Slashdot Mirror

What human activity is NOT a 'loser' from the energy standpoint, other than the very active search for new energy sources itself?

Go to this site, and do what it recommends: http://vhemt.org/
This leaves the gene pool a little cleaner for the rest of us.

I'm pro-abortion. There's more than enough of us idiots in the world. Support the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement today.

Jesus was a VHEMT.

http://vhemt.org/ Consider it a "meta charity". No, I'm not joking.

No.

There is a great lecture by Dr. Albert A. Bartlett on Youtube about growth.
In the second part around the 6 minute mark he presents a list of options.
I would say that he is reasonable pragmatic about it. Either we pick a way to limit population growth or nature selects a way for us.
In the long run it doesn't really matter what option we go for but there seem to be a short time benefit of choosing a less painful population reduction method.
I think the one child per family method is pretty good. It's not very fast, but it keeps population down while still allowing people to get children. Another benefit is that it is far less violent than many of the other options.
If you want to go all out you can always join The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement They try to achieve human extinction by encouraging people to not have children at all.

I have just the organization for you, and all fellow misanthropes: http://vhemt.org/

Please visit this site and abide by its recommendations. For the good of humanity and for all the promise of our future, encourage all your fellow Greens to do the same.

You don't have children, right? Please look at this when you do, and they are nearing 18 years of age, you'll get a huge laugh.

Here, go read something.

Furthermore, I've seen plenty of contempt for "breeders" and other childfree-by-choice advocacy on Slashdot.

Breeders are morally bankrupt, selfish assholes. Join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement today!

http://vhemt.org/

"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."

Actually, this makes him sound rather more like one of the VHEMT people.

Damn! Here's the correct link:

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Everyone(except the courageous souls at VHEMT) wants to defy birth trends:

Across more or less the whole of the first world, birth rates are at or below replacement levels. Even in some of the less fucked 'developing' nations it turns out that 'not breeding like animals until you die' is a fairly popular lifestyle choice among people who have sufficient autonomy and access to medical resources to be able to make it. Shocking, I know.

However, the world isn't exactly overflowing with economic plans for downsizing gracefully. Whether it's an ad-hoc social arrangement(children caring for elderly parents because it's their Filial Duty) or a state administered program(Medicare), most plans for keeping old people from being ground up for soylent green involve having young workers around, ideally in larger numbers than the old people.

Since domestic birth rates make that...problematic... this leads to a certain amount of pressure to keep the working population up by other means.

If we want to go with your (arguably somewhat crass and reductionistic) characterization, it goes like this:

1. Democrats favor immigration because immigrants skew more democratic than wrinkly reactionary old people do.

2. Retiring boomers don't have a whole lot of choice; because their parents fucked like bunnies; but they didn't, so if they want to keep the death panels away, they either need to really squeeze their children, or find a substitute for the ones that they didn't have. They don't have to like it(and many don't); but them's the breaks.

Jesus was all about tearing families apart and seemed generally against marriages (although being sort of weaselly about it and saying that as much as it should be avoided, it wasn't outright a sin or anything)

I think most of that sentiment was attributed to Paul (or the forgeries in his name). Jesus did say a few things that, when taken out of context, can be thought of as anti-marriage or anti-family, but most of those were metaphors for other things

Although I'd readily admit Jesus' talk about tearing families apart was metaphorical (in the sense that to accept Christianity at that time would be to stop being Jewish and hence this new sect of Christianity would produce strife/problems), the point about marriage was well considered. Read Matthew 19 which, interestingly enough was anti-divorce (as your comment strays into discussing about Jesus) by being anti-marriage; that is, the best way to avoid a divorce is to not to become married in the first place.

Peter and Andrew's family let the deciples stay with them on at least one or two occasions. Also, consider that the first miracle attributed to Jesus was to supply wine for a wedding.

Which only goes to show that Jesus was a lover/drinker, not a fighter... :) Seriously, though, Jesus went forth trying his best to teach people to be better according to the rules he laid out. He didn't go about damning people; instead, he sought to join groups that could be viewed as damnable and try to teach them why they should change through simple talk and parable, not through threats or acts of violence. That is, btw, a major reason why most Christians aren't Christ-like. Having said that, it's also one reason Christ (and some of his followers) comes across as a politician or a diplomat who wishes to subvert from within. It's one of the reasons why the idea of Jesus always speaking in metaphors to cloud his true meaning has so much weight.

Paul believed that the world would end in his lifetime or shortly after. The way he saw it, there wasn't any point in marrying or starting a family, because your children would never get to grow up. It was better to stay celibate and devote yourself to God (although, if you couldn't keep it in your pants, it was better to marry than to commit fornication).

Golly, it's almost as if he was following his master's teachings:: "there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Having said that, it's not really clear to me that Jesus wasn't a VHEMT supporter.

If you want a true anti-human group, try VHEMT.

Every economics expert under the sun, from all political spectrums, argued that the new tax was better for the economy.

Right because the news media equally represented the opinions of every economics expert under the sun, and they all agreed...
Firstly, there is no policy upon which all economists agree. If the news gave you the impression that there was, then you are guillible. Especially in the case of consumption tax, there are many experts who view it as an unfair tax as it is a (relatively) flat tax meaning that the wealthier pay comparatively less of their income than lower income citizens, and corporations pay almost nothing. Consumption taxes can be fair, if they apply only to luxury goods and are excluded from necessities like food etc. But regulating things that can be both (e.g. clothing) is a nightmare. In general income tax is much better for the majority than consumption tax.

Your example, intended to show people's stupidity, shows in this case that their intelligence was underestimated. You show only your own (understandable) shortcomings when you are barraged by 'expert' opinions in the media and believe what they say without doing your own independent inquiry.

This goes for the general opinion here in this thread that "it wouldn't work because people are stupid". People invented the jet engine and the microchip. People discovered the theories of relativity and the many fields of mathematics that help us understand the world. I am sure the slashdot community understands how long those lists could be if I were to complete them. There is of course a lot of stupidity around, much of it due to lack of education. But in general people are quite intelligent. Sure any direct democracy solution would have to have checks and balances in place to account for the imperfect nature of human thought, but that does not make them impossible. Any argument against crowd sourced democracy also goes for the current form of democracy: politicians are people, people currently vote and have a voice in government, etc. The naive assumption that we are just going to mock up a simple solution over beers in the local pub and then assume that it will work fine is false, and such a plan would not work for any other form of government either. What the direct democracy discussion is (should be) about is not why it won't/will work, but how we could make it work and what kind of system would need to be designed to make it effective. The idea of representation for example does not need to be left out, as mentioned above the system could be constructed using a tree system where people can find someone who's views represent their own and allow that person to be their representative. The knowledge of experts does not need to be neglected. Expert studies and reports could be supplied through the same channels that facilitate voting.

If humans are too stupid to make collective decisions, what government type would work? Can someone explain a system of government to me that can be used to govern a totally stupid population effectively? Bear in mind we don't have AI or ET to do the governing for us. If you really believe the human race is too stupid to function, the only logical recourse is the VHEMT. But those of us who hold hope for the survival of the human race would like the opportunity to discuss options without input from those who aren't interested in trying.

I've got an idea: Since the sum total of ideas expressed on Slashdot comments have probably already been expressed elsewhere, and are available on Google, it's probably superfluous to post comments on Slashdot.

Also, since all of the articles posted on Slashdot are (obviously) available elsewhere on the Web, and hence, also via Google, it would make sense to also not post articles on /., being redundant.

In fact, to the logical geek mind, the thing that would make the most sense is for slashdot.org to simply be turned into a DNS redirect for google.com.

Why didn't anyone think of that before? In fact, I think CmdrTaco did indeed realize that the very existence of Slashdot is futile in the face of Google, and voluntary stepped down for that reason.

Tadaaa! Enters The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Is there something else we can shoot into the atmosphere to reflect more energy back into space?
The current trend seems to be "No matter what humans do, it's bad for the environment."

It's the non-environmentalists that seem to have the deathwish.

Don't kid yourself, there are those who want humans removed from the earth "for the sake of the environment". Some are willing to see it done voluntarily, some less so. There are people who go beyond sound scientific policy to worshipping the earth, or nature. Some pursue extreme environmental policy for their own ends.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

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.

Forced abortions? Forced vasectomy for all men? (Maybe forced castration, that would probably also reduce the number of wars, and definitely reduce the number of rapes.)Or maybe just don't provide government support to anyone with a child, enabling only the rich to reproduce, and producing more property "crime" as the poor have to steal to support their families.

Consider all the other option, Voluntary measures.

Personally, I think simply raising the living standard of everyone will be far better. Demonstrated fact that countries with higher living standards have lower birthrates.

This sounds like an ad for (and makes about as much sense as) the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Funny how ideologies overlap.

The move to reduce global warming is (in the US) associated with the left side of the political spectrum, especially with environmentalism.

But there's another strain of thought on the left, also associated with environmentalism: The population control movement, given a boost by Paul Erlich. Even beyond that, there's the voluntary extinction movement.

For these folks, catastrophic global warming should be seen as a godsend, and they should be voting for (what is considered) the head-in-the-sand policies of the GOP.

It's never responsible to create a family. http://www.vhemt.org/

I wonder if he had ever heard - or was a follower - of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

And maybe yours too - but I wouldn't bet on the average joe or jane sacrificing "their future" for "the future" ... http://www.vhemt.org/

Yes, my parents are horridly disappointed - just as well it's not their decision to make.

Great, and that might be a good excuse for killing yourself, however suicide is not what these environuts are contemplating, it's genocide that's being contemplated :

http://www.vhemt.org/

http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm#button

Needless to say, they think themselves very necessary :

http://www.vhemt.org/death.htm#killself

All for the good of gaia, of course.

Great, and that might be a good excuse for killing yourself, however suicide is not what these environuts are contemplating, it's genocide that's being contemplated :

http://www.vhemt.org/

http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm#button

Needless to say, they think themselves very necessary :

http://www.vhemt.org/death.htm#killself

All for the good of gaia, of course.

Great, and that might be a good excuse for killing yourself, however suicide is not what these environuts are contemplating, it's genocide that's being contemplated :

http://www.vhemt.org/

http://www.vhemt.org/philrel.htm#button

Needless to say, they think themselves very necessary :

http://www.vhemt.org/death.htm#killself

All for the good of gaia, of course.

So what's your solution? Extinction?

http://www.vhemt.org/

Now me, I AM a racist and I freely admit that. I frequently state my dislike of people due to their race (ie. blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, English and Australians) because I deem them to be low-class, unintelligent, unhygienic, sub-humans who should be wiped from the face of the planet.

Only those groups? Why not go all the way? :)

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

From the web site:

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.

Sounds great. I'm already doing my part--are you?

Some people want to INCREASE the odds of human extinction.

In fact, they're rather "VeHEMenT" about it!

Everybody has something to say about the problem but nobody focuses on fixing it. Fighting the overpopulation problem by building higher flood barriers is bound to end in a cataclysmic disaster. Better to try to address the root of the problem, and let things happen now for fear of a larger crash later. Stability is always preferable to volatility.

At least the people at VHEMT have a solution that makes sense.

Otherwise, it is highly questionable due to carrying capacity limits.

Unfortunately, you're right about this, but it's a worldwide problem. More people ought to get on board with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Again, unfortunately, we're just not programmed to not want to reproduce ... regardless of how much room there is in our living room.

In my opinion, though, we could fix the outsourcing problem if we relaxed immigration restrictions and relaxed the minimum wage. Fighting to regulate a market always, always, always produces a black market, and what you're seeing is the black labor market (no pun intended). What we need to do is embrace the nature of the worldwide labor market so that companies continue to do business in America (and therefore pay taxes in America), instead of doing business elsewhere because we don't "allow" people here to work at the prevailing worldwide unskilled wage. That unfortunately just puts power in the hands of other sovereign nations who may quite be less equipped to end the whole idea of national sovereignty.

The NWO really would fix a lot of these problems. We just all need to get on board with one central bank, one currency, and one parliament in order to minimize inefficiencies and wars created by competing systems.

Probably more, because I won't be living on $12,000/year! Computers are cheap, yo, especially when you assemble them yourself. Everyone over the age of 5 deserves one.

Also, who's to say I'm not a member of VHEMT?

What exactly is this "engine" you want to destroy?

The government powers and policies that enable to concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few. Capitalism is not some "ground state" that occurs in the absence of government intervention into the marketplace; it requires a lot of government action to create and enforce synthetic property rights. These actions include (but are not limited to) the things I mentioned: creating of immortal artificial persons by chartering limited liability corporations, issuing land and resource deeds not based on occupation and use, and controlling ideas by creating copyrights and patents. The private control of capital by a minority requires a strong government to back that minority.

To put it another way: like all forces, government is a vector, not just a magnitude. Merely saying "Government should be smaller" is not helpful; the government of North Korea is a fraction of the size, measured by taxation and per-capita government spending, than that of the U.S., but it pushes entirely in the direction of dictatorship.

I prefer a government vector with a smaller magnitude, but also one that points towards individual freedom, including economic freedom. That implies an economic system based on the free exchange of labor rather than on the control of capital by a government-backed minority of owners.

And by chance would you need voluntary participation of all citizens to accomplish your goal?

You implication of some connection to VHEMT is a complete non sequitur.

I want to destroy the engine that concentrates wealth and its power into the hands of a few.

There's no doubt that a viable fetus is worth preserving and bringing to term

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement would disagree with you there, and I think they might be on to something too. Food prices are already too high!

And if humans didn't exist at all we wouldn't need ANY filtering, OR drugs!

Well, arguing for the sake of argument, or playing the devil's advocate, can sometimes be educational, interesting and useful, but in this case, I'm arguing for something that I think is quite important, and that is privacy and free speech, and I think it's important to give this to children as well, as soon as they are old enough to want it.

Regarding being sterile, well, as you can see in my URL, I guess one could say that I'm responsible enough not to breed.

Getting married and having a baby is procreation (do I need to explain how that is useful?).

I share your view completely, and have done so for quite some time. I also try to inform people I talk to about this. Marriage should have no place in any law or regulation. It should belong to religion only, and thus be completely optimal both in theory and in practice.

Then of course, I take it a step further too, as you can see from the URL I keep spamming here.

There's no point feeling guilty about things that cannot be undone, but feel free to spread the word, to your son, and others that might think putting kids to this world is a great idea: http://www.vhemt.org/

For all of you who believe the universe and/or the planet would be better of without our race than stop being a hypocrite and off yourself for the good of the universe.

As a vhemter I love this spin. It so completely misses the point. The reason why I feel that humanity is bad is that it, in the long run has a destructive influence on its surroundings. Wherever humanity spreads, other life withers and die.
However, there is little reason, and sometimes directly harmful to kill off specific individuals. Shortening the life span of any individual being by a couple of decades won't really have that great an impact on our environment, so there's little reason to deny an existing life small rewards there are for having endured this long. It will also remove a person which is likely a good influence on her surroundings (from an environmental perspective), and considering today's birth rates, suicide would be a pointless gesture that would have little to no effect and only cause grief for people close to us.

A much more sensible way to lessen your destructive impact on the life around you is simply not to breed. You have saved the world (and universe!) not only from a few decades of one human, but potentially millennia of hundreds or thousands of destructive people. And this, without killing anyone, and without causing a single shred of pain, fear or agony for anyone. You will also still be around for a few more years, and able to use that time to work to get your fellow humans to act more responsibly.

What really depresses me is seeing the general public in interview and their complacency and dismissiveness about global climate change. People's sense of entitlement is astonishing: "I work hard so I have the right to a low-cost long-haul flight," even if we've done without that "right" for thousands of years and those flights are ultimately destroying the planet.

There is also the huge number of people who believe that the consensus of thousands of scientists on climate change is a "global conspiracy" and their fear that it may eventually mean, shock horror, more taxes. This from people who will never know hunger, get free education and health care and live in the extreme safety and tranquiltiy of a developed nation. If you think I'm making this up, try looking at the "Have Your Say" debates on the BBC News web page.

It really is enough to make me think this is a good idea.

Peter

we could always try this:
http://www.vhemt.org/ :)

Check out http://www.vhemt.org/ for some thoughts about a future without children.