The newest way to save the planet? Eliminate Humanity.
No, I'm not talking about G Gundam here. This is a new [perhaps?] but now slowly growing popular view by these environmentalists.
The way to save the planet, to save "Mother Earth", is for Humanity to be eliminated.
Here's just a snippet.
Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off - for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations - and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.
Anyone who believes that Humanity should be eliminated, should start the process with themselves. Kill yourself, and remove your foul genes from the pool.
Here's the actual link:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/?hp
Here's the article itself, underneath the cut.
June 6, 2010, 5:15 pm
Should This Be the Last Generation?
By PETER SINGER
Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult - for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.
All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence. This has come to be known among philosophers as “the asymmetry” and it is not easy to justify. But rather than go into the explanations usually proffered - and why they fail - I want to raise a related problem. How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?
The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.
Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.
Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.
So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required - we could party our way into extinction!
Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off - for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations - and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.
Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species - that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too - here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do - that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated - at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?
I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?
-----
Yeaaaah, you know what? You guys who don't want to have kids, don't. Really. I know of people who choose not to have children, but don't hate kids, and prefer to be the neighborhood 'auntie and uncle', as part of the community, helping raise the neighborhood kids and providing them with the extra emotional support and life lessons to become good members of humanity. Then there are those who choose not to have kids because they hate kids. Not only do I want them nowhere near any children, I would advise they stay far, far away from other people.
Then you have these useless idiots, who bemoan the planet's destruction, and say 'everyone should die for Mother Earth.' In fact, if you think that the earth is better off without humans, please, I invite you to stop wasting oxygen, and follow the advice on my icon. Really. Let's start with you guys. Oh, you can't do it? Then why the fuck should the rest of us be the ones to 'go first'?
Massive Kudos to cutelildrow for finding this article!
http://cutelildrow.livejournal.com/2071620.html
Edit at 12:55am: So. I found this guy on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Look at his views. This man is clearly insane. Frighteningly insane.
The way to save the planet, to save "Mother Earth", is for Humanity to be eliminated.
Here's just a snippet.
Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off - for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations - and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.
Anyone who believes that Humanity should be eliminated, should start the process with themselves. Kill yourself, and remove your foul genes from the pool.
Here's the actual link:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/?hp
Here's the article itself, underneath the cut.
June 6, 2010, 5:15 pm
Should This Be the Last Generation?
By PETER SINGER
Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult - for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.
All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence. This has come to be known among philosophers as “the asymmetry” and it is not easy to justify. But rather than go into the explanations usually proffered - and why they fail - I want to raise a related problem. How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?
The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.
Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.
Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.
So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required - we could party our way into extinction!
Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off - for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations - and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.
Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species - that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too - here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do - that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated - at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?
I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?
-----
Yeaaaah, you know what? You guys who don't want to have kids, don't. Really. I know of people who choose not to have children, but don't hate kids, and prefer to be the neighborhood 'auntie and uncle', as part of the community, helping raise the neighborhood kids and providing them with the extra emotional support and life lessons to become good members of humanity. Then there are those who choose not to have kids because they hate kids. Not only do I want them nowhere near any children, I would advise they stay far, far away from other people.
Then you have these useless idiots, who bemoan the planet's destruction, and say 'everyone should die for Mother Earth.' In fact, if you think that the earth is better off without humans, please, I invite you to stop wasting oxygen, and follow the advice on my icon. Really. Let's start with you guys. Oh, you can't do it? Then why the fuck should the rest of us be the ones to 'go first'?
Massive Kudos to cutelildrow for finding this article!
http://cutelildrow.livejournal.com/2071620.html
Edit at 12:55am: So. I found this guy on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Look at his views. This man is clearly insane. Frighteningly insane.