>If it were then what'd be the point of posting at all? What would you discuss or even rally around for why you were rejecting life and society, it feels like you'd have to restrict yourself as what you could talk about
I'm not him, and I may be wrong for all I know, but I'll lay out the case for it. Here are some reasons:
(1) There are quite a few people online who subscribe to the idea that humans are like a disease to the planet. Look at what anti-natalists and radical environmentalists think. Most of them would be unsuitable for taking their views to the extreme, but the fact that these opinions are publicly voiced by so many people means they have some traction. I doubt there were anywhere near as many people like this in the old days.
(2) A movement to end civilization or humanity could depict nature as a positive value or a lesser evil. If it did not concern itself with nature, its own religion/philosophy could be the positive value, as cults have done.
(3) There are many people who are disgusted or horrified by small massacres but treat the idea of humanity going extinct or getting wiped out more acceptingly. There was a quote on this from a prominent thinker that I forgot, but suffice it to say, there are quite a few people of this type as well.
(4) The deaths of 10, 30, or 100 people killed with direct means (like a gun or fire) are "concrete." Deaths on the scale of 100 million or 7 billion are "abstract," unlikely to be carried out on a face-to-face basis and potentially unfolding in a downright dull manner initially, such as someone spraying another person's face with a modified virus.
(5) There would be many people motivated to a "rejection of all (human) life" on the basis of personal reasons who might support a group or individual with those goals even if their reasonings were different.
(6) There are anarcho-primitivists and reactionary rightists. The most extreme ones may want to raze down civilization and be willing to take the most radical measures necessary to achieve it for their positive (i.e. non-nihilistic) ideals.
I think there would be nothing impossible about assembling a "dream team" of those who opposed civilization and even humanity as a whole. Aum Shinrikyo once did something like that, just that they lacked the IQ and the advanced biotechnology to pull it off. Maybe things will be different in the coming decades.
Still, it would be hard to find anyone willing to join who would be suitable material because ~99% of edgelords are not. Maybe 1 out of 10,000 or 100,000 people would be compatible, and among those, you would have to find people with the technical skills necessary to do genetic engineering.
I have my own concerns about it, namely that it would be an ambitious and time-taking pursuit, and even if it succeeded against all odds, the taste of victory would be short-lived. I have no intent of founding such a group, and I intend to live peacefully.
But there is little reason to think in the future that our global civilization will last forever and that there will not be any more designer/lab leak pandemics (on a far worse scale), as there already were in 1977 and 2020. Our civilization is complex and interconnected. It becomes more so over a long enough time scale as a trend. As a trend, more destructive technologies are created. Protective capabilities tend to arrive after the destructive ones, and they are not always effective. There is no realistic way for civilization to suppress all competitive processes that occur inside it even if it established a panopticon. Thus, I see the collapse of civilization over the next few hundred years as being close to 100%. However, it's debatable as to whether or not it will fall in this century.
I dislike the focus on climate change and AI by the media because it distracts from the more likely fundamental causes of our collapse if it were to happen this century.