The "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" Poll

[AWPrime]

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

That it has happened not that the result will repeat itself into infinity.

On what do you base your agricultural "doom and gloom"?

http://www.gluckman.com/ChinaDesert.html

 

[Rob Lister]

That it has happened not that the result will repeat itself into infinity.



http://www.gluckman.com/ChinaDesert.html

anecdotal evidence?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I rate as "deep", but disagree with where the options go after this. I am with the voluntary extinction people - no kids for Geoff. But I do not think we need to kill off the humans. Nature has her own methods of doing that - we won't get to choose what eventually brings the house of cards tumbling down. If the poll was "How screwed are we?", then I'd be off the bottom. But it is ultimately humanity that is screwed, not the planet. There have been major extinctions before. Life bounces back.

 

[Rob Lister]

But it is ultimately humanity that is screwed, not the planet. There have been major extinctions before. Life bounces back.

Hear, hear. If [our] house of cards tumbles down, then, from the Deep-thinker's perspective, all the better, right? Cryptic?

Look to your best interests. Let others look to theirs. Work with others to ensure it.

You, as a human, are in a unique position, but like all life, You are still just a fragile chemical reaction. See to maintaining it.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
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.

Point noted.

Can we agree that it was people's interpretation and reaction to those books that really caused problems?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
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.

Would you change your opinion of me if I were to tell you that I was multi-racial? Coonass?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
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.

Key words emboldend.

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.

Actually, it's a two-way street.

...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....

Actually, it is not up to the faithful to change religion (which is the best description we can find of how things might be) to please certain scientific theories, but it is up to science to change religion with evidence so that we no longer believe, but know.........

 

[Orwell]

You didn't answer the question: why do you believe in " sasquatch type primates"?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff :
But it is ultimately humanity that is screwed, not the planet. There have been major extinctions before. Life bounces back.

Hear, hear. If [our] house of cards tumbles down, then, from the Deep-thinker's perspective, all the better, right? Cryptic?

Look to your best interests. Let others look to theirs. Work with others to ensure it.

You, as a human, are in a unique position, but like all life, You are still just a fragile chemical reaction. See to maintaining it.

Wise words.

None of us will live much past a century, and most of us won't do that.

Live the physical today, but seek the spiritual.

That's tomorrow, and you really might not want to wake up late or unprepared.

 

[Huntster]

You didn't answer the question: why do you believe in " sasquatch type primates"?

Because I've seen evidence, and am sure they exist.

 

[Orwell]

Actually, it is not up to the faithful to change religion (which is the best description we can find of how things might be) to please certain scientific theories, but it is up to science to change religion with evidence so that we no longer believe, but know.........

This is meaningless.

 

[Orwell]

Because I've seen evidence, and am sure they exist.

Right.


What evidence are you talking about?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, it is not up to the faithful to change religion (which is the best description we can find of how things might be) to please certain scientific theories, but it is up to science to change religion with evidence so that we no longer believe, but know.........

This is meaningless.

That is your opinion.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Because I've seen evidence, and am sure they exist.

Right.

What evidence are you talking about?

Here.

I'm getting tired of typing it out.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

Thanks, and I hope I didn't imply that there was fault on your part by the vague use of the term. I find the whole ecology chart vague and contradictory at times (I can agree with what's said at one level, but fail to agree with something from the level below it, for instance).

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

*As far as we know.

That's the problem, we don't know. I could as easily say "many other species consider rights for themselves and others"*.

*As far as we know.

My point isn't that they do. But suggesting that no other species has rights because they wouldn't give them to themselves assumes that we know the answer to that question.

I also don't really agree with the argument, even if this were true. You say:

Does the Gorilla feel quite strongly that it has a right to exist?

But I don't think it matters all that much. Does a human infant feel strongly that it has the right to exist? I've no more reason to believe that it does than I have to beleive so for the gorilla.
You might make the argument that the baby's rights are afforded it because it's parents care about it. I could make arguments about that, but to get around that for the sake of brevity, how about a baby with no human connections? We still afford such babies rights. Why?

Would a non-human predator be immoral if it killed a Gorilla?

No. Neither would a human predator that didn't know what it was doing. I don't have a problem with death, I don't have a problem with hunting. What I have a problem with is the wholesale destruction of a species, or needless cruelty. Lions for instance (though I doubt many Lions happen on Gorillas! ), need to hunt to live. Okay, cool. But if a Lion was hunting one of the last gazelles in the world, I'd feel that we should stop it from killing it. Though that's a different issue than the one we're talking about right now. (not because of the gazelle's rights, but rather for the same reasons that I think we should stop someone from destroying ancient egyptian statues, except that this work of art is millions of years old and far more complex and beautiful.) - oh and I know gazelles aren't in danger of extintion any time soon - it was just a hypothetical.

I certainly don't think gorillas should be afforded the same rights as you or me. For instance (to take a rather silly example) I don't think we need to give them the right to vote.

Clearly rights are something that humans grant to others. The basis of those rights are feelings.

Sure to a certain extent, but that empathy is also followed by logic. I feel that I have a right not to be subjected to needless cruelty, why? Because pain sucks. If there is someone else who can also experience pain, the meaningful aspect of that statement about why I grant myself that right is also held by them, and so I say, well, if I have a right not to be subjected to needless cruelty, you must also.
If I give it to myself, I am forced to give it to them.
I can't see what meaningful criteria gives me the right to live, but does not extend that to gorillas, so I find myself forced to do so.
The only feeling involved in this is the feeling that I have a right to exist. In some senses I can agree that this is meaningless, but the minute that I accept it as a premise, I find myself forced to conclude that so do gorillas. Mind you, some might suggest that there are meaningful distinctions that allow me to grant myself and other humans that right, but not gorillas. I just haven't seen any.

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.

Fair enough, I'm quite willing that agree that this at least may be so. However, this also leads you to conclude that the same is true of humans.
In which case my suggesting that slavery is wrong is also just my opinion.

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.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't think it's about how I feel. I think it's about the fact that I can look at how I feel, see that gorillas probably have a similar (though certainly very different) experience, and say that if that's so I feel they have a right to it. It's no different from the way that I extend rights to others.
I guess in a way I do so for my own sake - because I wish to grant rights to myself, I'm forced to do so for others - but it doesn't mean that I somehow have rights that they do not.

By the way, thanks for the post, I've always appreciated your objectivity.

 

[Huntster]

...Does the Gorilla feel quite strongly that it has a right to exist?

But I don't think it matters all that much....

Try killing an 800 lb. gorilla with a pocket knife.

You'll find out if it matters or not to the gorilla.

Does a human infant feel strongly that it has the right to exist? I've no more reason to believe that it does than I have to beleive so for the gorilla.

That's right. Cause you've never killed a gorilla, and if you killed a human infant, you probably did it by contracting it out to a doctor.

 

[Polaris]

Wohoo! Them barbarian hordes! And you're "civilised", right? There's no religious fundamentalists in our "controlled, prosperous, secular nations"...

Frankly, I have trouble figuring out who the barbarians are most of the time...

Those would be the people who fly planes into buildings, throw acid on strangers, and cut the heads off hostages with butcher knives.

Don't let your jerking knee crack you in the chin.

 

[Polaris]

Tell me how and why it perpetuates itself.



Yup.

So?

So we control viruses and infectious diseases. We control populations of pests and vectors. We manipulate nature all the time. Should we stop doing all that because it's the natural order? Using "it's nature" as a reason against population control logically suggests we should. We should also do away with surgery, medicine and birth control too while we're at it.

Yup. I've seen plenty of it.

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

Every culture has its bad points. I'll take the bad with the good in this case if it means this country lightens up a little bit.

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

I just moved into a highly-hispanic part of the country. So far I haven't seen anything I don't like.

India has agricultural problems that China does not.

So you agree that agricultural production is finite and that uncontrolled population growth will cause problems with feeding everybody eventually (though after other major problems)?

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.

I submit that you start with the infrastructure, THEN you rapidly expand your population. That would make more sense than just recklessly having human litters and hoping God (or technology) will provide later.

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

As do most people.

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.

I am certainly not alone there. Not by a long shot. As I said, civilization depends on a lot of food production by a small amount of people.

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

What is grown? How is it grown? Can it sustain large populations?

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.

They need not be. One way is to increase food production (or distribution - all of the famines of the 20th century were man-made, many deliberately). The other is to have smaller populations. That has the added bonus of better lives for everybody as well.

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.

And that is YOUR opinion - which you are welcome to. I agree that people who advocate human extinction should lead the charge personally. I might add that because I don't believe in overpopulation, I'll never have children. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

 

[Orwell]

Here.

I'm getting tired of typing it out.

In other words, I have to trust you. How do I know that you haven't been deceived, that you're not delusional, or that you're not simply lying?

Hey, I have been abducted by aliens! They came from a planet called Trafalmadore. They don't perceive time like we humans do: to them, past, present and future are the same thing.

Trust me! Why would I lie to you?

 

[Orwell]

Those would be the people who fly planes into buildings, throw acid on strangers, and cut the heads off hostages with butcher knives.

Don't let your jerking knee crack you in the chin.

Meaningless rhetoric. The fact that they're bad and that you're fighting them doesn't make you "good" or "civilised"...

If we fight them with methods that are as brutal and indiscriminate as the methods they use against us, then we're no better than them.

 

[Roboramma]

Try killing an 800 lb. gorilla with a pocket knife.

You'll find out if it matters or not to the gorilla.

Good point.

That's right. Cause you've never killed a gorilla, and if you killed a human infant, you probably did it by contracting it out to a doctor.

You're right, I've never killed either. But I don't see the point you're making. Do you think there's a good reason to believe that human infants feel that they have a right to exist where gorillas do not?

I'm just unclear as to what you're saying. You seem to be adversarially agreeing with me...

 

[RandFan]

Thanks, and I hope I didn't imply that there was fault on your part by the vague use of the term. I find the whole ecology chart vague and contradictory at times (I can agree with what's said at one level, but fail to agree with something from the level below it, for instance).

That's the problem, we don't know. I could as easily say "many other species consider rights for themselves and others"*.

My point isn't that they do. But suggesting that no other species has rights because they wouldn't give them to themselves assumes that we know the answer to that question.

I'm not qualified to say whether they do or don't. There is clearly codes of conduct among primates and perhaps other animals. However I'm not familiar with any work that has established a sense of rights for and among non-human animals. In fact I'm reasonably certain that no one is asserting such a proposition even among those who advocate rights for animals.

But I don't think it matters all that much. Does a human infant feel strongly that it has the right to exist? I've no more reason to believe that it does than I have to believe so for the gorilla.

You might make the argument that the baby's rights are afforded it because it's parents care about it. I could make arguments about that, but to get around that for the sake of brevity, how about a baby with no human connections? We still afford such babies rights. Why?

Great question and line of reasoning. I would answer that babies have no rights for their own sake. The only rights they have are those that are granted to them by moral agents (other humans).

If humans chose to give gorillas rights then they would have rights but clearly not of, by and for their own sake. Let me be clear and forgive me if I'm being a bit patronizing but I want you to understand. If you feel for the sake of the gorilla and grant them a right it is because you feel for the gorilla. If we remove your empathy from the equation then there is no right. That really all there is to it.

What I have a problem with is the wholesale destruction of a species, or needless cruelty.

Let's make certain we understand this point. You "have a problem". Why? Something in your makeup is bothered by this action. Ultimately you are acting, in large part, for your own sake.

Lions for instance (though I doubt many Lions happen on Gorillas! ), need to hunt to live. Okay, cool. But if a Lion was hunting one of the last gazelles in the world, I'd feel that we should stop it from killing it. Though that's a different issue than the one we're talking about right now. (not because of the gazelle's rights, but rather for the same reasons that I think we should stop someone from destroying ancient egyptian statues, except that this work of art is millions of years old and far more complex and beautiful.) - oh and I know gazelles aren't in danger of extintion any time soon - it was just a hypothetical.

I certainly don't think gorillas should be afforded the same rights as you or me. For instance (to take a rather silly example) I don't think we need to give them the right to vote.

Again, the point is, should something that doesn't comprehend what a right is axiomatically have rights? That hasn't been demonstrated thus far.

Sure to a certain extent, but that empathy is also followed by logic. I feel that I have a right not to be subjected to needless cruelty, why? Because pain sucks. If there is someone else who can also experience pain, the meaningful aspect of that statement about why I grant myself that right is also held by them, and so I say, well, if I have a right not to be subjected to needless cruelty, you must also.
If I give it to myself, I am forced to give it to them.
I can't see what meaningful criteria gives me the right to live, but does not extend that to gorillas, so I find myself forced to do so.
The only feeling involved in this is the feeling that I have a right to exist. In some senses I can agree that this is meaningless, but the minute that I accept it as a premise, I find myself forced to conclude that so do gorillas. Mind you, some might suggest that there are meaningful distinctions that allow me to grant myself and other humans that right, but not gorillas. I just haven't seen any.

I would argue that the distinction is one of moral agency. Humans are moral agents.

Fair enough, I'm quite willing that agree that this at least may be so. However, this also leads you to conclude that the same is true of humans.

In which case my suggesting that slavery is wrong is also just my opinion.

That is absolutely correct. I would argue that to enslave humans is to enslave moral agents. Of course this raises the question as to what rights do babies have since they are also not moral agents. I would like to protect babies.

As an aside, I'm a big fan of Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall and Dr. Francine Patterson. Of course Goodall studied chimpanzees and not gorillas as did Fossey and Patterson but I think she deserves mention with them.

I think we should extend protection to many of the great apes and other animals. I'm open to such plans.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't think it's about how I feel. I think it's about the fact that I can look at how I feel...

I fail to see the distinction. In the end it is your feelings, coupled with reason of course, that dictates your views of how gorillas should be treated. Remove the feelings and there is no impetus for action.

...see that gorillas probably have a similar (though certainly very different) experience, and say that if that's so I feel they have a right to it. It's no different from the way that I extend rights to others.

guess in a way I do so for my own sake - because I wish to grant rights to myself, I'm forced to do so for others - but it doesn't mean that I somehow have rights that they do not.

I see it differently. A society that values human life is likely to value your life. Humans that extend rights to other humans mutually benefit. Granting rights to gorillas won't increase your chance of increased rights from them. They are not moral agents. They can't grant you any rights.

By the way, thanks for the post, I've always appreciated your objectivity.

Thank you. And for what it is worth, I'm not an expert on ethics or morality. It's been pointed out on more than one occasion that I speak authoritatively about a subject that I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively about. These are simply my opinions based on 20 year old college courses and my studies since then.