Would it be bad for the human race to become extinct?
Humanity encompasses both life and death. However, human beings have much-embraced life than death. They yearn for a very long life to fulfill both their desires and societal needs. When individuals die, they always aim to leave a legacy behind their grandchildren, children, and the next generation. This, therefore, asserts the essence of continuity of life from generation to generation. Consequently, it would be bad for the human race to become extinct because of various reasons related to human and societal wants. This paper thus aims to expound the reasons and arguments why the extinction of the human race is bad using Finneron- Burns and Leman’s arguments on human extinctions. Moreover, it will highlight the relation between the badness of human extinction and the effect of death on an individual.
Predominantly, one of the main reasons that assert the badness of human extinction is the happiness that emanates for a life well-lived. Human beings are the center of the universe. Everything in the universe is directly or indirectly attached to human beings. This asserts the value of humanity itself since everything revolves around it. Therefore human extinction is the worst thing that can ever happen. It not only robs human beings of living and experiencing their best lives, but also robs them of experiencing the joy of ushering a newborn into the existence. Human beings desire their children and friends to live even after they die. They tend to leave things behind like a built house, gained a fortune, or a written book so that the future generation can learn from them and realize their meaning. “The aims and desires that drive us to have children are not ordinarily furthered by our having miserable children. And insofar as they involve a concern that certain projects of ours be brought to fruition after our deaths, we are naturally concerned with the capacities and resources of those children” (Lenman 2017). Lenman argues that it does not matter the end of humanity sooner or later, but what he believes matters is the generation that exists or is to come. “Whether, given that any given species will only endure for a finite time, does it matter how soon that end comes” (Lenman, 2017).
Moreover, the purpose of living and civilization emanates from life. Human beings draw their inspiration from the younger generation. They go through their daily activities with the future in mind; the future of the next generation. If human extinction happens, then there will be no motivation or rationale for living. “When I contemplate the possibility that humans might soon die out, all kinds of de re sentimental attachments may inform the alarm I might feel at this. The thought of the streets I walk to work along emptied of human life and the people who live there killed is one I naturally find peculiarly distressing” (Lenman, 2017). Additionally, civilization will be at stake since it is aimed at easing the future’s present activities. If human extinction happens, then there would be no need for civilization, it will rob humanity of every desire and purpose of living. “The thought of a like fate overtaking the unimaginable science fiction landscape that might be those same streets in the ninth millennium might inspire in me a certain distant sadness” (Lenman, 2017). The creations of human beings are only rendered significant and appreciated by others when they last for a long time. Thus, this gives individuals the chance to spend most of their years doing what they love to leave a legacy behind for appreciation from the next generation. If human extinction happens, then the works of human beings will be destroyed; hence their efforts will be rendered futile. This thus will make human beings to live with no purpose in life. Furthermore, human extinction causes existing people to suffer through psychological trauma. This is because of the frequent thoughts of being destroyed sooner or later.
On the other hand, Finneron Burns goes against the argument that it is bad for the human race to become extinct, asserting that their non-existence can never harm future people, they cannot claim to be brought to life. “We can only wrong someone who did, does, or will actually exist because wronging involves failing to take a person’s interests into account.” (Finneron-Burns, 2017). According to Burns, the future people lack interests, hence do not exists; therefore, human extinction cannot be bad for them. She further asserts that we are responsible for the non-existence of future people because if we act otherwise, we might bring them to life to experience a possible happy life. “Even basic, everyday activities would be morally wrong since they prevented certain people from coming to exist” (Finneron-Burns, 2017). I believe that human extinction is bad since it is harmful to future generations; however, Burns argues that we are only wrong and harm individuals we do not bring to existence since zero value is accorded to them. According to Burns’s argument, she is implying that if one has a goal to influence other people, then the generations to come to need not to be influenced or accomplish the goal.
Just as death is not bad for the individual, human extinction is not bad for the people who do not exist but rather to the entire human race, which exists and the future generation. Death and birth are both events that concurrently allow for human survival and prevent human extinction. When one people die, several others are born; hence the cycle of human survival continues, leaving behind a purpose for the next generation to continue with life. Contrary to this Burns’s arguments, I believe that nothing is inherent in her moral theories that imply that future people lack a sort of existential claim. Coming into existence benefits them than being non-existence. This is because they not all bring joy to their family members, but they also find a purpose in life, better the lives, and aim to make the world a good place. All these will not have been done if they are in non-existence.
Therefore, it is essential to ensure the long term survival of humanity because of the grave destruction that might be caused by extinction. Survival of humankind maximizes the purpose and happy experiences of humanity encompassed with the exploration and inventions of new things. It is, however, inevitable that humanity might go out in existence. This can be sudden, for instance, through a nuclear war or gradual through climate change or the depletion of resources, but eventually, it might come to an end. I believe that regardless of the nature of human extinction, it would be very bad if humans were extinct. Therefore, it is within our power to ensure the survival of humanity to preserve it for generations to come.
Work Cited
Finneron-Burns, Elizabeth. “What’s wrong with human extinction?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47.2-3 (2017): 327-343.
Lenman, James. “On becoming extinct.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83.3 (2002): 253-269.