I think we can. What about this plot: The decline of intergroup norms partly due to the decline of Christianity and partly due to SJW insanity finally led to a genocidal worldwide race war which caused all tribes capable of producing WMDs to destroy each other using nukes, ethnic biological weapons, military drones etc.

Only Sub-Saharan Africans, Australoids, Pacific Islanders etc continued to exist. Civilization completely collapsed, starvation and cannibalism were widespread and diseases such as Ebola got out of control. Survivors rapidly declined to Medieval or even earlier tech and never recovered.

When aliens arrived at Planet Earth or when some mutant non-human species in the nuked world developed civilization they wiped out the remaining humans and did not even believe that human civilization had ever existed.

Moral of the story: Do not become a sociopathic defector for humanity is more fragile than what we think we are.

The rationalist impulse is to construct a story as a puzzle with a solution that neatly resolves it and can ideally be found ahead of time if you're clever enough.

Horror writing on the other hand keeps you in the dark. You know that things are bad but you don't know how. There's a lot of uncertainty and it doesn't all go away.

Nick Land writes horror. Nostalgebraist wrote a sort-of-horror story. Neither is a central example of a rationalist, and a lot of rationalists hated the ending of Nostalgebraist's story for being unclear. This is not a coincidence.

Unlike >>6656, when Lovecraft wrote stories about the horrors of race-mixing he didn't pretend to have it all figured out.

Be afraid.