Trisel's Human Extinction And The Value Of Our Efforts?

In “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts,” Brooke Alan Trisel writes on the relationship between the meaning of life and the existence of future generations. He states that we do not need future generations in order to have meaningful lives. I will argue in support of Trisel’s position by stating his views and discussing various objections to it. After expositing Trisel’s view, I will first address an objection that Trisel proposes and refutes on the relationship of importance and long-lastingness. Then, I will propose my own follow up response to Trisel’s reply and dismiss that. Finally, I will discuss and refute another objection in which I will claim that the challenge and exclusivity of becoming important is what gives meaning. After reviewing …show more content…
Trisel’s main argument is that the meaning of life does not depend on the existence of future generations. He claims that there are many ways to achieve a satisfying, worthwhile life. Among these are spending time with loved ones and having engaging, meaningful experiences. In his essay, Trisel mainly focuses on having and achieving realistic goals as a means to having a meaningful life. He states that because not all of our goals are directed at future generations or at only human life, future generations are not necessary for a meaningful life. For example, some writers, such as William Faulkner, write to influence future generations. They want to be remembered through their publications. However, Trisel explains that most people’s goals are not like this. Trisel believes that many goals can be accomplished within our lifetimes and have intrinsic value, so future generations are not necessary to achieve them. Trisel also argues that the goal of influencing future generations is unrealistic considering the vast amount