Editing Misanthropy (section)

== Related concepts ==

=== Philosophical pessimism ===
Misanthropy is closely related but not identical to [[philosophical pessimism]]. Philosophical pessimism is the view that life is not worth living or that the world is a bad place, for example, because it is meaningless and full of suffering.{{sfn|Smith|2014|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/SMIPPA-6 1–3]|loc=Introduction}}{{sfn|Jenkins|2020|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/JENTPO-28 20–41]}} This view is exemplified by Arthur Schopenhauer and [[Philipp Mainländer]].{{sfn|Fernández|2006|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/FERSP-2 646–664]}} Philosophical pessimism is often accompanied by misanthropy if the proponent holds that humanity is also bad and partially responsible for the negative value of the world. However, the two views do not require each other and can be held separately.{{sfn|Kidd|2020b}}{{sfn|Cooper|2018|pp=5–6}} A non-misanthropic pessimist may hold, for instance, that humans are just victims of a terrible world but not to blame for it. Eco-misanthropists, by contrast, may claim that the world and its nature are valuable but that humanity exerts a negative and destructive influence.{{sfn|Kidd|2020b}}{{sfn|Gerber|2002|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/GERWIS-3 41–55]}}

=== Antinatalism and human extinction ===
{{quote box|align=right|width=25em|quote=Humanity is a moral disaster. There would have been much less destruction had we never evolved. The fewer humans there are in the future, the less destruction there will still be.|source=—[[David Benatar]], "The Misanthropic Argument for Anti-natalism"{{sfn|Benatar|2015|p=55}}}}

[[Antinatalism]] is the view that coming into existence is bad and that humans have a duty to abstain from procreation.{{sfn|Metz|2012|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/METAFD 1–9]}}{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=34–35}} A central argument for antinatalism is called the misanthropic argument. It sees the deep flaws of humans and their tendency to cause harm as a reason for avoiding the creation of more humans.{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Benatar|2015a}} These harms include [[war]]s, [[genocide]]s, factory farming, and [[Human impact on the environment|damages done to the environment]].{{sfn|May|2018}}{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=39, 44, 48}} This argument contrasts with philanthropic arguments, which focus on the future suffering of the human about to come into existence. They argue that the only way to avoid their future suffering is to prevent them from being born.{{sfn|Benatar|2015|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Benatar|2015a}}{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|p=14}} The [[Voluntary Human Extinction Movement]] and the [[Church of Euthanasia]] are well-known examples of  social movements in favor of antinatalism and [[human extinction]].{{sfn|Stibbe|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=crjlCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13 13]}}{{sfn|MacCormack|2020|p=143}}

Antinatalism is commonly endorsed by misanthropic thinkers.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|p=14}} However, there are numerous other ways that could lead to the involuntary extinction of the human species, with various suggestions having been made about threats to the long-term survival of the human species, including nuclear wars, [[self-replicating]] [[nanorobot]]s, or super-[[pathogen]]s.{{sfn|Bostrom|2003|loc=[https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/extinction-human Extinction, Human]}}{{sfn|Leslie|1998|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=books&pg=PA25 25–26]}}{{sfn|Gordijn|Cutter|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Q0u6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA123 123]}} While such cases can be seen as terrible scenarios for all life, misanthropes may instead interpret them as reasons for hope that the dominance of humanity in history will eventually come to an end.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|p=107}} A similar sentiment is expressed by [[Bertrand Russell]]. He states in relation to the existence of human life on earth and its misdeeds that they are "a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return."{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|pp=107–108}}

=== Human exceptionalism and deep ecology ===
[[Human exceptionalism]] is the claim that human beings have unique importance and are exceptional compared to all other species. It is often based on the claim that they stand out because of their special capacities, like [[intelligence]], rationality, and [[autonomy]].{{sfn|Srinivasan|Kasturirangan|2016|pp=126–227}} In religious contexts, it is frequently explained in relation to a unique role that God foresaw for them or that they were created in God's image.{{sfn|Durst|2022|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=books&pg=PA1 1]}} Human exceptionalism is usually combined with the claim that human [[well-being]] matters more than the well-being of other species. This line of thought can be used to draw various ethical conclusions. One is the claim that humans have the right to rule the planet and impose their will on other species. Another is that inflicting harm on other species may be morally acceptable if it is done with the purpose of promoting human well-being and excellence.{{sfn|Srinivasan|Kasturirangan|2016|pp=126–227}}{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|p=9}}

Generally speaking, the position of human exceptionalism is at odds with misanthropy in relation to the value of humanity.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|p=9}} But this is not necessarily the case and it may be possible to hold both positions at the same time. One way to do this is to claim that humanity is exceptional because of a few rare individuals but that the average person is bad.{{sfn|Gibson|2017|pp=64–65}} Another approach is to hold that human beings are exceptional in a negative sense: given their destructive and harmful history, they are much worse than any other species.{{sfn|Svoboda|2022|p=9}}

Theorists in the field of [[deep ecology]] are also often critical of human exceptionalism and tend to favor a misanthropic perspective.{{sfn|Malone|Truong|Gray|2017}}{{sfn|Sale|1988}} Deep ecology is a philosophical and social movement that stresses the [[Axiology#Intrinsic value|inherent value]] of nature and advocates a radical change in human behavior toward nature.{{sfn|Ball|2011}} Various theorists have criticized deep ecology based on the claim that it is misanthropic by privileging other species over humans.{{sfn|Sale|1988}} For example, the deep ecology movement [[Earth First!]] faced severe criticism when they praised the [[HIV/AIDS in Africa|AIDS epidemic in Africa]] as a solution to the problem of [[human overpopulation]] in their newsletter.{{sfn|Hay|2002|p=66}}{{sfn|Taylor|2005}}