Hot take: Professor argues in New York Times that human extinction wouldn't be so bad

We wouldn’t have thought the New York Times could have outdone itself after publishing Alice Walker’s recommendation of a book by conspiracy theorist David Icke, who claims Jews bankrolled the Holocaust and control the KKK.

But after reading something like that and realizing that the liberal mainstream won’t bat an eye, you can almost understand another opinion piece they published, this one arguing in favor of human extinction, seeing the damage people cause to the planet and the suffering they cause animals.

I love humanity, except for the people part of it
https://t.co/nEgVDOKbs3

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) December 17, 2018

Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University, writes:

…let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies. Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.

Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.

Recommended

STEALTH ATTACK: While Europeans Sleep, Americans Flood Twitter With Things They Can't Understand

Grateful Calvin

Advertisement

We like how May believes that his claim that “human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth” is “uncontroversial” — he certainly knows his audience, readers of the New York Times. Now they can expand their white guilt to a more diverse human guilt for merely existing.

My response to pieces like this is always, "OK. You first."

— Andy Rigo (@AndyRigo440) December 17, 2018

I love humans so let’s have the misanthropes go first.

— Erin (@Urimountains) December 17, 2018

I have never been so grateful for a paywall.

— Ghini Boy (@dastardFace) December 17, 2018

I'm for the extinction of people who think human extinction would be a good idea.

— Bob Rogers (@BobRtheBassist) December 17, 2018

Extinction. Always the last to know.

— Gus Pickerill (@guspick) December 17, 2018

Self-hating cis-humans.

— Ben Montgomery (@pastorbenmontgo) December 17, 2018

the left is anti-human and they aren't shy about it.

— harrison bergeron (@harrisonberger0) December 17, 2018

But then there’d be no one to report on it. No more Jim Acosta’s to steal the spotlight. Although, the thought of ONLY Jim Acosta surviving would be sweet justice.

— FullMoon ?? (@LIMIT_EVERYONE) December 17, 2018

So true. We can just imagine Omega Man Jim Acosta shouting questions at store mannequins with a prop microphone.

* * *

Update:

And here’s Iowahawk with the finishing blow:

Let's pray extinction spares mankind's greatest hope: second-tier cow college philosophy professors with Corbusier glasses pic.twitter.com/0hjZR7oPWG

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) December 18, 2018

Related:

'SMOD, where are you?' @BillClinton assesses Hillary's Nae Nae, makes us cringe http://t.co/4zZC9uN8Uu

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 10, 2015