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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?”
Purely from a personal perspective my answer is no
Economists have actually tried to put monetary value on different species. The universe does not
Cheers
M
For those who promote this type of thinking, I invite them to go first and see if we can get along without them.
The climate issue is proving a lightning rod to self-loathing. The ugly hate beauty. The dim-witted hate intelligence. The fraudulent hate the honest. The slip-shod and lazy hate the meticulous.
The utter misanthropy of the warmist Luddite movement reminds one of an Old Testament account of the wisdom of Solomon. Two women argued about possession by of a baby, both claiming to be mother. In the end Solomon proposes to cut the child in half. The real mother identifies herself as the one refusing that solution while offering the baby to the other. The pretend mother had no interest in the child’s welfare.
In like manner, the modern environmental movement pretends to be interested in human welfare but in outbursts like that of Todd May show that pretence of philanthropy is total and cynical. Power for us, death to everyone else, hows that for a manifesto? Je suis Macron.
For the God Called Earth
When one worships “dirt” as his god and has no belief in a higher power then it is easy for him to consider the extinction of humans as a good thing.
Todd May – NOT!
Ma’ Gaia. The gnostic’s belief in a “Supreme Mother”.
He’s not a philosopher. He’s a priest.
What these idiots do not understand is that a planet that does not develop intelligent life is a total waste of a planet. And, it’s a given that an intelligent lifeform will learn quickly how to exploit its environment. Yes, we are developing the skills to lower damage to the environment, but the idea that we can have no effect is simply wrong. We all occupy part of the landscape, exclude other lifeforms from our space, and we need stuff. It’s that simple, we all have ecological footprints.
A planet without intelligent life is a planet that is nothing but survival 24/7/365, just kill, eat, murder full-time. Yeah, that’s a nice world.
Doesn’t Clemson play Notre Dame in one of the first two football playoff bowls? If so, you have a professor from Clemson saying that man is nothing but an animal-destroying, insensitive, horrible life form and Notre Dame saying man was created in God’s image. Talk about opposing characterizations. Go Notre Dame.
The comedy writes itself. He got his Ph.D. from Penn State.
Still, its expected that basket-weaving degrees look silly no matter where you get them.
Climate expertise, however, should have a slightly higher threshold…maybe they were so busty with rear-guard legal maneuvering they weren’t paying attention?
er…still “busy”. No coffee yet. Early morning typing…and what a typo!
[The mods have found it is usually better to not modify busty problems caused by looking forward to read-guarded actions. Nor the reverse. .mod]
I kill millions, if not billions, or maybe even trillions of living creatures every day, especially when I’m sick. If I find a man-made chemical to help me, then I use it.
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Climate change has been taking place before mankind ever evolved and will continue after mankind is no longer here. The culprit is Mother Nature and there is no way that Mother Nature will become extinct.
Except for the Sahel, there has been no ‘climate change.’
“the climate change we have been experiencing”
NO! We have not been experiencing climate change.
Professor May, you go first. That would at least ease the pain and suffering that you inflict on us lower-level humans.
This lethal meme won’t survive
Would he be prepared to go to court with compulsory full access to all emails etc and no right to confidentiality for any research paid for publicly either directly or indirectly to prove his case that man is responsible for climate change? More so if failure to prove the case gave the right to refund of all research money and taxation justified by the climate claims.
I think not somehow.
It’s time people reacted to this species self-effacing drivel tinged with wishful thoughts of extinction as responsible parents would: by branding it unfit for children, and shrugging it off in public with a curt dismissal, and only engaging such debate in private spaces when only adults are present. And relate to those who crassly cross the line the way would to a strip-teasing birthday clown, on a spectrum from horrified rage to amusement — depending on the lowest age of audience.
I find it ironic that morality of sexual behavior is a dense and roiling juggernaut in law and culture, while philosophical topics and approaches that might tarnish the self-worth and self-preservation instincts of young children are casually tossed out into the open unchallenged.
It’s obvious that the ‘climate change’ hysteria is unhinging adults and we’re certainly seeing a lot of feral misanthropy masquerading as science. And if we debate them full on in a vain attempt to change minds, it’s like the old yarn about teaching a pig to sing. But branding their ideas ‘unfit for children’ and withdrawing from public debate leaves a trail of outrage that will cause those who are parents to think, is this true. And many will conclude that it is. It’ll make the children think too, about that invisible line one must draw in the psyche to protect one’s self, family and kind.
And it’s not just ‘climate change’. There is also this strip-teasing birthday clown trying to convince children that asteroids aren’t dangerous, and we need not hasten to answer the threat — because (gambler’s fallacy) statistics promises to keep them safe, and extinction is part of the natural order.
Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?
– Well, as long as he carries-out the exterminations personally – and starts with himself – I’m okay with it…
My brother and nephew attended Clemson. Clemson is best known for its engineering and hard sciences degrees (as well as good football).
The only bachelor of philosophy graduate (not from Clemson) I ever met could only get a job running the copy machine where I worked.
The only bachelor of philosophy graduate (not from Clemson) I ever met could only get a job running the copy machine where I worked.
sounds like he was eminently under-qualified for that job. It’s a wonder he was ever hired for it.
Friends don’t let friends go to Clemson.
GO COCKS !!!
The next posttraumatic stress disorder candidate.
In need of a climate science believer philosopher.