JUST PHILOSOPHISING - ON THE CASE FOR NOT HAVING CHILDREN. PART 2.

 

Could it be said that, if our human species, as we now exist, were to become extinct, it would give the Earth and its ecosystem time to recover and replenish? 

And probably become replenished at some time in the future. 

Hopefully with a more prudent and environmentally friendly 'higher intellectually endowed species' at the top of the ruling hierarchy? 

Probably one of the species that we are currently dominating?

I mean, could it be environmentally, morally and in the interest of the survival of non-human species, for one to argue that humans should stop not having children?  

Based on our human species accepting that our continuing existence is of such a nature that, it is having a detrimental, and, ultimately, fatal impact on other species and upon the Earth. 

Both floral and faunal, and should therefore be terminated.

And, secondly, such a species is imbued with an excess of altruism

If we, humans, were to see ourselves as equal to the other animals gathered at the Animal Farm meetings? 

How likely is it that the other animals would see or continue to see us our species, as a persistent and imminent threat to all of them and their livelihoods?

I think it would be very probable. I cannot think of any 'non-human' species that would argue in support of us continuing to be the dominant species, since, in an ironic way, that would be an argument for the extinction of many other species.

However, it is not on such grand and existentialist arguments that I would question the perpetuation of our species, by saying that there is a strong case for not having children. 

For arguing that, in the final analysis, human life - and oftentimes living - is quite pointless and tragic.

To be continued!