Should we go extinct? A philosophical dilemma for our unbearable times

In the face of widespread ecological damage, the threat of nuclear war, and other human-wrought ills, might the world "be better off without us," muses philosopher May (A Decent Life) in this stimulating treatise. He begins by tallying up the positives humankind brings to the table, including happiness and "important experiences" that only humans can have with the world (such as appreciating things that are "good" in and of themselves, like a beautiful painting). On the other side of the equation are "the misery we create over and against the experiences of truth, beauty, and the good life" and widespread ecological damages incurred by industrial farming and deforestation. May briefly entertains then debunks several solutions, such as humanity continuing to exist on a smaller scale--though even less-populated, more dispersed communities would eventually find one another and balloon to today's unsustainable population size, he theorizes--before suggesting sensible initiatives, like curtailing factory farming. While the author leaves his central question unanswered and generally refrains from connecting his proposals to concrete action steps, curious readers will appreciate May's ability to translate weighty philosophical concepts with surprising ease and clarity. The result is a lucid treatment of a provocative thought experiment. (Aug.)

A professor of philosophy reflects on whether or not humanity should continue to exist. The early 21st century has been defined by manmade global crises--ecological, political, and economic--that show few signs of abating. In the face of so much suffering and devastation, May, author of A Decent Life, A Fragile Life, and other books of philosophy, dares to ask a disturbing question: Would the end of humanity be a good thing for the planet? He searches for answers in moral philosophy. Some thinkers, including anti-natalist David Benatar, believe that the inevitability of death and suffering cancels out the pleasures of existence, a position against which May argues: "Most humans have lives with more happiness than suffering." More optimistic philosophers like Sarah Buss believe that though not inherently good, human beings still bring value to the world through the sentience that allows them to appreciate things like art "that are good in themselves." In other words, "human beings are valuable, but our value is only instrumental." The stubborn facts remain that happiness is not equitably distributed and that humans, despite their ability to engage with and create the higher goods of "beauty [and] truth," have ravaged the Earth, caused the suffering of other living things--especially the farm animals that sustain them--and created social inequalities that have brought misery to other humans. May posits that population reduction would help the planet and balance the moral scales, as would ending deforestation of rainforests and putting an end to factory farming. Otherwise, "the world might be better off without us," no matter how brilliant the cultures we bring into existence. Thoughtful and accessible, May's book will appeal to anyone seeking ethical insights into the nature and impact of human life in the modern world. A provocative book for readers willing to engage. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.