“To be or not to be– that is the question:”  Shakespeare.

I was listening to a fascinating interview with Peter Singer,  Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton on the Michael Medved show while on deliveries a couple of days ago. The topic of discussion was Professor Singer’s recent blog post on the NYT’s Opinionator Blog “Should This Be The Last Generation.” There is a podcast available but it requires a subscription.  Anyway, I decided when I had time, I’d read the piece when I returned back to the shop.

While Hamlet in his despair and melancholy was contemplating whether or not life was worth living, Professor Singer catapults the question into the larger context of whether we as a civilization should Be or Not Be.  He begins by asking the reader what questions the prospective parents ask themselves when contemplating bringing a child into the world.

“Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents?”

I would venture to guess that one would also ask “Where are we financially?  “Can we afford it now?” and “Will we be able to care for the child?”  But that kind of thinking is for the more analytic type.  I suspect that most people decide to have a child from a purely emotional standpoint.  Namely, they just want to have a baby.  I know I did and now I am a grandfather.

Or would you consider the ramifications to the planet by adding yet another human being to the world’s population?  “Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment.”

And finally to the crux of the exposition:  “But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself.”  And I would say, why should we even ask that question in the first place?

The biological imperative of any species is to continue the species.  Have we become so insecure in the benefits of humanity that we’d entertain such a question in the first place? Is it nihilism?  Post Modern self doubt?  I don’t know, but I am a three steps forward, one steps back kind of guy.  My view is that over the millennia we have consistently moved personal standards of living to greater and greater levels.  That is not to say that there exists in the world today extreme poverty, but to my mind that can be laid at the feet of corrupt ideologies and governments.

For most folks the idea that their progeny’s life will be better than theirs is a given.  So why would they ask themselves that question in the first place?  It seems that the children of the “Greatest Generation” in an act of extreme narcissism condemn future generations to Be-ingless; and for what?  Mother Gaea?

“How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?”

I’d say so.

Professor Singer then introduces briefly Arthur Schopenhauer a 19^th Century philosopher.  “The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.”

I believe that’s called ambition.  I also believe that is why the Western world is where it is today, the most enlightened and free societies ever seen in human history.  Interestingly, as a side note Schopenhauer has this to say about the quote at the beginning of this post.

“The essential purport of the world-famous monologue in “Hamlet” is, in condensed form, that our state is so wretched that complete non-existence would be decidedly preferable to it. Now if suicide actually offered us this, so that the alternative “TO BE OR NOT TO BE” lay before us in the full sense of the words, it could be chosen unconditionally as a highly desirable termination (“a consummation devoutly to be wish’d” [Act III, Sc. I]). There is something in us, however, which tells us that this is not so, that this is not the end of things, that death is not an absolute annihilation.”

To be sure Death is not an absolute annihilation.  But to believe that is viewed as un-sophisticated by many these days.

From Schopenhauer Professor Singer segues to David Benatar (no relation to Pat… I think) author of the book – “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.”  That’s easy for him to say, he’s in “existence”.  But seriously, his argument seems to be that if you can’t guarantee that a child will not suffer then it’s better to not exist at all.

Benatar argues:  “To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her.”

Why you might ask is there no benefit to the child brought into existence who will have a good life?  Why Pollyannaism of course.  You see Mr. Benatar thinks we’re really all a bunch of schleps.

“We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism.”

If only we’d wake up and look at our poor miserable lives objectively we’d surely see that life and procreation is simply not worth the effort.  Me thinks Mr. Benatar is projecting (or is it transference I forget).

If there’s one thing I can guarantee in life (besides death and taxes) is that at some point we will all suffer.  But it is through suffering and adversity that we grow to be complete human beings.  Without suffering from whence does empathy come from?  Where does judgment come from?  Where does the ability to learn from one’s mistakes come from?We have children to sustain our species, give us joy and at some point to return the favor in our dotage.  We do not and cannot guarantee that they will be perpetually free from suffering.  Seriously, if you’ve done you job right as a parent, you child will suffer when you die.  Should you not have a child because you’re directly responsible for your child’s suffering at some point in the future?

This statement struck me in an odd way.  “Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change.”  What’s up with the adjective “thoughtful” as if one had a doubt about the veracity of climate change, one was “un-thoughtful”, I suppose at Princeton climate change is settled science (by consensus of course), but there are many who do doubt that anthropomorphic climate change (remember when it was global warming) is real.  But this is an aside.

So here is the clincher.

“So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

Consider the complete narcissism of that statement.  Our lives are screwed, so we all agree to annihilate the human race via sterilization and now we don’t have to feel guilty about it.  No more “sentient beings” thus no more guilt.  Leave it to the Ivy Leaguer’s to come up with such nonsense.  It’s gonna be pretty lonely for the last guy standing though.  You think he might suffer a little bit?  Maybe have a few second thoughts?

Professor Singer ends his post with a seemingly half hearted Yay in the should we continue as a species column.  “I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now.”

Another century or two?  Please.

My suggestion,  why not wait 2 billion years for the sun to go super nova.  Then we’re all really toast.

One last thing… as someone who’s in the business of accentuating joy and attenuating sorrow, I see first hand what our work does.  It is my firm belief that we change the world at arms reach, and if we keep that in mind every day life is truly worthy of passing it on to future generations.

To be or not to be– that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep
No more – and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to – ‘tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’ unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.—Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered.[1]