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
Color me profoundly deep. Our species on the whole makes me ill far more often than not and our time has come.
 
Knee Deep.

I went to school with a guy who was very anti-people. He claimed he would kill himself, if it would make a difference for mother earth. I really never knew how to respond to that.
 
Rob Lister said:
I disagree. There is more than one option.

1) Off others (ethics is subjective)
2) Off others then yourself (probably more in line with your ethics and mine...strictly but not literally speaking
4) Off yourself (Even more in line)
5) Don't have kids (guilty x3 for me)
6) Lobby government to force 5 (less in line with ethics)
7) Lobby government to encourage 5 (completely in line with my ethics but maybe not yours or others)
Click to expand...

7a) Lobby government to implement every plank of the homosexual agenda. Fewer breeders means less breeding.
 
GodMark2 said:
For instance, I agree that "Wilderness has a right to exist for it's own sake" but not that "The planet would be better off with fewer people on it"
Click to expand...

Rob Lister said:
AH! An argument between we friends.

I disagree that "Wilderness has a right to exist for it's own sake".

Let's keep it nice though. I don't feel like fighting. Heck, tonight I don't even feel like being logical or even providing evidence. If you accept my terms, we should should debate this issue...using standard polite cross-inquiries rules.

1) I submit that the planet doesn't give a rat's @ss how many people are on it but WE (being people of a continuing nature) may be better off with fewer people on it. The Planet is an inanimate object and cannot enjoy being better or worse off...therefore it doesn't matter.

2) Rights are nonsense unless defined. I define a right as an ability that that I can, by hook, crook or influence enforce to any degree whatsoever. The more I can enforce it, the more of a right it becomes.

If you dis me I'll cry and maybe not respond.
Click to expand...

I hope that I have never disrespected anyone here. I try to show nothing but respect for anyone willing to evaluate their own position on a subject. Hopefully, crying will not be necessary. I will, however, insist on the right to provide evidence, but I will not require such of you. Logic I will require, but I am willing to allow wide latitude in it's formality.

The question of a 'right' is a tricky one. I have the right to be an ass. You have the right to ridicule me for being an ass. Do you have the right to prevent me from being an ass? Well, you can try, but short of destroying me, it would seem hard to prevent. I would submit that you only have the right to try to prevent me from being an ass, but not the right to actually prevent me from being an ass. This follows from your own argument to enforcement.

Can we prevent Wilderness from existing? We can certainly encroach on it, but it does have an awful tendency to encroach right back. I would submit that, no matter how much area we civilize, there will always exist an area that has less influence of that civilizing effect, and that area would be considered Wilderness. That would make it impossible to completely destroy Wilderness. We cannot prevent Wilderness from existing.

Does Wilderness attempt to encourage it's own existence? If left alone, almost any civilized place becomes a wilderness. Evidence the Mayan and Aztec cities.

Thus, as Wilderness encourages it's own existence, and we cannot prevent it's existence, I would conclude that it has an enforceable right to exist.
 
I'm worried about the harmful effect of human populations and activities on other forms of life, but chiefly insofar as harm to other forms of life can have a detrimental impact on human populations and activities. Voluntary human extinction is an absurd notion to me. To quote Jimmie Dale Gilmore and Butch Hancock:

I would've killed myself, but it made no sense
Committing suicide in self-defense.
 
hip deep...the resources on the planet are being stretched. Predictions of 9 billion people by 2050, Malthus may eventually be correct. The next 50-100 years might see some significant changes.

glenn:boxedin:
 
The flaw with these people (an ironic one in my opinion) is that they, who by their very nature are the most concerned about overpopulation, are preventing the birth of people who would be the most likely to agree with them.

The people who NEED to stop having human litters not only will probably never hear the arguments against it, but they feel it to be their right to do so - in some cases, their divinely ordained duty to do so (see India, the Catholics, and American white trash).
 
I don't plan on having any kids. Not because of this or that I care about the environment, but because kids are expensive little brats. I'm only 23 so my mind could change, but as of right now they aren't in the plan.
 
Whoracle said:
I don't plan on having any kids. Not because of this or that I care about the environment, but because kids are expensive little brats. I'm only 23 so my mind could change, but as of right now they aren't in the plan.
Click to expand...

As someone who thought the exact same way at 23...and am now paying to put the first of my three 'brats' through college, I see where you're coming from.

I also see where you'll end up. :)
 
Polaris said:
The flaw with these people (an ironic one in my opinion) is that they, who by their very nature are the most concerned about overpopulation, are preventing the birth of people who would be the most likely to agree with them.

The people who NEED to stop having human litters not only will probably never hear the arguments against it, but they feel it to be their right to do so - in some cases, their divinely ordained duty to do so (see India, the Catholics, and American white trash).
Click to expand...

That was a good post until the parenthetical editorializing.
 
Rob Lister said:
That was a good post until the parenthetical editorializing.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence other than that which points to those groups having well above the stabilizing 2 children per couple?

I'll add that those groups alone are not the only ones who are having children with reckless abandon, but those are the ones that sprung to mind while I was typing. At least China is doing something about it.
 
Whoracle said:
I don't plan on having any kids. Not because of this or that I care about the environment, but because kids are expensive little brats. I'm only 23 so my mind could change, but as of right now they aren't in the plan.
Click to expand...

Whew, I'm with you. I'll never have kids. Can't stand them.
 
I'm knee deep, which might seem odd for a guy getting a degree in Envirnmental Studies, but I think taking drastic measures to reduce our population to solve our environmental problems is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There were fewer people in the Industrial Revolution, and we were pretty destructive back then too. We just need to get better at managing our drain on the environment, and maybe get our act together enough to get off this dirtball and into space.
 
hip or knee deep
I have 2.0 rugrats, one of each. direct replacement theory.

I find the human self loathing concept absurd.
(and at 23 I had no clue that I would have children).
 
Gia may well thin the herd when we hit peak oil and WWIII (the resource wars) drastically reduces the human population.:0

or not.

what I find special about VHR projects is their prissy war of self attrition. If its so bad for the Planet to harbor so many humans, pick a genocide campaign and Jump IN. (Option 1.)
 
This isn't about the Earth, really. It's actually just another religion. It's a belief system, with its own deities and eschatologies, all designed to reign in the "faithful," and remind them that they're above the "faithless."

I'll pass, thanks.
 
Whoracle said:
I don't plan on having any kids. Not because of this or that I care about the environment, but because kids are expensive little brats. I'm only 23 so my mind could change, but as of right now they aren't in the plan.
Click to expand...

A life of pure consumption is a poor life, indeed.

Like myself, even if you're no good at all, you might leave a good legacy.

Having children, and raising them well, might be your salvation.

It was mine.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom