You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
NY Times Opinion: Human Extinction Might Be A Good Thing
2018-12-18
[NYT] There are stirrings of discussion these days in philosophical circles about the prospect of human extinction. This should not be surprising, given the increasingly threatening predations of climate change. In reflecting on this question, I want to suggest an answer to a single question, one that hardly covers the whole philosophical territory but is an important aspect of it. Would human extinction be a tragedy?

To get a bead on this question, let me distinguish it from a couple of other related questions. I’m not asking whether the experience of humans coming to an end would be a bad thing. (In these pages, Samuel Scheffler has given us an important reason to think that it would be.) I am also not asking whether human beings as a species deserve to die out. That is an important question, but would involve different considerations. Those questions, and others like them, need to be addressed if we are to come to a full moral assessment of the prospect of our demise. Yet what I am asking here is simply whether it would be a tragedy if the planet no longer contained human beings. And the answer I am going to give might seem puzzling at first. I want to suggest, at least tentatively, both that it would be a tragedy and that it might just be a good thing.

[Never be uninteresting. Read the most thought-provoking, delightful and raw stories from The New York Times Opinion section.]

To make that claim less puzzling, let me say a word about tragedy. In theater, the tragic character is often someone who commits a wrong, usually a significant one, but with whom we feel sympathy in their descent. Here Sophocles’s Oedipus, Shakespeare’s Lear, and Arthur Miller’s Willy Loman might stand as examples. In this case, the tragic character is humanity. It is humanity that is committing a wrong, a wrong whose elimination would likely require the elimination of the species, but with whom we might be sympathetic nonetheless for reasons I discuss in a moment.

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies. Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.

Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.
Posted by:Besoeker

#10  Removal of speed limit signs in Ga. No one pays them any mind anyway.
Posted by: Besoeker   2018-12-18 16:35  

#9  rid us of the CSPC, polarized electrical outlets and reintroduce the original Lawn Dart (game , not aircraft) and that will be a good self weeding start. follow up with non safety auto glass and removeseat belts airbags and collapsible steering columns and that accelerates the process.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2018-12-18 16:32  

#8  NYC Boston Chicago LA Seattle and SF First.
Posted by: Glolush Whusotch4899   2018-12-18 16:13  

#7  For the clueless "climate change" is an ongoing process that is uncontrollable by whatever puny efforts we humans may want to do. It is not brought about by human energy consumption and generation. It is powered by the Sun effecting the atmosphere and oceans and land masses. The land masses direct the flow of the oceans ... blah blah blah ...
Now a philosophy prof is telling us we're bad. La-Di-Da!
So, long as he's protected within the safety of our society, he'll never have to worry about the whole predator-prey game that is normal to the animal kingdom. Get a life loser. Or show us how to save the planet and end yours.
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839   2018-12-18 16:08  

#6  He’s not totally wrong. OTOH, “nature, red in tooth and claw”. There are many things the human race could do better. And I believe it will do much better.

The word “unimaginable” is grossly overused. I have no trouble imagining the suffering.
Posted by: KBK   2018-12-18 14:37  

#5  So, Jonestown was really a good thing? Should we have "Suicide Encouragement Hotlines"?
Posted by: Matt   2018-12-18 12:42  

#4  Cool! I'm starting with making the authors of this article extinct!

Free post-birth abortions! w00t!!!
Posted by: DarthVader   2018-12-18 10:44  

#3  Previous apex predators like lions and sharks would probably agree.
Posted by: Glenmore   2018-12-18 09:32  

#2  Can we start with the NYT?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2018-12-18 07:11  

#1  I think certain regional & national newspapers going out of business wouldn't be a tragedy.

Oh - and you first, asshole.
Posted by: Raj   2018-12-18 07:10  

00:00