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

It depends on the nature of the extinction

< (4 of 4)

There are two different scenarios for how human extinction will take place

An argument considering the different outcomes of two extinction scenarios
Francesca Minerva Neil Levy
< (1 of 1)

Context

It is impossible to say if human extinction would be a tragedy without knowing the circumstances under which we were wiped out.

The Argument

Not all extinctions have the same results. Consider two scenarios. One where we die due to a pandemic disease which wipes out all humans. One in which we interbreed with space aliens creating a new species. [1] In the first instance, there would be no humans left to wreak the environment, preserve our works of art and literature, or continue to further the understanding of the universe and our place in it. In the second instance, humankind might be extinct, but the new dominant species could inflict more damage to the environment. In which case, human extinction might be a tragedy. Alternatively, the new species of half-human, half-alien may have increased reasoning and understanding, in which case some may argue that the loss of humankind would not be a tragedy. Without all the details it is impossible to make a comment on human extinction.

Counter arguments

The circumstances don’t matter. The very loss of the continuation of our species would be a tragedy. The only marker that we were ever here is the continued existence of our species. It is the only imprint left on the earth from our evolutionary forefathers. If humans became extinct, it would be a tragedy for everyone that ever came before us. It would erase their legacy. In as much as we have an obligation to protect the interests of the future generations, we also have an obligation to protect the legacy of those who went previously.

Proponents

Premises

P1: Some circumstances which would cause human extinction would be a tragedy. Some would not. P2: Without knowing the circumstances, it is impossible to make a sweeping judgement.

Rejecting the premises

P1: Regardless of the scenario, the very end of the continuation of our species would be a tragedy.

References

  1. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/would-it-be-bad-if-humanity-were-to-become-extinct/
This page was last edited on Tuesday, 22 Sep 2020 at 13:48 UTC