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

[tonyrey]

Again, sorry to be so contentious but I really feel this is one of those issues like abortion where if you make the slightest concession you’ve lost the whole battle.

Don’t apologise for differing! It’s a question of terminology more than anything else. Provided we make it clear that animals cannot be as valuable as persons we have a solid foundation for rights whether they are restricted to persons or not.Even if you disagree with the concept of animal rights I’m sure you’ll agree the legislation in Spain to protect the great apes is a move in the right direction…

One can have an obligation w/o the animals having a reciprocal right. Actually the obligation is largely to oneself not to act against enlightened self-interest.
In many cases we have increased the obligation (but not created a right) by destroying animals’ ability to survive by selective breeding.

We certainly have an obligation to respect the life and welfare of animals because without them we wouldn’t exist! I would go even further and say we have an obligation to value and respect inanimate things. We’re not justified in desecrating and destroying anything simply for our own entertainment and to demonstrate how clever and powerful we are. Everything God has created is valuable; otherwise He would’t have created it - which is diametrically opposed to the view that it would be better if human beings became extinct …

 

[GaryTaylor]

When you look at the Data on how long its already going to take Earth to recover from our fantastic excurstion here? Which is now estimated at 100-Thousand Years? {Which myself I find to be a bit exaggerated} We certainly have done a Bang Up job.

But you also have to critically look at the source here {NY-Times}. Which believe me has a fair for the outer limits of imagination. Instead of “just” reporting the actual News? They take reality …then add their impression and “feelings” to it.

But regardless of whats better for Earth “We” must always look to whats in our best interest to exist with man and earth. Simple fact is “Thats the Reality”. at least at the moment. But don’t blink, because Honestly? Thats how fast it could change here.

And if you add God into the equation? “ALL” bets are off. Daily, how I admire what a beautiful planet and home we have. And I have always felt this way about Earth since I was very young.

We have an inherent responsibility to preserve Earth and leave it exactly as we found it. Especially since our existance in this physical world is but a drop in the bucket of time.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The same way that I know that leprechauns

I must stop you there and point out that to place ones hope in the idea that our lives may have a purpose or meaning is not the same as believing in leprechauns. Given that “real science” has nothing to say on the matter, and given that i observe a lots of things that suggests to me that life and existence is full of meaning and purpose, i am in no position to agree with your fallacious opinion.

Also if you don’t believe in leprechauns it is not because of logic or science, its for reasons of desire or something else. I judge some ideas as being more credible concepts than others. I have never seen any reason to believe in a leprechaun, the meaning of the leprechaun doesn’t suggest anything that really explains my experience of reality or my experience as a person. Its a useless concept and i know that it is most probably an invention because very few people have seriously argued for the existence of leprechauns. When i take the time to look around me instead of feeding my social ego i do experience things that suggest that our reality is full of purpose and meaning, and thus when somebody says to me that there is a God (defined by a particular set of attributes) that created the universe, it is immediately evident to me that this concept is more credible than the concept of a unicorn or a dragon. You obviously think that it is reasonable to think other minds exist because you see physical bodies much like your own acting for a purpose which suggests the existence of a person and not just a bag of physical materials acting in unison. Well…i see reality acting for a purpose, and this strongly suggests to me that there is a personal being at the root of all existence. Oh, and did i say how absurd it is to think that existence is nothing more than an expression of potential energy that just so happens to give rise to beings whom love and feel moral guilt for no objective reason at all. That idea makes no intelligible sense at all.

But feel free to keep lying to yourself.

It’s an abuse of language to use the word “meaning” to refer to anything beside individual, personal meaning, which is the only meaning that actually exists in the real world.

This is an assertion of desire

Whether or not people’s fantasies are a threat to my desires, et al, has nothing to do with whether or not those people’s fantasies are fantasies, which they are.

This is an assertion of desire

The fact of the matter is that I value people embracing reality, and if I’m involved in a discussion, I’m going to trumpet that value.

Cheese and pickle sandwiches.

It seems to me that we exist in a world that is for the most part intelligible even when its counter-intuitive. We exist in an intelligible order with intelligible rules, and that is why we feel compelled to behave intelligibly. Even when we don’t behave rationally we can still find intelligible reasons for that behavior. It seems to me therefore that i am wholly justified in thinking that there is an intelligible reason for why we exist in a world that acts towards the actuality of consistent, meaningful, and intelligible ends which appear purposeful. I value the concept of God because that’s the only concept that makes intelligible sense of my being a person in this reality.

But why do you give a dame what a bag of chemicals is saying or doing?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, absolutely. I am not immune to perceiving things incorrectly, to perceiving things to be the way I want them to be rather than as they actually are.

Existence has given us natures that are compelled to seek a greater good and value for our person-hood. We did not ask for rational justification for acting. Instead we sought out that fulfillment because it was practically more true to our nature to act than to do nothing. In seeking, we have found that there are in fact good things in existence that truly does make life more valuable. In seeking God i found things that make God indispensable.

That fact is my justification for paying attention carefully to my perceptions and for subjecting all of my beliefs to harsh scrutiny, rejecting those beliefs that do not match up to reality.

You reject those beliefs which do not suit your design for pursuing that which you desire. Desire is the root of all human action. We are not just calculators. Nobody would reason or do anything if they did not have a personal desire for objective existential fulfillment. You mistakenly think that your fulfillment as a person lies in the rejection of Gods existence.

I wasn’t talking about value there. I was speaking about the mind’s tendency to perceive things that aren’t there – to perceive things that it wants to be true.

Our nature is as such that we desire food, and we find that it is there. Our nature is as such that it is greatly beneficial be loved and we find that there is such a thing as relationships. We also find on many occasions an intelligible link between our natural desire for something and the existence of something. My nature is as such that it desires meaning, moral value, and purpose; and perhaps these things exist also, and perhaps that is why i desire it. The actual existence of existential, moral, and personal fulfillment in the form of God would make intelligible sense of the existence of my “natural desires” in a way that “physics” alone cannot.

The only antidote to this tendency is to measure the mind’s judgments against reality, against things that exist outside of the mind that are measurable and detectable.

Your assumption here is that people who believe in God do not measure the minds judgment against reality, and i suppose it would suit you well to think so. I observe things in my person-hood that suggests that reality has objective meaning value and purpose. It is sad that you do not.

Perhaps you think that anything so wonderful as heaven cannot be true. But that’s not reason at work. That’s just negativity.

Here’s a good rule of thumb: if your beliefs make you comfortable, chances are that they are a delusion.

Hell doesn’t make me feel comfortable. In fact many moral and religious obligations make me feel uncomfortable, but i believe in them because i can see moral fulfillment and wisdom in those obligations; and those obligations also speak an abundant truth about my nature as a person in terms of my moral conscience. Christianity is not what i would choose to believe in if it was all just about believing in what gives me pleasure. If that was the case i probably would not believe in Christianity. I would believe in what ever suited me. But i believe in Christianity because it speaks to my fundamental nature as a person; it makes sense of what i am.

 

[AntiTheist]

We also find on many occasions an intelligible link between our natural desire for something and the existence of something. My nature is as such that it desires meaning, moral value, and purpose; and perhaps these things exist also, and perhaps that is why i desire it.

Those things are unconnected to gods. In a godless universe, humans are perfectly capable of ascribing meaning, moral value, and purpose to the events of their lives.

What you really mean is that you desire meaning imposed by a supernatural god, moral value imposed by a supernatural god, and purpose imposed by a supernatural god.

Perhaps those things are imposed by a supernatural god; perhaps not. I’m going to go with “perhaps not,” on the grounds that there’s not a single shred of evidence for the existence of any supernatural being, let alone a god.

This appeal to desire that you’re making is one of the weakest arguments. I mean, come on now. A lot of people desire to be able to fly under their own power – it’s one of the most common dreams, for example. But our desire to be able to fly under our own power doesn’t mean that we really have the ability to fly under our own power. A lot of people desire to have psychic abilities – and some even fool themselves into thinking that they do, thanks to the power of our good friend, confirmation bias. But our desire to have psychic powers doesn’t make them real. A lot of people desire to contact intelligent life from outer space – and some even trick themselves into thinking that aliens have physically abducted them. But our desire to contact intelligent life from outer space doesn’t mean that there actually is any intelligent life from outer space.

Furthermore, if your desire for meaning imposed by a supernatural god is evidence for the existence of a god, would you be willing to accept my lack of such a desire as evidence for the non-existence of such a god?

If not, then we should discount your argument immediately, as you are presenting an unfalsifiable case in which you ignore all contrary evidence.

Come back when you have an argument worth presenting.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Those things are
unconnected to gods.

They cannot ascribe objective moral value meaning and
purpose to their existence; but they can certainly fantasize to
themselves as having some kind of value, and they often
fantasize that they are better than other people. – Edit –

What you really mean is that
you desire meaning imposed by a supernatural god.

No that is not what i
mean. This is just a caricature that you have made up
because you cannot face the reality of my argument.

there’s not a single shred of evidence for the
existence of any supernatural being, let alone a god.

There is plenty of evidence. You choose to ignore it.

This appeal to desire that you’re making is one of the
weakest arguments. I mean, come on now. A lot of people
desire to be able to fly under their own power – it’s one of
the most common dreams, for example. But our desire to be
able to fly under our own power doesn’t mean that we really
have the ability to fly under our own power.

I didn’t appeal to made up fantasies. You miss-understand or choose not to understand the substance of my argument. First of all i made it clear that i was talking about desires that are fundamental expressions of the fact of our being alive and personal. Our desire to fly is not synonymous to being a person. My argument is more a question of why such fundamental desires “exist” at all; as in, what intelligible explanation can we give for their existence and their meaningful relationship to objective events? How can i best understand my having the nature of a person. I was talking about fundamental natural desires such as the desire to live, eat food, to be truly valued, to be really loved, to have real meaning, real significance, including purpose. These desires are intrinsic to the fundamental fact of our being a person, they are intrinsic to being a person in so far as we naturally desire that which is good for us. We desire existential fulfillment, and a “truly” significant life, and we are compelled by the experience of life and being alive to seek ultimate fulfillment in these things. A desire to fly is not fundamental to human nature. We develop a desire to fly because for one reason or another we are lead to “believe” or think that it would pleasure us in some way to fly, but it is not a fundamental desire of human nature. We desire to fly only in so far as we have a more fundamental desire to be fulfilled as existential personal beings, and we attempt to fulfill this desire in different ways. .

If we try to intelligibly explain the “existence” of a desire to fly, we can explain this quite easily by acknowledging that there are more fundamental desires which provide the motivation for us to seek the appropriate or sufficient means of pleasuring ones life or giving significance to ones life. Flying is meaningful to us in two ways; for one, it looks fun, and two, it analogously represents the fulfillment of freedom since we perceive the bird as lacking a limitation that we have. This is why it appeals to so many people and is so meaningfully captivating. But if we try to explain our fundamental desires, then, the only intelligible explanation is going to be one that ultimately fulfills the “existence” of those desires in so far as what those desires fundamentally mean. So, let us ask what intelligibly makes sense of the fact that we desire our lives to have true significance purpose meaning and moral value? What intelligibly makes sense of the qualitative experiences of guilt and love? The only intelligible explanation is provided by the concept that we were created for a purpose, and that purpose is to ultimately express our objective moral value and personal significance as existential beings. We exist to be morally and meaningfully fulfilled as personal beings to a perfect degree consistent with the actuality of our being alive as opposed to dead.

Furthermore, if your desire for meaning imposed by a
supernatural god is evidence for the existence of a god,
would you be willing to accept my lack of such a desire as
evidence for the non-existence of such a god?

Nobody lacks a desire to be objectively and perfectly fulfilled as living persons. Unless you are psycho or somebody suffering with some kind of mental illness/emotional damage, it is evident that we all want our lives to be treated with significance meaning and value even when we try to destroy the meaning and value of other people. When we are robed of those things we naturally feel hurt; and sometimes we stop seeking the fulfillment of those things because we fear being hurt; we think that pain of rejection or infliction will be greater than the pain of being unfulfilled. Life then becomes mere toleration, hence depression. Even a person that commits suicide, only does so because they want there existence as persons to be objectively fulfilled in every sense that is significant to there value as persons, but they irrationally assume that such fulfillment does not or cannot exist in life, or they feel to weal to seek it, and thus they choose to end their existence.

If not, then we should discount your argument immediately,

You should accept my argument as being at least highly probable if you are truly human…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

as you are presenting an unfalsifiable case in which you
ignore all contrary evidence.

You haven’t provided any contrary evidence accept for the fact that you appear not to have the capacity to understand my argument.

Come back when you have an argument worth presenting.

When you are tied of creating straw-men, please feel free to challenge my argument as i have presented it. Or kindly admit that you don’t understand my argument.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I haven’t read through the thread, but has anybody brought up that fact that Peter Singer is a nut who doesn’t think infanticide is equal to killing an adult?

article.nationalreview.com/275367/mercy/kathryn-jean-lopez

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I haven’t read through the thread, but has anybody brought up that fact that Peter Singer is a nut how doesn’t think infanticide is equal to killing an adult?

old.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200503300755.asp

That is what happens when you become an honest atheist; you become inhuman and irrational.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

so It hasn’t been discussed yet?

cool, the guy is a nut

 

[StevenFrancis]

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:

I apologize, but I’m very time crunched at the moment, and did not read the article yet. I can guess about it’s contents based on your wonderful reply, but just one basic question, if you don’t mind?

Why? What is the reason they give for man doing this? The only purpose of earth whatsoever that I am aware of, is to provide a space for man to live out his destiny. We are the thing. We are the creation of God, The plants, animals, bugs, grasses, water, fish, etc. etc. (you get the idea) are here serving at our pleasure (God gave them to us), as we are serving at God’s pleasure. If there are no more people then, of what possible point or use is earth?? Wierd. I don’t understand the thinking going on out there in the world. I’ll print the article and read it on the bus.

Peace,

Steven

 

[reggieM]

That is what happens when you become an honest atheist; you become inhuman and irrational.

True. We have to give Singer credit for being honest and consistent with the atheistic worldview. He just followed the logic a little farther than most atheists are willing to.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

And what is it that prevents you from doing these things? Am I to believe that this is exactly what you would start doing if you stopped believing in God? That would be scary. But I don’t think it is true.

You know why I don’t do such things? Simple. Because I love others. Because the happiness of many many others is essential to my own happiness. Because we are all in this together. Your joy is my joy, but your bigotry scares me.

Leela, can I just say that I admire you. I’ve seen your posts here before and even though you’re outnumbered, you’re always respectful of the others who disagree with you. You know, this forum is like a Bizarro World version of the forum I used to post at, Amazon.com’s Religion Forum, which is completely overrun with militant atheists, they make up about 75% of the forum and they are very bullying of that 25% who aren’t atheist. After seeing the ugliness of them in action over there, it’s nice to see one here who seems so decent.

OK, sorry for the digression, we can now get back to Peter Singer and what a nut he is

 

[JimG]

OK, sorry for the digression, we can now get back to Peter Singer and what a nut he is

Yes, Peter Singer is a nut. Yet he is also professor of Ethics at Princeton University, which says a lot about how far academia at least, and the secular culture in general, have diverged from Judeo-Christian principles which served well for several thousand years.

True, Singer doesn’t think newborns should be immediately accorded the rights of personhood. Rather, he thinks that parents ought to have several months in which to make a final decision as to whether they will be allowed to live, or not.

The same thinking can be applied to end of life issues: the benefits of personhood might be withdrawn from the elderly, the sick, the dying, and the disabled, if their utility is not considered sufficient to warrant it. That’s why the disability rights community is generally wary of him, as well as of the “right to die” movement. (They worry that the right to die will become a duty to die.)

We have progressed from contraception, to in vitro creation of life, to the destruction of new embryos for experimentation, to abortion for any reason, and we are heading toward euthanasia and the right (duty?) to die.

Someone wrote a letter to the local newspaper a few days ago lamenting what she perceived as a general lack of compassion in the public as well as an increased tendency toward violence and disregard for life.

Well, this is where the culture of death takes us.

Gosh, is humanity destroying the earth? I don’t know–did dinosaurs destroy the environment? Did wooly mammoths? Will the next ice age? Shall we blame the thousands of extinct species for despoiling the earth? I’m just glad there was no EPA around to declare them all as endangered species.

 

[Major_Minor]

I think you would have a hard time finding anyone who accepts those philosophical positions and also hates humanity. I think you are just trying to characterize anyone who doesn’t agree with your positions as evil. Am I right or is there more to your point than an expression of bigotry toward nonbelievers?

No, that’s pretty far off the mark as a description of my motive. Of course having never met me you don’t have much to go on.

My claim has more to do with my own consistent observation that the people who very seriously embrace Nihilist, Existentialist and Materialist thought become less, not more human… They mostly become bitter, self-absorbed, and unkind towards other humans.

I don’t know anyone embracing these thoughts in a deep way who work to feed the poor… How many nihilist hospitals are there? …or to be perfectly honest about it many of the ones I know don’t even take care of family members in need.

Sometimes in Catholic culture this is referred to as “The culture of death” and maybe I should have used that phrase instead of “Human hating philosophies”… but the truth is that always seems to be the logical conclusion that is reached by following -at least- the popular late 20th century/early 21st century versions I’ve seen of those thoughts.

I don’t know a single person who, getting beyond the initial rush of embracing these thoughts… who REALLY kept following them actually became better, kinder, more generous human beings. The consistent results that I have seen are the exact opposite.
A hatred for humanity reflected in the basic premise of the news article that started this thread.

 

[reggieM]

I glanced at Peter Singer being interviewed on CNN a couple of nights ago. He was called in as an expert on something (I didn’t catch it). So, as nutty as he is, many take him very seriously and he will continue to influence people.

 

[David_F_1]

Sometimes in Catholic culture this is referred to as “The culture of death” and maybe I should have used that phrase instead of “Human hating philosophies”… but the truth is that always seems to be the logical conclusion that is reached by following -at least- the popular late 20th century/early 21st century versions I’ve seen of those thoughts.

I don’t know a single person who, getting beyond the initial rush of embracing these thoughts… who REALLY kept following them actually became better, kinder, more generous human beings. The consistent results that I have seen are the exact opposite.
A hatred for humanity reflected in the basic premise of the news article that started this thread.

I agree with you. Despite not having a really strong “faith,” I came back to religion because I discovered that people who deny the existence of God inevitably try to replace Him with their own ends or an ideological concept of human utility. If they carry their reasoning to its logical conclusion (most don’t) the result is moral insanity.

 

[Leela]

My claim has more to do with my own consistent observation that the people who very seriously embrace Nihilist, Existentialist and Materialist thought become less, not more human… They mostly become bitter, self-absorbed, and unkind towards other humans.

I don’t know anyone embracing these thoughts in a deep way who work to feed the poor… How many nihilist hospitals are there?

I don’t know any nihilists other than the sort who deny this world in favor of a religious ideal about a world to come. It is no wonder to me that it is so difficult to get Americans to care about the world when I read polls saying that most Americans expect the world to end within the next fifty years. To me the lack of motivation to sustain a habitable world and work for social justice is indicative of a very religious sort of nihilism that is prevalent in American society.

As for nihilist charities, that would be silly, but there are of course lots and lots of charities that have no religious affiliation. I’m sure you’ve heard of many of them such as…

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

International Red Cross/Red Crescent

ACLU

UNICEF

Doctors Without Borders

Amnesty International

Oxfam International

The Nature Conservancy

United Way

The Mayo Clinic

Goodwill Inductries

Easter Seals

American Cancer Society

The March of Dimes

American Heart Association

Environmental Defense Fund

Make-A-Wish Foundation

Susan G. Komen for the Cure

I don’t know a single person who, getting beyond the initial rush of embracing these thoughts… who REALLY kept following them actually became better, kinder, more generous human beings. The consistent results that I have seen are the exact opposite.
A hatred for humanity reflected in the basic premise of the news article that started this thread.

What does it mean to REALLY pursue materialism and existentialism? I feel a No True Scotsman fallacy coming on…

 

[Leela]

I agree with you. Despite not having a really strong “faith,” I came back to religion because I discovered that people who deny the existence of God inevitably try to replace Him with their own ends or an ideological concept of human utility. If they carry their reasoning to its logical conclusion (most don’t) the result is moral insanity.

I try to get my beliefs to cohere and take them to their logical conclusion, yet I find no moral insanity as a necessary consequences of my lack of belief in deities. To not believe in any deities is to be immoral? It is surprising to me that a Jew would promote such bigotry toward unbelievers given that Jews have sadly always been targets of bigotry.

 

[NoAvailableName]

I don’t know any nihilists other than the sort who deny this world in favor of a religious ideal about a world to come

Christianity has nothing to do with with nihilism, and Christians are called to do good works in this world, not to deny it.

From wikipedia article on nihilism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

… negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist …

I read polls saying that most Americans expect the world to end within the next fifty years

Do you have a link to back this up? I mean one with a reputable poll.

To me the lack of motivation to sustain a habitable world and work for social justice is indicative of a very religious sort of nihilism that is prevalent in American society.

The problem is that Christians probably have a different idea of what social justice and a habitable world are than you do. Of course we are not motivated to implement your ideas.