What do you think?
Rate this book
Should We Go Extinct?: A Philosophical Dilemma for Our Unbearable Times
Should we bring new humans into the world? Or would it be better off without us? A renowned philosopher and advisor to NBC’s
The Good Place
offers a thoughtful exploration of humanity’s future—or lack thereof.
“For more than five years, Todd May was my philosophical advisor. I heartily recommend that he be yours as well. (It helps that he’s quite funny.)”—Michael Schur, from the Introduction
These days it’s harder than ever to watch TV, scroll social media, or even just sit at home looking out of the window without contemplating the question at the heart of philosopher Todd May’s Should We Go Extinct? Facing climate destruction and the revived specter of nuclear annihilation even as humans continue to cause untold suffering to our fellow creatures on planet Earth, we are forced each day to contemplate whether the world would be better off in our absence.
In this timely, fascinating examination, May, a renowned philosopher and advisor to the acclaimed TV show The Good Place, reasons both for and against the continuation of our species, trying to help us understand how and whether, the positive and negative tallies of the human ledger are comparable, and what conclusions we might draw about ourselves and our future from doing so. He discusses the value that only humans can bring to the world and to one another as well as the goods, like art and music, that would be lost were we no longer here. On the other side of the ledger, he walks us through the suffering we cause to nature and the non-human world, seeking to understand whether it’s possible to justify such suffering against our merits and if not, what changes we could make to reduce the harm we cause.
In this moment of rising pessimism about the future, and as many people wonder whether they should bring children into such a dark and difficult world, the questions May tackles in Should We Go Extinct? are hardly theoretical. As he explores the complexities involved with changes such as an end to factory farming, curbing scientific testing of animals, reducing the human population, and seeking to develop empathy with our fellow creatures, May sketches a powerful framework for establishing our responsibilities as a species and gives hope that we might one day find universal agreement that the answer to his title question should be No.
“For more than five years, Todd May was my philosophical advisor. I heartily recommend that he be yours as well. (It helps that he’s quite funny.)”—Michael Schur, from the Introduction
These days it’s harder than ever to watch TV, scroll social media, or even just sit at home looking out of the window without contemplating the question at the heart of philosopher Todd May’s Should We Go Extinct? Facing climate destruction and the revived specter of nuclear annihilation even as humans continue to cause untold suffering to our fellow creatures on planet Earth, we are forced each day to contemplate whether the world would be better off in our absence.
In this timely, fascinating examination, May, a renowned philosopher and advisor to the acclaimed TV show The Good Place, reasons both for and against the continuation of our species, trying to help us understand how and whether, the positive and negative tallies of the human ledger are comparable, and what conclusions we might draw about ourselves and our future from doing so. He discusses the value that only humans can bring to the world and to one another as well as the goods, like art and music, that would be lost were we no longer here. On the other side of the ledger, he walks us through the suffering we cause to nature and the non-human world, seeking to understand whether it’s possible to justify such suffering against our merits and if not, what changes we could make to reduce the harm we cause.
In this moment of rising pessimism about the future, and as many people wonder whether they should bring children into such a dark and difficult world, the questions May tackles in Should We Go Extinct? are hardly theoretical. As he explores the complexities involved with changes such as an end to factory farming, curbing scientific testing of animals, reducing the human population, and seeking to develop empathy with our fellow creatures, May sketches a powerful framework for establishing our responsibilities as a species and gives hope that we might one day find universal agreement that the answer to his title question should be No.
Audible Audio
Published August 6, 2024
53 people are currently reading
8574 people want to read
About the author
Todd May
28 books202 followersTodd May was born in New York City. He is the author of 18 books of philosophy. He was philosophical advisor to NBC's hit sit-com The Good Place and one of the original contributors to the New York Times philosophy blog The Stone. Todd teaches philosophy at Warren Wilson College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews
November 13, 2024
2.5/5 stars
I was excited for this because this is a question I ask myself (fairly) often. I am comforted by the fact that earth will live on far past humanity’s inevitable demise.
but this really, really fell flat for me.
it was short but so repetitive and lacked to fulfill the potential this discussion could bring. it failed to really mention capitalism, imperialism, slavery, and most other evil human atrocities we commit as a historical collective. I don’t know if the author was under pressure to censor himself or he’s just ignorant but the title’s question was not seriously discussed in the slightest outside of basic environmental concerns you learn in high school. if I read this as a teen who just discovered veganism for the first time, this may have impacted me more. but I wanted more from this than “factory farming = bad but humans make art = good” conversations.
I was excited for this because this is a question I ask myself (fairly) often. I am comforted by the fact that earth will live on far past humanity’s inevitable demise.
but this really, really fell flat for me.
it was short but so repetitive and lacked to fulfill the potential this discussion could bring. it failed to really mention capitalism, imperialism, slavery, and most other evil human atrocities we commit as a historical collective. I don’t know if the author was under pressure to censor himself or he’s just ignorant but the title’s question was not seriously discussed in the slightest outside of basic environmental concerns you learn in high school. if I read this as a teen who just discovered veganism for the first time, this may have impacted me more. but I wanted more from this than “factory farming = bad but humans make art = good” conversations.
August 19, 2024
The title and subtitle say it all.
Taking the very long view, of course we will go extinct, because all species eventually do. This even though we're a weed species, proliferating wildly in all sorts of habitats and crowding out other life forms. But on a humanly appreciable time scale, the practical question whether we should go extinct is moot -- either we will, because we've rendered this planet uninhabitable by carbon-based life forms and haven't mastered the science of terraforming so been unable to decamp to Mars or wherever; or we won't. (My money's on "won't": see "weed species," above.)
As for the moral question, Todd May takes it up from several angles. Humans are mostly more happy than not, or at least there's a case to be made that enough of us experience our lives as more happy than not to argue that the (admittedly not measurable) amount of happiness in the world is increased by the presence of humans. Though what happens, May asks, if inequality becomes even more grotesque than it already is, so happiness is possible for only a very few people?
What about creative work -- art, literature, music? Some nonhuman animals come close to making creative work, but mostly it's only us who make and appreciate it. May thinks it would be tragic if there weren't any humans left to make or engage with art; I can't say I agree with him on that point, because what does "tragedy" mean if no one's feeling it? Still, I admit it makes me sad to think of no one reading or looking at pictures or making quilts or listening to Florence & the Machine anymore.
What, May asks, about the suffering we bring to animals in factory farms and research labs? (The descriptions here of factory-farm conditions are brief but harrowing.) What about the destruction of ecosystems? And so on. Along the way, he presents a number of other philosophers' perspectives on the values he's concerned with, agreeing with some and disputing others. I don't know enough to decide whether he's "right," but for the most part I agree with his views.
May doesn't come down on either side of the question posed by his title. What he does conclude is that it's a live question: that is to say, we humans do so much harm as to make it reasonable to wonder whether maybe we shouldn't be around. So, he concludes, we had better take action that will weight the scale in our favor by making us less inimical to each other and to the other lives on our planet. Less factory meat, less economic inequality, a population stabilizing at a smaller number (equality for women is crucial here, as he and others have pointed out), a crash program to put the brakes on our climate catastrophe ...
How these things are to be accomplished, May doesn't say. I don't criticize him for that -- it would be to criticize this book for not being some other book, i.e. a practical guide to planet rescue, and I agree with him about what steps might make our species worth the preserving. Having said that, I was left thinking how unlikely it is that we'll take those steps. And then thinking that if we don't take them, we really are a plague on this planet. And that if we really are a plague on this planet, well ...
At least Todd May is always worth reading.
Many thanks to Crown Publishing and NetGalley for the ARC.
Taking the very long view, of course we will go extinct, because all species eventually do. This even though we're a weed species, proliferating wildly in all sorts of habitats and crowding out other life forms. But on a humanly appreciable time scale, the practical question whether we should go extinct is moot -- either we will, because we've rendered this planet uninhabitable by carbon-based life forms and haven't mastered the science of terraforming so been unable to decamp to Mars or wherever; or we won't. (My money's on "won't": see "weed species," above.)
As for the moral question, Todd May takes it up from several angles. Humans are mostly more happy than not, or at least there's a case to be made that enough of us experience our lives as more happy than not to argue that the (admittedly not measurable) amount of happiness in the world is increased by the presence of humans. Though what happens, May asks, if inequality becomes even more grotesque than it already is, so happiness is possible for only a very few people?
What about creative work -- art, literature, music? Some nonhuman animals come close to making creative work, but mostly it's only us who make and appreciate it. May thinks it would be tragic if there weren't any humans left to make or engage with art; I can't say I agree with him on that point, because what does "tragedy" mean if no one's feeling it? Still, I admit it makes me sad to think of no one reading or looking at pictures or making quilts or listening to Florence & the Machine anymore.
What, May asks, about the suffering we bring to animals in factory farms and research labs? (The descriptions here of factory-farm conditions are brief but harrowing.) What about the destruction of ecosystems? And so on. Along the way, he presents a number of other philosophers' perspectives on the values he's concerned with, agreeing with some and disputing others. I don't know enough to decide whether he's "right," but for the most part I agree with his views.
May doesn't come down on either side of the question posed by his title. What he does conclude is that it's a live question: that is to say, we humans do so much harm as to make it reasonable to wonder whether maybe we shouldn't be around. So, he concludes, we had better take action that will weight the scale in our favor by making us less inimical to each other and to the other lives on our planet. Less factory meat, less economic inequality, a population stabilizing at a smaller number (equality for women is crucial here, as he and others have pointed out), a crash program to put the brakes on our climate catastrophe ...
How these things are to be accomplished, May doesn't say. I don't criticize him for that -- it would be to criticize this book for not being some other book, i.e. a practical guide to planet rescue, and I agree with him about what steps might make our species worth the preserving. Having said that, I was left thinking how unlikely it is that we'll take those steps. And then thinking that if we don't take them, we really are a plague on this planet. And that if we really are a plague on this planet, well ...
At least Todd May is always worth reading.
Many thanks to Crown Publishing and NetGalley for the ARC.
October 23, 2024
ugh so frustrating
I was so excited for this because I haven't had a philosophy read in a while and I thought the premise was good but I feel like the discussion was so rudimentary and unfinished ?
for one this book stressed the urge for decolonizing philosophy. Hearing different white men (Singer, Descartes, Kant, May) argue over whether the experiences and suffering of animals should matter was so exhausting. And I think it's fine to include the opinions of these white men as they are the faces of philosophy and thought, but at the same time indigenous communities and philosophers have been for centuries stressing alternative perspectives on human-animal-environmental relationships that directly challenge the human-nature dualism embedded in Western thought. A perspective where the planet and all life on the earth should be accepted as living and necessary to maintain regardless of the so called "intellectual capacity" we attribute to them. Taking these prominent European figures points as fact without inclusion of an opposing notion acts in bad faith here. And this is not a problem of the individual author of the book, philosophy as a subject tends to vocalize and spread the 'historic' ideas of the wealthy white educated men, but reading this book reminded me of that problem.
for two there is a focus on happiness as to why humans should continue to exist (maximize happiness whatnot) but there seems to be a lack of inclusion of other values especially “goodness” and “badness.” it seems like a world with a lot of happiness but a lot of badness or moral impurity would be at odds even under the utilitarian framework
for three the book centers mostly on human experience (and to some extent the animal experience), but it should ultimately confront an existential question that arises from an ecological crisis humans created. How should humanity respond to a planet we've pushed to its limits? In this framing, a main perspective should be that of the planet's considering it is bearing the harms of human related offenses. the human perspective is definitely to be considered, but the centering of the conversation solely around humans and human needs seems so selfish for this type of discussion.
On page 60, the author addresses this by saying that approaching this question from a human perspective is inevitable, since we're the only species capable of contemplating our own extinction. However, I would push back against this bc it’s anthropocentric-the very crisis that prompts this discussion stems from prioritizing human perspectives over the Earth. i do think it was brave of him to say he didn't care ab animals till a couple years ago but that also clarifies a lot of his perspective to me.
also interesting that he doesn’t ever mention the word capitalism. much of the animal-planet suffering can be attributed to profits over value driven ideology and it seems purposeful or ideologically biased to omit that discussion explicitly. In fear of being radical this book lands upon being liberal
todd if you're reading this I'm sorry I didn't agree w your book but I did like the conversational style and I did finish it! would love to chat sorry I'm harsh
I was so excited for this because I haven't had a philosophy read in a while and I thought the premise was good but I feel like the discussion was so rudimentary and unfinished ?
for one this book stressed the urge for decolonizing philosophy. Hearing different white men (Singer, Descartes, Kant, May) argue over whether the experiences and suffering of animals should matter was so exhausting. And I think it's fine to include the opinions of these white men as they are the faces of philosophy and thought, but at the same time indigenous communities and philosophers have been for centuries stressing alternative perspectives on human-animal-environmental relationships that directly challenge the human-nature dualism embedded in Western thought. A perspective where the planet and all life on the earth should be accepted as living and necessary to maintain regardless of the so called "intellectual capacity" we attribute to them. Taking these prominent European figures points as fact without inclusion of an opposing notion acts in bad faith here. And this is not a problem of the individual author of the book, philosophy as a subject tends to vocalize and spread the 'historic' ideas of the wealthy white educated men, but reading this book reminded me of that problem.
for two there is a focus on happiness as to why humans should continue to exist (maximize happiness whatnot) but there seems to be a lack of inclusion of other values especially “goodness” and “badness.” it seems like a world with a lot of happiness but a lot of badness or moral impurity would be at odds even under the utilitarian framework
for three the book centers mostly on human experience (and to some extent the animal experience), but it should ultimately confront an existential question that arises from an ecological crisis humans created. How should humanity respond to a planet we've pushed to its limits? In this framing, a main perspective should be that of the planet's considering it is bearing the harms of human related offenses. the human perspective is definitely to be considered, but the centering of the conversation solely around humans and human needs seems so selfish for this type of discussion.
On page 60, the author addresses this by saying that approaching this question from a human perspective is inevitable, since we're the only species capable of contemplating our own extinction. However, I would push back against this bc it’s anthropocentric-the very crisis that prompts this discussion stems from prioritizing human perspectives over the Earth. i do think it was brave of him to say he didn't care ab animals till a couple years ago but that also clarifies a lot of his perspective to me.
also interesting that he doesn’t ever mention the word capitalism. much of the animal-planet suffering can be attributed to profits over value driven ideology and it seems purposeful or ideologically biased to omit that discussion explicitly. In fear of being radical this book lands upon being liberal
todd if you're reading this I'm sorry I didn't agree w your book but I did like the conversational style and I did finish it! would love to chat sorry I'm harsh
February 2, 2025
This is an interesting primer addressing a question that seems to cross my mind a lot lately. It’s very short, so it’s more of a “food for thought” philosophy book as opposed to being comprehensive or dense or theoretical. It’s well-written and kept me engaged even though I usually shy away from philosophy. However, I don’t understand why colonisation is brought up but capitalism isn’t - are economic systems beyond moral consideration? I also wish there was a little more discussion of why the idea of happiness is important as something that humanity experiences and contributes to the world. This comes up a lot but I’m left wondering, in the grand scheme of things, what even is happiness and why is it a compelling reason in favour of continuing humanity?
August 12, 2024
I’ve been so bored with books recently and there haven’t been many good releases, but Todd May saved the day once again. I fell in love with Todd May when I read How to Be Perfect, which was written by the create of The Good Place. May is a down-to-Earth moral philosopher, and that’s hard to find. He explores big ideas about morality in an accessible way, and this book is one that may be controversial, but Todd does a great job discussing a difficult topic.
The book title says the main question of this book: Should humans go extinct? We do a lot of bad on this planet and are destroying it. The way we affect the planet is harming the environment, which harms nature, animals, and other humans. So, Todd asks if this planet would be better off if we all just died tomorrow.
Again, this is a heavy topic that. I’m sure people who aren’t fans of philosophy would hate this book, but I loved it. Todd goes through a lot of different arguments from various philosophers who attempted to tackle this question. He explores each one and gives the reader a lot to think about.
One of my favorite quotes from the book was, “If we can’t find a way to be morally sensitive in this world, this world may be better off without us.” He’s not saying we should go extinct, but he argues that we should do better to justify us being here in the first place.
This book was the exact opposite of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by a right-winger who is paid by Big Oil to schill for them. That book was absolutely atrocious, and this book is what people should read instead.
The book title says the main question of this book: Should humans go extinct? We do a lot of bad on this planet and are destroying it. The way we affect the planet is harming the environment, which harms nature, animals, and other humans. So, Todd asks if this planet would be better off if we all just died tomorrow.
Again, this is a heavy topic that. I’m sure people who aren’t fans of philosophy would hate this book, but I loved it. Todd goes through a lot of different arguments from various philosophers who attempted to tackle this question. He explores each one and gives the reader a lot to think about.
One of my favorite quotes from the book was, “If we can’t find a way to be morally sensitive in this world, this world may be better off without us.” He’s not saying we should go extinct, but he argues that we should do better to justify us being here in the first place.
This book was the exact opposite of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by a right-winger who is paid by Big Oil to schill for them. That book was absolutely atrocious, and this book is what people should read instead.
Read
September 4, 2025why was I, a vegetarian sitting down to read a book called should we go extinct?, so surprised to discover just how much it was about animal rights? as ever, I am but a humble dumbass.
thoughtful pop philosophy. raises all the questions and gives you as many facts as possible but lets you draw your own conclusions. or, well, at least, doesn't state its conclusions explicitly.
this isn't something that is directly explored in this book, but I do think that sometimes people pretend (or even truly believe) that ecofascism and speciesism are the only ways of deciding how heavily various lives should weigh (or be weighed by anubis, etc.), like somehow those are two poles and that's it and there's nothing else? nobody asked me and this feels like something that would probably be a bad idea for me to say if I were a public figure because it seems like it could be spun really badly really easily, but this book talks a lot about like, the math of suffering, basically, and I do personally think that in my own reckoning I would value the lives of those who have been harmed over those who have done harm, but I would not inherently value human life over other animal life. and maybe you're like, "cait, nobody is saying that you have to do that," but I did one hundred percent once see somebody state with utter certainty that oppressed humans MUST be valued more highly than any and all other animals, and it's taken me a really long time to work out that I don't think I agree with that! asking "does this make sense???" feels like a cheap trick, so I will say instead that if you have a thoughtful response about why this line of thinking is wrong I would genuinely welcome hearing it!!!
anyway. I think a lot about basically being asked, as a whole class, to workshop a professor's memoir in undergrad, which felt and still feels like a weird move, but I think that if I were to reread her memoir today I would agree with her central theses a lot more. her assertion that her experiences with marginalization and oppression made her more and less likely to lean away from speciesism as well as a particular line about eating animal products being an act of 'feeding on suffering' or 'the taste of suffering' or something (I've forgotten the exact quote but not the way it made me feel) still rattle around in my brain, and I feel like I A) respected her less than she deserved back then and B) respect her more now in retrospect.
thoughtful pop philosophy. raises all the questions and gives you as many facts as possible but lets you draw your own conclusions. or, well, at least, doesn't state its conclusions explicitly.
this isn't something that is directly explored in this book, but I do think that sometimes people pretend (or even truly believe) that ecofascism and speciesism are the only ways of deciding how heavily various lives should weigh (or be weighed by anubis, etc.), like somehow those are two poles and that's it and there's nothing else? nobody asked me and this feels like something that would probably be a bad idea for me to say if I were a public figure because it seems like it could be spun really badly really easily, but this book talks a lot about like, the math of suffering, basically, and I do personally think that in my own reckoning I would value the lives of those who have been harmed over those who have done harm, but I would not inherently value human life over other animal life. and maybe you're like, "cait, nobody is saying that you have to do that," but I did one hundred percent once see somebody state with utter certainty that oppressed humans MUST be valued more highly than any and all other animals, and it's taken me a really long time to work out that I don't think I agree with that! asking "does this make sense???" feels like a cheap trick, so I will say instead that if you have a thoughtful response about why this line of thinking is wrong I would genuinely welcome hearing it!!!
anyway. I think a lot about basically being asked, as a whole class, to workshop a professor's memoir in undergrad, which felt and still feels like a weird move, but I think that if I were to reread her memoir today I would agree with her central theses a lot more. her assertion that her experiences with marginalization and oppression made her more and less likely to lean away from speciesism as well as a particular line about eating animal products being an act of 'feeding on suffering' or 'the taste of suffering' or something (I've forgotten the exact quote but not the way it made me feel) still rattle around in my brain, and I feel like I A) respected her less than she deserved back then and B) respect her more now in retrospect.
it is not simply the privileged who are engaged in deforestation, or even who support policies that foster it. it is not only the privileged who benefit from scientific experimentation on other animals, often for ends that are not really necessary to us.
March 29, 2025
3.5
Should we go extinct?
Yeah dude, like, maybe.
Should we go extinct?
Yeah dude, like, maybe.
May 18, 2025
As someone who recently started eating meat again after 6 years, I chose the wrong time to read this book lmao
July 21, 2024
What is the true value of human life?
In the Acknowledgments section of Should We Go Extinct? , author Todd May acknowledges “This book is emotionally, not an easy read.” He certainly got that right! This book explores the effects that humans have on the world, the good and the bad, and ponders whether the world would be better off without us.
Certainly humans cause damage to the world and other life. The climate crisis and nuclear destruction are discussed, and a number of other damages. The discussion of factory farm animal treatment was so disturbing I seriously pondered becoming a vegetarian. He acknowledges that many of the harms also have benefits and admits we have to evaluate whether the harm is justified, e.g., deforestation hurts animals but typically makes life easier for humans. We have to make choices. Some of his analyses were very thought-provoking, especially an example of a severe fire breaking out in a museum that houses priceless works of art that give happiness to many people. If we can save the few humans in the building or the artwork that provokes a lot of happiness in the observers, what should we do? Most people would save the humans, but suppose the museum were full of farm animals instead? He sets up some tough choices that made me stop and think.
The emphasis in the book is on the harm humans do to other life, but May also takes into account the good we do and the happiness we have and bring to other species. He explores meaningfulness in life and whether adding happiness would actually make the world better.
He talks about ways to mitigate our damage, like environmental stewardship, but this is not a work stressing the scientific details of problems like climate control or the ways we can address them. He explores more fully humancentric approaches such as a smaller population or improving the lives of those with hardships. Even there the answer is not obvious--- if the additional humans are happy, do they outweigh any damage they cause?
May is a philosopher, and he casts his analysis in that mode. He explores concepts like utilitarianism, deontology, and pluralism and the theories of philosophers like John Stuart Mill, David Benatar, and Kant. He explores what we mean by the ”value” of human life.
Although this is certainly a serious work, May adds an occasional light touch of humor that mitigates the distress much of his discussion causes. That and his clear concern for the planet conveyed a sense to me that the author is a nice guy; I suspect it would be enjoyable to meet him in person and explore his ideas further.
In conclusion, May says that even if we cannot know whether the continuation of our species is a good thing, we do know things we can do to make it better. As someone who wants to stay around as long as I can and have the same wish for present and future life of all sorts, I certainly hope we pursue most of the remedies he recommends.
I received an advance review copy of this book from Edelweiss and Crown Publishing.
In the Acknowledgments section of Should We Go Extinct? , author Todd May acknowledges “This book is emotionally, not an easy read.” He certainly got that right! This book explores the effects that humans have on the world, the good and the bad, and ponders whether the world would be better off without us.
Certainly humans cause damage to the world and other life. The climate crisis and nuclear destruction are discussed, and a number of other damages. The discussion of factory farm animal treatment was so disturbing I seriously pondered becoming a vegetarian. He acknowledges that many of the harms also have benefits and admits we have to evaluate whether the harm is justified, e.g., deforestation hurts animals but typically makes life easier for humans. We have to make choices. Some of his analyses were very thought-provoking, especially an example of a severe fire breaking out in a museum that houses priceless works of art that give happiness to many people. If we can save the few humans in the building or the artwork that provokes a lot of happiness in the observers, what should we do? Most people would save the humans, but suppose the museum were full of farm animals instead? He sets up some tough choices that made me stop and think.
The emphasis in the book is on the harm humans do to other life, but May also takes into account the good we do and the happiness we have and bring to other species. He explores meaningfulness in life and whether adding happiness would actually make the world better.
He talks about ways to mitigate our damage, like environmental stewardship, but this is not a work stressing the scientific details of problems like climate control or the ways we can address them. He explores more fully humancentric approaches such as a smaller population or improving the lives of those with hardships. Even there the answer is not obvious--- if the additional humans are happy, do they outweigh any damage they cause?
May is a philosopher, and he casts his analysis in that mode. He explores concepts like utilitarianism, deontology, and pluralism and the theories of philosophers like John Stuart Mill, David Benatar, and Kant. He explores what we mean by the ”value” of human life.
Although this is certainly a serious work, May adds an occasional light touch of humor that mitigates the distress much of his discussion causes. That and his clear concern for the planet conveyed a sense to me that the author is a nice guy; I suspect it would be enjoyable to meet him in person and explore his ideas further.
In conclusion, May says that even if we cannot know whether the continuation of our species is a good thing, we do know things we can do to make it better. As someone who wants to stay around as long as I can and have the same wish for present and future life of all sorts, I certainly hope we pursue most of the remedies he recommends.
I received an advance review copy of this book from Edelweiss and Crown Publishing.
May 13, 2025
Overall and pessimistically, I don’t think we as humans even deserve the opportunity to ask the titular question; we are in no position to even weigh the pros and cons. After all, did we ask any of the species we drove to extinction whether they thought they should keep on existing? And consider their happiness and pursuit of the “good life” in that process? The author uses the scales of happiness a lot as a measurement for whether something is good or bad, but I don’t think that’s the right measurement to be using. Whether we should go extinct or not has nothing to do with our happiness and everything to do with valuing the planet.
He poses a question at the beginning of the book, something along the lines of, “If Earth’s non-human species got together and were asked whether humans should go extinct, what would they say?” It’s hard to envision a scenario where any one species would stand up for us and our existence, especially considering how many species we have driven and will drive into extinction. The book should have stopped there. His contemplation represents the sheer hubris and selfishness of humans.
He keeps going back to this idea of a world without humans and how it would be a world without richness— that is, without happiness, reason, art, beauty, and truth— and that that would inherently be a loss overall. But that view completely fails to recognize that there is no need for any of those things. Animals may experience happiness, sure, but they don’t need happiness or reason or art to be functioning contributors to their ecosystems and the Earth overall. A loss of those things would be a loss to us, but our non-existence would be a net gain to all other species.
Further, his discussion of animal sentience is less than surface-level. He contemplates the “richness” of the human experience compared to that of non-human species, but fails to acknowledge that we are the only ones in the position to even weigh these against each other. Dogs and pigs and cows aren’t sitting around trying to figure out how they can argue that their lives are more rich or have more depth than human lives— so why should we be able to? Who are we to play God?
Lastly, he argues that ceasing human existence would deplete the meaningfulness of life that current humans experience. But once again, he ignores the fact that the world doesn’t revolve around humans. We shouldn’t get to ruin the planet and its animal and plant inhabitants just so we can “live meaningfully.” Other species don’t get that choice, so neither should we.
He poses a question at the beginning of the book, something along the lines of, “If Earth’s non-human species got together and were asked whether humans should go extinct, what would they say?” It’s hard to envision a scenario where any one species would stand up for us and our existence, especially considering how many species we have driven and will drive into extinction. The book should have stopped there. His contemplation represents the sheer hubris and selfishness of humans.
He keeps going back to this idea of a world without humans and how it would be a world without richness— that is, without happiness, reason, art, beauty, and truth— and that that would inherently be a loss overall. But that view completely fails to recognize that there is no need for any of those things. Animals may experience happiness, sure, but they don’t need happiness or reason or art to be functioning contributors to their ecosystems and the Earth overall. A loss of those things would be a loss to us, but our non-existence would be a net gain to all other species.
Further, his discussion of animal sentience is less than surface-level. He contemplates the “richness” of the human experience compared to that of non-human species, but fails to acknowledge that we are the only ones in the position to even weigh these against each other. Dogs and pigs and cows aren’t sitting around trying to figure out how they can argue that their lives are more rich or have more depth than human lives— so why should we be able to? Who are we to play God?
Lastly, he argues that ceasing human existence would deplete the meaningfulness of life that current humans experience. But once again, he ignores the fact that the world doesn’t revolve around humans. We shouldn’t get to ruin the planet and its animal and plant inhabitants just so we can “live meaningfully.” Other species don’t get that choice, so neither should we.
September 12, 2024
This was not a philosophical text. This was an insufferable dinner party conversation with a point by point take down of an argument no one ever made or even ever would make. Reads like the discourse between two teenagers in the back of an intro to philosophy class who are only there bc their preferred class was already full enrolled. Who haven’t yet realized they aren’t the smartest people in the room, even a little, that all moms just treat their kids like that. There is nothing of substance in this whole book. Skip it.
March 31, 2025
I feel like this book was holding my hand a bit too much. Its style feels tailored towards readers with short attention spans, or maybe even a YA crowd. It circles the title's question, "should we go extinct" through various angles, but doesn't dig too deep into any specific territory.
There were some genuinely enjoyable sections. I especially liked the discussion surrounding human happiness versus animal happiness, which added some nuance. It's also easy to appreciate how Todd May takes an earnest look at some of the damage humanity causes, and this is what kept me invested, despite the book ultimately leaving the answer open-ended.
This felt like a 3-star read. Certainly accessible and intriguing but mostly repetitive. I'd recommend this to a high schooler interested in philosophy.
There were some genuinely enjoyable sections. I especially liked the discussion surrounding human happiness versus animal happiness, which added some nuance. It's also easy to appreciate how Todd May takes an earnest look at some of the damage humanity causes, and this is what kept me invested, despite the book ultimately leaving the answer open-ended.
This felt like a 3-star read. Certainly accessible and intriguing but mostly repetitive. I'd recommend this to a high schooler interested in philosophy.
January 8, 2025
Picked this one up while visiting Toronto & while I thought it was going to be a bleak one (it kinda was, rightfully so) but it was also good for a perspective shift. While the answer to the title’s question is “no”, the real answer is that eventually we will, like all species do, go extinct. It is just a matter of how we either speed that up or slow it down; this book goes into topics like climate change, population, food availability, etc. Overall an interesting read if you’re in need of some philosophical thinking.
April 30, 2025
"maybe instead of asking whether we will come to justify our future existence, we should ask instead whether we are willing to try"
August 13, 2024
Like Derrick Parfit in my last book, this author explores whether human existence can be justified by measuring, more or less, happiness. Why philosophers thought one could measure the aggregation of happiness as if something so highly subjective and capricious could be universally measured and quantifiable. And arrogantly across species no less!
I am only halfway through the book but writing this now because it is such an annoying and futile read. If the author ever gets to a sound argument addressing the question in the title, one that isn’t human centered but rather Earth systems based and based on actual data, not hypotheticals, I likely will be even more disappointed that I wasted so much time in the drivel leading to it.
Bottom line: the Earth has a single species that consumes enough natural resources annually that the same species is pushing certain planetary boundary limits to a point that greatly modifies the ability of a much larger number of species to continue to exist is significantly threatened. Along the way, that single species already is causing the extinction of a large number of other species, in addition to the group previously mentioned. The ability of the planet to support that single species in any great numbers may also be threatened.
If that single species, which, by the way, prides itself for being so particularly clever — a point evident in the writing style of this book even — cannot stop itself from behaving this way in regard to the rest of the planet, should that species go extinct as Mr. May asks? Happiness doesn’t enter into it.
But neither, yet, does anything resembling an evidence-based, data driven approach to the title question.
If college humanities departments are in trouble, one might see a glimpse as to why in both of my most recent reads. There may be moral and ethical issues at play here but hard science and common sense should be more convincing it seems given the nature of the crises we have, I mean that single species has, created.
I finished the book but I recommend others to give this one a miss as well as the Parfit bio.
I am only halfway through the book but writing this now because it is such an annoying and futile read. If the author ever gets to a sound argument addressing the question in the title, one that isn’t human centered but rather Earth systems based and based on actual data, not hypotheticals, I likely will be even more disappointed that I wasted so much time in the drivel leading to it.
Bottom line: the Earth has a single species that consumes enough natural resources annually that the same species is pushing certain planetary boundary limits to a point that greatly modifies the ability of a much larger number of species to continue to exist is significantly threatened. Along the way, that single species already is causing the extinction of a large number of other species, in addition to the group previously mentioned. The ability of the planet to support that single species in any great numbers may also be threatened.
If that single species, which, by the way, prides itself for being so particularly clever — a point evident in the writing style of this book even — cannot stop itself from behaving this way in regard to the rest of the planet, should that species go extinct as Mr. May asks? Happiness doesn’t enter into it.
But neither, yet, does anything resembling an evidence-based, data driven approach to the title question.
If college humanities departments are in trouble, one might see a glimpse as to why in both of my most recent reads. There may be moral and ethical issues at play here but hard science and common sense should be more convincing it seems given the nature of the crises we have, I mean that single species has, created.
I finished the book but I recommend others to give this one a miss as well as the Parfit bio.
November 16, 2024
Quite disappointed that the book didn’t even mention that the disutility of 1 unit of pain > the utility of 1 unit of pleasure. Seems like a pretty fundamental concept in utilitarian calculus and the philosophy of welfare field
Also him stating that veganism is not sustainable without giving any explanation when it’s financially, environmentally and morally more sustainable than any other lifestyle….ok
‘Recognising our place in nature and the interests of other animals does not require that we always act so as to meet those interests’. What? Sorry but this is way too lazy. It is definitely required. It is another matter whether you achieve it or not but the moral imperative is undoubtedly there
All in all, good this book exists - I like the acknowledgment of the suffering we cause and the mention to Descartes being an a-hole - but it still ignores a lot of the suffering humans cause to each other, doesn’t push its own arguments far enough and it’s too complacent to my liking
Also him stating that veganism is not sustainable without giving any explanation when it’s financially, environmentally and morally more sustainable than any other lifestyle….ok
‘Recognising our place in nature and the interests of other animals does not require that we always act so as to meet those interests’. What? Sorry but this is way too lazy. It is definitely required. It is another matter whether you achieve it or not but the moral imperative is undoubtedly there
All in all, good this book exists - I like the acknowledgment of the suffering we cause and the mention to Descartes being an a-hole - but it still ignores a lot of the suffering humans cause to each other, doesn’t push its own arguments far enough and it’s too complacent to my liking
August 12, 2024
Yes!
As a big fan of the environmental King himself, Thanos, that's my take away from the question: "Should We Go Extinct".
The author goes about asking if the elimination of the human "species would bring about a better outcome than our continuing to propagate and exist"? He includes many examples of how humans are ruining the planet alongside reasons we "improve" the planet. I found the improvements all to benefit only humans though ("Wouldn't the world be impoverished without the experiences of creating and appreciating beauty, truth, and the possibilities of a good life?"). If humans weren't around, these things wouldn't be missed and animals would go about enjoying their homes sans deforestation and pollution. He also states that "the world would become a bit hollowed out; it would lose some of its richness" but I think only in the human sense. It would gain so much more without.
Despite my feelings on this, I feel the author left it open to the reader to decide their own feelings. He lays out the information in a clear concise way and leaves it open. He concludes that there are reasons on both sides of the argument and if we are to remain on this planet we need to make changes to minimize our harm and destruction of the environment and other animals. All in all I enjoyed it.
3.75 stars
Thank you NetGalley for the opportunity to read this book for my honest review.
As a big fan of the environmental King himself, Thanos, that's my take away from the question: "Should We Go Extinct".
The author goes about asking if the elimination of the human "species would bring about a better outcome than our continuing to propagate and exist"? He includes many examples of how humans are ruining the planet alongside reasons we "improve" the planet. I found the improvements all to benefit only humans though ("Wouldn't the world be impoverished without the experiences of creating and appreciating beauty, truth, and the possibilities of a good life?"). If humans weren't around, these things wouldn't be missed and animals would go about enjoying their homes sans deforestation and pollution. He also states that "the world would become a bit hollowed out; it would lose some of its richness" but I think only in the human sense. It would gain so much more without.
Despite my feelings on this, I feel the author left it open to the reader to decide their own feelings. He lays out the information in a clear concise way and leaves it open. He concludes that there are reasons on both sides of the argument and if we are to remain on this planet we need to make changes to minimize our harm and destruction of the environment and other animals. All in all I enjoyed it.
3.75 stars
Thank you NetGalley for the opportunity to read this book for my honest review.
October 10, 2024
Great premise, but so, so dull to get through, and an unnecessarily long detour through animal rights at the end. My main question going into this was whether or not I should have kids, and I don't feel like that was answered well. I assumed that would be the majority of the book, but Todd May took it in an interesting direction, assuming that people will continue to have kids no matter what, so how can we live more morally on Earth and try to make our world last longer. Wasn't exactly what I was hoping for.
August 11, 2024
Someone should write a book "Should we make the Todd Mays extinct?"
September 26, 2024
The author is an excellent writer and popularizer of philosophical thinking. The book may dwell just a little too much on animal rights, though certainly the topic deserves its own May book.
April 9, 2025
5/10
Interesting book. Very philosopher-debate driven. It takes a real special kind of freak to enjoy making arguments this way and I am one of those freaks. I gotta say, though, I disagree with Todd May's approach quite often. I don't disagree too much on the case being made. I'm vegetarian and very aware of animal suffering. I'm a believer in climate change and I try to educate myself on how we pollute the world and how it affects animals, poor & minority communities, etc. I try to educate myself on the disproportionate suffering we cause and in what ways we cause it and to whom we cause it. But this entire approach for a practical conversation about the extinction of the human race starts off wrong and never course corrects. I thought about (but chose not to) making a list of issues I have as I read the book. I decided against it because the list would've been time consuming and I would've been able to write my own book just on my responses to the author. That said, there's a few things that have stayed in my mind as I finish this book that I'd like to challenge.
1. The focus on animal suffering. Again, I'm a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian not for health reasons but entirely for moral reasons. I struggle morally with not being a vegan yet. I'm sympathetic to all of May's concerns but the simple truth is people largely don't care. Information on factory farming and the suffering we cause animals isn't hidden. It's easily accessible and plentiful. People just do not care. Will that change over years, decades, centuries? Hopefully. But that brings me to two further points: should we consider whether the human species will become more moral (cause less suffering) as it progresses, and if we are tackling this extinction problem from a practical standpoint whereby we consider whether we should and how we would go extinct, then doesn't the lack of sympathy towards animal suffering dictate that it simply is a non-factor in this issue?
2. May writes about this topic within the bubble of the present. Not much consideration is given to the past happiness and suffering (slavery, crusades, genocides, the list goes on forever) or the future changes the human species might make (some attention is given to this but it's also mostly looking at the immediate future). May briefly explains that we don't give consideration to the future humans because they do not exist yet and therefore have no suffering or happiness but we can be practical and say a considerable number of humans will exist in the future. Will we have another world war? Will we take Earth's climate to a point of no return? Will we use our technological advancements to uplift the poor and make the floor of the human condition one that everyone can enjoy or will we use it to further the divide between the haves and the have-nots? Objectively the world has gotten both better and worse as technology has advanced. We've found cures for illnesses. Our lives have gotten easier than the days of farming from sun-up to sun-down without machinery. Our lifespans have gotten longer. We've found ways to give disabled people a higher quality of life. We've been able to connect with people around the world and talk to complete strangers who speak another language. We've also used our technological advancements to create factories for child labor, build drones to kill people from miles away, invented the atomic bomb and used it on civilian populations (again, briefly mentioned but never dissected as an issue because the focus is almost entirely on animal suffering and the climate crisis). A hundred years from now, does our technology continue to advance and how do we use it? What about a thousand years from now? Does this then outweigh all the suffering, or does it make the case for human extinction stronger? Lots to think about here but never discussed. I have my thoughts but again I don't want to write my own book.
3. If humans have to choose to go extinct, then shouldn't the suffering of living things we don't collectively care about not matter? If humanity at large doesn't care if a pig suffers so long as we can eat bacon then does it matter for the purposes of this discussion? May says we aren't discussing whether we deserve to go extinct, rather whether we actually should, from a practical standpoint, go extinct. He approaches this practically and discusses the ways in which we might go extinct (including mass suicide which he immediately rejects). Very little attention is given to the harm humans cause other humans outside of the climate crisis. No attention (outside of a passing comment) is given to the genocides we see going on, the wars throughout the world, the drone strikes Western countries inflict on civilian populations in the Middle East. This entire book is a facade to make the case that we should live more ethical lives in favor of treating animals better and fixing the climate catastrophe. While it starts out as this, it's not actually a philosophical book approaching the topic of whether or not humanity should go extinct.
4. May touches on art early on in the book. He seems to conclude that the value to art is people enjoying it. I would heavily push back and say that people get very little happiness from seeing the Mona Lisa. Sure, the happiness people get isn't 0. But it's not like many people find genuine happiness in it or lasting happiness. I would argue the happiness largely comes from making art. When I go see a movie it makes me happy, sure. But a minuscule amount. Even my favorite movie, John Carpenter's The Thing, only provides me so much happiness. Most of my happiness comes from discussing the movie with other people, engaging in the fandom, etc. It's other people that make me happy through the movie as a tool to create that community. But the real bulk of the happiness The Thing itself generated is from the people who made it in the moment. It's why people enjoy doodling or painting on their free time even if they're not good at it and never share it with the world. It's why struggling artists with only 87 followers on Instagram keep making art. The happiness comes from the creation, not the viewing from afar.
5. May says we have experiences as humans that animals are incapable of having. I would challenge that as, at best, unproven, and at worst, demonstrably untrue. He notes that animals can experience love the way we do, among some other experiences. But can animals experience the beauty of nature the way we do when we walk through a mountain trail? Who says they don't? Who says they don't see and experience and appreciate the beauty of the world around them? Can animals experience the beauty of art? Who says they don't? Many animals have mating rituals in which they use their voice, fighting abilities, dance moves, etc to impress their prospective mate. Can animals experience science? Who says they don't? They evolve. They build and learn to build better tools, habitats, houses, nests. They engage in trial and error. They figure out how gravity works and use it to their advantage to get food. They learn what predators can't climb trees and how best to sneak up on various prey.
The way I see it, this question of whether we should go extinct boils down to 3 sides. I'll note that we separate ourselves from nature. We define nature as all the plants and animals surviving in the world as they would. Technically humans are doing the same thing (and thriving - sort of) but we separate ourselves from what we perceive nature to be. I believe that is because we view our lives, existence, technology, and everything as unnatural (or supernatural if you prefer that word). So these 3 sides are on the basis of the traditional definition of nature that doesn't include humans in it. One: if humans cause any harm to even one living thing, human existence is not justified. Two: if humans can create pure, true happiness or experience true love or any other extremely strong, positive emotion similar then human existence is justified no matter the harm it may cause. Three: Humans deserve to live because we are humans and we don't want to die. May touches on (and largely rejects, though in a different context) speciesism but I think most people are speciesists and that's important for this conversation. They believe in human superiority simply because they are humans. Again, May wants to approach this question from a human point of view rather than an objective view of whether our existence is justified. So I think we need to consider that most humans simply don't care. They believe in human superiority and the fact that they are humans means humans should not go extinct. Now if we try to tackle this question from an objective standpoint (I understand objectivity is impossible but it doesn't stop people from trying) then I think this book makes many good arguments. I think May simply loses the plot and gets too focused on his perspective rather than the human perspective collectively which leads him to almost exclusively focus on animal suffering (which again it's clear the human race largely doesn't care about).
In the end, May refuses to take a stand. Plenty of philosophers of the past are famous because they took a stand, even if that's the very reason they're also vilified. May never concretely comes to a conclusion about whether we should go extinct or how. He simply says we should try to live more ethical lives. Again, this book stops being a philosophy book very early on and simply becomes a relatively shallow (relative compared to books written by researchers and experts in the field) book about animal suffering and the climate crisis. May essentially says we won't go extinct any time soon so why bother continue tackling the problem of if we should. I really loved when this was philosophically-driven and we could tackle difficult concepts and make hypotheticals without giving up because it's unlikely to happen. That's what philosophy is. It's pointless arguments about things that we can't and won't change. But it challenges the way we think and brings us closer to a universal understanding of the world and how it would best operate. It's peer reviewing other peoples' opinions by challenging them with your own. The worst thing a philosopher can do in my opinion is not take a stance.
Interesting book. Very philosopher-debate driven. It takes a real special kind of freak to enjoy making arguments this way and I am one of those freaks. I gotta say, though, I disagree with Todd May's approach quite often. I don't disagree too much on the case being made. I'm vegetarian and very aware of animal suffering. I'm a believer in climate change and I try to educate myself on how we pollute the world and how it affects animals, poor & minority communities, etc. I try to educate myself on the disproportionate suffering we cause and in what ways we cause it and to whom we cause it. But this entire approach for a practical conversation about the extinction of the human race starts off wrong and never course corrects. I thought about (but chose not to) making a list of issues I have as I read the book. I decided against it because the list would've been time consuming and I would've been able to write my own book just on my responses to the author. That said, there's a few things that have stayed in my mind as I finish this book that I'd like to challenge.
1. The focus on animal suffering. Again, I'm a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian not for health reasons but entirely for moral reasons. I struggle morally with not being a vegan yet. I'm sympathetic to all of May's concerns but the simple truth is people largely don't care. Information on factory farming and the suffering we cause animals isn't hidden. It's easily accessible and plentiful. People just do not care. Will that change over years, decades, centuries? Hopefully. But that brings me to two further points: should we consider whether the human species will become more moral (cause less suffering) as it progresses, and if we are tackling this extinction problem from a practical standpoint whereby we consider whether we should and how we would go extinct, then doesn't the lack of sympathy towards animal suffering dictate that it simply is a non-factor in this issue?
2. May writes about this topic within the bubble of the present. Not much consideration is given to the past happiness and suffering (slavery, crusades, genocides, the list goes on forever) or the future changes the human species might make (some attention is given to this but it's also mostly looking at the immediate future). May briefly explains that we don't give consideration to the future humans because they do not exist yet and therefore have no suffering or happiness but we can be practical and say a considerable number of humans will exist in the future. Will we have another world war? Will we take Earth's climate to a point of no return? Will we use our technological advancements to uplift the poor and make the floor of the human condition one that everyone can enjoy or will we use it to further the divide between the haves and the have-nots? Objectively the world has gotten both better and worse as technology has advanced. We've found cures for illnesses. Our lives have gotten easier than the days of farming from sun-up to sun-down without machinery. Our lifespans have gotten longer. We've found ways to give disabled people a higher quality of life. We've been able to connect with people around the world and talk to complete strangers who speak another language. We've also used our technological advancements to create factories for child labor, build drones to kill people from miles away, invented the atomic bomb and used it on civilian populations (again, briefly mentioned but never dissected as an issue because the focus is almost entirely on animal suffering and the climate crisis). A hundred years from now, does our technology continue to advance and how do we use it? What about a thousand years from now? Does this then outweigh all the suffering, or does it make the case for human extinction stronger? Lots to think about here but never discussed. I have my thoughts but again I don't want to write my own book.
3. If humans have to choose to go extinct, then shouldn't the suffering of living things we don't collectively care about not matter? If humanity at large doesn't care if a pig suffers so long as we can eat bacon then does it matter for the purposes of this discussion? May says we aren't discussing whether we deserve to go extinct, rather whether we actually should, from a practical standpoint, go extinct. He approaches this practically and discusses the ways in which we might go extinct (including mass suicide which he immediately rejects). Very little attention is given to the harm humans cause other humans outside of the climate crisis. No attention (outside of a passing comment) is given to the genocides we see going on, the wars throughout the world, the drone strikes Western countries inflict on civilian populations in the Middle East. This entire book is a facade to make the case that we should live more ethical lives in favor of treating animals better and fixing the climate catastrophe. While it starts out as this, it's not actually a philosophical book approaching the topic of whether or not humanity should go extinct.
4. May touches on art early on in the book. He seems to conclude that the value to art is people enjoying it. I would heavily push back and say that people get very little happiness from seeing the Mona Lisa. Sure, the happiness people get isn't 0. But it's not like many people find genuine happiness in it or lasting happiness. I would argue the happiness largely comes from making art. When I go see a movie it makes me happy, sure. But a minuscule amount. Even my favorite movie, John Carpenter's The Thing, only provides me so much happiness. Most of my happiness comes from discussing the movie with other people, engaging in the fandom, etc. It's other people that make me happy through the movie as a tool to create that community. But the real bulk of the happiness The Thing itself generated is from the people who made it in the moment. It's why people enjoy doodling or painting on their free time even if they're not good at it and never share it with the world. It's why struggling artists with only 87 followers on Instagram keep making art. The happiness comes from the creation, not the viewing from afar.
5. May says we have experiences as humans that animals are incapable of having. I would challenge that as, at best, unproven, and at worst, demonstrably untrue. He notes that animals can experience love the way we do, among some other experiences. But can animals experience the beauty of nature the way we do when we walk through a mountain trail? Who says they don't? Who says they don't see and experience and appreciate the beauty of the world around them? Can animals experience the beauty of art? Who says they don't? Many animals have mating rituals in which they use their voice, fighting abilities, dance moves, etc to impress their prospective mate. Can animals experience science? Who says they don't? They evolve. They build and learn to build better tools, habitats, houses, nests. They engage in trial and error. They figure out how gravity works and use it to their advantage to get food. They learn what predators can't climb trees and how best to sneak up on various prey.
The way I see it, this question of whether we should go extinct boils down to 3 sides. I'll note that we separate ourselves from nature. We define nature as all the plants and animals surviving in the world as they would. Technically humans are doing the same thing (and thriving - sort of) but we separate ourselves from what we perceive nature to be. I believe that is because we view our lives, existence, technology, and everything as unnatural (or supernatural if you prefer that word). So these 3 sides are on the basis of the traditional definition of nature that doesn't include humans in it. One: if humans cause any harm to even one living thing, human existence is not justified. Two: if humans can create pure, true happiness or experience true love or any other extremely strong, positive emotion similar then human existence is justified no matter the harm it may cause. Three: Humans deserve to live because we are humans and we don't want to die. May touches on (and largely rejects, though in a different context) speciesism but I think most people are speciesists and that's important for this conversation. They believe in human superiority simply because they are humans. Again, May wants to approach this question from a human point of view rather than an objective view of whether our existence is justified. So I think we need to consider that most humans simply don't care. They believe in human superiority and the fact that they are humans means humans should not go extinct. Now if we try to tackle this question from an objective standpoint (I understand objectivity is impossible but it doesn't stop people from trying) then I think this book makes many good arguments. I think May simply loses the plot and gets too focused on his perspective rather than the human perspective collectively which leads him to almost exclusively focus on animal suffering (which again it's clear the human race largely doesn't care about).
In the end, May refuses to take a stand. Plenty of philosophers of the past are famous because they took a stand, even if that's the very reason they're also vilified. May never concretely comes to a conclusion about whether we should go extinct or how. He simply says we should try to live more ethical lives. Again, this book stops being a philosophy book very early on and simply becomes a relatively shallow (relative compared to books written by researchers and experts in the field) book about animal suffering and the climate crisis. May essentially says we won't go extinct any time soon so why bother continue tackling the problem of if we should. I really loved when this was philosophically-driven and we could tackle difficult concepts and make hypotheticals without giving up because it's unlikely to happen. That's what philosophy is. It's pointless arguments about things that we can't and won't change. But it challenges the way we think and brings us closer to a universal understanding of the world and how it would best operate. It's peer reviewing other peoples' opinions by challenging them with your own. The worst thing a philosopher can do in my opinion is not take a stance.
May 12, 2025
This book presents a solid introduction to the question, should humanity go extinct?
Admittedly, I don't feel closer to a proper answer one way or another, and there are multitudes of questions and concerns involving humanity's impact on the world that are briefly touched upon - or not at all - that I believe are important in making an informed decision when coming up with an answer at all.
That being said, Todd May delivers his points very well, offers many references for additional reading, and makes it clear that this book does not cover all of the complexities involved with answering the question of our continued existence.
After reading this book, I feel similarly to how I do after watching a nature documentary. Saddened by our lack of progress towards making our impact on the world more tolerable, and wanting to take steps towards at least making my own existence cause less of a negative impact, even if in small ways.
Admittedly, I don't feel closer to a proper answer one way or another, and there are multitudes of questions and concerns involving humanity's impact on the world that are briefly touched upon - or not at all - that I believe are important in making an informed decision when coming up with an answer at all.
That being said, Todd May delivers his points very well, offers many references for additional reading, and makes it clear that this book does not cover all of the complexities involved with answering the question of our continued existence.
After reading this book, I feel similarly to how I do after watching a nature documentary. Saddened by our lack of progress towards making our impact on the world more tolerable, and wanting to take steps towards at least making my own existence cause less of a negative impact, even if in small ways.
July 25, 2024
I received a copy of this book for exchange of a review.
I have always had an interest and continue to be fascinated with the way people think and why. Todd May is asking an excellent question that we should all be asking ourselves: Do we deserve to be here?
This book is definitely “a philosophical dilemma for unbearable times” and easy to ready despite being such a heavy topic while covering a lot of ground in only 144 pages. Made me question a lot of choices I make for myself and my family that do have an affect to everything around us, near and far, effecting today and tomorrow.
Loved the references to all the books mentioned at end of book. My reading list continues to grow…as does my moral conscience and compass.
Read this. Share it. And have more important conversations about what we can do to make an impact on tomorrow.
I have always had an interest and continue to be fascinated with the way people think and why. Todd May is asking an excellent question that we should all be asking ourselves: Do we deserve to be here?
This book is definitely “a philosophical dilemma for unbearable times” and easy to ready despite being such a heavy topic while covering a lot of ground in only 144 pages. Made me question a lot of choices I make for myself and my family that do have an affect to everything around us, near and far, effecting today and tomorrow.
Loved the references to all the books mentioned at end of book. My reading list continues to grow…as does my moral conscience and compass.
Read this. Share it. And have more important conversations about what we can do to make an impact on tomorrow.
Read
September 11, 2025I would have really enjoyed the content of this book as a conversation. One of the limitations of philosophy texts with any kind of persuasive bent is that sometimes your objections or skepticisms aren’t addressed. A few times the author introduced an argument and followed it with “some of you might be saying X, Y, or Z,” and I found myself going, “ooh, no, I was thinking D, E, and F” and then I just kept going while holding my question. Not a flaw, a text can be only so interactive. I don’t know if I find my position altered, though certainly Professor May and I share many of the same concerns. Glad I read it.
December 30, 2024
Great read! The author asks important questions that anyone who cares about the future should consider. He is not saying we should go extinct, just that we need to do better. The more people that are aware of and thinking about these questions, the better the world will be. The discussion of factory farming was especially hard to read and will give me pause when I am thinking of going to an all-you can eat BQ.
September 27, 2024
3.5 ROUNDING UP!
---
Overall, the book was good! It definitely wasn't what I was expecting, I feel like this should be renamed "Should We Go Extinct...For the Animals?" but other than that, it was insightful, though emotionally devastating.
I really don't have much more to add, it's like watching a documentary of the Dairy Cows, and wanting to go vegan after, ya know?
---
Overall, the book was good! It definitely wasn't what I was expecting, I feel like this should be renamed "Should We Go Extinct...For the Animals?" but other than that, it was insightful, though emotionally devastating.
I really don't have much more to add, it's like watching a documentary of the Dairy Cows, and wanting to go vegan after, ya know?
June 11, 2025
you used so many words to say so little
June 28, 2025
lost me in entirely in the second half
July 3, 2025
Cool and def approachable, and acknowledges that the book doesn’t address some important points, but even then i feel like it was a tad too surface level for the kind of question to which it was offering a response.
October 5, 2024
3.25
A short answer to the question in the book title would be "YES."
I felt the author's thesis on animal cruelty by humans was somewhat lacking, especially since I've read Peter Singer. The author didn't delve deeply into human involvement in natural destruction and the climate crisis, which felt a bit shallow. Overall, it was fine but could have been more comprehensive.
A short answer to the question in the book title would be "YES."
I felt the author's thesis on animal cruelty by humans was somewhat lacking, especially since I've read Peter Singer. The author didn't delve deeply into human involvement in natural destruction and the climate crisis, which felt a bit shallow. Overall, it was fine but could have been more comprehensive.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews