I like this guy's way of thinking. He has a letter in the most recent issue of New Scientist where he points out how ill-suited the universe is for life.
This is, he says, the Misanthropic Principle -- as contrasted with the Anthropic Principle. It doesn't appear to be his original idea. Googling this term, I found a post by a Jewish astrophysicist, Howard Smith, who says that he coined the term.
Here's the New Scientist letter:
From Nathaniel Hellerstein
Michael Slezak says that the universe is fine-tuned for life (2 May, p. 32). Balderdash.
Inspection of the night sky reveals that the universe is almost entirely cryogenic pitch-black irradiated empty space, void of life, or indeed of anything much. To a high order of approximation, the universe resembles a vacuum.
The universe isn't 100 per cent lifeless, but 99.9999999999 per cent lifeless is pretty good fine-tuning. I deduce that the universe is fine-tuned not for life, but against it. I call this the Misanthropic Principle.
San Francisco, California, US
To me, the Misanthropic Principle argues against religious conceptions of the cosmos. Smith, though, says that it can have both secular and sacred interpretations.
The implications for religion are serious: We are blessed (or lucky, if you are an atheist). As I argued at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, from my Jewish perspective of the Bible, being blessed means that we therefore have responsibilities: to act with humility and charity toward each other and the whole Earth and its inhabitants. As a religious person, I think it is not completely sensible to imagine that our blessed condition is just the result of inevitable chemical reactions.
Well, maybe not completely. But mostly. That's the prevailing scientific view, at least, which I share. So call me a believer in the non-blessed Misanthropic Principle.