Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

96
 questions about 
Time
4
 questions about 
Economics
165
 questions about 
Freedom
107
 questions about 
Animals
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
75
 questions about 
Perception
67
 questions about 
Feminism
79
 questions about 
Identity
241
 questions about 
Justice
31
 questions about 
Space
54
 questions about 
Medicine
43
 questions about 
Color
23
 questions about 
History
2
 questions about 
Culture
208
 questions about 
Science
50
 questions about 
War
87
 questions about 
Physics
109
 questions about 
Biology
282
 questions about 
Language
281
 questions about 
Knowledge
66
 questions about 
Truth
359
 questions about 
Logic
132
 questions about 
Love
32
 questions about 
Sport
280
 questions about 
Mind
36
 questions about 
Literature
386
 questions about 
Religion
2
 questions about 
Action
68
 questions about 
Happiness
87
 questions about 
Law
123
 questions about 
Profession
77
 questions about 
Emotion
79
 questions about 
Death
69
 questions about 
Business
38
 questions about 
Race
153
 questions about 
Sex
58
 questions about 
Punishment
104
 questions about 
Art
58
 questions about 
Abortion
1264
 questions about 
Ethics
217
 questions about 
Value
24
 questions about 
Suicide
147
 questions about 
Existence
115
 questions about 
Children
34
 questions about 
Music
569
 questions about 
Philosophy
27
 questions about 
Gender
74
 questions about 
Beauty
215
 questions about 
Education

Question of the Day

Restricting consideration only to the qualification “best for the Earth,” where that means something like best for the well being of current eco-systems and current non-human populations, I think the answer is yes, it would be better if we all dropped dead, especially if “this rate” of destruction remains unchanged. But, of course, what is best for the current eco-systems and current populations must be weighed against other considerations such as what is “best for” certain projects and cultural formations we also rightly value—human communities, nations, literary, scientific, spiritual, and artistic projects. It is true, indeed, that those will disappear along with the rest of life on the planet if ecological destruction continues beyond the point at which human life or those projects can be sustained. It’s not clear, however, that the current rate of destruction will persist or that we will reach that point. It is not clear that it won’t or that we won’t, either. There seems to be a reasonable likelihood that the course we’re on is not only suicidal but also ecocidal, and so this question will remain meaningful and compelling. For myself, I think we face a serious obligation to reduce human impact upon the world both by reducing consumption per capita and by reducing population generally.