I'm really curious about the psychology of this mindset. It's just fascinating to me that the prevalent progressive stance on environmentalism is pro human extinction. People who (I believe authentically) care the most about marginalized groups are the first to send entire human race down the drain. My initial thought is that it's an attempt at signaling a kind of moral erudition and magnanimity, but it still doesn't make sense to me.
I also have the feeling that this is the secular remnants of a religious mindset: belief in a sort of teleology in nature. If only humans left it alone, the planet would thrive and reach its predestined goal. Someone was looking after us by providing us with this bountiful earth, and we just chose to ruin it for our greed -- for this, we must suffer. We should cease our existence for things to return to their natural order, just as it was intended. Yet, of course, there is no greater intention behind any of this. And any trade off should give proper weight to human flourishing.
"that the prevalent progressive stance on environmentalism is pro human extinction" It's absolutely not the prevalent view and your speculation about the origin of this position seems rather baseless to me
I will concede that "extinction" characterization is too hyperbolic and speculative there. While there are some groups that advocate human extinction openly, they remain a fringe faction among progressives.
Degrowth and depopulation are probably the more prevalent views, for which there is plenty of intellectual effort and some public opinion polling. I do think degrowth/depopulation is a similar mentality in that it gives human flourishing little weight in this tradeoff. Climate change and environmental degradation are real and consequential, but many of the things we would need to give up on in order to abruptly overcome them are also extremely important. And I think the latter gets overlooked in many progressive circles, while rw populist circles tend to ignore the former.
At a glance it seems like degrowth and then green growth are the most popular progressive positions - depopulation is maybe popular in some circles but it's often seen (wrongly) as implying coercive measures so it's still pretty unpopular.
I don't think degrowth would diminish human flourishing, there are lots of useless stuff we consume and that the previous generations didn't need at all. But I am extremely skeptical that the majority of people can voluntarily give up the technology and material goods they are used to (no exception for me).
I guess this is where we disagree. In my opinion, flourishing is much more than surviving on necessities. I think the degrowth movement is underestimating the benefits of those additional things previous generations didn't need. It's easy to take those for granted or see them as incremental/inconsequential individually, but they do add up and make a significant difference in people's welfare and wellbeing. That's why it's so difficult to give them up! I would take people's choices of consumption more seriously.
Great post! Though - if you'll excuse the nitpick - I don't think our limited power implies that "We shouldn’t care as much about the next millennium as we do about next Tuesday."
Distinguish fundamental concerns vs instrumental focus. We shouldn't bother *focusing* much attention on problems that we can't change. But that's not the same as *not caring* about the problem.
As a test case: suppose an evil demon credibly offered to give you a lollipop in exchange for his getting to torture people millennia hence. Temporal discounting (given a sufficiently distant time) implies that you should accept the demon's deal: far distant people *aren't worth caring about*, on that view. But that's insane. Obviously those far future people matter, and given an unexpected opportunity to affect their interests, you should not discount them. It's just that it isn't usually worth *attending* to far future people, insofar as we doubt our ability to reliably affect their interests.
It isn't plausible that the demon's deal should change our values or *what we care about*. But it's perfectly reasonable for an unexpected option to change *what we should attend to*, "activating" or making salient certain values that were previously "dormant" for reasons of practical irrelevance.
Nice point! I have some inchoate skepticism about ethics that treats value theory as separate from decision theory. But I’m not sure it holds up tbh, I wasn’t thinking about that when writing the post, and I should just have made the point in terms of focusing, as you say.
Oh, interesting! I hope you write more about that sometime. My current view is that much of ethics isn't careful enough about separating the two, as I discuss here:
Interesting essay. I guess the view I’m drawn to is the reverse of yours: using your frame, decision-theoretic questions are prior to telic questions. But it’s hard to see how to even make sense of that view, let alone defend it.
Maybe, for starters, the idea is that the first (decision) question is what kinds of marginal effects you should seek (based explicitly or implicitly on whats worked in the past) and then what’s worth caring about is abstracted from that. Uphill climb for sure.
Thanks for writing this! I’m so glad to see someone strongly advocating against the extinctionist mindset so prevalent today along the smart set. I find it so tiresome but hard to argue against
This was excellent. However, I’m not sure I care too much that, e.g., the dodo bird is extinct. We rarely miss these animals except when they are occasionally brought before our minds. If, say, elephants went extinct in my lifetime, I would be very sad but future generations might not care too much. After all, nature herself has wiped out untold numbers of species before man even arrived. But, yes, it would be nice if we kept most of what we have and we all flourished together. As an aside: note how many environmentalists overlap with those who complain about alleged wage stagnation. How easily do they think both concerns can be reconciled? Not very!
Thanks. I agree. I guess I think biodiversity is valuable. But I’m not sure that particular species—as opposed to particular individuals—matter at the margins.
Claiming that humans have higher moral status than non-humans because they would have "richer inner lives" or "meaning" is just wishful thinking. We are apes made of atoms and evolved moral thinking to make ourselves look good and ensure our reproductive success. We are programmed by evolution to enjoy having children and find meaning in it.
Antinatalists and human extinction supporters care a lot about suffering for all living sentient beings, and consider that creating new humans will only create more suffering. They see optimists and natalists as people who close their eyes on what life if like for many humans: suffering from genocide, war, severe health issues, extreme poverty, loneliness and so on.
For philosophers considering these views seriously you can look at the work of David Benatar and "Should We Go Extinct?" by Todd May
"Faced with the choice of saving either a human or an animal, the answer is clear". The answer is not clear and philosophers like Peter Singer and Oscar Horta have given very good arguments against discrimination based on specie. Maybe you should consider them.
It's obvious why humans would tend to be cognitively comfortable with thinking they are superior to non-humans: historically, animals are tools and food for our survival. And non-human animals can't unite and start a liberation movement.
I'm reading your posts with interest! My partner and I are consciously childfree. I would describe us as deeply humanist.
It's not my primary motivation, but I think our current trajectory is unsustainable. See "Limits to growth." I am somewhat persuaded by degrowthers seeking a much smaller more sustainable population. Realistically, we will not stop and the number of people suffering for the comfort of others will increase. I can't coerce anyone into agreeing with me, but I can choose not to contribute to the problem.
I can see genuine positives for holding this viewpoint. Most people who hold it have a deep set unhappiness with their life and carry a good dose of misanthropy. For related reasons they aren't keen on having kids. I don't see any effective efforts from such people to convince others (probably the misanthropy). Many are grudgingly ageing out, typically working in civil or environmental jobs.
The viewpoint is really a combination of personal life dissatisfaction with knowledge of ongoing environmental crisis, and usually a good period of largely unsuccessful political activism to address the latter as well. It's a natural recipe for a malcontent which only personal therapy can resolve.
If they fail to resolve it, then the end result is people who don't like kids don't have kids and spend their remaining days supporting environmental causes. Certainly not a viewpoint for everyone but seems like a not-undesirable outcome at a social level.
I'm not speculating here. I know and love many involved in environmental movements so this is coming from conversations with people who hold such views and thinking about their life trajectories. What i've written above is rather closer to a self-description than a person I fully disagree with. Perhaps the part about personal life dissatisfaction being the cause is an overreach, but that's the only thing that makes sense from me, distinguishing those who hold similar views but have disdain for humanity instead of compassion.
I'm really curious about the psychology of this mindset. It's just fascinating to me that the prevalent progressive stance on environmentalism is pro human extinction. People who (I believe authentically) care the most about marginalized groups are the first to send entire human race down the drain. My initial thought is that it's an attempt at signaling a kind of moral erudition and magnanimity, but it still doesn't make sense to me.
I also have the feeling that this is the secular remnants of a religious mindset: belief in a sort of teleology in nature. If only humans left it alone, the planet would thrive and reach its predestined goal. Someone was looking after us by providing us with this bountiful earth, and we just chose to ruin it for our greed -- for this, we must suffer. We should cease our existence for things to return to their natural order, just as it was intended. Yet, of course, there is no greater intention behind any of this. And any trade off should give proper weight to human flourishing.
"that the prevalent progressive stance on environmentalism is pro human extinction" It's absolutely not the prevalent view and your speculation about the origin of this position seems rather baseless to me
I will concede that "extinction" characterization is too hyperbolic and speculative there. While there are some groups that advocate human extinction openly, they remain a fringe faction among progressives.
Degrowth and depopulation are probably the more prevalent views, for which there is plenty of intellectual effort and some public opinion polling. I do think degrowth/depopulation is a similar mentality in that it gives human flourishing little weight in this tradeoff. Climate change and environmental degradation are real and consequential, but many of the things we would need to give up on in order to abruptly overcome them are also extremely important. And I think the latter gets overlooked in many progressive circles, while rw populist circles tend to ignore the former.
At a glance it seems like degrowth and then green growth are the most popular progressive positions - depopulation is maybe popular in some circles but it's often seen (wrongly) as implying coercive measures so it's still pretty unpopular.
I don't think degrowth would diminish human flourishing, there are lots of useless stuff we consume and that the previous generations didn't need at all. But I am extremely skeptical that the majority of people can voluntarily give up the technology and material goods they are used to (no exception for me).
I guess this is where we disagree. In my opinion, flourishing is much more than surviving on necessities. I think the degrowth movement is underestimating the benefits of those additional things previous generations didn't need. It's easy to take those for granted or see them as incremental/inconsequential individually, but they do add up and make a significant difference in people's welfare and wellbeing. That's why it's so difficult to give them up! I would take people's choices of consumption more seriously.
Great post! Though - if you'll excuse the nitpick - I don't think our limited power implies that "We shouldn’t care as much about the next millennium as we do about next Tuesday."
Distinguish fundamental concerns vs instrumental focus. We shouldn't bother *focusing* much attention on problems that we can't change. But that's not the same as *not caring* about the problem.
As a test case: suppose an evil demon credibly offered to give you a lollipop in exchange for his getting to torture people millennia hence. Temporal discounting (given a sufficiently distant time) implies that you should accept the demon's deal: far distant people *aren't worth caring about*, on that view. But that's insane. Obviously those far future people matter, and given an unexpected opportunity to affect their interests, you should not discount them. It's just that it isn't usually worth *attending* to far future people, insofar as we doubt our ability to reliably affect their interests.
It isn't plausible that the demon's deal should change our values or *what we care about*. But it's perfectly reasonable for an unexpected option to change *what we should attend to*, "activating" or making salient certain values that were previously "dormant" for reasons of practical irrelevance.
Nice point! I have some inchoate skepticism about ethics that treats value theory as separate from decision theory. But I’m not sure it holds up tbh, I wasn’t thinking about that when writing the post, and I should just have made the point in terms of focusing, as you say.
Oh, interesting! I hope you write more about that sometime. My current view is that much of ethics isn't careful enough about separating the two, as I discuss here:
https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/axiology-deontics-and-the-telic-question
Interesting essay. I guess the view I’m drawn to is the reverse of yours: using your frame, decision-theoretic questions are prior to telic questions. But it’s hard to see how to even make sense of that view, let alone defend it.
Maybe, for starters, the idea is that the first (decision) question is what kinds of marginal effects you should seek (based explicitly or implicitly on whats worked in the past) and then what’s worth caring about is abstracted from that. Uphill climb for sure.
Thanks for writing this! I’m so glad to see someone strongly advocating against the extinctionist mindset so prevalent today along the smart set. I find it so tiresome but hard to argue against
This was excellent. However, I’m not sure I care too much that, e.g., the dodo bird is extinct. We rarely miss these animals except when they are occasionally brought before our minds. If, say, elephants went extinct in my lifetime, I would be very sad but future generations might not care too much. After all, nature herself has wiped out untold numbers of species before man even arrived. But, yes, it would be nice if we kept most of what we have and we all flourished together. As an aside: note how many environmentalists overlap with those who complain about alleged wage stagnation. How easily do they think both concerns can be reconciled? Not very!
Thanks. I agree. I guess I think biodiversity is valuable. But I’m not sure that particular species—as opposed to particular individuals—matter at the margins.
Claiming that humans have higher moral status than non-humans because they would have "richer inner lives" or "meaning" is just wishful thinking. We are apes made of atoms and evolved moral thinking to make ourselves look good and ensure our reproductive success. We are programmed by evolution to enjoy having children and find meaning in it.
Antinatalists and human extinction supporters care a lot about suffering for all living sentient beings, and consider that creating new humans will only create more suffering. They see optimists and natalists as people who close their eyes on what life if like for many humans: suffering from genocide, war, severe health issues, extreme poverty, loneliness and so on.
For philosophers considering these views seriously you can look at the work of David Benatar and "Should We Go Extinct?" by Todd May
"Faced with the choice of saving either a human or an animal, the answer is clear". The answer is not clear and philosophers like Peter Singer and Oscar Horta have given very good arguments against discrimination based on specie. Maybe you should consider them.
It's obvious why humans would tend to be cognitively comfortable with thinking they are superior to non-humans: historically, animals are tools and food for our survival. And non-human animals can't unite and start a liberation movement.
I'm reading your posts with interest! My partner and I are consciously childfree. I would describe us as deeply humanist.
It's not my primary motivation, but I think our current trajectory is unsustainable. See "Limits to growth." I am somewhat persuaded by degrowthers seeking a much smaller more sustainable population. Realistically, we will not stop and the number of people suffering for the comfort of others will increase. I can't coerce anyone into agreeing with me, but I can choose not to contribute to the problem.
Is it virtue-signaling as the ultimate altruistic self-sacrifice?
Seems a bit egotistical to turn oneself into such a Christ figure.
I can see genuine positives for holding this viewpoint. Most people who hold it have a deep set unhappiness with their life and carry a good dose of misanthropy. For related reasons they aren't keen on having kids. I don't see any effective efforts from such people to convince others (probably the misanthropy). Many are grudgingly ageing out, typically working in civil or environmental jobs.
The viewpoint is really a combination of personal life dissatisfaction with knowledge of ongoing environmental crisis, and usually a good period of largely unsuccessful political activism to address the latter as well. It's a natural recipe for a malcontent which only personal therapy can resolve.
If they fail to resolve it, then the end result is people who don't like kids don't have kids and spend their remaining days supporting environmental causes. Certainly not a viewpoint for everyone but seems like a not-undesirable outcome at a social level.
You can't just speculate a whole life common to the people who hold beliefs you disagree with
I'm not speculating here. I know and love many involved in environmental movements so this is coming from conversations with people who hold such views and thinking about their life trajectories. What i've written above is rather closer to a self-description than a person I fully disagree with. Perhaps the part about personal life dissatisfaction being the cause is an overreach, but that's the only thing that makes sense from me, distinguishing those who hold similar views but have disdain for humanity instead of compassion.