Home Categories About
argument top image
Would human extinction be a tragedy? Would human extinction be a tragedy?
No, human extinction would not be a tragedy No, human extinction would not be a tragedy
Yes, human extinction would be a tragedy Yes, human extinction would be a tragedy
It is irrelevant, human extinction would mean nothing It is irrelevant, human extinction would mean nothing
It depends on the nature of the extinction It depends on the nature of the extinction
We’re a virus with shoes We’re a virus with shoes
Antinatalism Antinatalism
Humanity benefits Earth like no other species Humanity benefits Earth like no other species
Human extinction would be a tragedy because humans have so much potential Human extinction would be a tragedy because humans have so much potential
Without humans, many other animals would go extinct Without humans, many other animals would go extinct
There are no humans left to give it meaning There are no humans left to give it meaning
There are two different scenarios for how human extinction will take place There are two different scenarios for how human extinction will take place
Debate Mini Map

Would human extinction be a tragedy?
Back to question

No, human extinction would not be a tragedy

(1 of 4) Next position >

Antinatalism

Extinction would prevent future generations being born into this world that is so full of suffering.
David Benatar
< (2 of 2) Next argument >

Context

Given the level of human suffering on earth, the extinction of the human race would be a blessing. It would prevent future suffering inflicted on future generations.

The Argument

Human sentience opens the human race up to suffering. Life is so gruelling, painful and full of suffering that the kindest thing to do is not have children and allow the human race to become extinct. [1] In this sense, reproducing is an intrinsically cruel deed. It subjects the new life to the horrors of this world. Far from a tragedy, the extinction of the human race would be the kindest, most compassionate end to mankind and sentient life.

Counter arguments

Almost everyone, when asked, would say they are happy to be alive. Even those in extreme poverty, the severely disabled, and the mentally ill take great joy in being alive. [2] This is reflected in the behaviour of many people. There are endless avenues for suicide all around us (tall buildings, noxious car fumes, rope) yet, comparatively speaking, very few people commit suicide. This is because almost everyone believes it is better to exist than not to exist.

Proponents

Premises

P1: Life is gruelling, difficult and fraught with suffering. P2: To be born into this life is bad. P3: Therefore, it is far kinder not to subject future generations to this world. P4: Therefore, to allow humankind to die out would be an act of kindness and compassion towards future generations.

Rejecting the premises

Rejecting P2: To be born to this life is not bad.

References

  1. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born
  2. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2011/12/a_cursory_rejec.html
This page was last edited on Monday, 24 Dec 2018 at 19:29 UTC

Explore related arguments