After reading the article about whether or not another generation should come to be, I decided that the author brought up many good arguments, but the fact that us being the last is so unrealistic threw me off a little. I think the article would've been more convincing and made me question future life if he hadn't made it sound so brutal and and inhumane.
The first point that made me cringe and differ from the author is when he states that every being suffers and as time goes on we will suffer more and more which will eventually make life too miserable for anyone to endure. Suffering is a part of life, everyone will suffer at some point in time weather it's over an injury, broken heart, loss of family member, or any other dismay in life. But just because we are burdened with suffering doesn't mean I'd rather die instead of work through it. And I don't believe that suffering is going to become worse as the generations pass, in fact, I think there will be less suffering. Technology will be so enhanced in the future that the things that I stated caused suffering before like illness and death will be so rare. Of course there will still be the normal suffering that happens with age and between the sexes but this is only natural. These things build our characters and make us stronger. They are a valid part of our lives and will not increase over time. Suffering depends on an individual, not on a group as a whole.
While reading the article I also realized that this idea questioned my personal religious beliefs. Getting rid of the human race by sterilizing ourselves wouldn't be right. God put us here for a reason and destroying ourselves on purpose would be the worst type of disgrace we could ever show our creator. After looking into what other people thought, I discovered I wasn't the only one that felt this way after reading the article. This article elaborates much more on what I agree with. I hadn't really thought about the factor of love and God's wish for everyone to experience that feeling until I read this article. It is true though, our existence revolves around love. We spend the most time with the people we love and devote our lives to them. They're the people that give us reason and make us fight for our lives when we're put in danger. These people alone, apart from anyone else make life worthy and unforgettable. God created us to have this affection which is why life can't be based on what would scientifically be the best for future generations.
With all that being said, of course there will be new hard ships that every generation has to deal with, but so far there has been nothing that has shut the human race down completely. There would have to be a tragedy so large that would make life impossible for humans to completely go away. Suffering will never become so terrible that we will no longer want to be. And furthermore, sterilization is the most morbid thing I've ever heard of and even though he immediately shoots the idea down, the fact that its even brought up makes me question the authors motives. Our existence is to rich to shut down like that. We are not the last generation and nor should we be no matter what science can say or prove.
"But just because we are burdened with suffering doesn't mean I'd rather die instead of work through it." This is a good point.
ReplyDelete"And I don't believe that suffering is going to become worse as the generations pass, in fact, I think there will be less suffering." This is relying too much on technology as our salvation, I think. It's the myth of modernism -- that society is only going up and up, getting better and better, and I think it is a false myth.
Instead of hyperlinking "this article" give the title and author and main point.
Good to bring in religious beliefs, but be more specific about ethics, and what ethics this would contradict. Point out that Singer is approaching it in a very utilitarian way, about weighing happiness and pain, and you are looking at it from a moral stance: is this right or wrong. Make the change in values more pronounced. Fight him on his basic premise.
"why life can't be based on what would scientifically be the best for future generations. " This also attacks a basic premise of Singer's -- science as the highest evaluation. Build on this more. Give it its own paragraph. That third paragraph contains far too many words and not enough ideas. Strip it down to the two main points (which I mentioned above) and rewrite and expand.
Conclusion feels too wrap-up-y. You've made all these points elsewhere. Cut and use the space to expand on your good points.