Skip to comments.Should This Be the Last Generation? (asks Peter Singer)
Posted on 06/07/2010 5:18:02 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.
So why dont we make ourselves the Last Generation on Earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required we could party our way into extinction!
Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations and it doesnt make anyone worse off, because there wont be anyone else to be worse off.
Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species thats a different issue. Lets assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No ones rights will be violated at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Reading about American "higher education" often enrages me. My wife and I have the bizarre notion that universities should help students appreciate Western civilization and prepare students for rewarding (financially, and if possible, intellectually) careers. Our lives revolve around providing for and educating our children. We're supposed to pay $50K a year to Princeton to subsidize a professor who would demoralize our children, trying to persuade them that there is something wrong with the basic human desire to marry and procreate? Go to hell, Princeton, and take Singer with you.
I’ve got a better idea Professor. Why don’t you just make yourself the last generation of your line. Like tomorrow...or better yet, today.
why is it that those who think this
fly and drive cars?
Liberals hate humanity and they hate God. All of their philosophy comes from these two points.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Something labeled from the NYT and written by Singer is just too much socialist stupidity for me to stomach this morning. Ugh.
Peter Singer.... too much LSD
“Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change.”
The Earth is not thoughtful, and is unconcerned about climate change.
Couldn't get past that sentence. It's 59F at my hacienda in SE Tennessee this morning. Ordinarily, it would be in the low 70's. Our high temps for the next three weeks aren't supposed to go above the upper 80's. High temps this time of year would ordinarily be in the low to mid 90's. 'Scuse me, Mr. Singer, but where is that Globull Warming you nitwits keep talking about?
Lead the way, Pete. You first, mmmkay?
“If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? “
Not only is this Singer fellow a nihilist and psychopath, he is a terrible writer as evidenced by the above sentence. How any family could send their kid to Princeton is beyond me. It seems nearly every Ivy League school has maniacal professors whose atheism and deceitfulness serve to influence young minds for evil purposes.
OK, I puked on the first sentence.
This tripe is getting annoying. Isn’t it time for these idiots to move on to their next scam?
Obviously this statement would be completely false if the word "thoughtful" were left out. However, I'm sure that the definition of "thoughtful" in Singer's view is quite different than what you'd find in your copy of Webster's. It obviously refers to the few percent of the population that shares Singer's "enlightened" views.
Please! Someone near this fool take his dissertation (assuming he wrote one) and smack him alongside the head several times. This anti-intellectual freak needs a check-up-from-the-neck-up.
You first, bucko.
This is the kind of shit that leads to the gulags and gas chambers, and we are getting a torrent of it lately. The tyrants-in-waiting are being emboldened enough to come out in the light. There is a huge evil starting to awaken in this country.