web analytics

The Fellow Traveler Test For Insanity: Facilitated Human Extinction

So here is another fun one, coming hot off the presses: ‘The only solution for climate change is letting the human race become extinct’.

I have been covering this nonsense on this blog for years, so I trust that my readers at least won’t be surprised by such fare.  I know that I’m not.   Rather than talk about the wellsprings of such noxious viewpoints, which I have done in the past, I’m going to take it from a different angle.

One of the things I’ve argued before [see #1] is that one can often discern whether or not something is true is whether or not it leads to pain, suffering, and death.  For example, if someone believes he is impervious to trucks speeding along at 50 mph, reality will demonstrate otherwise.  Reality is the ultimate baseline for measuring the veracity of our viewpoints.  If you defy it, you and/or others are going to get hurt, or worse.

The ultimate extension of this principle, I think, has got to be that humans should be removed entirely from the planet.  Is there anything worse than that?  Perhaps that they are all tortured first?  I guess, but there isn’t much margin left for extremism beyond calling for human extinction, I would say.   Here is what our latest nutjob, Patricia MacCormack,  has to say:

The book argues that due to the damage done to other living creatures on Earth, we should start gradually phasing out reproduction. But rather than offering a bleak look at the future of humanity, it has generated discussion due to its joyful and optimistic tone, as it sets out a positive view for the future of Earth – without mankind.  [emphasis added]

Just stop and think for a moment about what kinds of measures would have to be implemented in order to ‘phase out reproduction.’  We may imagine that MacCormack has thought about it and it has not occurred to her that others who have come to the same conclusion may be prompted to be more brutal in their analysis:  If the humans are murdering the earth, the only way to save the earth is to murder the humans.

I documented a similar extension of such reasonings a few years back, when Peter Singer, gleefully seconding the viewpoint of philosopher David Benatar, posits that the best thing for the human race is for everyone to be sterilized, making this the last generation.  The reasoning, in this case, is that when we consider our lives soberly, it is so filled with suffering that no amount of joy can surpass it, such that it is always wrong to bring a new person into the world.

Singer went further in another context, having previously argued that you can kill a child up to the age of 2 perhaps (as it is not yet a ‘person’), affirmed the viewpoint that an ‘after-birth abortion’ was a perfectly reasonable thing to consider. Even a child who we expect to be happy remains a burden on parents and society alike.  It is not too terribly difficult to see how that reasoning, extended perfectly rationally, would not also justify ‘after-toddler abortion’ or ‘after-adolescent abortion’ or ‘after-adulthood abortion.’

Indeed, we are watching this reasoning eat away from the outsides towards the insides, with both rationales AND ACTION being taken against the very young and the very old.  By ACTION I mean, killed.  With the earth itself in the balance, why tap dance around the obvious?  Why half-measures like ‘phasing out’ or ‘sterilization’?  Why not consider a global police force to enforce a global one-child policy with compulsory abortion and sterilants in the water supply–per Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Diane Francis?

None of these and hundreds if not thousands that I could mention are conservatives.

Far from being outliers, these are mainstream figures.  Which is a bit of my point, I’d add.  MacCormack, we are told, is “a Cambridge academic” and “professor of continental philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University.”  Her book is actually being published by Cambridge’s academic press.  Singer teaches out of Princeton University.  Benatar’s book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, was published by Oxford University Press.  John Holdren’s book wherein he proposed compulsory abortion and more was a college textbook; he is now a professor at Harvard.  Beyond them, sprinkled throughout universities the world over in large doses, are average, run of the mill professors sharing very similar ideas.

Naturally, then, its no surprise then when a leading candidate for president (Bernie Sanders) in the Democrat primary, when asked about population control, immediately leaps to a discussion about abortion, and liberals nowhere bat an eye. To put it even more baldly, the REALITY is that tens and tens of millions of Americans–literally have no problem whatsoever using abortion as a way of ‘managing the population’, especially in the third world.  (I don’t know about you, but this seems awfully racist.  And also puts the lie to it really being about a “woman’s rights.”)

FACT: NONE of these people are conservatives.  They are nowhere near any conventional understanding of the political right and are firmly and happily accepted and acceptable on the political left.

And did I mention that many of them are calling for the actual extinction of the human race?

Try to think, just for a moment… I mean, THINK of all the young kids going to the universities and studying under these mainstream, highly regarded figures perched in prestigious places like HARVARD, OXFORD, PRINCETON, and CAMBRIDGE, professors, are going to think they are receiving real facts about the world which are ‘uncontested’ except by uninformed, ignorant… how does MacCormack put it? “… white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied people…” won’t get with the program.

To the extent that such viewpoints are ‘outliers’ (a patently absurd and grossly unreal proposition) there is no good reason it will remain so, with these young activists taking their useless gender studies degrees and finding jobs in governments and academia (such degrees being unable to get them jobs anywhere else, understand), and then further transmitting such views and then ENACTING POLICIES that further them.

I return to my original point:  we can often detect viewpoints that are false and unreal by observing that they tend to lead to pain, suffering, and death.  We note, now, how intertwined all of them are in a network of shared beliefs about abortion, population control, sexuality, the environment, socialism/anarchy/communism, etc.  THEY THEMSELVES SEE THEM ALL LINKED as part and parcel of ONE COHERENT WORLDVIEW.  In our latest, we have MacCormack saying:

“I arrived at this idea from a couple of directions. I was introduced to philosophy due to my interest in feminism and queer theory, so reproductive rights have long been an interest to me – this led me to learn more about animal rights, which is when I became vegan.

“The book also argues that we need to dismantle religion, and other overriding powers like the church of capitalism or the cult of self, as it makes people act upon enforced rules rather than respond thoughtfully to the situations in front of them.”

The central argument in The Ahuman Manifesto can be boiled down to this: mankind is already enslaved to the point of “zombiedom” by capitalism, and because of the damage this has caused, phasing out reproduction is the only way to repair the damage done to the world.

Additionally, humanity has to see it isn’t the single living dominant force – but first, it needs to dismantle an established hierarchy amongst itself.

She then under and overstates things:

This argument has not received as much disagreement as you might expect. Professor MacCormack continued: “Everyone’s okay with the ideas in the book until they’re told they’d have to act on it.”

 In her universe–that is, within secular humanistic, liberal, and progressive circles–they are all ok with such ideas.  The sober… er… “joyful and optimistic ” consideration of extinguishing all human life on the planet?  Bloody hell, why not!  Totally appropriate propositions to bat around for potential implementation in the leftist universe!

Which brings me finally to the title of this essay.  Look, when your fellow travelers have pretty much every view that you have, with the only real difference is some quibbling on the edges of things… you know, whether or not we should limit families to two children or one, or herd people into cities, or forcibly sterilize and/or compel people to get abortions, or “dismantle” things by ‘gradually phasing out’ (by what measures, exactly?), there is much reason to suspect that the problem is with the WHOLE WORLDVIEW.

They aren’t that much different than you, dear liberal.  Perhaps they just have more courage of their convictions than you do.

There are certain viewpoints on the ‘right’ which might be expected to lead to ‘pain, suffering and death,’ but there is NOTHING on the scale of postulating the removal of humans on the planet, wholesale.  Take your worst white supremacist–who, truth be told, is actually only a leftist who takes Darwinism seriously on an applied level, but we’ll just assume for sake of discussion that he really is a right-winger–and you will not find any that want to rid the globe of ALL humans.

That said, there are glimpses in some of the latest manifestos released by these sorts of people that they, too, are animated by ‘climate change.’

Now, strictly speaking, it doesn’t follow that these people are ‘wrong.’   Maybe they are quite correct, and we do need to wipe all humans off the planet, because otherwise the planet will DIE, and anyway, no human lives are really worth living, all things considered.  They obviously think they are correct, and they obviously believe they are reasoning from valid principles.  They seem to be busily trying to persuade fellow liberals and progressives to get on board with what ‘obviously’ follows from those principles.  (The uselessness of these ‘resistant’ liberals is subject of one of my blog posts.)

Thus, my appeal is to something more basic, more fundamental than even these principles.  It is the notion that no matter what else we believe or think, the deaths of millions of humans is in point of fact abhorrent, and, in point of fact, life is worth living, all things considered.   If you don’t agree with that, then we have nothing to say to each other.  I consider you my enemy, and you consider me your enemy.

If you do agree with that, then its time to spend some serious time pondering why it is that a growing number of people with YOUR principles and values are openly calling for the eradication of humanity itself, with a variety of abhorrent tyrannical ‘half measures’ (their language) getting to that point (eg, compulsory sterilization and/or abortion, etc).  What is it about YOUR principles and values which are taking your reasonable and rational fellow travelers off the deep end?

If you are following my argument to this point, what I am suggesting here is that this trend actually reveals the bitter truth, that somewhere and somehow, there is something NOT TRUE and NOT REAL about YOUR principles and values.

Throughout this blog, I have laid out many ideas as to what those things are.  Moreover, I have shown that this is not by any means the only place where YOUR principles and values are radically harming people, if not leading to their enslavement and/or death.  But, I assume you wouldn’t believe it if you heard it from me.  You’re going to have to discover it yourself.  Or, to put it another way, as I’ve said elsewhere if we are to be spared from these ‘mainstream’ viewpoints expressly pining for our collective destruction or creating widespread destruction in the name of ‘the public good’, there is nothing we on the ‘right’ can do about it.

The ‘left’ is going to have to fix itself, or it will never be fixed.

I have much more to say about this.  I have given some big examples, but these deviations from reality which lead to harms big and small, are the daily fare of the ‘left.’  Some of these smaller examples will be helpful to mention if anyone does decide to rethink the foundations of their worldview.


page: 146:

Human Extinction
climate change
Share

12 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Jenifer Hernaez on February 10, 2020 at 2:25 pm

    I have a question. Can we start with Patricia McCormack and the rest of the people who agree with them? We could start experimenting and applying her own theory to herself first and the people that agree with her. We’ll see if that will work out for us to have a better world without their philosophy.

    • Anthony on February 10, 2020 at 3:33 pm
      Author

    That would be the least they could do, right?

    • Timaahy on February 10, 2020 at 7:45 pm

    Hey mate,

    Firstly, she’s Australian! Haha

    Secondly, I read the article and she is never quoted directly as having that viewpoint. Rather, it seems to be the article’s author paraphrasing her book into that viewpoint. She may actually have that view, but it’s a little odd that the author couldn’t get her to say it and quote her directly.

    From the book’s website:

    “Collapsing activism, artistic practice and affirmative ethics, while introducing some radical contemporary ideas and addressing specifically modern phenomena like death cults, intersectional identity politics and capitalist enslavement of human and nonhuman organisms to the point of ‘zombiedom’, The Ahuman Manifesto navigates the ways in which we must compose the human differently, specifically beyond nihilism and post- and trans-humanism and outside human privilege. This is so that we can actively think and live viscerally, with connectivity (actual not virtual), and with passion and grace, toward a new world.”

    It sounds like a bunch of far-left buzzword mumbo-jumbo to me, but doesn’t really suggest that she wants humans to go extinct. Probably a reading of the actual book would be best. Or not… since it sounds like a bunch of far-left buzzword mumbo-jumbo.

    Either way, her view isn’t exactly mainstream.

    • Timaahy on February 10, 2020 at 7:47 pm

    “Here is what our latest nutjob, Patricia MacCormack, has to say:

    The book argues that due to the damage done to other living creatures on Earth, we should start gradually phasing out reproduction. But rather than offering a bleak look at the future of humanity, it has generated discussion due to its joyful and optimistic tone, as it sets out a positive view for the future of Earth – without mankind. [emphasis added]”

    This is not correct. She does not say that. The author of the article does.

    • End Bringer on February 10, 2020 at 11:44 pm

    “This is not correct. She does not say that. The author of the article does.”

    As you say -the book is a bunch of far-left buzzword mumbo-jumbo. So the article just ‘paraphrases’ it to what it boils down to in plain English, which is as described and doesn’t change anything SJ addresses.

    “Either way, her view isn’t exactly mainstream.”

    As SJ already addressed, this view is already widely adopted in academia which will be passed on to more and more people without opposition since only liberal views are accepted in such places, and thus there’s every reason to believe such beliefs will become mainstream relatively quickly. Especially with the rate liberals are diving further and further left.

    After all Obama was a liberal, and border security was an accepted concept not more than a decade ago. Today he’d be conservative compared to people like AOC, and abolishing ICE is one of the litmus tests of liberal virtue.

    So don’t kid yourself that the idea of restricting reproduction and terminating ‘undesirables’ for the sake of battling “climate change” isn’t going to become part of the liberal mantra in another decade or two from now.

    • Anthony on February 11, 2020 at 12:20 am
      Author

    She said: “I arrived at this idea from a couple of directions.

    She arrived at what idea?

    I am perfectly willing to allow that the contents of the book will tell a different story than what the media presents about it. That’s why I almost always actually get the book. I’ll probably get this one, too. Eventually, I even read them. By being actually informed, when people who are proud of their ignorance spout off, I know I am quite in my rights to tell them to pound sand.

    At any rate, you missed my point… which EB kindly reminded you of. Thanks, EB.

    I’m pretty confident that when I get the book, the phrase “phasing out reproduction” will be featured prominently. The author used that exact phrase, twice. Methinks there is a reason.

    I’ll let you know on all this definitively after I’ve ready the book.

    As an aside, I will admit that I was wrong about Cambridge being the publisher. It is actually published by Bloomsbury Academic, which, as the name of the imprint informs us, is nonetheless an academic press. I assume that that Anglia Ruskin University is one of the ‘colleges’ of Cambridge, hence the author’s characterization, “A Cambridge academic.” But I don’t know my British colleges well enough to say.

    • Timaahy on February 11, 2020 at 6:22 pm

    “I’ll let you know on all this definitively after I’ve ready the book.”

    Thank you, I’d appreciate that. I hope this came across in my response, but my main point was that “she may actually have that view, but it’s a little odd that the author couldn’t get her to say it and quote her directly”.

    Also, according to Wikipedia, “Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) is a public university in East Anglia, United Kingdom. It has its origins in the Cambridge School of Art, founded by William John Beamont in 1858. It became a university in 1992 and was renamed after John Ruskin in 2005. It is one of the post-1992 universities.”

    EB:

    So the article just ‘paraphrases’ it to what it boils down to in plain English, which is as described and doesn’t change anything SJ addresses.

    That’s not like you, EB, to just blindly accept paraphrasing as fact. Perhaps you should also read the actual book.

    • Anthony on February 11, 2020 at 7:15 pm
      Author

    There is another possibility besides “couldn’t get her to say it.” It could be that she did say it, and said it so much, that it begged for a summary.

    You should also be aware of the possibility that she did say it, but its not in the book. I have lots of views which are not written anywhere. 🙂

    It isn’t an impasse, though. If people are misrepresented in news articles (as I have) they may lodge a protest. We could check the chick’s Twitter feed to see if she objected to how her views were characterized.

    • Anthony on February 11, 2020 at 7:40 pm
      Author

    I found the author of the article’s twitter. Can’t find the chick’s.

    That author seems to have no life outside of Twitter. Yeesh.

    https://twitter.com/search?q=%40YesitsAlistair&src=typed_query

    • Anthony on February 12, 2020 at 9:12 pm
      Author

    I found some previews on Google books.

    I updated my post with some screen shots.

    Having scanned what is available of the book, I could not find the phrase ‘phasing out reproduction.’ I don’t know if its because that phrase is not in there or just that its in the areas not visible to me. However, as these two excerpts show, that is precisely what she is talking about.

    Having scanned the book, I feel that my theory above (“There is another possibility besides “couldn’t get her to say it.” It could be that she did say it, and said it so much, that it begged for a summary.”) is on the money. She writes in a convoluted, strung out manner, begging to be summarized. I will still plan on buying the book (when it drops in price) but for now I think it is safe to say that yes, she is calling for ‘phasing out reproduction.’ Only, her words are (for example), “deceleration of human life through cessation of reproduction” and “embracing human extinction.”

    I consider this ambiguity now resolved, and the author exonerated from any insinuations of misrepresentations.

    • Timaahy on February 24, 2020 at 10:11 pm

    “I consider this ambiguity now resolved, and the author exonerated from any insinuations of misrepresentations.”

    Hahaa… well of course you do. 🙂

    I still find it odd that, if that is indeed her central argument, that the interviewer didn’t manage to elicit a direct quote.

    As I said above, it may be that it really is her view. But I don’t think it’s clear at this point. I think you need to read the book before claiming that view as her own.

    • Anthony on February 24, 2020 at 11:30 pm
      Author

    I still find it odd that, after you have been conclusively refuted, you continue to repeat yourself as if you have not.

    I gave a link to her book on Google books. There remains only a slim chance that the greater context will reveal a different viewpoint. You have a mouse, don’t you? Try clicking the link yourself. Let’s be real. When I do finally read the book in full, and discover that the full context supports the ‘view as her own’, you’re still not going to take my word for it. You may as well try some research of your own in the meantime, ya know?

    “However, as these two excerpts show, that is precisely what she is talking about.”

    Feel free to produce your own excerpts that show otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

4 × 1 =