In that case, the end of the human race is incredibly moral. Humanity has destroyed this planet more than any other creature, and led to the loss of life of countless other creatures. We would consider it irrational for a murderer to be considered more worthy of life than his victim, simply because the murderer was better able to win a fight. The world would, undeniably, be a better place without the continued impact of humans, the ultimate murderers and destroyers of other species. If anything, procreation is worse for the planet than even if the current (and theoretically last) generation of humans each had the global impact of a family of four. Procreation results in an exponentially continuing destruction of the planet, whereas overconsumption limited to a single generation has a definitive ~80 year endpoint. If one opts to use a utilitarian argument to object to my argument, they must acknowledge that the end of humanity is actually the best possible good. Therefore, the above argument
In that case, the end of the human race is incredibly moral. Humanity has destroyed this planet more than any other creature, and led to the loss of life of countless other creatures. We would consider it irrational for a murderer to be considered more worthy of life than his victim, simply because the murderer was better able to win a fight. The world would, undeniably, be a better place without the continued impact of humans, the ultimate murderers and destroyers of other species. If anything, procreation is worse for the planet than even if the current (and theoretically last) generation of humans each had the global impact of a family of four. Procreation results in an exponentially continuing destruction of the planet, whereas overconsumption limited to a single generation has a definitive ~80 year endpoint. If one opts to use a utilitarian argument to object to my argument, they must acknowledge that the end of humanity is actually the best possible good. Therefore, the above argument