The argument was that preservation is "stealing from the future." Ergo, the commenter apparently believes in earnestness that a personified "future" has an unqu

The argument was that preservation is "stealing from the future." Ergo, the commenter apparently believes in earnestness that a personified "future" has an unqualified right to destruction. The argument as presented is sheer nihilism, and pointing that out was the goal of my comment.