The New York Times: Would It Be Better for Mankind to Go Extinct?

[fkjuliano]

Among the most read articles appearing in the New York Times today is one asking if it would not be a good thing if we were all to decide to stop having children in order to cause the extinction of the human race.

NYT: Should This Be the Last Generation?

The following was my humble response, which as far I could see was the only one to bring Christianity into this question:

Anyone who would even consider deliberately causing the extinction of mankind by not having children is suffering from a terrible spiritual sickness. What lies at the root of that sickness, and of so many of the ills of the modern world, is disbelief in God. It seems that Peter Singer, along with most everyone who posted comments, often has trouble in seeing a deeper meaning in his existence, even if he has ultimately decided that life, by a narrow margin, is worth living. But that is because he and most other people today are only willing to seek that meaning in the threescore and ten (or so) years that we spend in this world. Christians, on the other hand, contemplate eternity. Thus, we see the most profound meaning imaginable in our lives. When believing Christians have a child, a large part of our motivation lies in the satisfaction of presenting that child to God and God to that child. We abide the will of our Creator by bringing forth new human beings who will experience His love, and we do so in the knowledge that every one of those human beings, regardless of disability, illness, poverty, or anything else, will have the opportunity to know for all eternity a glory greater than any ever experienced on this earth.

I have stated the foregoing not with the intention of converting anyone (though it would be a good thing if it led to that), but simply to point out that from a Christian perspective, this question looks very different. In fact, it is not a question at all.

F.K. Juliano
Sao Paulo, Brazil

 

[JohnDamian]

What an absurd article and question.

-Pessimism itself is contradictory - if life is not worth living; pessimistic (or any) statements arn’t worth stating;
-Since statements have been stated there is a value and purpose in their stating;
-This value is presumed by the person making the statement;
-If it is not more satisfying to make a statement than not to make a statement, then no statement would be made;
-Therefore, even the pessimist presumes satisfaction and value as real;
-If one knows value and satisfaction are real; one should pursue them;
-Pursuing pessimism to its ends does not lead to satisfaction or value.
–Thus pessimism is stupid.

That aside; anyone that would seriously argue that an lifeless rock is better than a planet with sentient beings is inherantly denying their own assertation by demonstrating the value/satisfaction of making an assertion.

 

[CDNowak]

Is the author opting for voluntary extinction themselves? Didn’t think so.

Singer has been saying this for years, applauded by the Animal rights extremists. The idea has come a little more into the vogue with the Anthropomorphic Global Warming scare. Hopefully it dies with it.

 

[Desertsailor]

Who would it benefit for mankind to go extinct? Who would report it? Who would record the vast benefits Gaya and Mother Earth would reap?

 

[reggieM]

This is a good example of where atheism leads through its own logic.

For Mr. Singer, the it is better that nobody be born because then nobody would ever suffer anything.

I thought the response in the OP was good – it’s a deep spiritual blindness.

It’s the problem with egoism and the arrogance of the atheistic worldview.

It assumes the power and authority to determine the value of human life. For Mr. Singer, human life has a certain value to him, and it’s not worth that much. That follows logically from the belief that human beings are an accident of material processes. There can’t be any real value there, and human life is ultimately without purpose or meaning. In that view, suffering is purely evil, and even if you don’t endure it, you’ll cause someone else to do so.

So, atheism is suicidal. That’s clear. Suicide (of the species) in this case is considered the best option.

But, as mentioned above – somehow Mr. Singer thinks he’s exempt from his own “suffer or cause to suffer” scenario. Or it “doesn’t count” for him because he writes for the NY Times. He’s happy to find his pleasures in life, but claim that all other lives are so worthless that they should not have existed.

“Because God loves us and wants us as His own …” whether we can find value in our lives for ourselves, we (believers) always know this is true. He wants us because we belong to Him, and for the good we bring to the world for the sake of others. And ultimately for salvation forever with Him.

 

[edwest2]

I find that those who claim to not believe in anything, i.e. some higher being or reality, eventually settle for a form of utilitarianism. Can I use this for something?

I also find it odd that some view suicide as some heroic act. Yet they miss the attributes of the hero: he fights to save others from some evil, even at the risk of his own life.

In the end, it appears that for some, life is a series of attempts to stave off boredom. Or to just seek amusement. We all need rest and some enjoyment, but these things do not represent final ends. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying unbelievers cannot do good things, only that their own end is regarded as final.

I heard a man speaking on TV. He said, “Your life is not your own.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Abba]

Ah, ha, ha,!

Excuse me for laughing in such a morbid topic but, I just had to do it. I must have read the title of the thread too quickly and understood the question to be: Would it Be Better for Mankind [for the New York Times] to go extinct? Ha, ha!!! Well, especially after this most irresponsible article - YES! I think mankind will be better off without the irresponsible, dangerous, self-loving, decadent, blind, callous, selfish, egotistic, sick, self-serving, manipulative, derranged, insincere, bias, et., etc., etc… editors, reporters and publications of the New York Times.

I think I will open a bottle of Don Perinon and celebrate the day the New York Times closes its doors.

They are promoting a sick mentality and their derranged individual’s thoughts and perceptions are presented collectively and served on the pages of the New York Times as a poison to societies.

Exactly that way of thinking is something northern europeans are very familiar with and have suffered and are still suffering it’s morbid consequences. Ethics without God leads to - if all is relative then there are no Truths and if there are no Truths - who cares? Why live? It has lead thousands of european youth to suicide and if you serve this on a poisoneous platter adn promote it to societies it may lead to collective suicide. But, that is not really the concern for me at the moment. It’s sad that Peter Singer does not see how he has fallen into the trap of his own thought process. Bioethics…whatwhischawlkmumble…

What a bozo! Professor Laureate…wishiwasha… I don’t even know where to begin to refute such an absurd and stupid idea. What is this about Schopenhauer? The bozo never seem to have read Solomon.

How can a blind man like Peter Singer come to see? He is so tangled in his web with his views of existence that it looks like, well, we just need to pray for him.

Dear Lord have Mercy on us!

 

[anode]

It would definitely be best for the planet if the human race were to become extinct.

But voluntary extinction may not be necessary. If we doom the planet, we doom ourselves, At the rate we’re going, the planet may indeed be doomed, and as we systematically destroy its life-support systems, the latest being the seas, also the land and air, we ourselves won’t be far behind.

 

[anode]

The piece quoted by the OP at the beginning of this thread, by the way, is one in a series in something called The Stone, a series of articles designed to raise *opinions *and comment. Published online, the reader can comment at the end of a piece. Other recent pieces include one on the philosophy of Stoicism, and a five-part piece on an artist embedded with a group of fighters in Iraq. As I have never seen The Stone in the paper version, I assume that it exists only online.

 

[AntiTheist]

So, atheism is suicidal. That’s clear. Suicide (of the species) in this case is considered the best option.

Just to be clear, Singer’s position isn’t specifically an “atheist position.” It’s consistent with atheism, sure (everything – including wearing blue shirts – is consistent with atheism, aside from believing in gods), but it’s not derived from atheism.

That’s a very key difference.

There are plenty of atheists – myself being a good example – who think that Singer is positively off his rocker. Singer’s ideas – and those of the tree-hugging ne’er-do-wells who make these kinds of asinine arguments – derive not from the things he doesn’t believe in (gods), but from the things he does believe.

To actually support this position, you have to believe in a lot of dumb things, including the belief that humans are significantly harming the planet, that significantly harming the planet is something bad that shouldn’t happen, and the belief that eliminating mankind would be an appropriate redress for that harm. Those are not ideas derived from atheism, nor are they derived from anything remotely resembling sanity.

 

[reggieM]

Just to be clear, Singer’s position isn’t specifically an “atheist position.” It’s consistent with atheism, sure (everything – including wearing blue shirts – is consistent with atheism, aside from believing in gods), but it’s not derived from atheism.

There’s something much more which is essential to atheism – and that is the first principle that “there is no ultimate purpose”. So, with materialist-atheism (which is by far the most common kind and by way of shorthand, what I’m referring to) it’s not just a matter of “not believing in gods”. There is also: No supernatural order, no immortality of the soul, no final judgement and no external standard of morality. So, its the metaphysical construct of atheism that there is no ultimate purpose, no ultimate meaning and no ultimate value to human life. Singer’s ideas are built on that metaphysic – atheism as a mental structure and worldview allows Singer’s ideas to emerge. Atheism supports those ideas where the Christian worldview, for example, does not.

There are plenty of atheists – myself being a good example – who think that Singer is positively off his rocker.

That is good to hear, but the problem is – from the atheistic worldview, you yourself might be the one off of your rocker. Either way, it doesn’t matter. Your worldview is supportive of Singer’s ideas. Ultimately, there is no purpose or meaning. Thus, humanity itself lacks an ultimate purpose. Humanity is unnecessary. In the end, it is nothing. Singer’s ideas are a pure expression of atheistic logic. I’m afraid that arguments against him which propose someone’s personal interest or contrary values are really meaningless even in the argument (not just ultimately purposeless).

To actually support this position, you have to believe in a lot of dumb things, including the belief that humans are significantly harming the planet, that significantly harming the planet is something bad that shouldn’t happen, and the belief that eliminating mankind would be an appropriate redress for that harm.

I can agree with part of your point here.
In the atheistic-materialist view, it’s dumb to believe that “harming the planet is something bad”. That is correct because the planet is unnecessary. It’s destruction is not necessarily “bad”. Even the elimination of the human race cannot be considered bad ultimately (since it has no ultimate purpose, value or meaning anyway). The only way to assess such things as bad or good is to have a final purpose or goal. You could then determine if it was successful or not. Perhaps the destruction of earth and the suicide of the human race makes it possible for other organisms to prosper more.
That’s Singer’s point, I think. Also, he thinks that if anyone is suffering pain, then it’s not worth having anyone alive at all.

So, it sounds to me like you’re supporting the very ideas that he has used (and just taken to their logical end).

If humanity has no ultimate purpose or meaning, then the elimination of humanity has a neutral value of zero. It is not a greater or lesser idea than the preservation of humanity. There is no ultimate standard, in the atheistic model, by which one can measure or evaluate the rightness or wrongness of it.

I see Singer’s ideas following logically from atheism. Again, suicide of the human race cannot be considered a “bad thing” in that model at all.

 

[AntiTheist]

There’s something much more which is essential to atheism – and that is the first principle that “there is no ultimate purpose”. So, with materialist-atheism (which is by far the most common kind and by way of shorthand, what I’m referring to) it’s not just a matter of “not believing in gods”. There is also: No supernatural order, no immortality of the soul, no final judgement and no external standard of morality.

I’d certainly be willing to grant this. But there are other kinds of “purposes” than magical, supernatural ones – another meaning of “purpose” is “the meaning that each individual assigns to his or her own life.”

So, its the metaphysical construct of atheism that there is no ultimate purpose, no ultimate meaning and no ultimate value to human life. Singer’s ideas are built on that metaphysic – atheism as a mental structure and worldview allows Singer’s ideas to emerge.

No. Singer’s ideas are built upon philosophical utilitarianism, a position that, while consistent with atheism and the idea of a lack of ultimate meaning, is not derived from either of those positions.

As you go on to note later, Singer holds a number of bizarre views that have nothing to do with either atheism or with the idea that there is no ultimate meaning: you admit that Singer believes that harming the earth is bad and he believes, in your own words, “if anyone is suffering pain, then it’s not worth having anyone alive at all.” Neither of those beliefs is derived from atheism and the latter of those beliefs is inconsistent with my own brand of moral nihilism.

In short, Singer’s position does not derive from atheism or from the specific kind of “materialist-atheism” you’re talking about. It derives from utilitarianism and some silly ideas that do not come from atheism.

 

[JimG]

It’s not possible for mankind to doom the planet. The planet will go on in any case, no matter which species, if any, populate its surface. The planet will be fine.

But if mankind went extinct, it would not be good for the NY Times, or Princeton University, where Prof. Singer teaches.* Other species just don’t buy newspapers or attend university.

*(The fact that he is, if I recall correctly, the chairman of the Ethics Department, says a lot about educational trends.)

 

[reggieM]

I’d certainly be willing to grant this.

I think the important point here is that atheism is a worldview which has as one of its first principles that “there is no ultimate purpose”. This is much different than what you’ve said previously (that atheism only means a not believing in gods).

That is the metaphysical statement of atheism – that there is no ultimate purpose.

Quite a lot derives necessarily from that first principle.

There is no ultimate:
meaning,
purpose,
value,
assessment of value,
judgement,
necessity,
goal,
standards of measure,
measures of success or failure,
measures of good and evil,
reason,
rationality,
meaningful end point of life,
distinction between any actions,
hierarchy of values,
recognition of values versus non-value …

and much, much more like this. No, it’s not just “not believing in gods” as it has been falsely portrayed hundreds of times.

The “purposes an individual assigns” are transient and ultimately trivial when viewed against the atheistic metaphysic which claims that there is no ultimate purpose. All of the temporal, trival purposes are reduced to ultimate non-meaning and purpose.

The exchange of trivial purpose for ultimate purpose is a deception. Any purposes individuals create are of equal value in ultimate terms – that is, they are meaningless ultimately. They are equalized to zero meaning.

It is illogical and unreasonable to consider trivial, unnecessary and ultimately pointless “meanings” or “purposes” as having equal value as final or ultimate purposes.

It’s also illogical to treat trivial and transient activities with the seriousness reserved to an ultimate or final purpose. These trivial or individual purposes are measured against a final state, they are all equally reduced to nothingness. That is the single common, overriding and most important feature of all of them.

When it is said that Mr. Singer’s ideas are “consistent with atheism” it means that the atheistic worldview accepts that ultimately his ideas have as much value as do any contrary ideas.

In fact, he is making a statement about purpose and concluding that there is none for the human race – and therefore the dissolution of the race is a perfectly reasonable goal.

That kind of suicidal idea can only be supported by a worldview that claims there is no ultimate purpose – as does atheism.

 

[edwest2]

In order to raise a healthy generation of children, their lives need to be ordered. When all options are equally available but there is no real criteria for choosing, then you can have serial killers working at crime labs, as in the TV show Dexter. Or life is just many shades of grey as in the TV show Grey’s Anatomy.

Speaking as a writer and editor, I don’t know if I could consistently turn in a column once a week much less daily as in the case of the New York Times. It seems the media in the West decided about 40 years ago that they’ve examined good and love and romance and peaceful, functional living, and now it’s time to turn to an examination of the dark, the murderous, the deranged and the profoundly dysfunctional. Even the suicidal.

There is nothing wrong with examining these things. There is something wrong with suggesting any of these things as viable options for individuals much less all of humanity.

Pope Benedict has said that the crisis in Europe is a crisis of hope. People are lacking in it. If man is just another organism on the planet, like bacteria in a petri dish, then eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

What was that line about life? “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” So, this is not the last examination of the subject of ultimate meaning or ultimate meaninglessness.

However, among the artists and writers I work with, there is a creative energy that does not come from nowhere. Even those who hold no religious beliefs believe in something, usually a number of somethings. Man is more than a biological mechanism, although there are some men who believe exactly that. It appears to me, that there is faith and a railing against faith and not much else.

God bless,
Ed

 

[pnewton]

That aside; anyone that would seriously argue that an lifeless rock is better than a planet with sentient beings is inherantly denying their own assertation by demonstrating the value/satisfaction of making an assertion.

But* is* there sentient life in New York City? If there was, would the the Times still consider newspapers are a viable media outlet.

 

[Leela]

I think the important point here is that atheism is a worldview which has as one of its first principles that “there is no ultimate purpose”. This is much different than what you’ve said previously (that atheism only means a not believing in gods).

That is the metaphysical statement of atheism – that there is no ultimate purpose.

Quite a lot derives necessarily from that first principle.

Why tell us what we MUST believe based on not believing in God. Why not consider us the authority on what we ourselves believe and don’t believe?

If you are interested in understanding what nonbelievers actually do believe, I can tell you that for me, I see no reason why I would ever need to affirm or deny “there is no ultimate purpose.” I’m not looking for an “ultimate purpose.” Everyone has lots of purposes, and I wouldn’t know where to begin in trying to say which one if any is the"ultimate" one.

I don’t even know what you mean by “ultimate” in the way you are using it. Is AntiTheist right in thinking that you mean something like “magical?”

The “purposes an individual assigns” are transient and ultimately trivial when viewed against the atheistic metaphysic which claims that there is no ultimate purpose. All of the temporal, trival purposes are reduced to ultimate non-meaning and purpose.

One purpose I have is to care for my family. Is that one a trivial purpose? To me it is very important.

 

[AntiTheist]

I think the important point here is that atheism is a worldview which has as one of its first principles that “there is no ultimate purpose”. This is much different than what you’ve said previously (that atheism only means a not believing in gods).

It does only mean that. We are talking here about materialist atheism, which is a subset of atheism.

There are a lot of things that you might be able to derive from materialism, but not strictly from atheism. [And incidentally, there are indeed materialist atheists who believe that morality exists – Singer being an obvious example]

One thing you cannot derive from atheism or materialism is utilitarianism, which is what Singer bases his ideas on. Do you agree with that last sentence or no?

 

[fkjuliano]

Just to be clear, Singer’s position isn’t specifically an “atheist position.” It’s consistent with atheism, sure (everything – including wearing blue shirts – is consistent with atheism, aside from believing in gods), but it’s not derived from atheism.

That’s a very key difference.

There are plenty of atheists – myself being a good example – who think that Singer is positively off his rocker. Singer’s ideas – and those of the tree-hugging ne’er-do-wells who make these kinds of asinine arguments – derive not from the things he doesn’t believe in (gods), but from the things he does believe.

To actually support this position, you have to believe in a lot of dumb things, including the belief that humans are significantly harming the planet, that significantly harming the planet is something bad that shouldn’t happen, and the belief that eliminating mankind would be an appropriate redress for that harm. Those are not ideas derived from atheism, nor are they derived from anything remotely resembling sanity.

Those ideas may not be intrinsic to atheism, but they are permitted by an atheistic world view, as are all of the very worst ideas mankind has ever conceived. To put it another way, while not every atheist believes that the extinction is morally desirable, one must be an atheist to believe such a thing, and certainly not a Christian.

Nor is the coincidence between atheism and those worst ideas a quirk. Once God is eliminated from consideration by society and individuals, along with the inevitability of His justice in this life or the next, there really is nothing to deter the most evil and insane among us from putting into action whatever demented notions their diseased minds vomit into existence. Only an atheist would advocate the extinction of the human race, as only an atheist could have come up with something like the Khmer Rouge peasant society.

Atheism, besides not being true, is by far the greatest source of evil in the world. Of course, atheists often say precisely that of religion, but this lie is part of the evil of atheism.

 

[fkjuliano]

It would definitely be best for the planet if the human race were to become extinct.

But voluntary extinction may not be necessary. If we doom the planet, we doom ourselves, At the rate we’re going, the planet may indeed be doomed, and as we systematically destroy its life-support systems, the latest being the seas, also the land and air, we ourselves won’t be far behind.

Best for whom exactly? Unless you subscribe to the absurd notion that the Earth is a sentient being, who would benefit by the extinction of mankind? Obviously, no one, since mankind would be extinct. And if you mean lower animals, then you really are sick in your mind and spirit to put their interest above that of the only intelligent species on the planet, which just happens to be your species.