Its not the end of the world

"It's the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine!"

So sang the American rock band R.E.M. in 1987. At that time, half of the world was still embroiled in the Cold WarA period of diplomatic conflict between blocs led by the USA and the USSR that lasted from 1947 until 1991, when the USSR collapsed. and the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction was ever present.

Today, some say this is becoming a familiar feeling once again. This January, the Doomsday ClockA symbolic timepiece showing how close the world is to ending. If the clock reached midnight, it would mean annihilation. Every year, scientists adjust the time. was moved forward to 90 seconds to midnight. It marks the closest point in human history we have ever been to the end of the world as we know it.

The Doomsday Clock was created in the wake of World War Two to serve as a warning of the dangers we face from war. This year, the inching forward of the clock is in response to multiple major threats to civilisation, including war, disease and climate crisis. And this is not to mention the threat of asteroid strikes or supervolcanoAn unusually large volcano that has had an eruption with a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 8. This means it has the potential to produce an eruption with major effects on the global climate and ecosystem. eruptions.

We would not be the first species on the planet to go extinct, and we certainly would not be the last either. In fact, it is theorised that over 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth have died out.

For most people, the thought of humanity going the same way as the dinosaurs is one that fills them with existential dread. But one philosopher, Emile P Torres, is asking: if the Earth continued to exist without us, would it really be such a bad thing?

Some "pro-extinctionists'' argue that - from a philosophical standpoint at least - the extinction of humanity is preferable to humanity continuing to exist. Some even advocateTo publicly recommend or support a particular cause.  for people to stop having children to ensure this outcome.

They argue that human extinction would also mean the extinction of future suffering. As such, it is the kinder option. But critics point out that it would also destroy all possible future happiness too.

Other pro-extinctionists see the human race as a threat to nature and the Earth. It is easy to see why. In the 300,000 years that humans have existed on Earth, we have caused the extinction of many species, the pollution of land, air and water and catastrophic climate change.

Sci-fi fans will be familiar with the image of a post-human world - a world reclaimed by nature where the Earth has begun to heal itself. Hit video game and TV show The Last of Us depicts a world where cities have been reclaimed by plants and zoo animals roam free. Some ecologists point out that this is more than just a Hollywood plot line: in areas abandoned by humans, such as ChernobylThe disaster, in 1986, involved a meltdown at a nuclear plant in Ukraine., nature flourishes in our absence.

What else would the Earth lose with the end of humanity? Although the human race has been at times responsible for great evil; it is also responsible for great beauty. With the loss of humanity we would also lose the art, the music, the paintings and the poetry that we have created over millennia. The totality of human knowledge, acquired over generations would also cease to exist. And that, argues Torres, would be deeply sad.

Yes: Human life has value. We have a responsibility to protect and preserve our own species for the sake of ourselves and future generations. It would be a tragedy for human hope, happiness and beauty to end.

No: Humans have caused immense suffering and destruction to the planet and other species. Our extinction could be a positive development for the planet.

Or... We need to find a way to exist in harmony with the planet and with each other. Sustainability and equality would mean that the arguments about harm and suffering could be somewhat reduced.