The Case For Human Extinction

By DONALD DeMARCO

Two trends are very much alive in society and seem to be gaining momentum. One is a disenchantment with human life. Easy abortion, the rise in suicide rates, declining birthrates throughout the world, and the expansion of euthanasia are indications that fewer people hold fast to the notion of the importance and the sanctity of life.
The second is an enchantment with the environment together with all the plants and animals that it includes. As former Vice President Al Gore has stated, in his book, Earth in the Balance, “We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.” The environment comes first, human beings second. The inevitable result of these two trends creates the question as to whether it would be a bad thing if the human race became extinct.
Dr. Todd May is a philosophy professor at Clemson University. In a New York Times article entitled “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?” published on December 17, 2018, he states his opinion that it might not be tragic if there were no more humans around to continue polluting the planet.
“We are devastating the Earth and causing unimaginable animal suffering,” he writes. He suggests, though with some reservations, that a planet without people “Might just be a good thing.” It would be a shame, he contends, that all the great art produced by exceptional people would be lost. But the loss of artists and their art will be the environment’s gain. The loss of humanity, however, would be the loss of justice, peace, and any perception of beauty.
More adamant in its position favoring the abolition of human beings is a group that calls itself, “The Voluntary Human Elimination Movement.” According to its mandate: “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health.” As a consequence, VHEMT can conclude:
“Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life.” The movement may not be successful, since it is voluntary, but it does reflect an attitude that is prevalent in today’s world: a cynicism toward human life coupled with a romanticism concerning animal life.
The VHEMT attitude is captured by a number of cartoons depicting couples who are “blissfully childless.” In one particular cartoon a fortune teller looks into her crystal ball and sees “a time when peace shall reign throughout the world.” Her client says, “I bet the people are happy” to which the seer remarks, “I don’t see any people.” The cartoon can be an effective instrument for propaganda. Such cartoons are hardly a laughing matter. The inverted pyramid of a society that is top-heavy with old and unemployable people presents an economic disaster.
Human extinction may result from natural causes or it may result from human action.
Anthropogenic extinction is the phrase applied to the latter. It may be surprising to many who are not devoted to environmentalism that the probability of anthropogenic extinction within the next 100 years is seriously debated.
Guy McPherson is professor emeritus of natural resources and ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona. He has coined the expression “near term extinction” (NTE) and has speculated that humans will be extinct by no later than 2030 as a result of global warming. Labeled as an “apocalyptic ecologist,” McPherson has built an “End of Days” following.
In Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) urges people to have “one fewer child.” Apart from using dubious grammar, the media network, although less apocalyptic than others, is nonetheless being both intrusive as well as incomprehensible.
What can it possible mean for a married couple to have one less child? We do not know what X-1 means when we do not know the value of X. Of course, if a particular family decided to have just 9 children instead of 10, this would not be in keeping with the CBC’s recommendation.
Nonetheless, according to the experts at the University of British Columbia, by having “one fewer (sic) child” the planet would be spared an additional 58.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
The CBC, which serves as a propaganda arm for the Canadian government, finds itself in a curious contradiction. If people are polluting the environment, why urge Canadians to breed less while approving massive immigration? Canada’s birthrate is 1.61 child per woman, which is already well below the replacement figure.
In his encyclical, Centesimus Annus, published in 1991 to mark the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s great encyclical on social justice, Rerum Novarum, St. John Paul II stated: “The first and fundamental structure for human ecology is the family, in which man receives his first formative ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and be loved, and thus what it actually means to be a person.”
Here, John Paul, is speaking indirectly to environmentalists and pointing out that the most important function of the environment is not for itself but for the family. Contrary to what radical environmentalists are saying, the family does not exist for the benefit of the environment, the environment exists for the benefit of the family. And the most important environment is the family.
We have a duty to be responsible stewards for the environment. We should also have some trust in divine Providence. God directed what was once a ball of fire to become the inhabitable planet in which we now reside. An atheistic view of life on Earth can be terrifying, like a passenger plane that has lost its pilot. God still holds us in the palm of his Hand and we human beings, not the birds and the trees, are made in His image.
(Dr. Donald DeMarco is professor emeritus at Jerome’s University and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College. His latest two books, How To Navigate Through Life and Apostles of the Culture of Life are posted on amazon.com.)