"Clearly"? I suffer from opacity you apparently lack; I cannot distinguish between the two.

Then substitute "worse or equal" for "worse", the argument remains.

I do not, however, know that the decrease of one second is non-negligible for that measurement of anti-utility, under the definitions I have provided.

Same thing, doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't. The only things which matters is that X(n) is preferable or equal to X(n+1), and that "specks" is worse or equal to X(3.8 * 10^10). If "specks" is also preferable to X(0), we have circular preferences.

If it is quantified logarithmically, a one-billionth shift on some position of the logarithmic scale is going to overwhelm the signal of the linearly-multiplicative increasing population of individuals.

So, you are saying that there indeed is n such that X(n) is worse than X(n+1); it means that there are t and p such that burning p percent of one person's skin for t seconds is worse than 0.999999999 t seconds of burning 0.999999999 p percent of skins of ten people. Do I interpret it correctly?

Edited: "worse" substituted for "preferable" in the 2nd answer.