Omnicide..........is human extinction as a result of human action.

[dixiegrrrrl]

Most commonly it refers to extinction through nuclear warfare or biological warfare, but it can also apply to extinction through means such as global anthropogenic ecological catastrophe.

Omnicide can be considered a subcategory of genocide.
Using the concept in this way, one can argue, for example, that:
“ The arms race is genocidal in intent given the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union are knowingly preparing to destroy each other as viable national and political groups.”
As this claim illustrates, the concept of omnicide raises issues of human agency and, hence, of moral responsibility in discussions about large-scale social processes like the nuclear arms race or ecologically destructive industrial production.
That is, part of the point of describing a human extinction scenario as 'omnicidal' is to note that, if it were to happen, it would result not just from natural, uncontrollable evolutionary forces, or from some random catastrophe like an asteroid impact, but from deliberate choices made by human beings.
This implies that such scenarios are preventable, and that the people whose choices make them more likely to happen should be held morally accountable for such choices. In this context, the label 'omnicide' also works to de-normalize the course of action it is applied to.

I found this cheerful definition on :
http://www.fukushimafacts.com/Default.aspx?PID=43

[wtmusic]

1. Kind of ironic that nuclear power has the capacity to save us from omnicide

and a virtually non-existent possibility of causing it.

Yet the ridiculous website you link to presents Fukushima as an Armageddon worse than the earthquake and tsunami which killed 22,000 people.

Such is the ignorant, irrational fear of nuclear power, which I hope mankind has the capability to overcome. It's quite possibly our only chance.

[GliderGuider]

2. What if the scenarios are not, in fact, preventable?

Last edited Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

What if human moral agency is a chimera, an illusion - a conveniently comforting myth whose purpose is to retain our motivation, to make us eager to pitch in on the enterprise of changing the planet, to make us believe that whatever "bad things" may be happening are somebody else's fault?

After all, if it's someone else's fault, then it's not my fault. That inner narrative gets us past the uncomfortable thought that maybe we're doing it(!). If it's no one's fault, then there is no more blame or shame, no more moral goad to action, no more need to do things that (inevitably, in the big picture, over the long haul) lead to more planetary destruction rather than less?

On the other hand, if part of it is our personal fault, how can we live with our guilt over helping to turn the knife in the bellies of a million other species? And if it's no one's fault, when who should we blame (and make no mistake, blame we must)?

The whole blame game is probably the result of a simple scale error. Just because human beings are involved at both scales, we make the mistake of thinking that the normative blame and shame that controls individual social interactions, also plays a role in the collective thermodynamic behavior of the species. It does not.

The best contribution that blame and shame have made is to smooth the social road from way back there to the inevitable tipping point just ahead - while at the same time making sure that everyone is climbing the energy gradient together, for maximum impact.

Personally, I've made peace with the fact that no one is to blame, that we're simply executing a structure-creating, energy-dissipating, entropy-generating program that is built into the nature of life at the same level as the knowledge of which way is down.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. Fascinating insight...

I always do appreciate your thoughtful comments...

[pscot]

4. It sucks to be us.