What about Voluntary Human Extinction?

[csziggy]

Other threads have asked about the choice to not have children or to limit the number of children. So when I saw this I thought it would be interesting to bring it up:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement http://www.vhemt.org/

"May we live long and die out"

Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

I don't know much about this group - just got the link in an email today. But they seem to propoes the voluntary extinction of humans so the Earth can heal and become healthy again.

I can't see humans becoming extinct voluntarily. Especially since as "we become less dense" the imperative to reduce our population would be less and less needed. But it is interesting to see this proposal.

[supernova]

1. I don't know about voluntary extinction

as in "refraining from breeding."

But we humans tend to do that anyway, except we call them wars, famines, and plagues.

[griffi94]

2. i think anybody who wants to be extinct

should be allowed. i think i'll skip tho

[phantom power]

3. I can tell you what I think...

1) I think they're basically correct that the rest of the biosphere would be healthier without us, compared to the current situation of 7 billion of us.

2) If we reduced our population to something more like one billion, I think our impact on the biosphere would be acceptable.

3) Humans are not, as a species, going to sign on to voluntary extinction. It's simply not going to happen. In that respect, I don't think it matters much what groups like this do.

4) These days, I'm rather more worried about involuntary extinction.

[MsTryska]

4. have any of them committed suicide yet?

to do their part I mean.

[phantom power]

5. Their plan is focused on not having any more children. As opposed to suicide.

[ZombieHorde]

43. At first, voluntary extinction was about suicide, but they couldn't sell it.

[Morning Dew]

6. I've done my part

by not breeding . . . my siblings, though, not so much. They've created replacements for themselves, one for me and two spares.

[Double T]

7. Great idea. Humans have and continue to drive the life on this planet to extinction.

Human numbers need to be reduced to less than 1 billion for the Earth to heal; many resources are already lost for millions of years. The greatest threat to the Earth and mankind is himself.

[Turbineguy]

10. Maybe we should keep

GW Bush. He could be helpful here.

[FVZA_Colonel]

32. But it would never happen voluntarily.

So how should we go about this?

[LongTomH]

8. Shades of National Lampoon's "Lemmings" Album!

I find the idea - and anyone who endorses it - creepy! Humans need to limit their numbers and reduce their impact on the planet; but, a mass die-off or extinction? No!:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[aikoaiko]

9. You first.

:)

[anonymous171]

11. When resources become scarce we will have a huge war over them and kill 1/2 of our population off.

[markbark]

12. Can You Hear Me Morpheus?

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.


I do love a good apocalypse, don't you?

--MAB

[markbark]

13. delete dupe

.

[Mojambo]

14. Sign me up!

They had me at "human extinction."

[donco]

15. Hhmm….and what if their wrong?

Never mind know one would know anyway.

[blindpig]

16. fucking unnatural

This sort of silliness shows how screwed up our civilization is..

An inability to see other than black and white doesn't show much analysis, just emotionalism.

No species wishes itself extinct, that's counter to the whole point of evolution.

Let's take this one step at a time. Instead of getting rid of humans, let's get rid of capitalism. I believe that would cure much of what ails us. Then we could deal with the remaining problems with egalitarianism and justice.

It's capitalism or a habitable planet.

[The2ndWheel]

20. Wasn't that emotional black and white thinking?

"It's capitalism or a habitable planet"

Not that I don't agree with it. Well, to a point. Any economic system based on growth, and they're all based on growth, is a problem. Hunting with sharp sticks impacts the environment. With the way capitalism, or socialism, or whatever, requires more people in order to survive, it becomes economics or a habitable planet.

[blindpig]

29. That's just it

capitalism depends upon, demands, growth, forever and ever. Socialism seeks to meet the needs of the people, nothing more. That there were some severe environmental fuck-ups in the socialist East cannot be denied, adopting capitalist production models was part of that problem, in any case the capitalist West was fucking up in a world class manner, too. And still is. Socialist understand the errors made, and unlike the capitalist have no mandate to repeat them.

The adoption of socialism would begin the reduction of the birthrate simply due to the proven fact that women who are provided an education and an improved standard of living have fewer children. As far as anything beyond that, let an informed populace decide for themselves. I'd certainly not trust our capitalist masters to approach the issue, classism and racism would be their response.

Ya got me on the black/white thing, but I ain't emotional. ;-)

[Alcibiades]

17. So the deeply personal decision

whether or not to have kids is made into a Kantian categorical imperative. Universal childlessness, voluntary or not, makes no more sense than universal homosexuality, universal heterosexuality, or any of the other ways folks use their own personal choices as the basis of trying to control others.

You can make your own personal choices without making them universal. Your choice to have kids need not be universal to be legitimate.

Anyway, they aren't serious, just vehement.

[Tyler Durden]

18. Don't worry, just wait a while. It'll happen.

I've always been astounded at the arrogance of Humanity; 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. I don't see much that makes us special: predatory, greedy, violent, cruel; all the right ingredients for self-destruction. Just like those who believe in the "Eternal United States," not being very observant.

We don't need VHEMT: we're doing just fine on our own, and I wish the rats luck in filling our niche once we've vacated it.

[TexasObserver]

19. What a dumb concept.

I would suggest that all associated with that movement could do us all a favor and extinct themselves now.

Every species on the planet lives for itself. The only reason any of us give a shit about this planet is because humans live here. I have never heard anyone who posited as the goal of environmentalism the purification of the planet at the cost of human existence. That's the most asinine idea I've ever seen posted here, and that's saying something.

Environmental causes are built around one idea: the changes are bad for HUMANS. We don't support environmental causes because we care about this rock called Earth. Without humans, it's just another chunk of the universe.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. OTOH,

the burgeoning population of our species could conceivably kill off not only all other species but our own as well. The human species is probably the one single species that could be completely eliminated with no negative effects on the rest of the ecological web.

I say, let them promote their idea - it will never succeed, but they could gain enough converts to slow population growth, which would benefit us all, human and non-human alike. Eliminate their voice as you suggest, and we continue to careen downhill without brakes until we all are destroyed.

[yawnmaster]

23. How do you define a negative effect on the ecological web? nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Well, I'd say causing the most massive extinction event since the

K-T extinction would qualify as a negative effect.

But it goes beyond mere extinction of species, from which the earth could recover. Man has the capability to so poison the earth that there would be NO recovery. Through our works, we could become Mars or Venus, eliminating ALL life on the globe.

OTOH, if man was eliminated, what would the negatives be? In a few generations the natural predator species that remain would recover and re-establish the predator/prey cycle which has evolved over millions of years - man's presence as a significant factor, over the past 10,000 years is just a bump on the historical road - and the natural diversity would be restored as man stops spreading and introducing invasive species which diminish diversity. What has mankind done FOR the overall health of the planet and the ecological web? We've rescued a very few species from extinction which we ourselves caused.

As far as life, in general, goes - the world would not miss us.

[TexasObserver]

30. Like I said, it's human existence MOST of us care about.

We care about other animals, but our primary concern is the future of humans on the planet.

Without humans, earth is just another rock in universe, at least as far as most humans are concerned. And that's to be expected. No species spends its time worrying about the survival of other species, except humans.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. The problem with that is, they can get along better without us

be we WILL NOT SURVIVE without THEM.

When the oceans no longer support phytoplankton, we all die.

Did you see "The Happening"? The 'attributed to Einstein' quote on the blackboard at the beginning - "Should all the bees vanish, mankind would be gone in 4 years" (not exact quote - but true nonetheless).

The canaries are dying, and nobody is noticing.

[yawnmaster]

49. We can survive without canaries.

In time what does it matter?
At some point the Earth will be enveloped in an expanding sun, burning off all living creatures.
So what is the use of preserving the Earth, except for man's benefit?

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. That's "canaries in the coal mine".

The canaries are dying and WE ARE NEXT. And we can only stop it if we pay attention to the fucking canaries.

[yawnmaster]

48. if humans cease to exist, who cares about the state of the world?nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. How about the species that replaces us?

There will be one, you know. That's the way life is.

[TexasObserver]

24. I don't see that benefit. They give the cause of population control an idiotic face.

Humans will exist on this planet until a planet killer hits the earth, at which point all human life will cease to exist in a few months.

When it comes to humans and what we are doing baneful to the planet, overpopulation is the problem, and fighting overpopulation should be the goal of thinking people. No one is going to take seriously anyone who says "hey, let's end human existence and save the planet!" In fact, they'll be used to undermine serious overpopulation efforts.

[fed_up_mother]

25. When they promote that idea, they make people who care about the

environment sound like a bunch of kooks.

Which they are.

I don't know why I should care MORE about some elephant, monkey, or tiger progeny than my own. From a biological, evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

34. Makes no sense from a biological or evolutionary standpoint?

Ever hear of the food chain?

[T_i_B]

22. Yes it's very daft idea...

...but follow the logic of some enviromentalists and that is the inevitable conclusion.

The question is, which people do they want extinct first? That's where arguments about overpopulation tend to get really creepy.

[Stoic]

27. My immediate reply to this would be...

"You first."

[LWolf]

28. Voluntary extinction? no thanks.

Voluntarily reducing the population to planet- and ecosystem-friendly levels through family planning? Yes.

Voluntarily evolving into a more peaceful, less competitive, less greedy, less gang-like species? Yes.

[RB TexLa]

31. Doing my part! Well, that's just because I'm not going to waste my time or money raising them

:)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. It's a fun site to read, with some good facts and excellent rebuttals to the pro-natal crowd.

I don't necessarily believe voluntary extinction is called for. Just ending the intense pressure on people to procreate would work wonders. IMHO, if children were had only by people who really wanted them and had thought it out, the population rate would go down considerably.

[The Stranger]

36. Somehow, at least two posters here think it means deliberate, mass suicide.

Limiting reproduction does not mean that people currently alive are somehow killed.

Come on, people.

[ZombieHorde]

42. The person who started this thing used to sell it on an atheist board a few years ago.

Back then, it was about mass suicide. We all laughed at him and told him to go away. He repackaged it and sold it to you.

[MsTryska]

45. oh really?

isn't that interesting.

[ZombieHorde]

46. It is possible that another person started this paticular website, but the language is the same.

It all looks the same. They just replaced suicide with no more breeding.

[MsTryska]

44. Actually I was being sarcastic when I mentioned suicide...

but let's take this to it's logical end. if one's manifesto is that humans are bad and we should voluntarily phase ourselves out, then said person should be willing to make that first step in the phase out process.

After all change start with you!


And in all seriousness i think the idea is just plain goofy. it's black and white thinking which really doesn't work with biological imperative. much like chocolate dipped bacon. good in theory - not in practice.

[The Stranger]

54. Well, limiting reproduction would involve your using contraception --

not killing yourself. I'm glad you're only kidding.

And it really isn't black and white thinking. You can do what you can to save the planet just like recycling, conserving, limiting consumption, and everything else. None of that is "black and white thinking." Neither is this.

[L. Coyote]

37. Women can save the world = one child each = halve the population each generation.

In a century, we would be back to one billion people.

[TexasObserver]

38. If you can talk people in the third world into eating their children, you'll be on your way.

That's the perfect solution, isn't it?

[Deja Q]

39. Splendid! They can go first!

I like to live...

[ZombieHorde]

40. It used to be a suicide cult, now it's a don't breed cult.

I think that it is as dumb as any other suicide cult.

[wordpix]

41. one child was enough for me, I support negative population growth

[NeedleCast]

47. Dumb

n/t

[Two Americas]

50. this is brilliant

We are killing ourselves...
...so we will kill ourselves.

We don't like seeing what we are doing to the earth...
..so we kill ourselves, then we won't see it.

We care about the destruction of the environment...
...so we kill ourselves and then there will be no one to care.

Problem solved.

Is this the liberal version of the rapture, or something?

[csziggy]

51. I don't know how I feel about this group

For one, I made my decision to not have children for a lot of reasons - overpopulation and the damage to the environment was one. But I would not like to see the end of humanity despite our flaws.

And I really did not spend much time on the site - I just thought it was interesting that some one had gone to the trouble of making such a site.

I suspect that we will see one of two things happen in the next 50 years - pollution, disease, environmental collapse or some other disaster will cause a population crash. Or some technological breakthrough will delay the loss of a large percentage of living people for another few generations.

Malthus originally predicted the collapse of human populations but although the majority of humans live in poverty, we keep going and going and going . Every time total system collapse seems immanent, technology "saves the day" and we just keep on keeping on.