Culture Naturalism

The world would be better if we all died?

Spread the love

But for whom?:

Ricky Gervais thinks bees are more important than humans.

The 59-year-old comedian has admitted he believes the world would actually be a “better place” if the human species were to be completely wiped out.

Ricky said: “We are part of nature – we are not above it – we are not in charge. We are not even the most important species.

“If we were wiped out tomorrow the world would be a better place … it would go back and it would be perfect again.”

Microsoft News, “Ricky Gervais: Bees are more important than humans” at MSN

He might be joking but then …

Who said there was ever a perfect world anyway? Perfection is only possible in eternity, not time.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

8 Replies to “The world would be better if we all died?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    It would certainly be different if we weren’t here but whether that necessarily means better is difficult to say. Yes, there is a growing population which requires more food and an adequate supply of water, the atmosphere is being contaminated with pollution from our machines, the seas are being clogged with plastic waste and there is estimated to be around 300, 000 tons of e-waste per year in just the chargers that come with various electronic devices and which we mostly discard. What we have to hope is that eventually we come to realize that we are becoming responsible for managing this environment. If we don’t, if we continue to treat it as somewhere we can casually and thoughtlessly dump our waste then it may be that one day that environment will dump us with as little concern.

  2. 2
    Belfast says:

    @Seversky
    Yeah! Yeah!

  3. 3
    Marfin says:

    I suppose it depends how you define better , which I now challenge the AMats to objectively do.

  4. 4
    BobRyan says:

    I propose those who believe that humans are not the most important species and all should worship nature pool their resources and buy their own country. There are plenty of countries in serious debt that would be willing to sell off part of their land for the right price. Let them live as one with nature to prove their way is better.

    There is a lack of courage when it comes to convictions. It is easier to demand everyone else do something, just so long as they don’t have to do it themselves. China is the number one polluter in the world, yet there is no refusal to buy Chinese made goods by those who claim to be environmentalists. There is no pressure being put on a single government to stop trading with China.

    They much prefer to demonize democratic nations, even though no democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy. They claim to want a world without war, yet fight against those nations who are not inclined to go to war without cause. China, like all Communist/socialist countries, has used military force to take other countries, like Tibet.

  5. 5
    doubter says:

    This movement is against human existence, saying it is better not to have children, for the idealistic reason that it is wrong for humans to be destroying the planet and causing the mass extinction of very many unique living species.

    It’s interesting that there is another anti-human existence movement. The anti-natalists claim that human life is basically a bad idea for the very self-centered reason that to live is to suffer. And suffering is undeniably ubiquitous in human life, often severe and long lasting. Most people if considering the possibility of reincarnation would say, “I’m not coming back here”. So apparently it would be an act of irresponsibility to bring a child into this terrible world. The anti-natalist movement has as one leader philosopher David Benatar.

    I think these currents of thought are linked in part to the deadening and alienating effects of reductive materialism. Nihilism, that there is no meaning, no purpose to life and to die is to be annihilated is basic to this common modern zeitgeist.

  6. 6
    Ed George says:

    Short of physically destroying the planet, we are never going to kill all life on earth. We are far more fragile that much of the life on earth and will die out long before that.

    As mentioned, the big question is what “better” means. If maximum biodiversity is “better”, then the earth would be better without us. If “better” means maximum artistic expression then the world would be “worse” without us. Frankly, I think it is a stupid question.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Gervais has a point. We were given dominion here and we have messed things up, quite a bit. We are arrogant and self-serving. We will be judged and it will be harsh.

  8. 8
    awstar says:

    The World Would Be Better If We All Died

    Who isn’t going to die? Most humans who have ever existed have already died, and things don’t seem to be getting any better. Maybe it’s only certain ideas we carry around with us that need to be wiped out, in order for things to get any better.

Leave a Reply