The "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" Poll

How Deep?

  • Superficial

    Votes: 12 12.8%
  • Shallow

    Votes: 9 9.6%
  • Knee Deep

    Votes: 17 18.1%
  • Hip Deep

    Votes: 21 22.3%
  • Deep

    Votes: 11 11.7%
  • Deeper

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Profoundly Deep

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Radically Deep

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Abysmally Deep

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Shemp Deep: I hope Planet X wipes out EVERYTHING!

    Votes: 13 13.8%

  • Total voters
    94
First I think I have to point out that the statement assumes that such things as rights exist. I'm very willing to make that assumption for the sake of argument.

Second, I think one of the problems with the above is that "wilderness" is a vague term. What does it mean, exactly? Clearly it refers to places where human impact is relatively minor.
Perhaps, then, what is being suggested by the statement "wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake" is that the other species that exist within that wilderness have a right to life.

For at least some species I agree with that. I think anyone who would kill a gorilla is a monster, but for them to live, the wilderness of which they are a part must remain intact. The wilderness is all the plants and animals that make it up (obviously), and I feel quite strongly that they have a right to exist.

Someone could make the argument that nothing (including all of us) has rights, which is fine. But what I can't agree with is that our lives are meaningful, and that we thus have a right to them, but the lives of other species are not, and that they thus have no right to them.

In short, if we have no right to live, then I can accept that maybe other species don't either. On the other hand, if we do, I'd like to see what it is that gives us that right, and why it is that no other species has that quality.
Thank you for the response.

I don't know what was meant by "wilderness". It was not my term. I find the statement to be too vague. But let's accept your definition for purposes of this discussion.

Rights are a human construct. *No other species even considers rights for itself or others.

...I feel quite strongly that they have a right to exist.
Does the Gorilla feel quite strongly that it has a right to exist? Would a non-human predator be immoral if it killed a Gorilla?

Clearly rights are something that humans grant to others. The basis of those rights are feelings. For many of us our conscious would be offended if we killed or allowed others to kill gorillas. Your own words demonstrate that the offense exists in your mind. There is nothing intrinsic in nature that would give rights to gorillas. On the contrary, it is only how you feel. And that is fine but in the end it is your opinion.

I'll grant that you make a coherent argument. If humans have a right to exist then, to you, gorillas also have a right to exist. That is all well and good but it doesn't equate to the notion that gorillas have a right to exist for their own sake. In the end it is for your sake. It is for how you feel. How you would feel if they were killed. You are capable of empathy and you are capable of feeling empathy for the gorilla. That is where any right comes from.

*As far as we know.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Because it's nature.

If you think that is nature then don't complain when a pack of wild animals ate your family.

I won't.

And don't you complain about us eating wild animals, because that's exactly what we do.

The population of China is the equivalent of nearly 1/5 of the planet's humanity. They feed themselves.

However the environmental stress of their current population is already turning land in to desert.

Yet the evidence remains that they continue to successfully feed 1/5 of the human population on Earth.

For decades the United States, during the Cold War, was the bread basket of the world. We produce much more food even today than we consume, even though we are told that we are "fat" and "gluttonous".

While the soil becomes less and less productive.

Yet it continues to be so, despite huge losses in acreage of agricultural lands to housing.

Why is that?
 
Yet the evidence remains that they continue to successfully feed 1/5 of the human population on Earth.

Yet it continues to be so, despite huge losses in acreage of agricultural lands to housing.

Why is that?
That is because you are thinking now as an unrealistic economist, using optimistic past results as the absolute truth of what might happen.


One can't speak of 'continue' if the very base is being damaged, like a runner forced to sprint for far longer than he should.
 
....Atheism doesn't perpetuate itself through fear and guilt....

Tell me how and why it perpetuates itself.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Because it's nature.

So are viruses.

Yup.

So?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It beats illegal immigration/invasion. Your children learn how to work by performing the labor necessary for basic life, instead of allowing "voluntary slavery", which translates to voluntary invasion.

America needs a touch of Latin mellowness....

Yup. I've seen plenty of it.

I've also seen plenty of Hispanic gang warfare and Mexican originated organized crime.

...And anyway, when was the last time you heard the phrase "lazy Mexican"....

It's been a while. I moved away from the Hispanic neighborhood I grew up in over 30 years ago.

...I'm sure they're like baby pigeons - they exist but you never see one. You can't say the same for white trash.

That's true here in Alaska. There are few Hispanics, and plenty of white meth-addicts.

The opposite was true in the neighborhood of my youth.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The population of China is the equivalent of nearly 1/5 of the planet's humanity. They feed themselves.

They have population control. India does not. India has problems feeding itself.

India has agricultural problems that China does not.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
For decades the United States, during the Cold War, was the bread basket of the world. We produce much more food even today than we consume, even though we are told that we are "fat" and "gluttonous".

We are fat and gluttonous. That has more to do with what is eaten and what activity follows the eating than food production.

The point is that we don't have the agricultural problems that other nations have, and many agricultural problems aren't so much growing food in a tough environment, but building and supporting the infrastructure to do so.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I fed my family on a small truck farm, which supplemented my hunting for wild game and raising livestock. This in Alaska, with a growing season of less than 100 days.

Let me guess; for you, food originates at the grocery store.

Yes - because I have other things to do than waste my time farming.

Fair enough. You are reliant on the agricultural, transportation, and retail industries.

...I'm not a farmer. There are farmers who grow the food. Why should I take time to grow my own food when there are other people for whom that is their full-time job? By your logic we'd all still be stuck in the Paleolithic Age, spending more time finding food than creating technology and specialization....

Go ahead and specialize. Just be aware that you don't know how to serve your own most basic needs, and are reliant on others to do so for you.

If you choose to be that way, more power to you.

I choose otherwise.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You have no idea what can and will feed the Chinese and Indians. You don't even know who feeds you.

Farmers and ranchers feed me. Not every land has the growing capacity we do.

This place is literally frozen for 265 days per year. Not only is agriculture possible, it can thrive.

...Eventually, with uncontrolled populations, food production WILL run out. Other things probably will run out first, like living space and materials for other consumable products, but food production is also finite. And that's not counting the factor that, quite frankly, large families where the provider cannot afford to provide for all the hungry mouths are cruel. Any situation that dictates "too bad, our (pride/God) demands it" is, to me, disgusting.

That's your opinion, and you have a right to it.

Mine is different; starvation and famine are an occasional fact of biological life, for humans as well as all other creatures.

I find most human population control theories more dangerous than our ability to feed ourselves.

Those who wish to control population should start with themselves, not those who disagree with them.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yet the evidence remains that they continue to successfully feed 1/5 of the human population on Earth.

Yet it continues to be so, despite huge losses in acreage of agricultural lands to housing.

Why is that?

That is because you are thinking now as an unrealistic economist, using optimistic past results as the absolute truth of what might happen....

No, not "opptomistic past results". Past results are historical fact.

I'm also writing of current realities.

On what do you base your agricultural "doom and gloom"?
 
No comics involved. All three were rather scary reads.

Have you read any of the three?

I read the Communist manifesto. I didn't find it particularly scary. I just found it a bit out of step with the XXI century. What scared you so much?

Never felt the need to read the other two. Have you read Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism"?

Oh, and by the way, i think you could benefit from reading a good book on evolution. Something by Dawkins, I suggest the Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestor's Tale.
 
Last edited:
I read the Communist manifesto. I didn't find it particularly scary. I just found it a bit out of step with the XXI century. What scared you so much?

Having read it long after the Russian Revolution, the aftermath of it's influence on humanity was terrifying.

Ditto Mein Kampf.

What I find interesting in that regard is how, despite what Buchanan writes about in "Death of the West" coming true before our very eyes, it is largely ignored.

It doesn't matter, at any rate. It's a done deal.......

...Never felt the need to read the other two. Have you read Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism"?

Nope.

...Oh, and by the way, i think you could benefit from reading a good book on evolution. Something by Dawkins, I suggest the Blind Watchmaker or The Ancestor's Tale.

I'm not familiar with either. As one who believes in the existance of sasquatch type primates, I'm intrigued with that phemonena with regard to the evolution of species, and how science treats the phenomena while simultaneously engaging in a religious style ideological war with religion.
 
Nature will take care of itself as will we. The pressures on the ecosystem will cause the ecosystem to change and we will have to adjust to those changes. Doing things like not building cities below sea level is a start. Getting used to not having polar bears around is another. I just feel sorry for those living in less properous societies and I wonder if I'll like the taste of soylent green.
 
I was rather young when I read a short story along these lines. It made a very deep impression on me. Simply put, there was a political battle between those who believed in Populating the planet, and those who believed in Depopulating the planet. Populationists had large families, Depopulationists had small families. Guess who won.

EDIT:
Well, I only had read the first page when I posted this. Didn't know it had degenerated. :(
 
Last edited:
I was rather young when I read a short story along these lines. It made a very deep impression on me. Simply put, there was a political battle between those who believed in Populating the planet, and those who believed in Depopulating the planet. Populationists had large families, Depopulationists had small families. Guess who won.

EDIT:
Well, I only had read the first page when I posted this. Didn't know it had degenerated. :(

That's the subject of Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West".

It's a done deal.

The West lost.
 
Having read it long after the Russian Revolution, the aftermath of it's influence on humanity was terrifying.

Ditto Mein Kampf.
The same can be said of the bible.

What I find interesting in that regard is how, despite what Buchanan writes about in "Death of the West" coming true before our very eyes, it is largely ignored.

It doesn't matter, at any rate. It's a done deal.......
Death of the west... I don't even know what that means. I live in a cosmopolitan city. I like miscegenation, I like variety. I'm not scared of change, and I do not consider people who have a different culture and values to be "inferiors". I see people from other cultures adopting elements of western culture, making them their own. In turn, western folks adapt stuff from other cultures. Culture is not something static, it's not some dusty old artefact in a museum. I have little use for Buchanan's brand of ethnocentric xenophobia.



I'm not familiar with either. As one who believes in the existance of sasquatch type primates, I'm intrigued with that phemonena with regard to the evolution of species, and how science treats the phenomena while simultaneously engaging in a religious style ideological war with religion.

Why do you believe in " sasquatch type primates"? As far as I know, there is no evidence of such a thing existing.

Science is not engaged in a religious style ideological war with religion. It's certain religious folks that are engaged in a religious style ideological war with science. It's the religious folks (but not all of them) that deny the evidence. There are religious folks who are trying to shove ad hoc ideological hokum down peoples throats. It is not up to scientists to change their science (which is the best description they could find of how things are, or reality) to please certain religious prejudices.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom