Extinction

[Philboid Studge]

A good point that is strongly echoed by those who say that the end of humanity is far from being the end of the world. In a few short centuries after our extinction, there will be no signs of us left. ~ Sternwallow

Is there be a reasonable case to be made in favor of human extinction?

This will seem like a contradiction, but there is actually a rather sound utilitarian argument, of all things. Consider the following, posed by South African philosopher David Benatar:

1) For sentient beings, coming into existence is always a serious harm (suffering)

1a There is some good (happiness) associated with existence, but it is always outweighed by suffering

2) Not coming into existence would necessarily prevent suffering, which is a good thing

2a Not coming into existence would prevent experiences of joy, but such joy would never be missed (therefore, not a bad thing)

Conclusion: It would be better to never come into existence, and it would be better if humanity became extinct (along with all other sentient beings).

It is very difficult to accept this thesis for obvious reasons, yet I can't find much wrong with the premises that predicate it.

He lays out an exhaustive (and exhausting) chapter on how much humanity suffers. Further, because of the Pollyanna effect, most people grossly underestimate how miserable they really are.

Benatar doesn't endorse murder or suicide, as he distinguishes between ending a life (which itself would cause suffering) and preventing it from coming into existence in the first place (which would not). He does promote the only truly pro-abortion position I've ever heard. That is, he encourages abortions in all cases (but not in favor of making them mandatory). It should go without saying that I've given a bare-bones summary of his argument, and I may have even gotten that bit wrong. It should go without saying, but didn't.

This book may sound like a downer, but it actually promotes a rather salutary effect, which I'll explain if there's interest. Otherwise go fuck yourselves.

[Professor Chaos]

Is there be? I ain't know.

Love is a Battlefield.

[Professor Chaos]

Actually, I'm interested in hearing more about it. It's an interesting premise, and one I'm not unfamiliar with. (Nor do I necessarily disagree with. [Enough negatives?]) The premise is simple, but the defense of the premise is complex and interesting.

1.) Life sucks.
2.) Not sucking is better than sucking.

[dogpet]

One positive aspect of never existing is not being asked to consider such drivel.

Maybe it's me, I don't get it. Did he write the book on Robben Island?

[ubs]

Sounds like the premise for Buddhism gone astray.

This book may sound like a downer, but it actually promotes a rather salutary effect, which I'll explain if there's interest. Otherwise go fuck yourselves.

Please go on. We are sulking with anticipation.

[Choobus]

Philboid Studge wrote

It is very difficult to accept this thesis for obvious reasons, yet I can't find much wrong with the premises that predicate it.

Nor me, except that it isn't a case for the extinction of the sentient beings but rather for their non-existence, and that ship has sailed. That is, 2a won't work for trying to eliminate beings that already exist because they have become attached to all that shit. So the conclusion doesn't follow, unless you mean to imply that eliminating all humans now would prevent so much future suffering that it would still be beneficial overall. Even if we stopped having children and became extinct there would still be suffering associated with our extinction, mostly created by a large horde of confused old people with nobody upon whom to heap scorn.

Thus, I say that there be not a reasonable case to be made for human extinction, and it seems that Benatar is also saying this.

Christ. This Pat Benatar.. I mean, David Benatar is a little too downbeat for me. I don't believe in an afterlife, and I know (good certainty) we'll be extinct someday. But I'd rather we be here. I get his point. But what did Shakespeare say? "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." I'm going with Billy.

[Sternwallow]

Philboid Studge wrote

A good point that is strongly echoed by those who say that the end of humanity is far from being the end of the world. In a few short centuries after our extinction, there will be no signs of us left. ~ Sternwallow

Is there be a reasonable case to be made in favor of human extinction?

This will seem like a contradiction, but there is actually a rather sound utilitarian argument, of all things. Consider the following, posed by South African philosopher David Benatar:

I disagree with #1 because there are examples in which there is no discernible harm due to coming into existence. It certainly can't be harm to the previously non-existent entity.

I disagree with #1a because, again, there is no valid comparison between either happiness or unhappiness as against non-existence. Happiness can be compared against unhappiness only for existing entities and then one again has too many counterexamples in which happiness, over the span of existence, surpasses non-happiness.

I disagree with #2 since there is no way to cause suffering or happiness to a non-existent entity. Suffering or happiness presupposes existence and so cannot be said to be better than or worse than non-existence. #2, not coming into existence as a good thing because it is without suffering, is illogical.

#2a, "Not coming into existence would prevent experiences of joy, but such joy would never be missed (therefore, not a bad thing)" is trivially true and applies equally to suffering. It is more accurate to say that in non-existence, there is no opportunity for either joy or pain.

And so, I disagree with the conclusion.
"It would be better to never come into existence, and it would be better if humanity became extinct (along with all other sentient beings)."
Humanity is very nearly certain to go extinct; surely the current version of humanity will be superseded by its evolutionary heirs and more probably the entire species will follow the other 99% of all species into extinction.

There may be cases of suffering so profound that non-existence might be wished for (and it is often easily obtainable), but that sentiment is not applicable to the previous non-existence since, at that time, it was not foreseeable.

I have given reasons that, in some (possibly rare) cases, it was better to come into existence therefore the statement "It would be better to never come into existence" is not generally true.

Therefore my counter-conclusion is that every entity that can come into existence should do so for some arbitrary span of time or until its existence is no longer endurable and then be returned to non-existence. This conclusion just happens to be the way real life works. What a happy outcome for me.

It is very difficult to accept this thesis for obvious reasons, yet I can't find much wrong with the premises that predicate it.

He lays out an exhaustive (and exhausting) chapter on how much humanity suffers. Further, because of the Pollyanna effect, most people grossly underestimate how miserable they really are.

Most people also grossly underestimate how happy they really are. Chronic complainers and hypochondriacs are examples. People are notoriously poor at estimating everything from the size of a UFO to the odds of winning the lottery so this is no surprise. It is the reason that self-diagnosis is a generally bad idea.

Benatar doesn't endorse murder or suicide, as he distinguishes between ending a life (which itself would cause suffering)

I would recognize collateral suffering from people in a social relationship with the deceased person, but no suffering to him/her personally.

and preventing it from coming into existence in the first place (which would not).

Here he disregards the suffering of a couple who try very hard and are unable to conceive a child.

He does promote the only truly pro-abortion position I've ever heard. That is, he encourages abortions in all cases (but not in favor of making them mandatory). It should go without saying that I've given a bare-bones summary of his argument, and I may have even gotten that bit wrong. It should go without saying, but didn't.

As long as we are engaging in caveats, my criticism is against the proposal as you have presented it and may not be applicable to his actual position in this matter.

This book may sound like a downer, but it actually promotes a rather salutary effect, which I'll explain if there's interest. Otherwise go fuck yourselves.

I am disinclined to fuck myself at this time so, apparently, I must ask you to explain this alleged "salutary" effect.

[ubs]

Sternwallow wrote

I must ask you to explain this alleged "salutary" effect.

Maybe he's just not responding to bring about our suffering for demonstration purposes.

[a different tim]

1) For sentient beings, coming into existence is always a serious harm (suffering)

1a There is some good (happiness) associated with existence, but it is always outweighed by suffering

Clearly this guy is just generalising from being a miserable bastard.

[Philboid Studge]

Stern wrote

I disagree with #1 because there are examples in which there is no discernible harm due to coming into existence. It certainly can't be harm to the previously non-existent entity.

Benatar asserts that every human will experience at least some suffering. ("[A]ll lives contain substantial amounts of whatever is thought bad.") Even in the one-in-a-billion case of a charmed life, at the very least some boredom will be experienced. Of course the suffering he is talking about is both more acute and chronic than mere ennui. Twenty thousand people will die today of hunger. (Close to a billion people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition, and won't die from it.) In a year, tens of millions of people will die from assorted diseases, few of them pleasant. Hundreds of thousands will be killed in wars; tens of thousands murdered, etc.

The above examples are not exceptional, and they're merely a few examples of how we die. (It's rarely enjoyable, as I understand it). But how it ends is but a fraction of the (inevitable) suffering of one's lifetime. I can't fairly reflect Benatar's argument of how all lives contain significant suffering here, but I will say that there's nothing remarkable about the examples he gives. Suffering is just part of our existence. Shirley all major religions recognize this? Christers blame themselves for this vale of tears, all of Buddhist thought rests on the premise that life is suffering, and Jewish lore* is rife with both misery and the apodictic acknowledgment that misery is inevitable. (Not to cite religiosity as an authoritative source of anything, but I think they got this one right. They correctly identify suffering as part of the human existence, even if they incorrectly infer all sorts of magic causes for it, and prescribe ludicrous anodynes.)

But anyway, reading a detailed account of how awful life is -- and agreeing with it, for the most part -- did not put me in a particular funk. On the contrary, it made me immediately more sympathetic to others. Empathetic, really. (Pathetic, perhaps.) Also, there is something oddly comforting about considering the stygian reality of our existence: it puts my own little petty grievances in perspective, and makes them easier to deal with. (Kind of like a Job's comforter in reverse.)

Stern I do have my own objections to this chap's argument; they do not quite match with yours and I'll elucidate anon. (Pardon my euphuisms; I'm suffering from excessive schwarmerei this morning.)

You make look upon life as an unprofitable episode, disturbing the blessed calm of non-existence. ~ Schopenhauer

*The Talmud mentions a debate between two rabbinical schools, the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. For two and a half years they debated whether or not it was better for humans to have been created. The declared winner (Shammai) argued not.

[Philboid Studge]

Trip Aces wrote

Christ. This Pat Benatar.. I mean, David Benatar is a little too downbeat for me. I don't believe in an afterlife, and I know (good certainty) we'll be extinct someday. But I'd rather we be here. I get his point. But what did Shakespeare say? "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." I'm going with Billy.

I think you mean Alfred (as in Lord Tennyson).

Benatar wrote

I shall not pass judgment on whether it is indeed better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. It suffices to say that even if that claim is true, it does not entail anything about coming into existence. This is because there is a crucial difference between loving and coming into existence. The person who never loves exists without loving and is thus deprived. That, on my account, is 'bad.' By contrast one who never comes into existence is not deprived of anything. That, I have argued, is 'not bad.'

[Sternwallow]

Philboid Studge wrote

Benatar asserts that every human will experience at least some suffering. ("[A]ll lives contain substantial amounts of whatever is thought bad.") Even in the one-in-a-billion case of a charmed life, at the very least some boredom will be experienced. Of course the suffering he is talking about is both more acute and chronic than mere ennui. Twenty thousand people will die today of hunger. (Close to a billion people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition, and won't die from it.) In a year, tens of millions of people will die from assorted diseases, few of them pleasant. Hundreds of thousands will be killed in wars; tens of thousands murdered, etc.

Many thousands have never missed a meal and die in their sleep or by a sudden destruction of their brain. Saying that there is suffering among humans is far from saying that it is significant in all of them and that is far from saying that the suffering usually exceeds the pleasure and that is far from saying that suffering always supersedes pleasure.

I also contend (one notch higher than a mere assertion) that the only suffering or pleasure that counts is what you can remember at the moment. So, if one naturally overemphasizes their pleasure, that inflated value is operative here.

I think that the only appropriate criterion, based on the personal suffering/pleasure parameter, for whether an existing person should have come into existence or not, is simply how they feel about it. For all of my suffering, I am glad that I exist and I hope to exist for some more time. As unwelcome as boredom may be, I do not consider it a form of suffering specifically because it is a sign that I do exist, also boredom may not last too long.

The above examples are not exceptional, and they're merely a few examples of how we die. (It's rarely enjoyable, as I understand it). But how it ends is but a fraction of the (inevitable) suffering of one's lifetime. I can't fairly reflect Benatar's argument of how all lives contain significant suffering here, but I will say that there's nothing remarkable about the examples he gives. Suffering is just part of our existence. Shirley all major religions recognize this? Christers blame themselves for this vale of tears, all of Buddhist thought rests on the premise that life is suffering, and Jewish lore* is rife with both misery and the apodictic acknowledgment that misery is inevitable. (Not to cite religiosity as an authoritative source of anything, but I think they got this one right. They correctly identify suffering as part of the human existence, even if they incorrectly infer all sorts of magic causes for it, and prescribe ludicrous anodynes.)

Religions are vampires which stalk the suffering and down-trodden to prey upon their misery and suck even more of the life from them, life that cannot be extracted from the comfortable and prosperous. The more suffering there is, the better religion likes it because suffering offers up those wretches for the fleecing. So, instead of suffering being an isolated (albeit large) fact of ordinary life, it is partially encouraged and bolstered by religion. Religion casts itself as great and noble when it extracts, under false pretenses, the very last item of slight value that a thoroughly destitute widow has, thereby moving her to the very bottom-most hook in religion's meat locker. Through irrational guilt alone, religion creates deep suffering where it does not belong.

But anyway, reading a detailed account of how awful life is -- and agreeing with it, for the most part -- did not put me in a particular funk. On the contrary, it made me immediately more sympathetic to others. Empathetic, really. (Pathetic, perhaps.) Also, there is something oddly comforting about considering the stygian reality of our existence: it puts my own little petty grievances in perspective, and makes them easier to deal with. (Kind of like a Job's comforter in reverse.)

We naturally seek pleasure and empathy brings us pleasure; no big surprise. If Job needs a quilt, naturally some soft touch will get him one.

Stern I do have my own objections to this chap's argument; they do not quite match with yours and I'll elucidate anon. (Pardon my euphuisms; I'm suffering from excessive schwarmerei this morning.)

As Dennis miller says, "Trust our Teutonic friends to have a special word for every kind of misery."

You make[? may ?] look upon life as an unprofitable episode, disturbing the blessed calm of non-existence. ~ Schopenhauer

I do not look upon life as an unprofitable episode and a great many suffer less than I do, so that idea should not be generalized to the whole population. Further, there is neither calm nor tempest, blessed or otherwise, in non-existence.

*The Talmud mentions a debate between two rabbinical schools, the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. For two and a half years they debated whether or not it was better for humans to have been created. The declared winner (Shammai) argued not.

It is strange to hear that any religion, which touts mankind as God's glorious achievement, His grand design, the sole reason for the Universe and Heaven and Hell, could suggest that their God was a loser who should have stayed home with a bottle of Jack Daniel's instead of going to work that morning and creating all this Cosmic misery.

[Philboid Studge]

a different tim wrote

Clearly this guy is just generalising from being a miserable bastard.

Actually I'm the miserable bastard. Unlike me, Benatar seems quite well-adjusted. However your comment reminds me of something he said about the criticism that his outlook is misanthropic. On the contrary, since he is on a mission to eradicate human suffering he is, if anything, a philanthropist. (I think it's one of those destroy-the-village-in-order-to-save-it dealies.)

[Philboid Studge]

Choobus wrote

Nor me, except that it isn't a case for the extinction of the sentient beings but rather for their non-existence, and that ship has sailed. That is, 2a won't work for trying to eliminate beings that already exist because they have become attached to all that shit. So the conclusion doesn't follow, unless you mean to imply that eliminating all humans now would prevent so much future suffering that it would still be beneficial overall. Even if we stopped having children and became extinct there would still be suffering associated with our extinction, mostly created by a large horde of confused old people with nobody upon whom to heap scorn.

Thus, I say that there be not a reasonable case to be made for human extinction, and it seems that Benatar is also saying this.

He agrees that there would be suffering associated with extinction (among other things, people will "suffer" from wanting children and never having them, as Stern points out) but I think he's saying that would an awesome sacrifice that the last generation would make to prevent the misery of countless subsequent generations. In a way, they'd be the opposite of Jesus, who died so that humans could live forever.