To the Editor:

It seems that Richard Dawkins is illogical when he posits how lucky each of us is to have been born ["The Root of Richard Dawkins," 6/05]. According to his argument, no one ever existed before they were born. And if we are to say that the embryo and its subsequent development is fortunate to be given the limited experience of life, what about the lives of perhaps a majority of people in the world, whose lives are mostly one of hunger, terror, oppression and pain, and constant reminders of approaching oblivion? The last of which, except for the mentally disabled, we are all cursed with. After a short and accomplished (or not) life, then according to Dawkins, we pass out of existence and that life can be remembered neither as satisfactory, and wonderful, or even regretted. Should we then be loyal to the gene and strive to advance the evolution of homo sapiens? I think a case can be made that the answer is no, in view of the fact that the rest of nature, from the single day of the mayfly to the 30 centuries or more of the giant redwoods, would be far better off if we had never evolved. If we are not here in order to learn things applicable to some kind of subsequent existence, then it would be better for nature if everyone in the world committed suicide right now, and thus allowed evolution to try a course more friendly to the natural world. According to Dawkins we wouldn't know, care, or regret afterwards; but perhaps in a hundred millennia or so some octopod archeologist might discover our mass exit and give thanks to "The Force."

Phil Sullivan, Woodstock