Poll: Voluntary Human Extinction
- Thread starter Uszi
- Start date
(D), no argument here. These people make me sick. If they really wanted the human race to go extinct, why are they still alive? Because they cherish their little worthless lives, of course. It's the same "logic" that allows environmentalists to pass tons of regulations on the lumber industry (taking the food from people's mouths, not to mention that most foresting nowadays includes replanting trees-just good business), while sitting pretty in their giant SUVs.Haddi said:
If somebody was really committed to the idea of making humankind extinct, they'd take a more active role. We call those people anarchists/serial killers/3rd-world dictators. I think most people who believe in the aforementioned way of thinking do so because it's somewhat politically correct (since it's all about how EVIL humanity is to the environment). Yeah, I think humankind HAS had some kind of impact on Global Warming, but I really don't see how racial genocide (in this sense, "race" referring to the race of humanity) is an acceptable answer.
I don't think a world without humanity would be any better for animals than a world with us. Why? Animals are too stupid to notice a difference. I don't mean that they are "dumb," this is just a statement of fact. A seagull doesn't notice whether dying on the beach is better than choking on a plastic wrapper-all it cares about is the whole "dying" issue. A single sea lion can eat 50 salmon per day. Do the salmon really care whether they're swimming in polluted water or not, with the more pressing danger of sea lions?
Nature is cruel. Nature is unfeeling. The animals at the top of the chain do whatever they want. Sure, some races have died out because of humans, but who's to say some other animal species wouldn't have died out on their own? I suspect that Koala bears and Pandas, if left alone, would have died out regardless of humanity. Their diets are just too specific. That's my 2 cents, anyway.
this is an example of why man is flawed in contrast to nature: man cares whereas nature doesn't. if we blow up the planet with nuclear bombs nature won't care. new lifeforms will emerge and survive in the new environment. if anything, we should be happy that we can adapt the way we can and take full use of a planet. if we blow it up, it'll only hurt ourselves - and nature will be right there to rub it in our faces with the new environment created.
as for these people, let nature take care of them. survival of the fittest still works, and in due time, there'll be less people thinking like this... and with good reason. a problem solving itself.
as for these people, let nature take care of them. survival of the fittest still works, and in due time, there'll be less people thinking like this... and with good reason. a problem solving itself.
Fine, vhment can carry on not procreating and let themselves die out. Personally I fully enjoy a fine woman, and no one is taking that away from me.
Nature is indeed unfeeling, but it isn't cruel, except in the sense that it won't let us eat as many truffles as we'd like all the time. Evolution and natural selection only work the way they do because that's how the physical processes have worked out. The system requires death to work, but death is a part of life, so it's just using what's already there. There's no emotional component to it. Everyone always anthropomorphizes nature, then acts like it's doing something to them or us. Nature isn't a thing to begin with. Life just happens, and it is what it is.Samurai Goomba said:
And that's why anyone feeling so passionately about saving us or destroy us is sort of off their nut. Humans are just another animal on the planet, so hating us or loving us is pretty goofy. We do what we do only because it's what works at the moment, and we'll change to survive, or won't and we'll die. No one can control or predict it. And if people are so set on avoiding sex, it's probably a result of other emotional issues to begin with, so their whole point is suspect.
I for one don't get why everyone gets so worked up about everything in the first place. The advocacy organizations, the lawsuits, the aggressive nationalism, the screaming. When did we get this bored? When did daily life get so boring to us we had to start making waves? Someone please explain this to me.
And then we built the house, and looked around, and saw this other guy building a house, and then we killed him, burned down his house, and when everyone yelled at us we thought fast and said we had to do it because the man who lives in the clouds and throws lightning said we had to do it or he'd give our kids the Pox.theklng said:
That was a pretty busy day for us. I bet we slept well that night.
I think before we wipe out humanity (or just pick the ones we really like out of the bunch).
Some Scientist needs to invent and bread some Dragons and goblins then we let these Vhemt people stupefy everyone then we can all grab some swords and battle axes and slay each other for loot and treasure.
I do like that thought of that..
Some Scientist needs to invent and bread some Dragons and goblins then we let these Vhemt people stupefy everyone then we can all grab some swords and battle axes and slay each other for loot and treasure.
I do like that thought of that..
that... wasn't my point.TheBluesader said:
my point was that whenever we started to rise above the other animals and become self aware, aware that we could be better, we also realized (consciously or subconsciously) that with improvement comes greater pastime. a pastime that is currently not being utilized to its full potential.
I'm gutted here. I do believe there should be some sort of population control. Yes it's near nigh impossible to enforce and yes it may infringe on the individuals "freedoms" but fact of the matter is, we need less people. We've ended up in the exponential growth of population that has become unsustainable. In the short term, strategically, it may not be a bad idea.ElephantGuts said:
Having said that Kulkul's point is undeniable:
Because of the exponential growth we need more people to pay for the older generations survive. It's already evident that the generations following the baby-boomers are going to dole out the cash in form of taxes.Kukul said:
So from here there are two options 1) employ population control or 2) don't prolong the life of the elderly, let them go naturally. Now I'm bracing myself for a flaming but many live way beyond their years and are sucking up resources that could be used elsewhere. By no means should they cut their lives short or be refused treatment but perhaps just let them die rather than aggressively prolonging life.
The process of procreation is great, the aftermath is not. This "aftermath" can be avoided with a little preemptive intervention.pyromcr said:
A: god damn hippies
B: i do agree we should well... to quote someone from another thread "sew her snatch shut" i think it was the 6+8=outrage thread
I mean come on, we are mass producing to our deaths, and the deaths of thousands of animals in the process. I do agree w/ china right now by only being able to have 1 child... and I'm the second child in my family (don't kill me, the rule hasn't started yet =D)
B: i do agree we should well... to quote someone from another thread "sew her snatch shut" i think it was the 6+8=outrage thread
I mean come on, we are mass producing to our deaths, and the deaths of thousands of animals in the process. I do agree w/ china right now by only being able to have 1 child... and I'm the second child in my family (don't kill me, the rule hasn't started yet =D)
Those options really suck.
Why on Earth commit mass genocide of our own species?
I don't really see why people are so concerned about our impact on the environment. In the short term it does make a difference, but at this point, of all the species that have ever lived on the Earth there is less than 1% alive today. Also at one point life came from nothing, it's not like we're going to destroy all life in existance. In the long run it means fuck all, and our impact on everything will be insignificant.
Plus its not like you could ever inforce something like that decision. At least not without going against the whole infantcide/murder thing
Why on Earth commit mass genocide of our own species?
I don't really see why people are so concerned about our impact on the environment. In the short term it does make a difference, but at this point, of all the species that have ever lived on the Earth there is less than 1% alive today. Also at one point life came from nothing, it's not like we're going to destroy all life in existance. In the long run it means fuck all, and our impact on everything will be insignificant.
Plus its not like you could ever inforce something like that decision. At least not without going against the whole infantcide/murder thing
I'm not sure I understand your point about exponential growth and taxes. Are you saying that we require exponential growth in order to retain social institutions (like Social Security)? I hope you understand that the current crisis with social security and the baby boomers is the result pricely of non-exponential growth. If had continued to grow at the rate of our grand parents then there would be no problem in funding Social Security.Puppeteer Putin said:
--------------------------------
I have two points to make here:
Point #1: Population control is not as important as say, education in general.
Er, I'm looking for a chart I saw online. I'll edit my post if I find it. If you find it before me, please post it: It's a bar graph comparing educated to non-educated women in six or seven countries and the number of children the average woman is expected to have.
Essentially, people have studied the relationship between the number of children women have with no education and the number of children have with more education. The study compared a bunch of countries. In the USA and many western nations, there is still a trend (women with less than a high school diploma on average have something like 3.8 children), but is not as strong as it is in some developing nations, like Nigeria or Botswana or something. In those poorer African nations, uneducated women can be expected to have as many as 8-12 kids in their life time. However, high school educated women have half of that, and college educated women have even fewer.
All this implies that beyond sex education, distribution of contraceptives, etc, a better policy is just to increase the availability of education to women (especially). This is not only easier, but has many other practical applications as well (too much education can't be a bad thing, unless you're Big Brother).
-----------------------------------------------------
Point #2: Populations are starting to control themselves.
Exhibit A:
As I have previously stated, global population growth in the past few decades has slowed for the first time in human history. Global growth peaked 50-60 years ago with the Baby Boomers, and has since fallen. From 1940-1960 the human population tripled. Since then it has merely doubled (in twice as much time!). To be honest, I'm not particularly alarmed.
------------------------------------------
To me, this implies that education and social instruction are much more useful and ethical then strict population control (look at the mess in China!) or something crazy like denying health care to the elderly.
No.
A) I'm not giving up sex thanks
B) What kind of crap is this??? Humans are, in fact, probably the best animl on earth. Think about it, we are many, many times more intelligent than everything else. But reading this you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
A) I'm not giving up sex thanks
B) What kind of crap is this??? Humans are, in fact, probably the best animl on earth. Think about it, we are many, many times more intelligent than everything else. But reading this you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
Actually we really should be partially alarmed, the declining birth rate is having a huge problem being that many people particuarly in britain are growing old and relying on pensions so the decling birth rate or settling birth rate is, or will have a huge problem with the economy. Either we should start killing off the old or stop pensions.Uszi said:Point #2: Populations are starting to control themselves.
Exhibit A:
As I have previously stated, global population growth in the past few decades has slowed for the first time in human history. Global growth peaked 50-60 years ago with the Baby Boomers, and has since fallen. From 1940-1960 the human population tripled. Since then it has merely doubled (in twice as much time!). To be honest, I'm not particularly alarmed.