I think you’ve been playing a little too much fallout mate.

————

There’s a lot of assumptions here and conclusions which do not follow from their premises:

• Nuclear war does not entail extinction of either humanity or civilisation; there has been heavy investment in counter nuclear arsenals capable of intercepting warheads - while a war itself may be reserved to a few nation states or battlefields. The effects would be devastating, but humanity could recover.

• Nukes do not entail that nukes will be used, only that the option is now available and, thus, the probability of usage has increased.

• Saying physics has put the world into a state of decay is kind of silly; if anything, we have corrupted physics to meet the needs of our own sickened nature. If by ‘evil ruler’ you are referring to Putin and Kim Jong Un, then both only threaten nuclear war defensively in case of invasion.

• “the end result of finding out about the cosmos is about to end civilisation”, it does not follow that nukes are or were - given we have advanced since their invention - the ‘end result’ of physics. Nor does it follow they will end civilisation.

• medicine does not involve itself in the creation of bioweapons. Some specifically amoral experts of the fields of biology, pharmacology, virology and bio-chemistry might, for a lot of cash and their research projects being funded, research and produce bio-weapons. However the majority of medicine focuses on either practice or research into stopping cancer, Alzheimers, Huntingtons, etc.

———

Some of your conclusions may be solid if you re-evaluate them and give well argued premises or evidence for their support.