The Pagan's Christmas Wishes

Die, You Fool, Die!

The following quotation comes from a NYT essay, written by a lecturer in philosophy at Clemson University.  The extract below was re-published in Kiwiblog by David Farrar.

Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and nonhuman animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals. There is just too much torment wreaked upon too many animals and too certain a prospect that this is going to continue and probably increase; it would overwhelm anything we might place on the other side of the ledger. Moreover, those among us who believe that there is such a gap should perhaps become more familiar with the richness of lives of many of our conscious fellow creatures. Our own science is revealing that richness to us, ironically giving us a reason to eliminate it along with our own continued existence.

One might ask here whether, given this view, it would also be a good thing for those of us who are currently here to end our lives in order to prevent further animal suffering. Although I do not have a final answer to this question, we should recognize that the case of future humans is very different from the case of currently existing humans. To demand of currently existing humans that they should end their lives would introduce significant suffering among those who have much to lose by dying. In contrast, preventing future humans from existing does not introduce such suffering, since those human beings will not exist and therefore not have lives to sacrifice.  [Todd May, lecturer in philosophy, Clemson University]

Professor May neatly skirts around a practical problem with the enforced extermination of all humanity: who would do the exterminating?
 The good professor concedes that the demand for present humanity to cease to exist would could too much suffering for those presently alive.  However, we could reduce the suffering and cost significantly, May argues, if we applied this "death to all" to a future generation.  How so?  May does not explain.  Presumably it would involve mass forced sterilization.  How about them apples?

We repeat what we have argued elsewhere in Contra Celsum: when a culture turns away from God, the Creator of all, that culture does not continue to exist in a vacuum.  In the end such a culture will advocate for death to most, if not all.

God is the Creator of all things out of nothing; when He is rejected, cultures of death explode in number and intensity.  How many millions upon millions has the West murdered in utero, whilst rubbing hands in sanctimonious piety.  "It's for the good of all, don't you know?"

How ironic that Todd May's piece would appear in the NYTimes at the Christmas season.  Rarely have world views of death and life been so strongly contrasted.  At Christmas we celebrate the coming of the One who brings life, abundant life.  In the NYTimes, an author is published who seeks to persuade us it would be better for all of us all to die.