Poll: Voluntary Human Extinction

[Niman]

you don't really have any middle ground in your poll.

very true (still, I voted against this whole idea)

 

[fluffylandmine]

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.

My suggestion is a simple: No, we're fine, everything will work out in the end.

And in no particular order are my grievences.

Option 1, What ever.

Option 5, "blech".

Option 6 is the pretentious one.

Option 3 is generalized. Let's face it we can't put those kinds of universal laws in knowing the consequences.

Option 4 is just very depressing and useless.

Option 2 can be explained by my description of- Libertarian, deist who believes: "We know that we are not really killing the enviornment, it will reform. Whether we're here or not will depend upon natural selection/how we ended up where we are(not now but possibly later)."

That's where I stand. I could be wrong, but I prefer to think that I'm not.

 

[TheBXRabbit]

Personally, I believe we've screwed this planet up royally, and no matter what happens, it isn't going back to normal. Hell, normal doesn't even apply here because the planet is in a state of constant change. I think we should be more careful with what we've got, but anyone who thinks we should act against our natural survival instinct is retarded. I mean that. Sign those bitches up for the Special Olympics, because they are 100% full-retard.

In fact: Darwin Awards for every member of the movement, which will be distributed upon their following through with their goal. Now's no time to be hypocritical, just pull a "Dubya" and keep doing what you're doing no matter how much worse off you'll be and how stupid everyone else will think you are. Because you are. You are very, VERY stupid if you believe this crap and I'm actually glad that this movement has come along to bring all these idiots together and convince them to stop pissing in the gene pool.

 

[Sporky111]

The world would not return to "natural splendor" once humans are gone. The evidence of humanity (cities, pollution, leveled forests, space junk) will stay around for hundreds of years anyway. We might as well be around to enjoy it.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I am actually a fairly big fan of population control since I think overpopulation is the ultimate threat to Earth and the human race, but there's a big gap between controlling the population and eliminating it entirely. What the hell is the point of protecting the Earth if no one's alive anymore to enjoy it? Goddam exremist psychotic human-race hating hippies.

 

[Magugag]

For the good of the world, I think that the human race should try to do less to impact the world around it, but I don't think that an all-out extinction is even slightly reasonable. Population control is well and good, but look what it's doing to the Chinese. The poor men are having issues finding girls to marry. I myself like to think that we take steps towards bettering our impact on the earth every day, and that we as a race can do what is necessary without killing ourselves off. My opinion doesn't really fall into any of the options, so I'm just putting it here.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

I've already consigned myself to never being able to reproduce and even I think it's a stupid idea...

 

[Zephirius]

Meh, I disagree, but then Earth will most likely recover no matter how bad we fuck up. Us hoomahns should worry about ourselves, the odds of us getting nuked by other factions of us are much greater than earth becoming irrevocably uninhabitable, if'n ya ask me.

 

[rottenbutter]

*snicker*...*giggle*...HahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!

Oh my god (hahaha) are they serious? (hahahahahaha) If this is a joke (haha) then it's awesome. (hahaha) If it isn't (hahahaha) then it's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. Either way (hahahaha) it's HILARIOUS!
I mean, I all for saving the environment, but this is ridiculous.

The stuff written on that site was just so stupid I...can't...stop...LAUGHING!
(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

(Sorry for all the "ha"s but this is so funny I really can't stop laughing.)

 

[Holy_Handgrenade]

I think our survival instinct might be there for a reason.



It's just a hunch.

 

[Ranooth]

But breeding is fun.

 

[bjj hero]

Im all for these tards not breeding and keeping their waste out of our gene pool...

If we're destroying the planet with global warming, whys my house so fucking cold?

 

[Locust]

This is the epitome of those people who sit and moan about how humans are evil and deserve to be extinct. It's ridiculous. The Earth's purpose is to create and sustain life, removing humans from the equation does not fulfill that purpose, it merely stagnates because there are no intelligent lifeforms. Humans are the next step in creating life because we've been gifted with higher intelligence, why undo that? Maybe it sounds selfish, but even if you did remove humans, eventually another species will evolve mentally and just do exactly what we've done, meaning their efforts are pointless. Their views are akin to that of a suicide cult.

 

[Simalacrum]

yeeeaaahhh but its simply not going to happen is it? its human nature to reproduce, to try and stop people from doing so will simply cause outcry, especially since it goes against basic human rights.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I'm actually quite sick of people who think that just because we are on a higher level of intelligence that we should cease acting along our own natural track of behavior. Before we came along, animals ate other animals (fuck PETA), animals shit where they ate/drink (pollution), and cave men (not cromagnon (sp?)) waged small wars. We did not cause, in my opinion, Global Warming, but I do believe we are contributing to it.

And thinking we can reverse endangerment of species is counterproductive to evolution. As is any sort of plan to level the playing fields for every single human in the world. Eventually, if we keep this up, we will not be able to survive w/o some kind of artificial immune system (albeit extremely far into the future from now).

 

[Haddi]

I think the entire idea is

(A) Sad

(B) Pathetic

(C) Bloody Stupid)

(D) All of the above.

God, reading through their website, is like listening to a smarmy asshole who acts all holier/smarter than thou, I mean, it sounded like someone speaking down to me. Condescending. (Mean). But that's not my issue. My issue is the idea of people being so bloody stupid that they would want a species to waste away and go extinct, because they think the alternatives are stupid and won't work. Thank god most people are smart enough not to listen to them. I want to wash my brain out now.

 

[Uszi]

My suggestion is a simple: No, we're fine, everything will work out in the end.

See Option 4. I'll add it though, if you feel it's sufficiently different from option 4.

And in no particular order are my grievences.

...

Option 6 is the pretentious one.

Pretentious how-so? Because you would be pretentious to think that, or that is it pretentious that I included it. If the latter, then poo-poo on you, since it's a legitimate view point in so far as its held by many, many people. If the former, then there isn't much to discuss. Perhaps it is.

Option 3 is generalized. Let's face it we can't put those kinds of universal laws in knowing the consequences.

Eh. I looked into changing it, but only change I could see would be to make it more generalized, removing strictly enforced. This would change it to "we should implement some sort of population control. I don't see how you would make it less "generalized." An option saying, "If we knew what the consequences were, we should..." would have no place in the poll.

Option 4 is just very depressing and useless.

I do not see your logic.

Are you sure this isn't PETA?

I get the impression they were kicked out of PETA meetings for their extremism.

--------------------------------------------------

Let me play devil's advocate then (this is directed at whoever is reading now); would a planet without humans be better or worse off then a planet with humans?

You have to admit: the dodo birds and Tasmanian tigers would be happier. So would the loggerhead sea turtles caught in nets each year, and the large mammals in National Parks that are on the brink of extinction due to habitat shrinkage.