We should Destroy the Earth

Rebuttals:"1. All animals would be killed in the destruction of Earth"In the first point, con is talking about utilitarianism and how the non-human animals interest are more important because there are more of them then there is humans. This is just simply not the case. The late Professor Raymond Frey, who was the author of many books including Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals (1980), says that "the utilitarian theory doesn't work for animals for they do not have interests since they do not experience wants, desires, expectations, or remembrances.". [1] So an animals interests do not matter for they in fact don't have any interests to begin with. Humans on the other hand, have interest because we can experience wants, desires, expectations, and remembrances. Our interest are also far more significant and meaningful compared to the lack of interest that non-human animals have."2. Destroying the Earth would be costly"If we destroyed the Earth today, it would be costly. But, I said we should destroyed the Earth, not when. There is a simple way that is possible, just we couldn't do it today. We would use a process called a 3-body interaction. [2] The article describes how we could escape the sun when it becomes a Red Giant, with an asteroid changing the direction of the Earths orbit because of its gravity. But instead of pushing it away from the sun, we reverse the process and push it towards the sun... or Venus. As the Earth gets closer to the sun it burns and eventually falls into the sun, never to be seen again. Or we could push the Earth into Venus, completely annihilating both Venus and the Earth. [3]"3. We'd be throwing away an opportunity to study biology"Why would we need to create life-saving medicine, if all humans on the Earth would be killed in the destruction. Seems counterproductive to create medicine that would save no one, because no one would be able to take it. And even if some humans survived the destruction, by the time that we do destroy the Earth, we might have the technology to cure humans of all disease, virus, cancer, or illness. Did the Rebels all die from disease when the Death Star destroyed Alderaan in Star Wars? No, they did not."4. Simulations of brains would also be destroyed"There is a quote I believe that con is familiar with. It is "The end justifies the means". I am talking about the destruction of the Earth, I more or less said that the human race should die with their planet, but I never said that computers would also die. Thus simulated brains would live on, but the actual human brain might not. The means would be making a great deal of sacrifices, the end would be the destruction of the Earth."5. The majority of humans do not want to be killed"I am sorry to say this, but con... what you just said is a logical fallacy! It is a clear example of an argumentum ad populum. You can't claim that the majority of humans do not desire death because even if a lot of people believe don't, that doesn't make it so. [4] You need proof, and a lot of it. And even if this wasn't a fallacy, remember that one quote I said, "The end justifies the means"? It still applies here. Making the case of utilitarianism, once again a moot point.SOURCES:1. http://ic.galegroup.com...2. http://www.universetoday.com...3. http://qntm.org...4. http://atheism.about.com...