Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart – Professor Todd May thinks that when you consider the pain we inflict on animals through climate change, any reasonable assessment suggests humans should not be allowed to continue.
Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?
Our species possesses inherent value, but we are devastating the earth and causing unimaginable animal suffering.
By Todd May
Mr. May is a professor of philosophy at Clemson University.Dec. 17, 2018
…
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?
…
So, then, how much suffering and death of nonhuman life would we be willing to countenance to save Shakespeare, our sciences and so forth? Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and nonhuman animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals. There is just too much torment wreaked upon too many animals and too certain a prospect that this is going to continue and probably increase; it would overwhelm anything we might place on the other side of the ledger. Moreover, those among us who believe that there is such a gap should perhaps become more familiar with the richness of lives of many of our conscious fellow creatures. Our own science is revealing that richness to us, ironically giving us a reason to eliminate it along with our own continued existence.
One might ask here whether, given this view, it would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering. Although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans. To demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying. In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering, since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice. The two situations, then, are not analogous.
…
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/opinion/human-extinction-climate-change.html
Send your kids to Clemson University, assuming they don’t commit suicide on the spot after being exposed to Professor Todd May’s viciously anti-humanist green philosophy, they could well be talked out of ever having their own children.
What animal suffering is this person talking about?
Oh! Dear……
He got out again.
I remember fondly the days when conservatives and Christians were accused of having a “holier than thou” attitude.
Today, we see from the left what resembles a body-building pose down where everyone flexes to show how sensitive and moral they are. Whoever is offended by the littlest little thing is the most sensitive, and whoever is willing to do the most to save humanity is the most moral.
“I’m willing to buy a Prius to save the world.”
“I’m willing for other people who pay taxes to pay more taxes to save the world.”
“I’m willing to pay higher taxes to save the world.”
“I’m willing to dress like a vagina and yell at people walking by to save the world.”
“I’m willing to buy solar panels to save the world.”
“Well, I’m willing to eat locusts to save the world.”
“Well, I’m willing to wish for human extinction to save the world!”
Lead by example. If you think this way, stop having kids, or wipe yourself off the face of the earth. This is how we evolve. Hopefully in a few generations we are better off. In one breath we have to save everyone and the next breath we are over populated.
Unfortunately, it is several decades too late to convince Mr. May’s parents that they should not have children.
I notice complete lack of details describing this supposed “unimaginable animal suffering at the hands of humans.” Seems to me our planet’s 300,000 (or whatever) species are doing OK. California diverted much needed water to make sure one regional tiny little fish (which no one has ever heard of)
would not suffer population decline. What a low IQ moron. I agree that humans like him we do not need.
“would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering. ”
You first, Professor Todd May. Show us you really mean what you say.
Todd May be nuts. Or he May be worse than just nuts. What’s he talking about, sending people to extermination camps? Haven’t we been through something like this recently?
I don’t know where he gets the “suffering” thing, unless he’s been watching too much Hope for Paws, which rescues abandoned dogs and cats, and finds new homes for them.
If he is serious, he should volunteer to be the first to die in his death cult. Belgium does euthanize people at their request now. He could go there and get it over with.
How many wackos like him are there that don’t publicize their death cult attitude quite so much? Only asking, because I got the paper once morning and then on the front page was the news about the massacre at Jonestown, Guyana, with that suicidal psycho Jim Jones directing that mass murder.
You first, Todd. You set the example, and then you can see how many want to follow you.
Have read several articles putting this stupidity forward during the last few months, and yet again I make the same statement I do to these idiots each time they toddle out with this crap, you go first. Then the Human Race could move forward with our next evolutionary step, minus such sad examples human beings.
If you know the story of the Technocrats, how they think and what they want to achieve, sociopathic claims like this are all in the mix.
https://youtu.be/e8JRCoSgsUU
https://youtu.be/ACYRaNvTN2w
Sounds as if he’s calling for mass sterilization rather than genocide. How thoughtful of him.
Well, African TFR’s are amongst the highest, so I guess his policy would involve sending teams of American or European sterilizers to Africa.
No problem with that policy, right?
Hmmm, I wonder if he has ever considered the “pain and suffering” most animals go through when they are being eaten (while still alive) by other wild animals in nature ? D’OH!
I wonder if Professor May’s position will cause even one member of the CAGW alarmist camp to question the “wisdom” of intelligentsia supporting their group-think . . . and to reflect that maybe he/she has made a REALLY BIG mistake.
“Cancel Humans!”
Cancel misanthropic professors.
Who would even want an impressionable teen going to a university at this point? A guy like this one should clearly be sacked and offered a job making pottery wind chimes.
Let’s compare having to deal with a world that’s 1C warmer, vs being torn apart and eaten by a lion.
I think it is time to put all these nuts back in locked ,white padded rooms, for their own safety of course… ; )
A much more compelling philosophical reflection on modern man is the curious phenomenon of widespread acceptance of a theory that has no scientific laws, axioms, postulates, nor formulae that implores carbon based life forms to condemn carbon.
Are syllogisms still taught by the Philosophy Department?
Carbon Based life forms require Carbon
Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain
Carbon Dioxide is necessary to complete the Carbon Cycle of Life
Therefore, mankind should pursue efforts to ensure Carbon Dioxide is sufficiently accessible to all future life
For the record, Professor May, I allow cave crickets to live in my bathroom. I make concerted efforts to rescue the errant ones that decide to inhabit my washing machine, before I do a load, and I routinely avoid squashing them accidentally by watching where I step in the zones where I allow them to live.
As for an answer to your question, “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?”
Honestly, no. It would not be a tragedy. Tragedy is a human judgment, and without humans, there would be no entity to make this judgment. The universe simply wouldn’t give a crap. But, frankly, I choose to enjoy my existence while it lasts, and hope that navel gazing on prospects of climate doom will soon be recognized as a social disorder.
The insanity of these delusional anti-Human warmistas is beyond belief. Their rants are getting worse, assuming that is at all possible!
This Professor is a big fish in his own little raindrop of delusion. Perhaps he should more carefully consider his little raindrop as it relates to the ocean of the universe.
Words of comfort and wisdom for Professor Todd May can be found here.
http://www.songlyrics.com/national-lampoon/deteriorata-lyrics/
And, in an imperfect world, there should be other altruistic creatures who have already reached these conclusions and ended themselves…
This sociopathic psychotic individual probably believes the dinosaurs ended themselves to “alleviate animal suffering”.
This alleged teacher is rubber room material.
He should not be anyone’s burden, so send him to live deep in uninhabited wilderness; e.g. inland Antarctic, remote sub polar islands, barren wastes. Getting chased by a few less particular carnivores may awaken real humanity instead of his self proclaimed anti-humanity.
“My worst nightmare involves some fanatic somewhere who thinks that the world has too many human beings. Such a person would have no compunction about releasing some kind of pathogen. And this is the kind of thing that could be done by someone with access to a laboratory. It’s nothing very special. It’s not like making an atomic bomb, where you need large conspicuous facilities.” – Sir Martin Rees, here:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/martin-rees-on-the-future-of-science-and-humanity-20181205/
Nothing to worry about. Move along folks.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/24/zika-is-just-the-first-front-in-the-21st-century-biowar/
Odd? They never lead with themselves. I submit a better phrasing of the concerns would be: you are all inconvenient to my momentary passing concerns, please die.”