The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement people are appalling but really just the extreme end of a spectrum that includes many anti-human environmentalists. I recently wrote about one such professor:
There are too many errors and fallacies to list. I will offer only one because it is at the heart of morality. Values cannot exist without “valuers”. And while all living creatures survive by acting in ways that strive to achieve life sustaining values, humans are the only conscious beings that live “purposeful” lives. It would be a contradiction for humans to live “selfless” lives: humans have agency even when they allow their lives to fall apart and become out of control. There can be no human action without the actor. Morality can only be judged by an individual’s life. How can we have values if we don’t first answer the question: “a value to whom?”. (Credit: Ayn Rand)
Even an altruists by acting as such makes the world better for not only the beneficiaries but for himself.
I thought the so-called asymmetry argument was silly: They claimed that a non existent being, saved from suffering was good, but that a non existent being, prevented from having pleasure was not bad, on the grounds that they don't exist. The exact same grounds would apply to the non existent being, who was saved from suffering by not existing.
The whole asymmetry argument depends on arbitrary inconsistency.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement people are appalling but really just the extreme end of a spectrum that includes many anti-human environmentalists. I recently wrote about one such professor:
https://maxmore.substack.com/p/the-voice-of-the-void
Great article.
There are too many errors and fallacies to list. I will offer only one because it is at the heart of morality. Values cannot exist without “valuers”. And while all living creatures survive by acting in ways that strive to achieve life sustaining values, humans are the only conscious beings that live “purposeful” lives. It would be a contradiction for humans to live “selfless” lives: humans have agency even when they allow their lives to fall apart and become out of control. There can be no human action without the actor. Morality can only be judged by an individual’s life. How can we have values if we don’t first answer the question: “a value to whom?”. (Credit: Ayn Rand)
Even an altruists by acting as such makes the world better for not only the beneficiaries but for himself.
I thought the so-called asymmetry argument was silly: They claimed that a non existent being, saved from suffering was good, but that a non existent being, prevented from having pleasure was not bad, on the grounds that they don't exist. The exact same grounds would apply to the non existent being, who was saved from suffering by not existing.
The whole asymmetry argument depends on arbitrary inconsistency.
Will check it out. A bit hesistant about it
I watched about half of it and recommend against it. The host is good, but all the anti-natalists come across as crackpots.
Will the anti-human movement be taking the lead on human extinction? Seems like a Prisoner's Dilemma problem.
Perhaps they could argue that they need more anti-natalist children to spread the gospel of anti-natalism.