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 don’t 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 doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t 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 — that’s a different issue. Let’s 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 one’s 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 ...
It's a terrible thing that there is such a person as Peter Singer in the world, but there's only one of him, while there are a LOT of Christian homeschoolers with really big families. Taste the ash-heap of history, Peter. The future looks like me.
A few years ago, I actually heard someone, maybe this guy, on Michael Medved’s show advocating for the ‘Voluntary Human Extinction Program’. I enjoy asking Liberals if they support this cause.
Bingo, we have a winner! Man, did you hit the nail on the head with that assessment!
Just like the Peta folks who wear leather shoes.
Should this be the last geneation? I say, Let’s start small with a Stop the Drivelators campaign, Singer being the first. Today the Drivelators, Tomorrow, Their Drivel!!!!
A long-running joke is that Liberals "love humanity; it's just people they can't stand". The truth of the matter, as you point out, is that they are self-loathing creatures who deny God and all his works. Carried to its logical extreme, the Progressive philosophy is suicidal and destructive, pretending to "save" humanity by means of destroying its fundamental institutions (such as marriage), and by exercising state power to control the actions and even thoughts of individuals.
Dear Peter Singer:
1) Place plastic bag over head
2) Tie plastic bag firmly around neck
3) inhale and exhale often
4) Close your eyes
5) Go to the light and meet your maker.
All you need to know about the foolhardy jackass peter singer:
http://www.nerve.com/opinions/singer/heavypetting
This is proof that for the most part, ivy league schools are asylums where narcissistic lunatics are paid to transform sane youths into mini-me narcissistic lunatics.
You are correct - his thinking is putrid - from abortion to this:
Zoophilia
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekker’s Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.[26] The position was countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer’s position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[27] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
You first.
A far better question to Singer’s “why are there people in the world?” is: why are there people like Singer in the world? Does Singer provide a useful existence, or is he merely taking up space which could be used, say, to teach ill-prepared college students how to compose proper sentences? You can guess my answer to that one.
Niche would envy his nihilism.
We should all send Peter Singer a handgun
(Peter Singer) Is he a one note wonder?
“...most thoughtful people...”
That’s a classic logical fallacy, a bandwagon appeal. In other words, you aren’t thoughtful if you don’t believe what Singer and “thoughtful” people believe.
Climate causing the damage???
How about communists like Peter Singer???
Obama and all his muslim associates are the ones causing the death to the world.
Jeffrey Dahmer with a college degree.
GW PING
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.