SOUTH CAROLINA – College professors are often a fountain of nonsense when waxing poetic on their sense of social justice or offering their latest additions to post-modernist thought. But one Clemson University philosophy professor, Todd May, may deserve 2018’s top honor: He argues in an New York Times op-ed that while human extinction may be a tragedy (for us), it’d be a good thing overall.
“Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend….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.[…]
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.[…]”
May goes on to discuss how, in order to save the planet from the scourge of human existence, he’s going to have to kill himself. But since that is hard and uncomfortable for himself and all ‘current human’ that have something to live for, he’ll spend his time encouraging mass abortion in order to eliminate ‘future humans’ and save the planet.
“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.”
That disturbs us, too! That someone who preaches a philosophy that equates humans with animals and essentially roots for our own demise is given a job to teach children and space in the New York Times.
This sort of self-destroying thought is pervasive among the Left, especially in academic circles. The idea that humans are objectively bad for the Earth, and must be at the very least mitigated, is offered with no hint of irony that it’s an entirely subjective approach based on his own depraved values.
Maybe if he goes first, then we can judge whether or not the world is better off?
Read more of his anti-human editorial here.