The logical endpoint to leftist thinking

Todd May, a philosophy professor at Clemson University, recently wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times entitled “Would Human Extinction be a Tragedy?” and it can be found here.  A few snippets from the article:

There are stirrings of discussion these days in philosophical circles about the prospect of human extinction. This should not be surprising, given the increasingly threatening predations of climate change. In reflecting on this question, I want to suggest an answer to a single question, one that hardly covers the whole philosophical territory but is an important aspect of it. Would human extinction be a tragedy?

To get a bead on this question, let me distinguish it from a couple of other related questions. I’m not asking whether the experience of humans coming to an end would be a bad thing. (In these pages, Samuel Scheffler has given us an important reason to think that it would be.) I am also not asking whether human beings as a species deserve to die out. That is an important question, but would involve different considerations. Those questions, and others like them, need to be addressed if we are to come to a full moral assessment of the prospect of our demise. Yet what I am asking here is simply whether it would be a tragedy if the planet no longer contained human beings. And the answer I am going to give might seem puzzling at first. I want to suggest, at least tentatively, both that it would be a tragedy and that it might just be a good thing.

Not surprising that this kind of question would come from academic philosophers.  Further down…

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies. Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.

Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.

Ahhh, the old “science is settled” argument with global cooling global warming climate change.  Think of the animals!  And further…

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.

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.

One thing that it seems only a few people recognize, Vox Day and Owen Benjamin, to name a couple, is that we living in the West are seeing a very concerted effort to remove Christianity from the very fabric of Western Civilization.  As globalism continues to creep in this will only get worse as all of these far-left totalitarian ideologies try to remove Christ and push materialism above all.

Why does this matter?  Watch the video above and the one at the end to see just a few of the effects. When Christ is removed from Western Civilization, things begin to crumble.  Morality is questioned.  The lines are blurred.  We begin to accept worse and worse, more heinous things without even noticing it.  Boys are told they can be girls and vice versa.  Values are inverted.  On top of this, there is no “higher” figure or idea to turn to for help, guidance, and hope.  When Christ is removed it’s easy to see how one could view humans as no different or special or important than any animal.  Often times when one removes Christ they also lose any sort of connection to their soul or looking at things beyond what we see and hear.

Maybe this sounds ludicrous or over the top to some people, but it’s a very real problem.  Nietzsche understood this.  He obviously wasn’t a devoted Christian but he recognized the potential peril of removing God.  He was concerned what we’d replace Him with.  And as he points out often times this leads to a road of nihilism.  This take on nihilism sums it up nicely:

Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is the most extreme form of pessimism. Put simply, it is the belief that everything is meaningless, but this oversimplifies the concept. Nihilism is a transitional stage that accompanies human development. It arises from weariness. When people feel alienated from values, and have lost the foundation of their value system but have not replaced it with anything, then they become nihilists. They become disappointed with the egoistic nature of ‘truth’ and ‘morality’ and so on, but at the same time recognise that what is egoistic is necessary. The notion of free will seems contradictory. Values, though originating from the ego, have been placed in a sphere so far outside and ‘above’ that they are untouchable. Any attempt to really figure out the ‘truth’ or posit a ‘true reality’ has become impossible, thus the world appears meaningless and valueless. The nihilist realises that all criteria by which the ‘real world’ have been measured are categories that refer to a fictitious, constructed world. This sense of alienation results in exhaustion.

That rings a little too true in 2018, yes?

Back to the article.  Only in this kind of nihilistic world would one even consider questioning the value of humanity as the way he’s posited it.  Christians obviously do not have this problem.  Many religions do not, for that matter.  It is not surprising that atheism is on the rise these days and that more people probably take the viewpoint of the author than one might think.  This is an absolute inversion of values.  And I suppose at this point this must be said: it is not healthy for one to think that wiping out one’s species is the best thing for them to do.  That kind of self-destructive mentality is dangerous.

And yet we see it everywhere every day.  I can think of at least one group of people who are encouraging the very policies that will have them wiped out from their own civilization.

What does this say about the current state of culture?  Where a major “news” outlet is publishing opinion pieces like this.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s entirely okay for them to do so.  But I’m talking about the climate of our country where this doesn’t even shock people anymore and many will seriously consider this and wonder if maybe it really is a good thing?  That shows how far the Cultural Marxism has seeped in.  How far we’ve shifted to the left.  Whether one is a Christian or not, it is undeniable that Christianity was a central pillar in building this Western society we now live in, and if you like what it has built it must be recognized that it cannot be removed without utter decline into decadence and ruin.  Something to think about anyways this Christmas.  What kind of society do you want to live in?

7 responses

  1. The Eastern traditions view purposelessness as a state to be relished and if there is a supreme, immortal, omnipotent,eternal being at the head of creation then it makes sense that he has no purpose!
    The Christians insinuate at purposelessness in their concept of heaven; a cloudy, ethereal place with no schedule, no imperative tasks and utterly devoid of purpose! And in contrast Hell is full of purpose and activity with all the constraints and impulses.
    Morality is not dependent on Christianity or its idea of God. Morality is simply a standard of behavior that a group follows because when it is everything goes better, and smoother for all involved. When God is used as an authoritarian weapon, using fear and punishment to impose morality it only creates a phony morality. When you consider that the Judeo/Christian God is a racist, a sexist who advocates genocide, slavery, infanticide, theft, homophobia, pagan blood sacrifice(devil worship today)and is a deceiver…then how is this going to produce morality in society? It’s not surprising then that atheists are more highly moral than Christians, because they do not think themselves above decency because of an immunity given them by a fake God!

    Like

  2. Hi Robert,

    Thanks for the comment. There’s too many points here to be addressed so I’ll only touch on a few of them.

    To start I’d say that I’m specifically talking about Western civilization. I made no mention of Eastern traditions as Eastern traditions are not….Western. And when I speak of morality I’m talking about morality in Western civilization. True, morality broadly speaking is not dependent on Christianity. But morality as we know it today in the West was largely founded on Christian principles. I’d urge you to watch the two videos presented in the post as it goes into more detail on this. You should not take for granted the morality that sprung out of the West and is now widely accepted. The concept of rape as being a bad thing is distinctly Christian. Many traditions didn’t hold rape as a bad thing on grounds for consideration of the victim, it was more bad on the basis of property rights.

    I also reject your underlying assumptions on Christianity. I think you need to brush up on your Christianity if you think that’s how they define their concept of heaven. That is utterly false. Further, Judaism and Christianity are entirely different faiths and should not be conflated. There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian morals.

    Lastly, on what grounds are you saying “It’s not surprising then that atheists are more highly moral than Christians…”? I completely reject that claim and there is no factual basis for it. Mass murder on its largest scales were all committed by atheists.

    Like

  3. Nazi Germany was a Christian nation that took scriptures literally and embraced the racism and antisemitism of the New Testament.
    The Christian faith is not an original moral code but copied from other pagan philosophies and religions like Mythra. The continuity of the judeo Christian Faith’s is apparent when the scriptures are read, and the stories have been entangled, so it is not a stand alone faith!
    The distinction between Western and Eastern beliefs is that Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism have no concepts of God. So your underlying assumptions based on the Abrahamic traditions means that you have not dealt with them; patriarchy, racism, sexism, authoritarian tyranny!

    Like

  4. Robert,

    I can’t tell if you’re just trolling or seriously believe what you’re writing. Again, there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian faith. Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ the way that Christians do. They are two completely different faiths.

    Hitler was not a Christian. This is a well established fact. True, he may have been earlier in his life, but not when he was in power. He spoke of Christianity largely pre-1934 before he was really in power. Is it so far-fetched to think that a politician was using Christianity as his way to get into power? To say that he was a Christian because it made him look better? You see this today all the time still. He wasn’t an atheist either. If anything he was a pagan. Unlike you I’ll provide a few facts to accompany my statements. Here are three points from the thirty-point plan for a National Reich Church:

    5.The National Reich Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably and by every means the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

    13.The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany as well as the publication of Sunday papers, pamphlets, publications and books of a religious nature.

    21.The National Reich Church does not acknowledge forgiveness of sins. It represents the standpoint which it will always proclaim that a sin once committed will be ruthlessly punished by the honorable and indestructible laws of nature and punishment will follow during the sinner’s lifetime.

    Since you’re not very educated on Christianity I’ll just let you know and you can fact check it for yourself that whatever church this is it is not Christian. Christians believe in the forgiveness of sins. I don’t believe any true Christian would outlaw their faith or the bible from their country either…

    So you’re patently wrong that Hitler was a devout Christian. Beyond that, Mao and Stalin were actual atheists that killed far more people than Hitler ever did. Let that sink in.

    I appreciate the discussion and exchange of ideas, but if you’re going to respond again please present facts and evidence, otherwise I will stop responding.

    Like

  5. “Nazi Germany” was a Christian nation! Can you wrap your brain around this fact? It’s certainly not a secret!
    The Christian God is the Abrahamic God as is the God of Islam! Can you wrap your brain around this fact?
    Partner, if you are going to claim Christianity as the right religion, you will never have credibility until you are an expert on at least the three major eastern and three major western philosophies….otherwise you are irrelevant!
    You are a waste of time and space! Have a meaningless life!

    Like

  6. Robert,

    Nowhere in the piece does it say anything about which religion is the right religion. It says that Christianity is directly tied to Western civilization. Removing Christianity from Western civilization yields something else, as we’re seeing.

    But it’s clear critical thought, facts, and evidence are beyond you. I have much meaning in my life, and I wish upon you good tidings and well wishes in this glorious Christmas season. Take care of yourself. I’ll pray for you.

    Like

  7. I don’t need your prayers, I can think for myself!
    You however are a brainwashed product of indoctrination that has left you without any grasp of the truth!
    You’ll keep on, and who would care?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: