Note to guests/lurkers of this site. To continue reading content on some of our boards you will need to create an account.

Registration is free and easy, just remember your password and check back after your account has been approved by an administrator.

Please use the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page if you have any issues.

Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post Reply
User avatar
weimy froob
Posts: 88501
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am

Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by weimy froob »

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?

To get a bead on this question, let me distinguish it from a couple of other related questions. I’m not asking whether the experience of humans coming to an end would be a bad thing. (In these pages, Samuel Scheffler has given us an important reason to think that it would be.) I am also not asking whether human beings as a species deserve to die out. That is an important question, but would involve different considerations. Those questions, and others like them, need to be addressed if we are to come to a full moral assessment of the prospect of our demise. Yet what I am asking here is simply whether it would be a tragedy if the planet no longer contained human beings. And the answer I am going to give might seem puzzling at first. I want to suggest, at least tentatively, both that it would be a tragedy and that it might just be a good thing.

To make that claim less puzzling, let me say a word about tragedy. In theater, the tragic character is often someone who commits a wrong, usually a significant one, but with whom we feel sympathy in their descent. Here Sophocles’s Oedipus, Shakespeare’s Lear, and Arthur Miller’s Willy Loman might stand as examples. In this case, the tragic character is humanity. It is humanity that is committing a wrong, a wrong whose elimination would likely require the elimination of the species, but with whom we might be sympathetic nonetheless for reasons I discuss in a moment.

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies. Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.

Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.

To be sure, nature itself is hardly a Valhalla of peace and harmony. Animals kill other animals regularly, often in ways that we (although not they) would consider cruel. But there is no other creature in nature whose predatory behavior is remotely as deep or as widespread as the behavior we display toward what the philosopher Christine Korsgaard aptly calls “our fellow creatures” in a sensitive book of the same name.

If this were all to the story there would be no tragedy. The elimination of the human species would be a good thing, full stop. But there is more to the story. Human beings bring things to the planet that other animals cannot. For example, we bring an advanced level of reason that can experience wonder at the world in a way that is foreign to most if not all other animals. We create art of various kinds: literature, music and painting among them. We engage in sciences that seek to understand the universe and our place in it. Were our species to go extinct, all of that would be lost.

Now there might be those on the more jaded side who would argue that if we went extinct there would be no loss, because there would be no one for whom it would be a loss not to have access to those things. I think this objection misunderstands our relation to these practices. We appreciate and often participate in such practices because we believe they are good to be involved in, because we find them to be worthwhile. It is the goodness of the practices and the experiences that draw us. Therefore, it would be a loss to the world if those practices and experiences ceased to exist.

One could press the objection here by saying that it would only be a loss from a human viewpoint, and that that viewpoint would no longer exist if we went extinct. This is true. But this entire set of reflections is taking place from a human viewpoint. We cannot ask the questions we are asking here without situating them within the human practice of philosophy. Even to ask the question of whether it would be a tragedy if humans were to disappear from the face of the planet requires a normative framework that is restricted to human beings.

Let’s turn, then, and take the question from the other side, the side of those who think that human extinction would be both a tragedy and overall a bad thing. Doesn’t the existence of those practices outweigh the harm we bring to the environment and the animals within it? Don’t they justify the continued existence of our species, even granting the suffering we bring to so many nonhuman lives?

To address that question, let us ask another one. How many human lives would it be worth sacrificing to preserve the existence of Shakespeare’s works? If we were required to engage in human sacrifice in order to save his works from eradication, how many humans would be too many? For my own part, I think the answer is one. One human life would be too many (or, to prevent quibbling, one innocent human life), at least to my mind. Whatever the number, though, it is going to be quite low.

Or suppose a terrorist planted a bomb in the Louvre and the first responders had to choose between saving several people in the museum and saving the art. How many of us would seriously consider saving the art?

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.

It may well be, then, that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off and yet would be a tragedy. I don’t want to say this for sure, since the issue is quite complex. But it certainly seems a live possibility, and that by itself disturbs me.

There is one more tragic aspect to all of this. In many dramatic tragedies, the suffering of the protagonist is brought about through his or her own actions. It is Oedipus’s killing of his father that starts the train of events that leads to his tragic realization; and it is Lear’s highhandedness toward his daughter Cordelia that leads to his demise. It may also turn out that it is through our own actions that we human beings bring about our extinction, or at least something near it, contributing through our practices to our own tragic end.
User avatar
weimy froob
Posts: 88501
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by weimy froob »

i figured this would be a deep thoughts talker. maybe not.
User avatar
LordNu
Posts: 10550
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:15 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by LordNu »

weimy froob wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:17 pm i figured this would be a deep thoughts talker. maybe not.
I didn't read the article, but the question itself seems to be an obvious: No.

It can also be understood as a question like: if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, does it make a sound.

It's not a tragedy if it cannot even be observed by any conscious being.

In the grand scheme of things, we are so very very significantly insignificant. Is it a tragedy that a creature that has adapted far too well to its environment that it ends up destroying it and everything along with it, only to suffer from not having that environment anymore? No one will cry for us should we cease to exist.
User avatar
weimy froob
Posts: 88501
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by weimy froob »

LordNu wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:45 pm
weimy froob wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:17 pm i figured this would be a deep thoughts talker. maybe not.
I didn't read the article, but the question itself seems to be an obvious: No.

It can also be understood as a question like: if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, does it make a sound.

It's not a tragedy if it cannot even be observed by any conscious being.

In the grand scheme of things, we are so very very significantly insignificant. Is it a tragedy that a creature that has adapted far too well to its environment that it ends up destroying it and everything along with it, only to suffer from not having that environment anymore? No one will cry for us should we cease to exist.
our brains have gotten pretty big-maybe too big. maybe the future generations will be able to turn this thing around. the natural world needs to be understood and respected-not conquered.
User avatar
LordNu
Posts: 10550
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:15 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by LordNu »

weimy froob wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:10 am
LordNu wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:45 pm
weimy froob wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:17 pm i figured this would be a deep thoughts talker. maybe not.
I didn't read the article, but the question itself seems to be an obvious: No.

It can also be understood as a question like: if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, does it make a sound.

It's not a tragedy if it cannot even be observed by any conscious being.

In the grand scheme of things, we are so very very significantly insignificant. Is it a tragedy that a creature that has adapted far too well to its environment that it ends up destroying it and everything along with it, only to suffer from not having that environment anymore? No one will cry for us should we cease to exist.
our brains have gotten pretty big-maybe too big. maybe the future generations will be able to turn this thing around. the natural world needs to be understood and respected-not conquered.
Precisely. Live with your environment, not against it.
User avatar
Douglas Bubbletrousers
***Official Gibby Award Winner - March 2018, June 2019***
Posts: 14337
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:59 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by Douglas Bubbletrousers »

I honestly think we are asking for it
I don't give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would die for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.
User avatar
weimy froob
Posts: 88501
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by weimy froob »

Douglas Bubbletrousers wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:01 pm I honestly think we are asking for it
it was a good run.
Nobody
Posts: 413
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:20 pm

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by Nobody »

Thanos is right, almost. We are out of balance with nature and the universe, but snuffing out half the human population now would only bring us back to 1970s population, easily replaceable within a generation. Some might argue Thanos didn't go far enough.

When you look around and see what humans have wrought, you can't help but to see the destruction we've caused. We pollute the planet, we war, we're greedy, people are starving, we are a virus to mother earth. There are some guidestones somewhere in Georgia that says for humanity to live in balance with nature we have to bring the world population down to 500 million people. But would that even be enough? Sure, it'd be great for the chosen 500 million, but the rest of us would be holding the bag, but sacrifices must be made, right? For balance, for the future.

There was a show a few years ago about life after people, like what if all of the sudden all the people disappeared. It was interesting in that it wouldn't take too long for nature to recover and erase our existence and impact after only 50-100 years or more.
User avatar
weimy froob
Posts: 88501
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by weimy froob »

Nobody wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:25 am Thanos is right, almost. We are out of balance with nature and the universe, but snuffing out half the human population now would only bring us back to 1970s population, easily replaceable within a generation. Some might argue Thanos didn't go far enough.

When you look around and see what humans have wrought, you can't help but to see the destruction we've caused. We pollute the planet, we war, we're greedy, people are starving, we are a virus to mother earth. There are some guidestones somewhere in Georgia that says for humanity to live in balance with nature we have to bring the world population down to 500 million people. But would that even be enough? Sure, it'd be great for the chosen 500 million, but the rest of us would be holding the bag, but sacrifices must be made, right? For balance, for the future.

There was a show a few years ago about life after people, like what if all of the sudden all the people disappeared. It was interesting in that it wouldn't take too long for nature to recover and erase our existence and impact after only 50-100 years or more.
a superbug eventually could thin the herd quite a lot. and i think there's a good possibility that it happens too.
Nobody
Posts: 413
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:20 pm

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by Nobody »

weimy froob wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:14 am
Nobody wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:25 am Thanos is right, almost. We are out of balance with nature and the universe, but snuffing out half the human population now would only bring us back to 1970s population, easily replaceable within a generation. Some might argue Thanos didn't go far enough.

When you look around and see what humans have wrought, you can't help but to see the destruction we've caused. We pollute the planet, we war, we're greedy, people are starving, we are a virus to mother earth. There are some guidestones somewhere in Georgia that says for humanity to live in balance with nature we have to bring the world population down to 500 million people. But would that even be enough? Sure, it'd be great for the chosen 500 million, but the rest of us would be holding the bag, but sacrifices must be made, right? For balance, for the future.

There was a show a few years ago about life after people, like what if all of the sudden all the people disappeared. It was interesting in that it wouldn't take too long for nature to recover and erase our existence and impact after only 50-100 years or more.
a superbug eventually could thin the herd quite a lot. and i think there's a good possibility that it happens too.
That is true. A meteorite, a virus, a supervolcano, anything cataclysmic would do. We do need a big reset button of some sort.

I did a college paper on over-population back in college. It was as much of a concern back then than it is now, it's actually gotten worse.

I know it sounds cruel or misanthropic to actually think about a human extinction and wonder about the possibilities but it is something we should think about because it will happen someday.
User avatar
salamander
Posts: 23180
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:39 pm

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by salamander »

Global Warming is bad for humans. It's actually a good thing for the planet.
It's been 32 years since one of MN's four major sports teams has been to the Championship/Superbowl.
Every single year is failure until we win one. 4 teams, 32 years. That's roughly 128 consecutive failed seasons.
User avatar
LordNu
Posts: 10550
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:15 am

Re: Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Post by LordNu »

weimy froob wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:14 am
Nobody wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:25 am Thanos is right, almost. We are out of balance with nature and the universe, but snuffing out half the human population now would only bring us back to 1970s population, easily replaceable within a generation. Some might argue Thanos didn't go far enough.

When you look around and see what humans have wrought, you can't help but to see the destruction we've caused. We pollute the planet, we war, we're greedy, people are starving, we are a virus to mother earth. There are some guidestones somewhere in Georgia that says for humanity to live in balance with nature we have to bring the world population down to 500 million people. But would that even be enough? Sure, it'd be great for the chosen 500 million, but the rest of us would be holding the bag, but sacrifices must be made, right? For balance, for the future.

There was a show a few years ago about life after people, like what if all of the sudden all the people disappeared. It was interesting in that it wouldn't take too long for nature to recover and erase our existence and impact after only 50-100 years or more.
a superbug eventually could thin the herd quite a lot. and i think there's a good possibility that it happens too.
Superbug/virus/disease pandemic is the most likely.
Post Reply