Voluntary Human Extinction?

[Richard]

I disagree with anything that promotes human extinction because I value human life and I like humanity

 

The only way that voluntary human extinction could happen in this manner is that everybody agrees not to reproduce. The likelihood of that is not even worth thinking about, it's so unlikely, so I don't think that you should worry about people promoting voluntary extinction if your concern is the planet running out of humans. Remember that it's voluntary extinction. If people don't volunteer to do it, then it won't happen, so don't worry I would disagree with involuntary extinction.

 

With regards to valuing human life - even if everybody did agree to not reproduce, then human lives would go on in the same way, and people would just die of natural causes the same way they inevitably will anyway. But there would be no offspring, no more humans to follow. So it's not like taking lives, there's no killing. The human life which exists is still valued.

 

If you mean that you value humans being on the earth, why do you value them being here? On the whole, we pretty much ruin it for all other species, in my opinion. There are some humans who do less damage than others, but most of the societies we have are pretty bad news for other animals, expanding into their territory, destroying their homes, killing off entire races, putting other races into captivity and slaughtering them...

 

Again, it's not to say that humans should die or be killed, but I don't think there's a reason to make more of us, there isn't a particular function for us, there's no problem caused by us not being here. All other species would just live on in the way they do in the wild; with us gone, it would be great for so many species.

 

Other theoretical solutions are good too. I don't say that human extinction is the ultimate goal, and the only way to go. Like I said, voluntary extinction won't happen anyway, it's just a theory. Living harmoniously, reversing pollution, everbody becoming vegan, stopping industries etc etc, that'd be great too, and I work towards that, and promote that. But I don't intend to have kids. Lots of people say 'if you don't have kids, you won't have influenced the future generation'. But, if the purpose of having kids is to influence the future generation, you can do that by talking to as many kids as you like, talk to 100s of them, give them advice, do speeches at schools etc talk to parents, talk to everybody, you can change the next generation without adding to their numbers. Or you could even adopt a child. Adding to the population will inevitably raise pollution levels, and various other negative factors which are raised by population in our societies.

[Odidnetne]

I disagree with anything that promotes human extinction because I value human life and I like humanity

 

Does that include my idea to decide to adopt instead of have a child?

[suz]

There are some very interesting essays on this website that have to do with population/carrying capacity/sustainability/etc:

 

http://dieoff.org/

 

I used to be fascinated by this stuff... not that I'm necessarily for voluntary extinction or anything.

 

I personally find 'The Tragedy of the Commons' particularly interesting: http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

[Astrocat]

Why is is "belligerent" to give my opinion when asked for? This was not a vhem appreciation topic.

 

I think it's ridiculous. It like saying "We f*cked up, let's quit" instead of making an effort to change things.

 

I agree that things could be a lot better but this is the easy way out!

Take your responsiblity, aim for a better world. Why not try and create a world without suffering?

 

 

Well.... given how offended you've managed to be already, I'm sure you would be only more offended if i were to say that you're a slacker and a quitter, taking the easy option in life, doing nothing to try and create a world without suffering, are irresponsibly making no effort to change things..... without bothering to ask you about what you're actually doing ?

 

That would be considered to be belligerent of me, yes ?

 

I suppose you imagine that would be different since I would be saying it, rather than you. Deriding people as a group rather than individually, doesn't make it all okay.

 

Oh, and saying "this isn't a VHEMT appreciation topic" .. ?

Very condescending. Nice. Very constructive.

 

It is easy to dismiss something as "nuts" because you find it unusual, and easy to dismiss it without solid reasoning. But it is more progressive and constructive to explain why you disagree , than to just be derisive of those with different views.

 

I am fed up of people in general trying to make out that the sun shines out of humanity's collective ass just because they happen to be human, and making out that it's amazingly unselfish to produce children in an overpopulated world, and selfish not to do so, and making out that people who don't choose to generate offspring are just some kind of irresponsible drain on the rest of fine, upstanding, responsible wonderful unselfish society .... it's incredibly biased to have such an approach.

Not that anybody here necessarily feels that way - I'm just saying....

[andgbr]

I disagree with anything that promotes human extinction because I value human life and I like humanity

 

The only way that voluntary human extinction could happen in this manner is that everybody agrees not to reproduce. The likelihood of that is not even worth thinking about, it's so unlikely, so I don't think that you should worry about people promoting voluntary extinction if your concern is the planet running out of humans. Remember that it's voluntary extinction. If people don't volunteer to do it, then it won't happen, so don't worry I would disagree with involuntary extinction.

 

With regards to valuing human life - even if everybody did agree to not reproduce, then human lives would go on in the same way, and people would just die of natural causes the same way they inevitably will anyway. But there would be no offspring, no more humans to follow. So it's not like taking lives, there's no killing. The human life which exists is still valued.

 

If you mean that you value humans being on the earth, why do you value them being here? On the whole, we pretty much ruin it for all other species, in my opinion. There are some humans who do less damage than others, but most of the societies we have are pretty bad news for other animals, expanding into their territory, destroying their homes, killing off entire races, putting other races into captivity and slaughtering them...

 

Again, it's not to say that humans should die or be killed, but I don't think there's a reason to make more of us, there isn't a particular function for us, there's no problem caused by us not being here. All other species would just live on in the way they do in the wild; with us gone, it would be great for so many species.

 

Other theoretical solutions are good too. I don't say that human extinction is the ultimate goal, and the only way to go. Like I said, voluntary extinction won't happen anyway, it's just a theory. Living harmoniously, reversing pollution, everbody becoming vegan, stopping industries etc etc, that'd be great too, and I work towards that, and promote that. But I don't intend to have kids. Lots of people say 'if you don't have kids, you won't have influenced the future generation'. But, if the purpose of having kids is to influence the future generation, you can do that by talking to as many kids as you like, talk to 100s of them, give them advice, do speeches at schools etc talk to parents, talk to everybody, you can change the next generation without adding to their numbers. Or you could even adopt a child. Adding to the population will inevitably raise pollution levels, and various other negative factors which are raised by population in our societies.

 

-I think that we could save the Earth in many ways not only from our problems but other problems as well if we could find something, or just live our lives giving less suffering possible, the problem is that we did not evolved knowledge enough for that.

-I also believe that our population shouldn't extinct for that simple reason, but i find really unacceptable how our population is growing so fast and how big it is now, yes, it's good that a lot of people will not have child, because we know that not everybody will agree with that, and at least someone, someday will find a better solution for all this.

We are rationals, not a virus, nor a comet, we can learn, and be the ''guardians'' of our planet. We just have to learn, not commit a suicide to our specie.

[Kathryn]

I don't agree with the movement itself, but I can't say i disagree with the idea, not because i want our population to go extinct, but for the mere reason that i want our population size to decrease, and obviously, not everybody is going to agree with the idea, and even if they did, i don't think that'd be a problem, not for ''the last ones'', neither for the environment.

 

So, whether we go extinct or not, all i really want is for a smaller global population.. we don't have to go extinct, but let's act like rationals and start controlling the size of our population..

 

I agree!

 

I'm all for 'voluntary reduction of human population" to about 1/2 of what it is today. I think that would mean a better quality of life for the planet as a whole (the ecosystem, the animals, the humans).

[Richard]

VHEMT isn't going to succeed in convincing every single human on the planet to not have kids. Those who advocate the VHEMT point of view, the only action they take (or non-action), is that they aren't going to have a child. So extinction itself is kind of neither here nor there; it's just the choice of not having a child for the good of the planet; or rather, to avoid adding more problems to the planet. extinction is a distant (im)possibility, right now the population needs control, and choosing not to have kids is an ethical way to do that.

[jonzen]

I agree with what you just said Richard.

[andgbr]

VHEMT isn't going to succeed in convincing every single human on the planet to not have kids. Those who advocate the VHEMT point of view, the only action they take (or non-action), is that they aren't going to have a child. So extinction itself is kind of neither here nor there; it's just the choice of not having a child for the good of the planet; or rather, to avoid adding more problems to the planet. extinction is a distant (im)possibility, right now the population needs control, and choosing not to have kids is an ethical way to do that.

 

they might not succeed, but they're going to help us, by not having a child, and therefore decreasing the population growth.

i don't think it's a good thing for some of them, but it's obviously good for many of us.

let's think at the bright side, less humans. at least they're not having 3 to 5 child like a lot of people today.

[Richard]

VHEMT isn't going to succeed in convincing every single human on the planet to not have kids. Those who advocate the VHEMT point of view, the only action they take (or non-action), is that they aren't going to have a child. So extinction itself is kind of neither here nor there; it's just the choice of not having a child for the good of the planet; or rather, to avoid adding more problems to the planet. extinction is a distant (im)possibility, right now the population needs control, and choosing not to have kids is an ethical way to do that.

 

they might not succeed, but they're going to help us, by not having a child, and therefore decreasing the population growth.

i don't think it's a good thing for some of them, but it's obviously good for many of us.

let's think at the bright side, less humans. at least they're not having 3 to 5 child like a lot of people today.

 

I'm totally for human extinction. I was just saying that, just by not having a kid, it's not like the human race becomes extinct. It'll take a while, if it ever does happen, so people who are anti-extinction shouldn't worry anyway. The promotion of vhemt is more to do with just controlling the population and having as many people as possible not have kids.

[Astrocat]

i don't think it's a good thing for some of them

 

I think it's a good idea for everyone who wishes to refrain from having children, and who have no desire to increase the already heavily overpopulated human race, to do exactly that.... by choosing not to have children.

[Astrocat]

If the human race became extinct.....

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,351113,00.jpg

 

 

Of course, since humans aren;t going to become extinct in the long-term forseeable future (unless America blows everyone up, which is entirely within the realms of possibility considering the American government's history of aggression and the way things are going) , then i suppose the environment will continue to decay in the way which is so well publicised in modern times.

 

That's how great the human race is for the planet.

 

 

It seems to me that the only two options are :

(1) voluntary partial human race non-expansion and recognition that the planet would be better off without humanity skanking it up ,

or

(2) non-voluntary eventual partial human extinction due to the lack of environmental sustainability of the ever-expanding human race. This includes massive environmental destruction and the extinction of countless other species, in the process.

[Richard]

Wow that's a cool diagram

[andgbr]

the only one who is not going to die is Chuck Norris..

 

Well, the only ones who shouldn't die are people who really cared about the environment, we can't just select i group of humans and kill the rest ( that'd be crazy ), but by controlling and educating a small tiny future civilization that i hope we have in the future we can still live in this world without being destructive..

or perhaps we should try the Moonraker plan.. ahaha ( just a joke )

[Guest]

Maybe this isn't all that funny but I think Chuck Norris would die first since he'd go out of his way to protect every single one of us. That would make for one sad moment

[michaelhobson]

Maybe this isn't all that funny but I think Chuck Norris would die first since he'd go out of his way to protect every single one of us. That would make for one sad moment

 

But Chuck Norris always saves everyone and he never dies. He can't die. Right?

[Guest]

I think this would be the chance for him to go out with a bang...by saving all of humanity with one swipe...

[michaelhobson]

I think this would be the chance for him to go out with a bang...by saving all of humanity with one swipe...

 

That sucks, the earth is still overpopulated and everyone lives except for Chuck Norris. That is an absolutely horrible idea. Couldn't he at least let the Republicans die, or even just the Bush klan?

[Guest]

I said he'd save all of humanity...obviously you didn't get that since republicans don't count...same goes for omnis and vegetarians

[andgbr]

Chuck Norris never dies, ''death'' itself is scared of him...

[Astrocat]

I still believe that Florsh is the Future ....

 

I encourage people to consider it sincerely, as a very viable and sustainable solution to the present human population / select human selfishness / humans continuing to breed especially in dumbassed areas issues.

[andgbr]

I still believe that Florsh is the Future ....

 

I encourage people to consider it sincerely, as a very viable and sustainable solution to the present human population / select human selfishness / humans continuing to breed especially in dumbassed areas issues.

 

the moonraker plan is better... lol

[Astrocat]

What's a moonraker plan ?

[Kathryn]

It's people! Soylent Green is people!

[andgbr]

What's a moonraker plan ?

 

from a 007's movie called ''Moonraker'', i think it's the third ( really old though )..

you find a group of selected humans ( male and female ) you go to the space with them, and poison everybody else in the earth.. with a gas, and after somedays when everything is done, you go back, or something like that, i can't really remember, but it's really crazy.. ahahah