Thank God, Jesus So Loved the World He Came to Save It — Unlike This Professor Who Thinks the Death of Humanity "Might Just be a Good Thing"

Calvin Freiburger : Dec 26, 2018
LifeSiteNews.com

And to think, the NY Times chose to print this "nihilistic, human-phobic" op-ed at Christmastime. Yes, Virginia, there are real live Grinches in the world.

(Clemson, SC) — [Lifesitenews.com] Another academic pondering the interaction between mankind and the environment has tentatively concluded that the extinction of the human race might be preferable for the planet and its animal inhabitants, making the case this week in the pages of the New York Times. (Photo Credit: LifeSiteNews.com/ Shutterstock)

On Monday, the leading left-wing national newspaper published an op-ed by Clemson University philosophy professor Todd May, who contends that "human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it." Therefore, he suggests, "at least tentatively, both that it would be a tragedy and that it might just be a good thing."

Despite admitting that nature itself is far from peaceful and animals "kill other animals regularly, often in ways that we (although not they) would consider cruel," May claims "there is no other creature in nature whose predatory behavior is remotely as deep or as widespread" as man's, and that there's "no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon."

Human extinction would end the devastation, in his telling, but the only thing keeping that outcome an unqualified good is humanity's "advanced level of reason," capacity for art and science, and ability to "experience wonder at the world in a way that is foreign to most if not all other animals."

Therefore, the professor says human extinction would represent a loss of thought and culture rising to the level of tragedy, yet potentially a tragedy outweighed by the benefits to animals and nature.

"How many human lives would it be worth sacrificing to preserve the existence of Shakespeare's works?" May asks, concluding that a single human life would be too many. "So, then, how much suffering and death of nonhuman life would we be willing to countenance to save Shakespeare, our sciences and so forth?"

Click here to continue reading.

Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here.