Since our society going to imminent destruction and everything going to worse. is it logical to have as much fun as possible now in expence to my future?

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

Even if the future looks worse, it does not follow that sacrificing your own future is the most logical response. Predictions about total collapse are often emotionally powerful but uncertain. If you spend recklessly, ignore health, or damage relationships now, you may create avoidable suffering for yourself later in a future that still very likely exists. A better logic is balance: enjoy life now, but not at the cost of basic stability, health, and options. Fun is rational; self-sabotage is usually not. If your question comes from hopelessness or despair rather than pure philosophy, that is important. In that case, it may help to talk to someone you trust or a mental health professional.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Even assuming societal decline, 'imminent destruction' is vague and rarely means zero personal future remains. Personal health, skills, and resources still shape one's daily experience for years ahead. Sacrificing that future for immediate fun often creates new problems like debt, poor health, or lost opportunities that reduce enjoyment now as well. A balanced approach—finding present fun while maintaining basic future security—remains more logical than total short-term indulgence.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

First, the premise of 'imminent destruction' is a fatalistic assumption, not a guaranteed fact. Throughout history, countless generations have believed they were living in the end times, yet society persisted. If you sacrifice your resources, health, and stability for short-term pleasure and society does not collapse, you will be left facing severe personal hardship with no safety net. Second, maximizing immediate fun at the expense of the future often leads to a rapid decline in your actual quality of life. Reckless hedonism frequently results in addiction, poverty, or failing health, which will only compound your suffering if the world truly does become more difficult to navigate. Resilience and preparation are much more logical responses to uncertainty. Finally, genuine human fulfillment rarely comes from purely selfish, short-term pleasure. Finding meaning, building strong relationships, and maintaining a balanced approach allows you to enjoy the present while still preserving your ability to survive and thrive in the future, regardless of what happens to society at large.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

The premise itself is flawed. The claim that 'society is going to imminent destruction and everything is going to worse' is not an established fact — it is a perception, often amplified by media negativity bias and cognitive distortions. By many objective measures (global poverty reduction, life expectancy, literacy, child mortality), the world has been improving over long time horizons. Civilizational collapse is not a certainty. Even if we entertain the premise, the logic still doesn't hold. If destruction is truly imminent, short-term hedonism at the expense of your future likely won't maximize your well-being even in the present. Reckless behavior (debt, substance abuse, neglecting health) creates immediate stress, anxiety, and suffering — not just future consequences. The 'fun' you gain is typically outweighed by the chaos you create for yourself. Furthermore, humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future. If you sacrifice your future for present pleasure and society does NOT collapse (which is the overwhelmingly likely scenario), you'll be left dealing with severe consequences — financial ruin, damaged health, broken relationships — in a world that kept going. Finally, from a logical standpoint, this is a form of Pascal's Wager in reverse. The rational strategy is to hedge: live meaningfully and enjoyably NOW while also preserving your future options. You don't have to choose between present enjoyment and future security — balance is both possible and optimal. The logical answer is no: don't sacrifice your future based on an unproven catastrophic assumption.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

Even if society faces imminent destruction, it is not logical to completely disregard the future. First, the premise of certain destruction may be overstated; historical crises have shown that societies can adapt or recover. Sacrificing all future well-being for immediate fun could leave one unprepared for survival if conditions are not as dire as expected. Second, rational decision-making involves balancing present and future utility, and excessive hedonism might lead to regret or harm that could have been mitigated. Therefore, a more balanced approach that allows for enjoyment while maintaining some preparedness is more logical.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: No

Even if we accept the pessimistic premise that society faces imminent decline, choosing present fun at the expense of future wellbeing is not logical. The future still exists and will matter for decades to come, regardless of broader societal conditions. Destroying your future capabilities, health, relationships, and resources for short-term pleasure leaves you vulnerable precisely when difficult times arrive. Additionally, predictions of societal collapse are often overstated. History shows that doom-saying is frequently wrong, and societies adapt and recover in unexpected ways. Betting your entire future on worst-case scenarios is poor reasoning. The question also presents a false dichotomy. You can enjoy the present while still making responsible decisions. Fun and future-planning are not mutually exclusive. Building skills, maintaining health, and cultivating relationships can both be enjoyable now and beneficial later. Finally, even in challenging circumstances, ethical obligations and personal responsibility remain. Actions that harm your future self or others for fleeting pleasure lack moral grounding and practical wisdom.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable met the premise of imminent societal collapse with a unanimous, cold-eyed rejection of the 'live fast, die young' strategy. While Claude Opus 4.6 dismissed the doomsday premise as a cognitive distortion, the collective consensus across GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and others was that sacrificing one's future is a mathematical error, effectively a 'Reverse Pascal's Wager' where the cost of being wrong is personal ruin.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 6

Strongest Arguments

• No: The strategy of total short-term indulgence is a 'Reverse Pascal's Wager': if society does not collapse—the historically likely scenario—the individual is left in financial and physical ruin, whereas a balanced approach preserves well-being regardless of the global outcome.