This report, Global Unexpungibility: A Philosophical Framework Based on Causal Necessity, Worldline Identity and Existential Weight(Chinese title: 全域不可删除论), proposes an existential-philosophical framework to address the prevalent modern condition of feeling like “consumable material.” Core Thesis: Any entity (including persons, objects, events) that has genuinely entered the current worldline cannot be “expunged without loss” from the current world. “Expungement” here does not mean physical disappearance, but refers to the conceptual operation of removing it from the actual, unfolded causal chain of reality while assuming the world remains otherwise unchanged. The theory argues this is conceptually impossible, as it would破坏 the identity of the “current worldline.” Key Distinction: The theory’s core lies in rigorously distinguishing between “functional replaceability” and “existential unexpungibility.” A person can be replaced in their social role, position, or function, but this in no way means that the specific life of that individual and their totality of lived experiences (relationships, choices, effects, etc.) can be erased from the causal fabric of the worldline as if they never existed. Main Concepts and Arguments: Worldline Identity: The current world is the specific way it is becauseof all the nodes that have genuinely entered it. Removing any single node results in a different worldline. Existential Weight (Necessity Value): This is the minimal evaluative stance a subject can derive from the objective causal fact of “unexpungibility.” It is not ethical praise, social contribution, or a promise of happiness, but an “anti-nullification boundary”: an entity can be criticized, can fail, or be forgotten, but cannot be accurately judged as “completely blank” or “expungible without loss.” From Persons to All Things: The logic applies to all entities entering the worldline (all things), but uses “a person is not consumable material” as its practical entry point, because humans are the only subjects who suffer existential pain (“Am I nothing?”) due to “consumable” evaluations. Strict Ethical and Practical Boundaries: The theory repeatedly emphasizes that “causal position does not equal ethical legitimacy” and “necessity is not ought-ness.” Evil acts and trauma, while unexpungible, are in no way justified by this; victims need not “be grateful for trauma.” Furthermore, “the unexpungibility of all things does not mean all things are equivalent,” and does not cancel the need for ethical judgment, accountability, or practical priorities in reality (e.g., saving a person over protecting a stone). Theoretical Positioning and Limits: The theory is an “existential-philosophical model,” employing concepts like “worldline” and “causality” for thought experiments and conceptual clarification, not as a theorem of natural science or physics. It does not promise to solve real-world suffering (e.g., unemployment, illness) and does not replace love, resources, institutional justice, or other practical aid. Its consolatory function is limited to blocking the erroneous inference: “functional failure/social invisibility → existential nullification.” Ultimately, the theory offers a restrained baseline commitment: Unexpungibility is not greatness; unexpungibility means it cannot be nullified. A person can be replaced in society, but cannot be expunged without loss from the world.