**So, What's the Big Question Here?** At its heart, the book tackles a question that many of us have probably had a fleeting, uncomfortable thought about at some point: Would the planet actually be _better off_ if humans weren't on it?. Seriously, should humanity continue to exist?. This isn't just a morbid thought brought on by watching a guy toss a cider bottle into a lake after jet-skiing. It’s prompted by looking at the very real, undeniable damage we cause, from the climate crisis to potential nuclear annihilation. The author explains that this isn't a question with a simple "Yes, of course, we should keep going!" or a bleak "No, absolutely not!" answer. Both extremes feel a bit... inadequate. Saying "Yes" feels facile, ignoring our horrifying impact. Saying "No" is, well, kind of bleak. The book dives into the complexities, looking at this question from different angles to enlighten our thoughts about who we are and where we might, or might not, be headed. Crucially, the question isn't whether humans _deserve_ to go extinct as some kind of punishment for our messes. The author clarifies this upfront. While it's true that a relatively small group might be at the root of many environmental problems, the sheer number and consumption of _all_ humans collectively pose an enormous threat to other living beings and ecosystems. So, the focus is on the _consequences_ of our continued existence: given the damage and pain we cause, would the world be better off without us?. **How Might Extinction Even Happen (and Why Some Ways Matter More Philosophically)?** If we're going to think about the _morality_ of continued existence, it helps to consider how extinction _might_ occur. The book touches on several scenarios, though some are less useful for this particular moral discussion than others. - **Nuclear Annihilation:** This is a terrifying possibility, especially with current global tensions. But a nuclear catastrophe widespread enough to wipe out humanity would likely take most other forms of life with us due to radiation and widespread destruction. If we go out this way, any potential benefit for other species from our absence would be largely cancelled out by our taking them with us. Not very helpful for a moral calculus about whether _our absence alone_ would be good. - **Eventual Solar Expansion:** Fact is, the sun will eventually expand and consume the planet, wiping out everything anyway. But this is so far off and would involve the extinction of all other species too, so it doesn't help weigh the pros and cons of _human_ disappearance specifically. - **Resource Depletion/Conflict:** A world where humans fight violently over diminishing resources until none are left could happen. But the book suggests this might look more like an endgame scenario resulting from something like the climate crisis, rather than a distinct cause of extinction on its own. Scenarios that are more relevant for the book's moral exploration are those where humans might disappear while leaving room for other species to survive or bounce back: - **The Climate Crisis:** A severe climate crisis could certainly eliminate humanity. While it would harm many other species (especially domesticated ones), it could potentially allow many existing species to evolve or recover. It would also end the environmental degradation caused by our species. However, it would still significantly affect other species and ecosystems. - **Worldwide Pandemic:** A pandemic that affects humans much more severely than other species is another possibility. - **_Children of Men_ Scenario (Infertility):** This fictional scenario, where widespread infertility stops reproduction, is presented as one of the "cleanest" for philosophical purposes, even if currently far-fetched. It imagines humans simply ceasing to reproduce, leading to gradual extinction without mass destruction. The author notes that environmental toxins are already impacting male sperm counts, making it slightly less far-fetched than it might seem. **But What About Just Fewer Humans?** A very sensible question arises: is total extinction the only alternative to our current state? Couldn't we just have a much _smaller_ human population?. Perhaps small bands of humans living sustainably, remote from each other, like indigenous groups before European arrival?. The book acknowledges this as an important point. One thought is that even small groups might eventually find each other, grow, and repeat our history of agriculture, industrialization, overconsumption, and environmental damage, ending up right back where we are now. However, if a smaller population _could_ learn from past mistakes and live sustainably, it could be a "friendly amendment" to the idea of extinction – achieving many of the environmental benefits without complete human disappearance. The degree to which this differs morally from full extinction is something the book considers. Later, the book returns to this, suggesting that many of the _positive_ contributions of humanity (which we'll get to) could still be achieved with a much smaller population – perhaps a few million or even a billion, rather than eight billion. A smaller population would certainly cause less suffering through factory farming, deforestation, pollution, and carbon emissions. The challenge is whether a smaller population would _stay_ small. Historically, human populations tend to grow, especially since the agricultural revolution. But factors like widespread access to education and independence for women (which acts as effective birth control) and reduced infant mortality (which might make smaller families feel safer) could potentially counteract this trend. This is speculative, but important for considering the future. **And Definitely Not Mass Suicide, Right?** When the topic of human extinction comes up, people often leap to "Why not just speed it up? Mass suicide!". The book addresses this directly, and thankfully, rules it out. Even if we concluded that human extinction would be good overall, mass suicide is morally very different from the kind of extinction scenarios discussed. Asking people to end their lives is asking for an incredibly profound sacrifice. While people might sacrifice their lives for loved ones, a cause, or their country, asking everyone to end their lives to benefit the environment or other animals places a moral burden that seems unreasonable to most. The key difference is this: if humanity simply ceases to reproduce (like in the _Children of Men_ scenario), there is no one waiting to be born who is harmed by not coming into existence. As the author puts it, "No Fred, no foul". But suicide is a great loss for _us_ who are already here. It's one thing to consider future possibilities from a removed perspective, but quite another to ask currently existing individuals to give up their lives, their relationships, their connection to the world. **Okay, So Why _Should_ We Keep Going? What's So Good About Us?** Before diving into the harms we cause, the book explores the arguments _for_ humanity's continued existence. What are the positive things we bring to the world that might weigh in favor of sticking around? 1. **Happiness:** A common thought is that human lives are generally worth living and bring happiness into the world, so adding more humans adds more happiness. The book confronts the pessimistic view of philosopher David Benatar, who argues that human lives are not worth living due to the inevitability of suffering and death. Benatar suggests we're often fooling ourselves through psychological biases like the Pollyanna Principle (remembering positives more) and adaptive preferences (adjusting our desires to fit our circumstances). If Benatar is right, then creating new unhappy-ish lives is wrong, arguing _for_ extinction. However, the book pushes back, suggesting most lives _are_ better than that and that Benatar's view might be too simplistic. It considers the idea that adding happiness _does_ make the world better, giving a reason to continue if human life generally contains more happiness than pain. But it's complicated: adding _more_ humans doesn't necessarily add _more_ happiness if it strains resources or negatively impacts well-being distribution (the "Repugnant Conclusion"). It matters _how_ happiness is spread. 2. **Value Beyond Happiness (Deontology and Human Capacities):** Utilitarianism focuses on outcomes like happiness. But philosophy also considers deontology, which focuses on inherent value or moral duties. The book explores Immanuel Kant's idea that humans have _dignity_ based on their capacity for moral reason, meaning we should be treated as ends in ourselves, not just means. Having moral reason or a "good will" is something Kant considered good "without limitation". However, this doesn't automatically justify _human_ continuity because the value is in the _reason/good will_, not necessarily humans themselves; other beings (like advanced AI) could theoretically have it, and humans might fail to exercise it. Also, dignity/reason isn't quantifiable, so having more humans doesn't add "more" dignity. So, while it gives _some_ reason, it's considered "thin pickings" for justifying the species' continuation. Building on the Kantian spirit, the book introduces ideas from philosophers Sarah Buss and Nandi Theunissen. Buss suggests humans have instrumental value based on our sentience (ability to appreciate things like art) and rationality (ability for creation and discovery, leading to truth). If art, science, and truth are valuable, and humans are needed to appreciate and create them, then our existence is valuable instrumentally. Theunissen argues our value is relational _to ourselves_; we are "good-for" ourselves because we can step back, reflect on what makes a good life, and strive to create it. This ability to conceive and pursue a good life is unique to humans (as far as we know). Putting Buss and Theunissen together, humans have a special capacity to experience, create, and engage with beauty, truth, and the idea of a good life. This capacity adds a dimension to the world that no other animal possesses to the same degree. A world without beings capable of these experiences would be impoverished, a "tragic loss". Think of sports, novels, science – things requiring appreciation and vision of a good life. While other animals might experience joy, they lack the cognitive and emotional range for these higher pleasures. 3. **Meaning for Currently Existing Humans:** Philosopher Samuel Scheffler offers a different angle: the belief in humanity's continued existence is important for the _meaningfulness_ of the lives of people who are alive _now_. Our projects, traditions, and efforts (like searching for a cancer cure or passing on knowledge) often rely on the assumption that there will be future generations to carry them forward or benefit from them. Even enjoying simple activities can be colored by the hope of continuity. The prospect of humanity ending, even if our own lives weren't cut short, is deeply sad and can drain life of some significance. **But Who Cares If We're Gone? (The Human Viewpoint)** An important challenge to these arguments for continuation is that they rely on a _human_ perspective. If humans went extinct, who would be there to miss the happiness, appreciate the art, or feel that future meaning is lost?. Other animals don't seem to care about these things. The book argues that this is true, but also beside the point for us, now, on this side of extinction. We are asking the question from the only standpoint available to us: a human one. We are evaluating the future world with and without humans based on _our_ values and concerns. The fact that we _are_ concerned about the potential loss of happiness, valuable experiences, and future meaning for currently existing lives demonstrates that these things matter _to us_. Even if no future being would miss them, the _ability to even ask_ what kind of loss that might be is uniquely human, and that ability itself would be lost. And yes, in asking this, we are also considering the interests of non-human animals, because our perspective is the only one from which such an evaluation can happen. **Now for the Hard Part: Why _Shouldn't_ We Keep Going? The Harms We Cause.** The arguments for continuation are weighed against the significant harms humanity causes. 1. **Massive Animal Suffering:** This is a central concern. Humans inflict enormous suffering on other animals, particularly through factory farming. Billions of animals live short, painful lives in horrific conditions for human consumption. This suffering is astronomical. Other practices like deforestation, ocean pollution (plastic, chemical runoff), scientific experimentation, and contributing to the climate crisis also cause immense animal suffering. The question becomes: Does the happiness humans add (or the value of our experiences) outweigh the suffering we cause?. It's difficult to measure directly, as there's no single scale. The book discusses "speciesism" – unfairly privileging one species over another. While humans might have the capacity for "richer experience," potentially giving us more to lose, this is still a live question when weighing it against the scale of animal suffering. Even domesticated animals on "nice farms," while potentially having better lives than in the wild, are still brought into existence only to be killed, raising another moral complexity. The trend of increasing meat consumption globally as affluence rises means this suffering is likely to increase, making the justification for future existence harder. 2. **Human-on-Human Suffering (Briefly):** While the focus is primarily on animal suffering, the book briefly considers whether the pain humans inflict on each other might also weigh against our continued existence. If the overall misery caused by humans to other humans were to outweigh the overall human happiness, a utilitarian view might favor extinction. The author believes most human lives are currently worth living despite the suffering. However, a future where hardship (exacerbated by climate change or inequality) becomes so widespread that overall suffering outweighs happiness is imaginable, posing a significant challenge to justification. 3. **Are Humans Worse Than Nature?:** Some argue that life in the wild for many animals is incredibly difficult – short, painful lives ending in predation, starvation, or disease. Philosophers like Kyle Johannsen and Catia Faria highlight the suffering caused by "r-strategies" of reproduction (having many offspring, most of whom die painfully). This raises the thorny question: Is human-caused suffering (even factory farming) actually _less_ than the suffering in nature?. If so, maybe humanity should continue, or even intervene in or eliminate wilderness to reduce suffering. The book offers several responses: it's hard to truly know animal experiences; struggling to survive doesn't mean a life isn't worth living up to that point; intervening in complex natural systems is risky and uncertain (precautionary principle); would we apply this logic to humans if we reproduced similarly?. Most importantly, there's a moral difference: humans are _responsible_ for the suffering we cause through conscious choices and practices, unlike animals acting on instinct. Also, it seems unlikely humans would put significant effort into mitigating wild animal suffering given our failure to address our own climate crisis. 4. **The Cost of Our Valuable Experiences:** The book asks us to weigh the value of those unique human experiences (beauty, truth, good life) against the immense animal suffering we cause. Using the analogy of saving people vs. art in a museum fire, the book suggests most of us would prioritize saving people from suffering over preserving art. Extending this, would we sacrifice all those valuable human experiences (art, science, sports, etc.) to prevent astronomical animal suffering?. There's no common measure, but it's a "live question" whether the duty not to cause great suffering is overridden by the good of having those experiences in the world. It seems an enormous amount of suffering is generated just to salvage the existence of these experiences. 5. **Love:** Is human love a unique contribution?. While some philosophical accounts tie love to high-level rationality or complex emotions, which might exclude other animals, love as a basic bond exists beyond humans. So, human extinction wouldn't mean the end of love entirely, just the loss of specific human dimensions of it (like writing bad poetry or contemplating mortality). Weighing the loss of these specific aspects against the suffering we cause (including to animals capable of some form of love) is difficult, but involves less loss than love disappearing completely. 6. **Damage to Ecosystems:** The book brings up the controversial idea that ecosystems might have value _in themselves_, not just for their usefulness to humans or animals. Humans are a major threat to ecosystems through the climate crisis, deforestation, and subduing nature. If ecosystems are valuable in themselves, then our continued existence, which threatens them, counts against us. While this needs weighing against human goods, the book suggests that protecting currently existing, intrinsically valuable ecosystems from future humans (whose existence would harm them) might outweigh the value of bringing those future humans into being. We don't owe it to future generations to create them, especially if their existence harms current goods. 7. **Scheffler's Meaning vs. Suffering:** Finally, the book weighs Scheffler's point about the importance of human continuity for the meaningfulness of _current_ lives against the suffering our continued existence would cause other beings and ecosystems. Again, there's no easy scale, but it's a significant question whether the meaningfulness gained by currently existing humans is worth the misery inflicted. While meaning would be diminished without continuity, it wouldn't be entirely extinguished. **So, Where Does This Leave Us? What Can We Do?** After exploring these complex arguments for and against, the book concludes that whether humanity's continued existence is morally justified is a truly "live question". This might be alarming, but the author suggests we can use this alarm to mobilize action. The goal isn't necessarily to prove our existence is perfectly justified, but to find ways to make it "more—or at least more nearly—justifiable". The book identifies several areas for action, often arguing that these actions are important for _their own sake_, but taking them on also relates to this larger question of justification. The book briefly critiques **Longtermism**, a philosophical view focused on ensuring a good future for the potentially trillions of future humans. While stemming from noble ideas like Effective Altruism (helping others effectively, like Peter Singer's drowning child analogy), Longtermism is criticized for potentially prioritizing abstract future happiness over current suffering (both human and animal) and overlooking the negative impacts of human existence itself. A "true longtermism" should ask _if_ there should be a long-term future for humanity and what it should look like, seriously considering our effects on other animals. Practical steps for making our existence more justifiable include: - **Eliminating Factory Farming:** This is presented as a crucial moral imperative due to the colossal suffering it causes. This isn't just about reducing suffering (utilitarianism); it's also about the kind of people we want to be – not participating in such cruelty (character/deontology). Individual abstinence isn't enough; systemic change and overcoming economic inequality are needed. - **Limiting Population Growth:** Fewer people mean less consumption, less demand for factory farming, less deforestation, less pollution, and a smaller carbon footprint. While challenging, factors like educating and empowering women are effective tools. - **Ending Deforestation:** Linked to population and agriculture, ending deforestation protects ecosystems and the animals within them. This highlights the interconnectedness of these issues. The challenges are immense, involving complex causes and inadequate moral frameworks for addressing long-term issues like the climate crisis and duties to future generations. - **Limiting Scientific Experimentation on Animals:** While not necessarily needing to be eliminated entirely (especially for urgent human health issues), experimentation should be significantly restricted to the most humane methods and important purposes. While progress has been made (e.g., protecting great apes), more global oversight is needed. Unnecessary experimentation adds to the suffering we cause. - **Changing Our Attitude:** Fundamentally, we need to change our attitude towards other animals and the natural world. We often treat nature as just resources, failing to recognize that other animals matter morally and nature matters (perhaps as good-in-itself, or at least as vital for all life). This isn't about never prioritizing human needs (like dealing with pests), but about integrating other beings' interests and the value of nature into our moral considerations and actions. The book concludes that while these imperatives are important for many reasons, they also bear on the ultimate question of whether we _deserve_ to keep going, not as punishment, but whether the consequences of our continued existence are justifiable. The failures to act are widespread, involving large proportions of humanity benefiting from or participating in practices with egregious consequences for other living beings. There may not be a definitive answer to the question of whether our future existence is _overall_ a good thing. But the real question might not be "Will we justify our existence?" but rather "Are we _willing_ to try?". The path forward lies in committing to the actions that would make our continued existence on the planet more justifiable, lessening the suffering we cause and fostering better relationships with the world around us. Because, after all, who wants to be up at 3:12 in the morning wondering if we should even be here?. This book offers a compelling framework for facing this uncomfortable truth and considering the deep moral stakes of our place in the world. It makes you think, hard, about the choices we make, individually and collectively. **Further Ideas and Questions to Explore:** - How can we translate the abstract moral imperatives identified in the book into concrete political and economic action on a global scale? - Given the challenges of human nature and ingrained behaviors (like tendencies towards inequality or callousness), is it realistic to expect the fundamental changes in attitude and practice that the book suggests are necessary for justification? - If a smaller population _could_ live sustainably and preserve the "goods" of human existence, how could such a transition ethically occur, avoiding coercive measures? - How do different cultural and philosophical traditions around the world approach humanity's place in nature and our relationship with other animals? How might these perspectives inform the global conversation about our future? - The book touches on the value of ecosystems. How can we develop moral and legal frameworks that adequately protect ecosystems and intrinsically valuable natural entities beyond their usefulness to humans or other animals? - Can we truly develop "clear policies" for limiting scientific experimentation on animals that balance potential human benefits with animal suffering in a globally agreed-upon way? - The "live question" of weighing immense animal suffering against valuable human experiences lacks a common measure. How do we make decisions in the absence of a clear moral calculus? What role do intuition, empathy, and character play when strict weighing is impossible? - How does contemplating the possibility of human extinction change our perspective on everyday life, our projects, and our relationships? Does it enhance or diminish their meaning? Thinking about these questions might not lead to easy answers, but engaging with them, as Todd May does, is perhaps a necessary step in making our presence on this planet a little more thoughtful, a little more kind, and a little more justifiable.