Extinction Ethics Reply
I received a reply from Les Knight, head of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement a few days ago. He didn't quite answer my question about how human ethics mean anything to the universe as a whole, and therefore makes our voluntary extinction the most ethical thing we could do, but I didn't feel like pressing the point further, and still remain in disagreement with him over that point.
Hello William,
Thank you for writing. I appreciate thoughtful disagreement over mindless agreement, and you clearly have thought about this issue.
I disagree that "Barring a life sterilizing impact event, any anthropogenic ecological collapse would not kill us all." I think that's about the only thing besides an impact which *will* get us all. We are eliminating species before we know they exist, and some microscopic species are critical to the entire food chain.
I think it's more likely that a massive dieoff will occur before an ecological collapse that eliminates all species higher than rodent, but we may have already passed the point of no return toward that collapse. For example, a runaway cycle of warming and release of methane from permafrost and oceans could also eliminate 90% of life forms, including us.
You're correct in assuming that for most of us in The Movement, "all of VHEMT rests on one fundamental assumption, that the biosphere would be better off without us." There are, however, Volunteers who base it on the assumption that humans would be better off not existing -- Shopenhauer's view. Though human-centered, I think that's a valid reason -- it's just not the majority reason.
But, on to your main question: "ultimately voluntary extinction, as opposed to reducing population, rests on the idea that the world is simply better off without us, which I don't think can even be related to ethics."
Humans might be the only being which has developed ethics, but we're the only one that needs them. Yes, it's a human concept -- that's who voluntary human extinction is about.
It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could think that it doesn't matter if we terminate the existence of a life form that has evolved to survive over the past three or four billion years, while 99.99% of nature's experiments perished. Ethics aren't much good if we don't apply them to our lives.
We are driving species to extinction faster than at any time in the past 65 million years, and when we're gone the extinction rate will eventually return to the normal rate. True, there have been five major extinctions before this one and there will be others, but this is the one we are causing. We know it and we can stop it.
If we use a balance scale like blind Justice holds, place all the species going extinct on one side, and place us on the other -- giving us about a 100,000 times more weight because we invented the scales -- the sales will tip in favor of our extinction, even with our weighted advantage. http://vhemt.org/ecology.htm#whyv
"Beyond our limited ideas about ethics, in the grand scheme of things it matters not whether we choose voluntary extinction or live on to cause the extinction of millions of other species. Neither option is 'better' than the other and with both we are still viewing everything in relation to ourselves."
Everything could be said to not matter in the grand scheme of things. Does it matter if you die of natural causes or are murdered? This is the difference: the biosphere isn't dying, it's being killed. When it comes right down to our daily living, what we do matters. Our choices affect other living beings, and if we use the ethics we have developed, we'll do what we feel is right, even if it's wrong.
For a better world,
Les
Hello William,
Thank you for writing. I appreciate thoughtful disagreement over mindless agreement, and you clearly have thought about this issue.
I disagree that "Barring a life sterilizing impact event, any anthropogenic ecological collapse would not kill us all." I think that's about the only thing besides an impact which *will* get us all. We are eliminating species before we know they exist, and some microscopic species are critical to the entire food chain.
I think it's more likely that a massive dieoff will occur before an ecological collapse that eliminates all species higher than rodent, but we may have already passed the point of no return toward that collapse. For example, a runaway cycle of warming and release of methane from permafrost and oceans could also eliminate 90% of life forms, including us.
You're correct in assuming that for most of us in The Movement, "all of VHEMT rests on one fundamental assumption, that the biosphere would be better off without us." There are, however, Volunteers who base it on the assumption that humans would be better off not existing -- Shopenhauer's view. Though human-centered, I think that's a valid reason -- it's just not the majority reason.
But, on to your main question: "ultimately voluntary extinction, as opposed to reducing population, rests on the idea that the world is simply better off without us, which I don't think can even be related to ethics."
Humans might be the only being which has developed ethics, but we're the only one that needs them. Yes, it's a human concept -- that's who voluntary human extinction is about.
It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could think that it doesn't matter if we terminate the existence of a life form that has evolved to survive over the past three or four billion years, while 99.99% of nature's experiments perished. Ethics aren't much good if we don't apply them to our lives.
We are driving species to extinction faster than at any time in the past 65 million years, and when we're gone the extinction rate will eventually return to the normal rate. True, there have been five major extinctions before this one and there will be others, but this is the one we are causing. We know it and we can stop it.
If we use a balance scale like blind Justice holds, place all the species going extinct on one side, and place us on the other -- giving us about a 100,000 times more weight because we invented the scales -- the sales will tip in favor of our extinction, even with our weighted advantage. http://vhemt.org/ecology.htm#whyv
"Beyond our limited ideas about ethics, in the grand scheme of things it matters not whether we choose voluntary extinction or live on to cause the extinction of millions of other species. Neither option is 'better' than the other and with both we are still viewing everything in relation to ourselves."
Everything could be said to not matter in the grand scheme of things. Does it matter if you die of natural causes or are murdered? This is the difference: the biosphere isn't dying, it's being killed. When it comes right down to our daily living, what we do matters. Our choices affect other living beings, and if we use the ethics we have developed, we'll do what we feel is right, even if it's wrong.
For a better world,
Les