>>1608394I'm more or less on board with this except that I think there are certain aspects of human civilisation that were worthwhile. Literature, mainly. I'm very glad that exists. So I can't quite buy into the idea that civilisation as a whole was a mistake. But I can't escape the fact that human civilisation (which involves the mass proliferation of human beings, beyond sustainable levels) is ultimately harmful to the ecological balance of the planet.
My preference would be for a sustainable human existence. In practice we've already gone so far beyond that point that it's not feasible to argue for a return. That would require the voluntary extinction of a large part of the human population, and that will obviously not happen because our entire drive is for self-preservation. I'm not particularly fussed about the well-being of the planet in the long term; it will recover from whatever we inflict on it. But the human race? I think either we'll continue to exploit the rest of the world until there's nothing left (for the time being) but our own dystopia - and that isn't a desirable outcome! - or we consent to our own extinction. The latter will never happen, so it's difficult to be optimistic. Maybe it could have happened if we'd had this revelation before the industrial revolution. But now? No chance.
Ultimately my issue is that I don't think human existence is particularly enjoyable or desirable when it becomes too far separated from a balanced ecosystem. I think we've already gone too far, and the direction of travel is certainly to go further. My main priority is to have a human existence that is desirable, but I'm not sure if this is possible. So extinction seems preferable to continuing to pump the planet full of unpleasant human lives.
Meme answer: I'm somewhere between 'deeper' and 'profoundly deep'. I think I'm okay with voluntary human extinction, but I'm not sure if I can actively advocate for it.
