SHOULD HUMANS GO EXTINCT?

The reasons for

“May we live long and die out”

This is the creed of the real Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT). I feature a fictional human extinction organisation in my book, (VEMT) which is based on this one. The premise of VHEMT is the antinatalist philospophy that we should voluntarily stop having children and go extinct to reduce the suffering of people and give the biosphere a chance to recover. VHEMT is a peaceful movement that shies away from confrontation and violent acts because the whole point is that it is voluntary.
Given we are facing the greatest number of conflicts around the world since the Second World War, with 800 million people estimated to be living in extreme poverty and millions more being displaced through climate impacts and war, the evidence is compelling.

The suffering of children
“It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.”
David Benatar, from his book ‘Better Never To Have Been, the Harm of Coming into Existence.’

More than one in six children across the world live in areas affected by conflict, exposed to injury, torture, hunger, violence and exploitation.
Every year, six million children under 15 die from preventable diseases, malnutrition and birth complications. Millions more suffer from illness, mental health issues and abuse.
The UK government estimates that 40% of human trafficking victims are children, forced to work as modern slaves in cities and rural areas, with many being sexually exploited.

“Children do not start wars but they pay the highest price for them. They’re more likely than adults to be killed or maimed by explosive weapons. They lose the protection and care of family members and friends. They’re abducted from their homes, recruited by armed groups and sexually violated.” UNICEF

Our abuse of the planet
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and modern humans have been around for a fraction of that: just 200,000 years. And yet we are now in the Anthropocene, an age characterised by man’s impact on the planet.
We are the only species that has changed the Earth’s systems and been aware of doing so. Humans will have a lasting - and potentially irreversible - influence on our planet, due to pollution, habitat destruction, over-exploitation of natural resources and climate change. Humans have already transformed over 70% of land surfaces and are using three quarters of freshwater resources, precipitating the sixth mass extinction.

Which is why VHEMT argue that it would be better for all concerned if we slipped quietly away and allowed the biosphere and Earth’s other species the space and time to recover.

“The current rate of extinction is between 100 and 1,000 times higher than the pre-human background rate of extinction, which is jaw-dropping. We’re definitely going through a sixth mass extinction.”
Dr Katie Collins, The Natural History Museum

The argument against

“The work of the individual still remains the spark that moves mankind forward”

This is a quote by Albert Einstein. Humans are the smartest, most inventive and self-aware species on the planet (at least we think we are).
Over the space of our brief time on Earth we have worked out how to communicate with each other throughout the world in multiple languages and formats instantaneously, we have been able to eradicate painful, fatal diseases in animals and humans, we have commandeered natural resources for energy and agriculture, and sent humans beneath the oceans, to the top of the highest mountains and into the air and space.
We have the potential to do so much good by using our brains to fix problems and come up with innovative solutions.
The challenge is outweighing the bad consequences of our actions, either deliberate or accidental, with the good.

So if we don’t have children, we risk not bringing a loved child into the world who could have lived a good life and come up with a solution to climate change or over-exploitation of natural resources.

We are aware of the harms we do, and we have the capacity to fix them if we can only make that choice and decide to be responsible stewards of our planet for future generations of humans and other species.
We have the capability to use our science and technology to address problems like climate change and natural resource over-exploitation to ward off future problems, to conserve and protect habitats and biodiversity. There are many examples of initiatives and programmes that have done just that, and been able to restore damaged habitats and reintroduce and support the growth of endangered species.
We also have the knowledge to anticipate and address cosmic threats, such as asteroid impacts, or natural changes to our climate that could wipe out the entire planet.

There could also be an argument made that we have benefited our planet and each other through the development of great music, literature and art. If no humans existed, no one would be left to appreciate the wonders and beauty of our planet and compose art celebrating it.
We have mapped the history of our planet, worked out how it works, and that has been recorded for posterity. If man died out, who would be left to record the changes and address the challenges in our world? All our cumulative acquired knowledge might be lost.

It is a biological imperative for every species to procreate and pass on its genetic legacy. Choosing not to have offspring runs counter to everything we have been genetically programmed to do so. It is a hard concept to voluntarily wipe out your family line, even if you see the moral justification for doing so. Turning your back on family and all the joy that brings is a serious sacrifice. Who will take care of us in our old age?

Indeed, some religions consider it a divine duty to procreate. The Catholic Church forbids contraception because it believes it does not reflect the union the sexual act. There is a belief that it is God’s will that we procreate and bring children into the world in a blessed union.

“With great affection I urge all future mothers: Keep happy and let nothing rob you of the interior joy of motherhood. Your child deserves your happiness. Don’t let fears, worries, other people’s comments or problems lessen your joy at being God’s means of bringing a new life to the world.”
Pope Francis

A healthy balance?

It’s hard not to get caught up in the excitement about potential cures for ageing, and closing the gap between healthspan and lifespan.
But there is a cost to such endeavours. And some fundamental ethical considerations that need to be addressed.

Given the dramatic rise in our global population, projected to exceed 10 billion this century, can the world cope with that many people living twice as long?

How will this play out when natural resources are already under threat, and living space at a premium, on a planet increasingly ravaged by climate change? When we are facing extreme weather events that impact lives and food production, with mass migration, starvation and poverty?
We already require nearly two planet earths to sustain us, what will happen when there are even more people to house and feed?

Is it fair that humans continue monopolising this planet at the expense of other species and habitats, when biodiversity is already plummeting?
You can read more about these environmental risks in my section: Earth Overshoot.

And should medical funding be focused on age reversal when many long-standing preventable diseases are still prevalent in lower income nations such as TB, HIV and malaria, and infant, adolescent and maternal mortality rates are still way too high?

Statistics show that those in lower income brackets have a much higher prevalence of age-related disorders, feeding a vicious cycle of higher unemployment and dependence on benefits.
Who will ensure that everyone gets access to anti-ageing treatments which are likely to be very expensive at the outset, meaning only wealthy individuals or countries can afford them?
Will global regulatory consensus be possible to prevent a deepening of the chasm between rich and poor?

And should medicine be the answer when policy interventions in lifestyle and behaviour changes as well as the supply and marketing of poor quality food could avert many age-related conditions?
Is it right to ‘medicalise’ solutions that could be corrected without expensive new therapies if we ate better, drank and smoked less, and exercised and slept more?

Lastly, what about the impact on society as the old start to vastly outnumber the young?
How will it affect youth employment and housing prospects? Families and relationships? Pensions?
Also our mental wellbeing: can we cope with living and loving that long?

“I’m an optimist. Anyone who believes in manipulating the human aging process is a terrible pessimist.
I don’t want to be alive when that’s possible. I don’t want to give another Adolf Hitler, a Saddam Hussein, another 50 years of life.
Every time someone like that dies a natural death, people should thank their God, whoever that might be, for the phenomenon of aging.”
Leonard Hayflick, biomedical researcher