One speck of sand will be lost in a beach, but adding a speck of sand will still make it a bigger beach, and adding 3^^^3 specks of sand will make it a black hole.

6 × 10^30 kilograms of sand on one beach on one inhabited planet will collapse it into a black hole, which is far, far smaller amount of mass than 3^^^3 molecules of silicon dioxide. But adding one molecule of silicon dioxide to each of 3^^^3 beaches on inhabited planets throughout as many universes as necessary seems to cause far less disutility than adding 6 × 10^30 kilograms of sand to one beach on one inhabited planet.

Is the problem that we're unable to do math? You can't possibly say one molecule of silicon dioxide is incomparable to 6 × 10^30 kilograms of sand, can you? They're indisputably the same substance, after all; 6 × 10^55 molecules of SiO2 is 6 × 10^30 kilograms of sand. Even if you make the disutility nonlinear, you have to do something really, really extreme to overcome 3^^^3 . . . and of you do that, why, let's substitute in 3^^^^3 or 3^^^^^3 instead.

Is the problem that we are failing to evaluate what happens if everybody else makes the same decision? If 6 × 10^55 people were given the decision and they all chose the molecule, 3^^^3 inhabited planets are converted into black holes, while if they made the other only 6 × 10^55 planets would be. So when faced with an option that seems to cause no disutility, must we annihilate seven billion people because it would if enough other people made our decision it would be far worse than if we and all of them made the other?