To me a better question would be whether he has children.
The article itself is thought-provoking and kind of fun. I do kind of wish he had explored the Douglas Adams Corollary--the ethical case for launching a select few off this planet for the planet's own good. I can certainly see how E. Musk would fit into this scheme.
Thank you for these questions and for the kind words about the paper.
First question: my partner and I are indeed childless by choice, but we made that decision long before I started mulling the argument in the paper.
Second: I don't track the Adams reference. Is it some epicycle I've forgotten in HGG? If the idea is that humanity could colonize an uninhabited planet and leave Earth human-free, I'd be for it. I think there are compelling reasons not to colonize other planets (https://philpapers.org/rec/STOHSN) but if the deal was that we wreck up (probably) lifeless Mars in exchange for leaving Earth to find its own human-less equilibrium, I'd take the deal.
It is indeed in HGG. 1/3 of a race of humanoids called the Golgafrinchans are tricked into leaving their planet on a spaceship. Considering that (if the calculations by Oxfam and others are anywhere near correct) the economic top 1% are responsible for more climate change emissions than the bottom 50%, a fairly small spacecraft might suffice for their "golgafrinchanization." It would be palliative at best. But satisfying in its way.
Ah, but how do you know I haven't? I could be a ghost haunting the halls of philosophy, groaning antinatalist arguments into the night. :)
But seriously. I discuss this kind of thought in the paper, though mostly just to point out that there's no way to read it as an objection to the argument I develop there. If you think I'm wrong, and my argument is somehow an argument for suicide, please follow up.
If you want human extinction, why don't you start with yourself?
Now, I don't want you to kill yourself, but this is a genuine question.
To me a better question would be whether he has children.
The article itself is thought-provoking and kind of fun. I do kind of wish he had explored the Douglas Adams Corollary--the ethical case for launching a select few off this planet for the planet's own good. I can certainly see how E. Musk would fit into this scheme.
Thank you for these questions and for the kind words about the paper.
First question: my partner and I are indeed childless by choice, but we made that decision long before I started mulling the argument in the paper.
Second: I don't track the Adams reference. Is it some epicycle I've forgotten in HGG? If the idea is that humanity could colonize an uninhabited planet and leave Earth human-free, I'd be for it. I think there are compelling reasons not to colonize other planets (https://philpapers.org/rec/STOHSN) but if the deal was that we wreck up (probably) lifeless Mars in exchange for leaving Earth to find its own human-less equilibrium, I'd take the deal.
It is indeed in HGG. 1/3 of a race of humanoids called the Golgafrinchans are tricked into leaving their planet on a spaceship. Considering that (if the calculations by Oxfam and others are anywhere near correct) the economic top 1% are responsible for more climate change emissions than the bottom 50%, a fairly small spacecraft might suffice for their "golgafrinchanization." It would be palliative at best. But satisfying in its way.
Ah, but how do you know I haven't? I could be a ghost haunting the halls of philosophy, groaning antinatalist arguments into the night. :)
But seriously. I discuss this kind of thought in the paper, though mostly just to point out that there's no way to read it as an objection to the argument I develop there. If you think I'm wrong, and my argument is somehow an argument for suicide, please follow up.