Essential Human Existence and its Implications

Background Context of Parfit and the Nonidentity Theory

In his piece entitled “Energy Policy and the Further Future,” philosopher David Parfit develops several

arguments regarding the importance of decision making (112). It is common for many to believe that if

one is to make the incorrect decision today, this will profoundly affect, and indeed harm, individuals in

future generations. However, this is not everyone’s belief, and a variety of philosophers have argued that

making what many would consider a tasteless or seemingly illogical decision today may not actually harm

those who are born in the future. This is due to the fact that, in order for one to be born as they are, they

must be conceived at a certain moment in time. If they are conceived any later or earlier, then the cells

that combine to create such life would not be able to meet, thus, creating a different person.

     Parfit examines this argument of decisions today not technically “harming” individuals in the future through several distinct examples. He begins with a description of two energy policies. One of the policies is known as a “risky policy,” and would increase the standard of living over the next two centuries. However, a tragedy would occur centuries later that would result in the injury and death of thousands (Parfit 112). On the other hand, another “safe policy” could be utilized which would not raise the standard of living to the extent of the risky policy, but would also not end in tragedy centuries later. Parfit examines the idea that, while it would at first seem that the “risky policy” would be the worse choice due to its ending in tragedy, this is not necessarily the case. Due to the lifestyle provided by this policy, future lives would be able to state that, while they may experience difficulties and a lower quality of life, they can recognize that they would not exist without this “risky policy” (Parfit 113).

     Parfit also uses other examples in order to examine the notion that decisions we make today may not be very harmful, in many instances, to future generations. He does this by explaining that there are two separate girls who wish to become pregnant and have a child. The first girl is very young, and people criticize her for choosing to bring a child into the world that will not have as strong of a start as possible (Parfit 113) . The other girl also wants to have a child yet, realizes that due to a condition she experiences, she would not be able to have one in the future. If she has one now, the child will have a certain disability, but if she chooses not to have him/her, then he or she would never exist. Therefore, Parfit explains that she is not viewed as harshly by society as the young girl who does not wait to have her child (117). 

     This argument is very similar to that described by Philosopher Molly Gardner when she speaks of two separate women who also wish to get pregnant, this time, with children with disabilities. While one of the women took a drug to achieve this goal, the other used a form of in vitro fertilization in order to obtain a child with such a disability. Therefore, the argument could be made that in the first case that the woman did her child a disservice and harmed him significantly, as he would not have this disability if it were not for the use of the drug. Conversely, it could be argued that the woman who acquired her child through in vitro fertilization did not do her child any “harm,” as he would not have been born at all had it not been for her actions (1:12). 

My Analysis of the Nonidentity Theory and Harm Before Existence

     With this context being stated of the arguments made that illogical decisions may harm future generations, it is now necessary to connect this logic to my personal beliefs on whether it would be “bad” if there were no future people, as well as who this would be bad for specifically. I believe that the arguments outlined above are very sensical in that, without being conceived a certain way at a specific time, people would not exist or benefit from life in any way. However, with this being said, I do not think that individuals should receive the blame for “harming” these individuals who are not born. For instance, a woman may biologically have many cells capable of creating life through conception. Each one of these cells has the capacity to create a new, distinct life through the process. However, of course, it would be impossible for this woman to conceive every single one of her egg cells, as this would mean that she would be pregnant for the entirety of her early life. Would this mean that this woman is guilty of harming each one of the potential children that she decides not to conceive? It is clear that, as these children, who can be assumed to have the potential to live a life worth living, would be put at a disadvantage by not being given this opportunity to live. However, it would be biologically and physically impossible to give every potential child this life. Therefore, I would argue that the parents of said child should not be to blame for “harming” their offspring, as it would not be reasonable to do so.

     Knowing this aspect of the argument, the question arises of when a child can actually be harmed. Is it possible to “harm” a child if they are not physically existent to begin with? Webster’s Dictionary refers to “harm” as “something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc” (Webster's 1). Therefore, someone or something has to be given a disadvantage based on a certain event or action. From this, I would argue that, just as Parfit does in his piece, one is able to be put at a disadvantage before their existence. It is for this reason that they can be harmed from an action. 

     At the same time, I would maintain that the human being does not experience harm to him or herself, but the after-effects of a harmful action. The cells themselves that allow for the creation of life are not yet human life until they meet. If the cells were life themselves, then how could one not argue that whenever one bleeds, human life is being lost? The difference between these two interpretations is simply the type of cell involved, and all cells are simply the building blocks of life. Therefore, the human being is often non-existent while the harmful action is taking place, yet is still put at a disadvantage by events that happened before their existence.

Blog Question (Would it be Bad if Humans Could no Longer Exist?)

     Now, to the point of it being potentially bad if there were no more people on earth one day. I believe that the answer to this question is likely much more complicated than a simple “yes or no,” as there are many factors that one must take into account. For instance, it was demonstrated well in the Parfit article that while it may be theoretically possible to harm individuals before their existence, this is generally unlikely as there are very few disabilities or handicaps that would make living “not worthwhile.” With this being said, if there was a time in which humans were non-existent, this would infer that many human beings would not have the potential to live a life of meaning and probable happiness. This, of course, would be bad for the humans. 

     Conversely, the question of how the environment may react (negatively or positively) to the notion of humans being no longer existent, this would likely differ substantially. On Earth, there are certain organisms that benefit greatly from the existence of humans, such as many animals that the general population considers to be “pests.” These beings generally live close to humans due to the resources that humans are able to offer, by mistake. Thus, if this source of necessary resources were removed from the face of the Earth, this would have negative effects on the population of such organisms. Ironically, these same organisms are those that many humans dislike, and one of the most effective manners of negatively affecting them is for fewer humans to be present to provide their necessary resources. Some organisms, such as plants that are adversely affected by the carbon footprint and other forms of pollution that humans leave behind, would likely begin to flourish if this were to be removed.

     While the above explanation seems very straight-forward at first, it lacks a significant detail into human beings’ more profound role in the environment and its future. While many tend to focus on the fact that human beings have the potential to pollute and destroy large segments of nature and the external environment, it is common to  overlook that we are also an integral part of the environment. While it is true that we often consume much more than we produce, many species do rely on our prevalence. These animals rely on humans for shelter, food or water sources. It is after these animals encounter their resources that they are able to either feed other organisms or keep them in check. Without humans being present in this process, an integral link that holds the entire ecosystem together would be lost, thus, not only harming the lives of humans, but of the ecosystem as a whole.

     In addition to this, I believe on a personal note that it would be bad for knowledge itself if human beings were not able to exist any longer. Many different communities and cultures have evolved and thrived throughout the years in order to add meaning to their lives. In fact, the very Ancient Philosophers themselves provided a groundwork from which we continue to build to this day. If humans were not able to continue, then this would mean an end to the centuries of thought and practice that have allowed one to better understand the meaning and significance of life, and knowledge would grow no more. Essentially, there would likely be an end to centuries-worth of work towards a common understanding of the world in which we live.

     I agree with Parfit’s argument about how harm before the formation of a human is indeed possible, but argue that these children simply experience the after-affects of these harmful actions and not the act itself. It would be bad if human beings no longer existed on Earth due to several distinct factors. Firstly, this end to human existence would likely lead to an environmental crisis due to human beings’ essential role in the ecosystem (even though they are usually credited with harming it). Additionally, this end of human existence would signify an essential termination of centuries-long perseverance towards a greater collective understanding. 

(Here is a video with information about Parfit and the Nonidentity Problem).

https://youtu.be/PcXh2McweRc

(Here is a clip on one perspective of Earth's future without human beings).

https://youtu.be/v6Agqm4K7Ok

Works Cited

Crisp, Roger. Roger Crisp on Parfit, Future Generations and Theory X ... 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcXh2McweRc.

“Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's Most-Trusted Online Dictionary.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, 2016, www.merriam-webster.com/.

Gardner, Molly. The Nonidentity Problem #1 - Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY ... 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPkNFzxeE4.

Kwartler, Dan. “What Would Happen If Every Human Suddenly Disappeared?” TED, 2018, www.ted.com/talks/dan_kwartler_what_would_happen_if_every_human_suddenly_disappeared.

Parfit, Derek. “Energy Policy and the Further Future.” Find in a Library with WorldCat, 1981, www.worldcat.org/title/energy-policy-and-the-further-future/oclc/8572675.