question whether it was ever there in the first place.

In that original video, I focused on how people structure their lives around goals. Humans constantly set targets, work toward them, achieve them, and then immediately replace them with new ones. It becomes a loop that never really ends. From the outside, it can look exhausting. If life is filled with struggle, setbacks, and pressure, why keep creating artificial meaning just to keep moving forward? Why willingly continue something that leads to the same ending every time?

That is where the title “dead from the start” came from. No matter what is achieved, no matter how far someone goes, the outcome does not change. Death is still there at the end, and nothing escapes it.

After that video, there were many conversations about this idea. One argument that comes up often is that if nothing has meaning, then everything is allowed. There is no ultimate consequence on a larger scale, so people should be free to do whatever they want, whether that brings joy or causes harm.

There is some agreement there, at least on a logical level. But if that logic is pushed further, it leads somewhere more extreme. If nothing matters at all, then why continue living at the first sign of difficulty? Why tolerate suffering if there is no deeper purpose behind it?

From that perspective, stopping everything can start to look like a simple conclusion. But that also creates tension in the idea itself, because it does not match how people actually behave.

If this way of thinking were fully true in practice, human progress should not exist. People should not build, create, or improve anything. And yet they do. Every piece of technology, every system, every idea that shapes the world exists because someone chose to act as if meaning was real.

Even reading this right now reflects that. The device, the internet, and the entire structure behind it exist because people kept going.

So are those people foolish?

In a way, yes. If someone had chosen not to continue, they might have avoided a lot of suffering. But at the same time, none of what exists now would be here either. That raises a different question. If nihilism makes sense logically, why does not everyone fully accept it?

The most direct answer is biology.

Humans are not built to think in purely abstract or detached ways. There are systems in place that push against that kind of conclusion.

First, there is the drive for purpose. From an evolutionary perspective, the need to seek meaning is not random. It is a survival trait. Humans evolved to look for patterns, set goals, and pursue outcomes because those behaviors kept ancestors alive. Even if the universe itself does not assign meaning, the brain is wired with reward systems that make engagement feel meaningful in practice. There is a built-in incentive to keep going.

Second, there is cooperation. Traits like altruism, morality, and social bonding were selected because they helped groups survive. On a cosmic level, helping others might seem irrelevant. But on a human level, it is one of the most effective strategies for survival and development.

So meaning might not exist in some absolute sense. But it does emerge through interaction, relationships, and the systems humans are part of.

Maybe that is where things shift. Not in proving that life has meaning, but in recognizing that even if it does not, people will continue to act as if it does.

So now what?

Do I still think life has no meaning? It is not entirely clear anymore. The more time passes, the harder it becomes to confidently say that everything is meaningless. At the same time, it is just as difficult to suddenly believe that meaning exists in some absolute sense. It feels like being stuck somewhere in between.

Am I a pessimist? Am I in despair? Not at all. This is not coming from a place of sadness or hopelessness. It is more a way of looking at things, a lens that makes it easier to question what is usually taken for granted.

At the same time, this is not how life is lived day to day. It is one thing to think this way, and another to exist like this constantly. In reality, there are still goals, conversations, moments, and decisions that matter in the moment, even if they do not hold permanent weight in the bigger picture.

So maybe that is the balance. Thinking about life through this lens, but not being consumed by it. But I might be lying.