#867067 - 17/07/08 06:45 PM
The voluntary human extinction movement
|
addict
Registered: 26/05/05
Loc: Adelaide
|
I'll be interested in hearing people's reactions to this one  .
Written by : VHEMT website
VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.
We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.
Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth's ecology.
As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.
Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.
When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.
Website is
www.vhemt.org
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867068 - 18/07/08 01:46 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: PsyRush]
|
Elusive bearded fire moose
Registered: 02/05/07
Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
|
How do I get into the group tht go around and takes care of the sick and elderly of a cetain species?
But in all seriouslness, I agree that MOST people should not be breeding.
_________________________
O.B.E.S.E.
Owned by Mynci!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867070 - 18/07/08 05:52 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: willworkforfoodjnr]
|
Rum-Swilling Combustioneer
Registered: 07/04/08
Loc: Macungie, PA, USA
|
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I mean, really. Honestly. A bunch of well-off weirdos who have some vague romantic idea of "the old days" who have seen Inconvenient Truth a few too many times. So maybe a couple hundred people decide not to have any kids. Big deal; I bet people without Internet access never heard of this "movement." I bet you if there were a voluntary suicide machine, Logan's Run style, created in order for people to slowly decrease human population to ancient levels, not one of these VHEMT goofballs would sign up. Maybe for their newsletter, just so they can pat themselves on the back for "being in the know" or something. Seriously, it sounds like the old mantra of those who can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend so they band together and chant "Single forever!" Until they finally manage to get a mate, at which point they tend to forget about their old battle cry. Even if they are actually serious and committed to it, it isn't like they'll put a dent in the population that way. Not even a small one, nope. Written by
Even if our chances of succeeding were only one in a hundred, we would have to try. Giving up and allowing humanity to take its course is unconscionable. There is far too much at stake.
One in a hundred? That's optimism, right there. I'm sure they're well-intentioned, really, I'm not suggesting that they're a bunch of sociopaths preparing to commit genocide. It's just a really daft plan!
They talk endlessly about how humans have been a scourge, how our evil tendencies are slowly but surely warping the Earth into some confounded hell, but that's really a bit negative. And done to death, people, come on! Yeah, sure, humans have some awful abilities, but they also have some wonderful ones. Monkeys can't do atomic weaves! They talk of the natural order of things, how humans are contrary to that. Letting evolution take its course, eventually we will perish.
Two things about that. Thing A: If they believe eventually evolution will do away with us, why bother setting a plan in motion? They admit that it will be *well* out of our lifetimes to see the extinction of humans, but if it's such a sure thing, why do it now?
Written by
Q: We have children. Can we still join?
Today's children are tomorrow's destiny. Our children have the potential for achieving the awareness needed to reverse civilization's direction and begin restoring Earth's biosphere. Most could use our help in realizing their full potentials
Naturally. You won't be alone. When people gain the VHEMT perspective, they decide to add no more to the existing human family. They don't pressure their children to give them grandchildren and might encourage them to make a responsible choice with their fertility.
There is no reason to feel guilty about the past. Guilt doesn't lead to positive solutions. Being VHEMT has nothing to do with the past. It's the future of life on Earth that Volunteers want to preserve.
And this is Thing B (never mind the contrary logic that children are tomorrow's destiny). The "future of life on Earth." The audacity to suggest that humans - *ANYTHING* humans can do - could *possibly* affect LIFE on Earth is appalling. Maybe we've altered the environment more quickly than ever, maybe it's a fluke, regardless, nothing humans can ever do will eradicate all life on earth. Anybody who says humans may ultimately destroy all life is deluded, lying, or entirely too impressionable, and should avoid watching alarmist documentaries. No, the fact of the matter is that well after humans are gone, no matter how it is that we go, life will flourish. Not just hang on by a thread, but flourish.
These clowns (no offense to those so employed) have the gall to suggest that they know what's best for the entire Earth. Restoring it to its former glory? Were they around to see that former glory? Do they claim to have such a great understanding of the web of life that *they* know the solution to keeping it going?? It's a little maddening, actually.
Sorry to rant, but things like this really set me off. I know it makes a good story to love the earth and assume that humans are a blight on it, but nobody gives the Earth nearly enough credit. To be sure, I'm not encouraging climate change, mass extinction, war,or any other things we know to be caused by human activity. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is a level of complexity at work on such a huge, mind-boggling scale that none of the people responsible for groups (sorry, "movements") like VHMET take into account. Life is not what we see, life is a hell of a lot more than what we can see! Maybe we assume life is A, B, C, and D, and humans are anti C and anti D, so humans are bad. But life is also E, F, G, H, I, and so on, ad infinitum.
As Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park says, "Life will find a way." Whether we intervene or whether we live in harmony with the Earth, it will go on. It would take a lot more than we are capable of doing to undo the entire world. They say "Many cling to the quaint notion that we are still a part of Nature." Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but we *are* what Evolution spat out. (If you don't believe in evolution, they do, so I'm responding to that mode of thought). Evolution gave us the intelligence and dexterity to do what we have done in the last 10,000 years, right up to the hole in the ozone layer and the expanding deserts. If that was Earth's mistake, as they believe (again, how do they know what's best for life? Does that make dinosaurs a mistake?), then I promise, the Earth will learn to live with it, and eventually get over it, all by itself.
Again, I'm not saying this because humans need an excuse for harmful activity. I'm saying this because people like VHMET are unreasonable in their beliefs and expectations.
I could go on a lot longer but honestly, this stuff is more boring than anything else at this point.
THIMK!
_________________________
Bouncing Baby Pipe!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867071 - 18/07/08 01:01 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: Mucky]
|
addict
Registered: 26/05/05
Loc: Adelaide
|
Written by Mucky
Sorry to rant, but things like this really set me off. I know it makes a good story to love the earth and assume that humans are a blight on it, but nobody gives the Earth nearly enough credit. To be sure, I'm not encouraging climate change, mass extinction, war,or any other things we know to be caused by human activity. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is a level of complexity at work on such a huge, mind-boggling scale that none of the people responsible for groups (sorry, "movements") like VHMET take into account. Life is not what we see, life is a hell of a lot more than what we can see! Maybe we assume life is A, B, C, and D, and humans are anti C and anti D, so humans are bad. But life is also E, F, G, H, I, and so on, ad infinitum.
As Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park says, "Life will find a way." Whether we intervene or whether we live in harmony with the Earth, it will go on. It would take a lot more than we are capable of doing to undo the entire world.
Are you sure that's not just blind optimism? Where is your evidence? You don't give humans enought credit, there are lots of ways humans could decimate all life on earth, escpecially if we really wanted to. Nothing lives through a direct nuclear bomb blast, and we have enough bomb power to blow up the world many times over (tho it might take a bit of work to kill the sea creatures). It's possible we could set the earth off its course by setting off all our nuclear bombs off on one side of the planet. You might be using the fact that creatures can live through an ice age as evidence, but that's only an ice age, who knows if any organism could survive furnace-like temperatures, if global warming or something else goes that way. Who knows how many other planets like mars once had life but was destroyed somehow or another. I'm not saying any of this is going to happen on earth, but it's a possibility, there are heaps more examples on www.exitmundi.nl. (I'm not for or against VHEMT either, but it's an interesting perspective.)
Written by Mucky
They say "Many cling to the quaint notion that we are still a part of Nature." Well I hate to tell you, buddy, but we *are* what Evolution spat out. (If you don't believe in evolution, they do, so I'm responding to that mode of thought). Evolution gave us the intelligence and dexterity to do what we have done in the last 10,000 years, right up to the hole in the ozone layer and the expanding deserts.
Yep it's an interesting one. Sometimes I wonder if our desctructive nature is just a by-product of our evolution of intelligence, I mean, if we weren't driven to thrive, build, spread, explore in the first place would we have ever become an intelligent species?
Written by Mucky
If that was Earth's mistake, as they believe (again, how do they know what's best for life? Does that make dinosaurs a mistake?), then I promise, the Earth will learn to live with it, and eventually get over it, all by itself.
That's based on an unfounded assumption, that a biological system is inherantly stable. Lots of biological systems go out of whack all by themselves, and never recover; a person who develops cancer is an example. Also you almost imply that Earth has some kind of consciousness, and will fix its own "mistakes". From a scientific perspective, evolution doesn't require any consciousness, it's just a machine-like process that with no set destination.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867072 - 18/07/08 02:56 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: PsyRush]
|
Rum-Swilling Combustioneer
Registered: 07/04/08
Loc: Macungie, PA, USA
|
It isn't an assumption that a biological system is stable; in fact it's got nothing to do with that. A biological system can either be stable or unstable, but my main point is that life on earth is *much* greater than a single biological system. No mass extinction has succeeded in completely wiping out *all* life, and I guarantee the entire universe has a lot more power at its disposal than we have on Earth. And, from an evolutionary standpoint, only the most basic, primitive form of life is necessary to allow life to begin flourishing quickly (relatively quickly, on a geologic timescale, that is).
*Maybe* if every nation with any amount of energy to contribute combined forces to eradicate life on earth it might conceivably be possible to annihilate it completely, to the point that there wasn't the slightest suggestion of primordial soup left over, but the possibility of that happening is so unbelievably slim it's not worth considering as a real option. Also, most people tend to have a pretty decent will to live, and politicians won't get voted into office on the platform of "Yes, I will do everything in my power to alter the Earth's orbit by blowing up A-bombs in our backyard." Though the technological capability *may* (unproven) exist to destroy all life on earth, or may be in the future, note that it is that human desire to continue living that would effectively prevent that from being utilized in such a manner.
It's not that evolution is conscious, it's that there is such an intricate web at work that we can't possibly begin to understand it completely, and simplifying it to make arguments as they have in VHMET and similar alarmist organizations does not prove their point; it only proves that they aren't able to use available information responsibly. I didn't mean to suggest that Earth had a mind in any way! You are right that a biological system may undo itself and never recover. Countless biological systems have proven this over time; it's a given. However, it's also a given that *other* systems have flourished. Some rise as others fall, but at any given time *something* is doing pretty well. That's what I mean; even if humans upset this or that balance, and do away with themselves, something else will be quietly steaming along, waiting to fill in the gap.
And yes, organisms exist that can withstand - and actually thrive - in furnace-like temperatures. There are organisms that can survive, if not in an active or reproductive state, in any number of the most extreme settings.
I apologize if I was a little harsh in my last post. It's just things like this sound really nice on the surface, but if you put much thought into it you'll find that it doesn't really hold up to any real scientific inquiry. When I say life, by the way, I don't mean "Life as we know it," which is what most people think of as plants, animals, higher orders, intelligent creatures, life on every corner. I merely mean life in any form, maybe one single colony of bacteria left on a dormant volcano with four billion years of repopulating Earth to look forward to, maybe simple plant forms slowly filling the atmosphere with oxygen, or maybe there'll be remnants of what we are now familiar with. My point is only that it's absurd to take measures like that simply to "save the Earth." Human overpopulation *is* definitely damaging to humans in many ways, and it *does* definitely cause the destruction of delicate habitats, destroying entire species and ruining fragile ecologies. However, that does *not* mean that the EARTH is in danger.
It's not blind optimism, it's just the simple truth that even if we wanted, for some reason, to destroy all life, it's really incredibly unlikely. And for it to happen by accident, well, sorry, I don't believe it. I'm all for taking reasonable steps to protect the world we live in, because it's our world, and frankly, it's pretty nice, but there's no need to go to extremes to prevent something already completely unlikely to happen.
I completely respect an individual's right to make his own decisions; if joining VHMET or anything else is really something he wants, that's fine. I just wish people would *really* consider it, before accepting what their website says, no matter how good it sounds on the first read.
Read their page dedicated to naysayers: http://www.vhemt.org/naysayer.htm
Written by
Thank you for allowing further explanation.
Perhaps your disapproval of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is simply an unfortunate misunderstanding.
The Movement is voluntary. We are promoting reproductive freedom, not "population control".
The Movement is life-affirming and will benefit all life. We are not advocating suicide, nor an increase in human deaths.
The Movement is pro-child. Every existing child deserves a good life.
The Movement is pro-parent. Existing children are in need of good parents.
The Movement is opposed to bad stuff.
Does this make sense to you? They are pro child, pro parent, anti suicide, and anti "bad stuff." Well heck, I'm anti bad stuff! Reproductive freedom, not population control. Technically, phasing out humanity through non-reproduction is population control. That aside, all they're offering is the right for their members to choose whether or not to have children. Hmm. Personally, I'd rather adopt than have a child, simply because there are so many unfortunate children who need a home. But that has no bearing on my opinion of humanity. *Shrugs*
Please don't think that I'm discounting them out of hand. I have read the majority of their website by now, which I am always glad to do. Most of it is either vague, contradictory, or simply unfounded. Much of it *is* relevant to current affairs, and their sympathetic tone is actually a bit of a relief, since they don't appear to be especially preachy. I have to give them credit for being at least somewhat balanced; there are much worse sites on the 'net than this. But that doesn't excuse their ultimate message.
Written by
Q: Is voluntary human extinction possible?
Our extinction is not just possible, it's inevitable: billions of species have come and gone already.
But, will enough of us reach the level of awareness needed to voluntarily reverse our present course toward involuntary extinction?
We can only hope, and try to bring it about.
The alternative doesn't look fun.
Success will be humanity's crowning achievement.
"The alternative"? Sorry, but not existing also doesn't look fun.
 I promise, no offense meant to anybody! I'm not the type to get offended by this type of site. As long as they aren't promoting violence or suicide, they don't strike me as especially offensive.
(Edited to insert smiley )
_________________________
Bouncing Baby Pipe!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867073 - 18/07/08 03:32 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: Mucky]
|
Rum-Swilling Combustioneer
Registered: 07/04/08
Loc: Macungie, PA, USA
|
Poked around the Interweb a little more, 'cause I haven't got anything better to do tonight.... Doing a search yielded this interview with the founder of VHMET (among other results): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10339030/Please read the entire transcription, or watch the video. Written by
CARLSON: Yes. What are your politics, generally?
KNIGHT: I'm an anarchist. But you know, the full range of political thought exists within the movement.
Well that does it for me. I understand people who say that they are anarchists, and really believe it, adhering to the actual definition of an anarchist (as opposed to the numbskulls who run around tryin' to Stick It To The Man because they hate authority), but it's a pretty unreasonable thing to believe could be effective. Maybe in small groups, but communism is perfect for small groups too. However, in The Real World, things like that just don't work, so considering oneself an anarchist tends to coincide with not actually being able to deal with The Real World.
Written by
CARLSON: Interesting. And there are children in the movement, too?
KNIGHT: Yes. You know, I think the youngest is about 10. There aren't really very many. But a lot of people who are in the movement think -- have said that they thought of this when they were 6 or 7. It's not a really complicated thing to realize that Earth's biosphere is being disrupted by one species, and that one species is us.
Ok, 6 or 7 year olds also think it'd be cool to have magic powers. I know this, because I wished for magic powers every time 6 yeard olds are encouraged to make a wish, which is pretty often! That 6 and 7 year olds can think of this concept doesn't prove *OR* disprove the solidity of his thinking. However, using it as evidence that it's such a simple idea even children know it to be true, that's faulty logic, and must be taken with a grain of salt.
Written by
CARLSON: What do you mean? I mean, there are many species of plant and animal that are thriving.
KNIGHT: We still haven't gotten to them yet. We're working on it though.
CARLSON: But that's literally true. I mean, there are all sorts of, you know, insects and algae.
KNIGHT: You bet.
CARLSON: There are a lot of living things on this Earth, and a lot of them are doing quite well.
KNIGHT: They are, yes, especially the ones that can adapt to our civilizations, like pigeons and rats. But there are many species which have gone extinct, due to our increase. There are so many of us. Wherever we live, not much else lives.
Note that Knight acknowledges some life forms' abilities to adapt to the surrounding conditions, in this case "our civilizations." Also, the allegation that "not much else lives" seems a little oversimplified. As I've said before, anybody can tell you human overpopulation has lead to massive destruction of many species and habitats, but that *will* go on for many generations even if their plan is enacted. It will go on if their plan isn't enacted. In fact, if our climate changes any more severely in the very near future, it may go on for several hundreds of years. This is terrible, to be sure, but again, his proposed "solution" doesn't really seem effective.
Written by
CARLSON: So what's the point of saving the earth if there would [sic] be people around to enjoy it?
KNIGHT: Well, I know that's a question a lot of people ask. And it's obvious that they're not thinking about all the other species. We are just one of 10 million. Who knows how many? We've only catalogued two million. And to think that we -- the entire planet is just for us is rather human centered.
This is the crux of the entire thing, isn't it? I understand both points of view, and I don't advocate either one, here. But I think most people would react as Carlson has here. But I also think anybody would agree with Knight that the world *isn't* ours. Still, some of it is ours, and directing our energy toward being more responsible with it would be better for the whole world than simply saying, "We can't possibly do better than we've done; let's give up now."
I've only quoted part of the interview; read/watch it and draw your own conclusions. I'll close with Carlson's closing remark,
Written by
CARLSON: I will say, that is the sickest thing I think I've ever heard, but you are one of the cheeriest guests we've ever had. I don't know how to-how the two fit together, but I appreciate you coming on. Thanks a lot.
I didn't watch the video because I don't have sound, but the tone of the conversation seems to be pretty jovial. I can't begrudge Knight his beliefs if he's going to be so damned nice about it!
Best to all!
_________________________
Bouncing Baby Pipe!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867074 - 18/07/08 04:21 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: Mucky]
|
addict
Registered: 26/05/05
Loc: Adelaide
|
Written by :Mucky
Written by
CARLSON: Yes. What are your politics, generally?
KNIGHT: I'm an anarchist. But you know, the full range of political thought exists within the movement.
Well that does it for me. I understand people who say that they are anarchists, and really believe it, adhering to the actual definition of an anarchist (as opposed to the numbskulls who run around tryin' to Stick It To The Man because they hate authority), but it's a pretty unreasonable thing to believe could be effective. Maybe in small groups, but communism is perfect for small groups too. However, in The Real World, things like that just don't work, so considering oneself an anarchist tends to coincide with not actually being able to deal with The Real World.
Your other points are relevant but this is an Ad hominem attack.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867075 - 18/07/08 05:04 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: Mucky]
|
addict
Registered: 26/05/05
Loc: Adelaide
|
Written by Mucky
Even if they are actually serious and committed to it, it isn't like they'll put a dent in the population that way. Not even a small one, nope.
Yep there's no way the plan will work, it's almost like people that go to fight a war with a country much bigger than theirs, knowing that they will never win the war. They are martyrs. Maybe Knight realises that it won't work and that's makes him so jovial.
The other explanation is that they don't really want to wipe out the human race, just curb it a bit, but take the extreme position of voluntary "extinction" because it generates a lot of publicity, and interesting discussions. Some people like being extremists just because it's extreme .
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867076 - 18/07/08 10:51 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: PsyRush]
|
Momma Bear
Registered: 10/04/05
Loc: Newbury!
|
To be fair, we've not taken very good care of our planet. We are vastly over populated, people are dying at a slower rate and people keep re-producing even though we all know full well we are over-populated.
We throw away so much food every day, and yet millions starve to death.
I'm not condoning what they're doing at all, in fact I think it's pretty silly, however at least they're thinking about the global consequences for everyone.
_________________________
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867077 - 18/07/08 11:24 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: jo_rhymes]
|
Stargazer
Registered: 20/09/03
Loc: here and now
|
To be unfair - we're pretty much the only species that even thinks about "taking care of the planet"... Sorry, Jo - no pun intended, but we're by no means overpopulating the planet and people do reproduce because that is natural. It's a world full of contradictions, it has always been. As individuals and as a species we do have a pristine right to be here. We're natures children. Earth is our host - it's up to us (individually) to either behave like a parasite or to aim living in symbiosis. However in the West we already cease to reproduce on a large scale. Germany (for example) has a declining population and (if it was not for migration) I would guess that this is the case with most European countries and the US. Even if that wold not be the case (statistically) - the western countries do not grow as much and as fast as the developing countries. When I've been about 8 and started to understand the news, I wanted to "save the world"... Some decade later I realized that the world doesn't necessarily want to be saved (by me). Most likely this planet will still revolve around this star we call "sun" just fine and it still is going to have life, long after the last naked, bipedal mammal has left. Very certain this planet will cease its existence when our sun is dying (in 4something billion years or so) - regardless whether peace and happiness prevail on earth or not. When looking at mankind and comparing it to any other species on this planet, I feel that there is still hope. There is not that much we're doing, that no other species wouldn't (enjoying the same opportunities). Written by : VHEMT
When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.
That is true - hence it might also happen if mankind is still around, it might not happen despite mankind being gone. This statement is merely deriving from a fatalistic, separatist attitude.
If you - as an individual - decide not to reproduce, just (don't) do it. Feel free to spread this idea - aware that it's not a new one at all. Especially during the age of the cold war and disastrous industrial exploitation, without anything even near "ecological consciousness", many people decided not to reproduce. Many sterilized themselves, with the declaration "I don't want to put children into this world"...
Again I would like to advertise Bill Bryson's "Short history about nearly everything" as to come to a more intricate understanding of the universe' physical nature.
It might further brighten up other "blind spots".
_________________________
Carpe vitem ~*~ Humble guardian to the amazing three: Chellybean, Hamamelis and AmaraO... 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867078 - 19/07/08 12:48 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: FireTom]
|
Momma Bear
Registered: 10/04/05
Loc: Newbury!
|
Sorry Tom but I disagree with you.
Most of Nature is in balance, the various eco-systems make life on Earth pretty-near perfect. and then humans came along. And it all got out of balance.
We're the only species that "thinks about taking care of the planet", because we're the ones that messed it up.
_________________________
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867079 - 19/07/08 12:56 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: jo_rhymes]
|
Channel \'Tunnel
Registered: 27/02/03
Loc: the port of Gos
|
Written by :jo_rhymes
We're the only species that "thinks about taking care of the planet", because we're the ones that messed it up.
Sad, but true...
_________________________
Once you HoP, you can't stop  ____________________________ "I thought you are man, but you are nice woman. yay, :R"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867080 - 19/07/08 01:50 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: jo_rhymes]
|
Rum-Swilling Combustioneer
Registered: 07/04/08
Loc: Macungie, PA, USA
|
Written by :jo_rhymes
We throw away so much food every day, and yet millions starve to death.
Jo, please don't take this the wrong way, but this is the kind of logic that makes arguing about human overpopulation a little unwieldy. To be perfectly heartless, wouldn't that mean that we're doing our part to curb human population?
Naturally I don't encourage famine, hunger, or poverty! Nor does VHMET; in fact any sensible person would be strongly opposed to suffering of any sort. I'm only pointing out the contradictory thinking that goes on in discussions like this. When we think about people starving to death, it elicits a natural response of compassion to those in hardship; that compassion is part of the basis for our continuing survival as a species. Talking of slowly eradicating the human species while being sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man are not compatible. Which is why the vast majority of us will remain sympathetic and forget about eradication.
Written by :PsyRush
Your other points are relevant but this is an Ad hominem attack.
You're right, it is a slightly unfair argument on my part; however, given the amount of research material provided by VHMET, much of which I've addressed as well, I think it's at least somewhat salient to discuss Knight's personal political beliefs if only to demonstrate that his worldview is overly simplistic. Then again, without his explanation it is impossible to know how strongly he feels about it. I withdraw that statement.
FireTom, I second the Bill Bryson recommendation!
_________________________
Bouncing Baby Pipe!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867081 - 19/07/08 02:37 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: Mucky]
|
Momma Bear
Registered: 10/04/05
Loc: Newbury!
|
Mucky, on the contrary. We can't even feed ALL of us, so why keep creating more people?
We have the resources, we have the means to make sure everyone is fed and safe, yet we don't do this.
_________________________
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867082 - 19/07/08 02:48 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: jo_rhymes]
|
Rum-Swilling Combustioneer
Registered: 07/04/08
Loc: Macungie, PA, USA
|
Jo, I understand what you're saying. However, you say we can't feed all of us, then assert that we have the resources and the means to do so. The logical solution given those two conditions is that we use our resources better, not stop creating people. Again, I'm not arguing that we *shouldn't* better use our resources, because we really should; I'm just saying that it isn't that we are unable to keep everyone fed, just that we haven't done so.
The assumption that I think groups like VHMET are under is that human nature is by default corrupt and bad, and the *only* viable solution is to do away with all humans. Sure, having no people to feed would ensure that nobody went hungry, but that doesn't make it the optimum solution. I wasn't singling you out Jo, I was just using your statement to demonstrate the confusion that I think a lot of people have when talking about things like this, which is what makes groups like VHMET appealing to some.
Best!
_________________________
Bouncing Baby Pipe!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867083 - 19/07/08 03:13 AM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: Mucky]
|
Momma Bear
Registered: 10/04/05
Loc: Newbury!
|
I don't think mass suicide is the answer, at all, I can just understand why they are doing it. It seems quite noble if you think about it!
_________________________
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#867085 - 19/07/08 03:03 PM
Re: The voluntary human extinction movement
[Re: simta]
|
HOP Mad Doctor
Registered: 28/05/01
Loc: Brisbane, Oz
|
First of all, I have trouble believing that the VHEMT idea is anything other than a joke. It's all very cleverly worded, actually.
That said, it does raise a rather provocative, but also rather old question: What is the purpose of human life, or life in general? In order to accept the VHEMT idea, you have to accept that there is no purpose of human life, that human life is pointless, and that it doesn't matter if we live or die.
In fact, I believe that may well be the case. I would like to believe in romantic ideas that we might evolve to a vast, starfaring civilization that will spawn entire new universes to our own specifications and create new life and new order in new universes. This would mean that life is the universe's way of making another universe and that we are essential to cosmic reproduction. But honestly, I think that life in general is simply a specific form of matter that forms on worlds where conditions are right.
So that raises the next issue -- and here is where I take issue with VHEMT -- in order to accept VHEMT, you have to accept that human life is actually somehow less ...er... pointful (is that the opposite of "pointless"?) than other life. If you can accept that, then it makes sense that humans should go extinct... or does it?
See, humans may yet become a starfaring race. As we spread across the gulfs between the stars, we will take other life forms with us (although hopefully we'll leave mosquitos and Hippies behind  ). In another 2 billion years, the Sun's temperature will have increased to the point where Earth's surface is much more akin to that of Venus today (and this is still 2 billion years before the Sun becomes a red giant!).
If we all die, then all life on Earth has no chance. Alternatively, another species may become sentient. For all we know, it could have happened before.
Of course, what I bring up only forestalls another problem: a yellow dwarf star like the Sun has a lifespan of about 10 billion years, give or take a couple billion. A red dwarf, because of its far slower rate of fusion, may live 100 billion years, and maybe as long as a trillion. That's far older than the age of the universe now.
But eventually, all the hydrogen in the universe will either be fused or will be dispersed in useless, diffuse clouds that cannot form stars. Galaxies will "relax" and stars will either be cast out of the galaxy or fall into the central black holes. Eventually, the stars will stop shining and only black holes and neutron stars will remain. A few hundred trillion to a few quadrillion years after that, proton and neutron decay will become an important factor and even the neutron stars and few remaining bodies of normal matter will evaporate over time. The last things to go will be the black holes. As the universe expands ever more quickly (which seems to be what the current theories indicate), the only things that will remain will be vast "atoms" consisting of a single electron and a single positron. These "atoms" will be larger than the size of the current visible universe. They will slowly circle each-other and eventually annihilate as they come together. Whether the universe will run out of these or expand so quickly that they never all get used up is unclear.
And that makes me wonder...
...if there is no point to it all, then why not keep on living?
_________________________
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"My love waits there in San Francisco
Above the blue and windy sea
When I come home to you, San Francisco
Your golden sun will shine for me "
-Tony Bennett
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bookmark this page! / Email to a friend
ooh Atlantis!
Previous Topic
Index