Poll: Voluntary Human Extinction

[Uszi]

http://www.vhemt.org/

So apparently there is a reasonably large group of people who feel like every person on the planet should stop breeding, and allow the human race to go extinct. They do not approve of suicide, infanticide, genocide or people dying (in general) to achieve this end, they merely think that you should not make babies. The goal of the movement is to return Earth to its natural splendor.

When I read their site, a million different discussion topics come to mind---So I figured it would be fun to post it here and see what people think.

So, some possible lines of discussion off the top of my head:

-VHEMT itself.
-Human Population Control
-Human Population growth an carrying capacity
-Human impact on the environment
-What the hell is the natural "splendor" of a humanless world
-Returning to life in the bush and the hunter gatherer lifestyle, a similar view [http://www.ishmael.org/welcome.cfm] (with similar implications).


I don't have time right now, but I plan on posting my own viewpoints shortly. In the mean time, please mention your own.

 

[DROPDEADNAKED]

I don't know what to think. haha.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

Uhh. No, the human race does not need to go extinct. It just needs to control its population.

This.

 

[sgtshock]

Oh ok.

Let's let thousands of years of history, crucial advances in social and scientific evolution, and the only known intelligent species in the universe become erased from existence, so that a bunch of animals can live in "nature's splendor."

 

[fluffylandmine]

I do not approve of all those options in the poll, they seem to dumbass-ish to me.

1. Why do we deserve death for the sake of something that would only evolve to take our place.
2. All of the 'no' options are either pretencious, to generalized, or oblivious.


We effect the planet, what doesn't? We were not the first life-forms on earth so it was not "given" to us.
Laws on restriction work and are appropriate in certain countries, in others it's fine and dandy to breed to your hearts content(It's looked down upon though). By doing anything to said laws you will dangerously increase the population of one area or cripple the population of another.

 

[Uszi]

My future comment will settle on this:
"No, we should do nothing since human growth has slowed in the past few decades."

If you did not realize that, go look it up. Human population growth, for as long back as we can estimate, peaked after World War II (which is known as the baby boom in the US). The world's population tripled in the lifetime of someone who was born in the 40s/50s.

It is unlikely that the worlds population will triple again. Again, I'll look it up with actual references latter, but we'll be lucky to see the worlds population double in our life times (er, I mean if you're an 80s/90s child).

 

[Uszi]

2. All of the 'no' options are either pretencious, to generalized, or oblivious.

You have a suggestion?
I'll add it.

And actually I'll go ahead and disagree with you.

A lot of people most certainly hold Option 6 (The world is Humanity's apple). I wasn't sure how well represented that group would be here on the Escapist, but many people don't give two shits about the environment and do whatever they damn well please each and every day.

Option 5 (No impact) one could argue. My guess is we would all agree that person would be wrong. I'll go ahead and remove though, if no one picks it/defends it.

Option 4 (Growth Self Limiting) is actually fairly well documented. Whether or not you would need to do "nothing," or "much less than an aggressive population control policy," are debatable. But there will not be 21 billion people on the planet in 100 years, and no one with a PHD will argue that their will be.

Option 3 (Enforce Pop Control), I fail to see how it is pretentious or generalized. Maybe you find it obvious, but here I disagree with you.

Option 2 (VEHMT) obviously has some sway with some people out there. Maybe some of our fellow Escapists would be interested in VEHMT or sympathize with the movement. It is, after all, a movement born of atheism, liberalism and environmentalism, which are three movements that hold larg sway here on the forums. And before anyone takes offense at that last sentence, please explain how you get VEHMTers out of a theistic, conservative society.

Option 1 is meant to be funny and lighten the mood. You should never take anything you post on the internet too seriously.

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

Uhh. No, the human race does not need to go extinct. It just needs to control its population.

This.

Me as well

 

[Beffudled Sheep]

Uhh. No, the human race does not need to go extinct. It just needs to control its population.

 

[Spudgun Man]

Yay lets reverse time and go against every bit of human instinct and intellignce and start hitting each other with sticks and eating berries. Christ this group of people must be so far up their own arses or run by a smarmy twelve year old.

suerly if we did 'dissaper' we are leaving a lot of crap for jonny fox,polar bear,ant ect ect ect to play with eg choke to death on.

 

[Uszi]

Yay lets reverse time and go against every bit of human instinct and intellignce and start hitting each other with sticks and eating berries. Christ this group of people must be so far up their own arses or run by a smarmy twelve year old.

That would be the Ishmael community.
The VHEMTers want the berries and sticks to live in nature's splendor, undisturbed.

I should add that Daniel Quinn would probably take offense to be called a smarmy twelve year old, and I did not mean to call him that by way of my reply to your post.

 

[fix-the-spade]

What's the point of Nature's splendour if no-one is around to enjoy it?

Bloody idiots.

 

[Niman]

This is annoying. The possibility of simbiosis is not far-fatched! These people should consider this. Just because there is "evil" in the world that does not have to doom the whole human race. People are smart....

Just because the world existed before humanity it does not make it the case that that was the only state in which the world can survive. If they really took "nature's way" to be the actual case of solving the world's problems (which they think of it as the extinction of the human race) they would also consider the fact that the world is an adaptive environment. Im not saying that we should sit down and do nothing, just wait for the world to adapt to us. But this is taking it too far!

In short: I dont think it is impossible for humans to live a balanced existence with the world. Just because popular saying like "kill all bees and the world collapses....kill all humans and the world thrives" exist, it doesent mean anything. I think there are actually some people who listen to sayings like that and believe them dogmatically without much thought!

 

[JakePwnsAtLife]

I just think that people shouldn't really be allowed to have 12 children...it's not responsible first of all, and most people with that many kids cannot afford and it and seep into our welfare funds anywho. I believe that people should just maybe reproduce a little less so that we don't exhaust our resources and people that are here can live more comfortably. I am a fourth child, and I can see how even if every person had 4 children it would be excessive, so I'm merely speaking objectivly and in a scientific point of view. We have overpopulation and housing concerns as it is, and it is irresponsible to continue completely unchecked.

 

[dekkarax]

These guys and PETA are proof that evolution can sadly work backwards.

 

[Bagaloo]

I sense a conspiracy. They will campaign to get everyone steralised, then right at the end keep back a hundred or so carefully selected people to repopulate the planet after everyone is gone! Devious fiends!

On a serious note, lolwut?
I can't believe there is actually an organisation that wants to end all human life on the planet.

 

[itstimeforpie]

That sounds kinda wierd, and you don't really have any middle ground in your poll.