Slashdot Mirror

Please check http://www.vhemt.org/ for a better solution than dying.

I'm against hyperbole as much as the next guy, but in this case things like The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement do actually exist. The idea is that humans should live rich, productive lives, but stop reproducing, because we're doing more harm than good by continuing this way (both to ourselves and the planet). The rationale is further that all the reasons for having kids are ultimately 'bad' or 'selfish' and thus it is our moral responsibility to overcome our natural tendency to have kids, and instead "do the right thing"--become extinct.

Now, most people who subscribe to this "movement" are doing it as a joke, or because they are rationalizing the fact that they don't have kids. But some of them really seem to be arguing honestly for self-extinction of the human race.

Anyways, just thought you'd be interested to know. I'm not trying to diminish your point against exaggeration.

That's true.

you can probably find people who object to the human race on the grounds the Earth would be better off (for some definition of "better" that I don't really understand) without us.
 
You mean these guys?

That's not a good solution. The only long term solution is to stop breeding like you're a frikkin sha^Wbunny.

(not "you" as in you, but you know, in general. *sigh* Engrish is a great language.)

http://www.vhemt.org/

I'm glad that someone here is mindful enough to point out what you did: oil is the lifeblood of the industrialized world. Without oil, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.

The scary part is: there are also quite a few people who see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people as a Good Thing. They regard humanity as a curse and a scourge on the face of Mother Earth. Perhaps this was the unspoken part of the parent posters's comment? Wishing for genocide isn't politically correct in all forums. But I don't doubt that there are some environmentalists who are quite excited by the idea.

May we live long and die out!
http://www.vhemt.org/

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, although definitely not one of Clancy's best, deals with a enviro-nut case group that wants to eradicate all human life on earth (except their own cult, of course).

Here's an enviro-nut case group that wants to eradicate all human life on Earth, including their own cult. (They don't want to do it violently, though -- they just want everyone on Earth to agree not to have children, and let nature take its course.)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

It could be a hoax website, but it's at least plausible.

The biggest source of humanity's problems is humanity. Heck, the biggest source of wild bears' problems is humanity.

http://www.vhemt.org/

My girlfriend does all that stuff.

Buy 2.5 laptops and join vhemt. http://www.vhemt.org/

http://www.vhemt.org/ I think the concept is amusing, but naturally defeatist, to say the least.

It's no joke, it's The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement!

Maybe people should try The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

It's truly amazing to me how many people's answer to the fact that we might get wiped out by global warming is "well, maybe it's just our time to go" or "we're a pox on the planet anyway" or any number of other things.

Some even go so far as to suggest we should voluntarily die out.

1) Why is the planet more important than its only known sentient, sapient species? Who is around to make judgements on the value of things if not the very creatures these people propose to eliminate?
2) Why are they so sure we are incapable of evolution? Look at the radical changes we've undergone as a species just in the last 200 years. There is every reason to believe we will become more aware of ourselves and better-equipped to make our presence on the planet more and more positive as time goes on.
3) Is the entire human body of knowledge, art, and culture worth so little that they'd be willing to throw away any future chance of development of those forever?

There are few things that make me angry on the internets. This is one of them, for some reason. Silly, but true.

One more reason for people to go extinct :) - The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement http://www.vhemt.org/

The is an alternative - The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement http://www.vhemt.org/

Less humans = less polution ;) right ?

Let's take this all the way

http://www.vhemt.org/

VHEMT, The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, is a movement that, as the name mostly implies, encourages extinction of the human race by not reproducing further.

While personally I'm too fascinated by things like technological progress and human culture to support total extinction, I think a major reduction in world population in a non-violent way would be an extremely good thing.

I've read much of C.S. Lewis "apologetic" works, as well as his allegorical fiction, while I was still a practicing Christian. (Though not Mere cover-to-cover.) However, I ulitimately left the faith since it became obvious to me that practicing "true" Christianity was 180 degrees at odds with the "false" Christianity practiced by the 90% of believers here in the States.

Also, by the time preachers and the more strongly faithful began to talk with me about what Christianity was really like, I developed a personality and worldview that was incompatible with the faith. (I've developed some interest towards transhumanism/posthumanism ideals that's not compatible with dogma and religious doctrine. Among other things, I'm a VHEMT sympathizer. I've also grown to find whole deal with sexuality to be undignifed, yet not worthy of the controversies it tends to have in the media.)

Maybe we should have you sterilized so we can be responsible. At what age would you prefer the cutoff to be?

Perhaps we can prevail upon you to join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

I see you are a fellow VHEMT sympathizer. Welcome aboard...

You will fit right in with this group...

http://www.vhemt.org/

It's actually a pretty good cause if you ask me.

your understanding of the ecosystem is probably really good. try telling me what key species A you depend on depends on ? other species. which depend on ? other species. which depend on ? now take the chaos theory butterfly-causes-tornado thing: plant Z dies out. from Y to B everything dies out or changes insuitably. In the end species A suffers, dies or is avialable in insufficient amounts to reproduce. timeframe ? a few hundred years. You would not mind, because you hopefully have decomposed by then. but since you`re all "the great flood after me" - you COULD not really mind.
try understanding - the species that is the least relevant to other species in the ecosystem earth is humanity. we`re really good for nothing.
try going to http://www.vhemt.org/ read up and save us all the trouble.
save the daisies and go extinct !

Every single thing we do in the process of living, from power generation to the functioning of our own bodies, comes at the expense of the life or potential life of another organism. That's how nature works. If you don't like it, join VHEMT.

Against medical testing? Because they harm animals for human profit.

Yet IIRC, isn't the Number 2 person at PETA taking Insulin that is not only a result of animl research, but contains animal products?

The fundamental philosophy of the most vocal group of "environmentalists" is that I should treat the planet (or something) as being more important than human life.
--
Kindly name them. I'd LOVE to see an official quote where PETA says that we should kill humans to make room for wolves.

Ah posit a known false statement as if it were proof. This is a twisted strawman argument. The OP claim was that some "environmentalists" value "the planet" as equal to or greater than human life. Instead of addressing it, you bring in PETA, and act as if the OP was sayign PETA says humans should be killed to save wolves. Interesting choice:

"Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?" is on their pager right here: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp

And the answer was:
"Suppose the only way to save those 10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally-challenged orphan. If saving people is the goal, wouldn't that be worth it? Most people will agree that it is wrong to sacrifice one human for the "greater good" of others because it would violate that individual's rights. But when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that human beings have rights while animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good."

This answer does in fact state a position that animals are mroe valuable than humans. Reverse their argument and it becomes this: 10,000 humans should die to save ten animals. That is a direct value assessment. 1 animal is worth 1000 humans in that equation.

Now they've removed the "No." from the beginning.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040416145443/http://w ww.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp

Shows the first answer.

This merely means they place animals as equal to humans in value. They also compare hunters to Dahlmer.

They say that animals have rights that can't be sacrificed because they can't understand them. That it is wrong to declaw a cat; they have rights dammit!

Then they are in favor of "fixing" cats and dogs to prevent them from giving birth. What happened to those "rights"?

"the most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals" --PETA FAQ

If we follow their practice of comparing animals to retarded humans when asked questions, then they should believe in sterilizing retarded humans.

"Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?" they ask, the implication beimg "hell no"

Yet ...
"However, animals don't always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals." --same page as the question.

And back to the OP's point:
http://www.vhemt.org/
"The Movement doesn't even favor wanted pregnancies."

This specifically addresses the OP's claim. A group of "environmentalists" who value "the planet" above human life.

So the environmentalists can all join VHEMT, and the rest of us can all wait a generation or two. An organism attempting to maximize its survival is about the most "natural" process you can find; why do environmentalists object to humans doing this? All other animals are trying to do the same thing all the time; it's not our fault they can't eliminate predators or affect environmental factors to the extent that we can.

Perhaps you might enjoy this site: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Then again, after re-reading your post, maybe you already have enjoyed that site.

Better to live with your parents, than to parent the living. I guess that'd be a pretty nice slogan for the VHEMT. Or not. Maybe that's why I don't make the big bucks in advertising.

Maybe we should all stop having kids. That way all humanity's stupidity and misery would be over in about a 100 years.

Funny you should say that ...

By all means. And please, before you do, join
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement!

Here is the solution to all of our problems: http://www.vhemt.org/

Every gender bias related paper I've read is about why women are the inherent underdog, not about the nature of gender bias and programming. Gender bias and programming are inherently equal opportunity victimizations and aggressions perpetrated by society, by natural situations, and by self.

The only equal-opportunity social anti-bias resource I've seen yet is VHEMT. ;-)

• "HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux"
• "Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists?"

Or at least get your tubes tied.

Damn man. Just because you are bitter about it doesn't mean that the function of society is no longer the suport that we give each other. What's next? You don't have a kid so your taxes shouldn't go to public schools. You aren't retired, why should you pay social security? This isn't rocket science. At any rate, one of my freinds runs a website that is more in-line with your philosophy on reproduction.

These people have allready thought of that.

Not just "seems", some actively advocate global die-off, for example, VHEMT - Not so much shorter lifespans though. I thought this was a very good post.

to these people;-)

I don't think it really matters if global warming is happening or not, or whether it is caused by humans. Should we just give up on trying to find cleaner sources of energy, lower emissions, etc... just because they may not be the cause of global warming? I think it's obvious that these things have other detrimental effects even if causing global warming isn't one of them.

This argument about there being no proof for what is causing global warming is often use to support more or less what you are saying... "Emissions might not be the cause of global warming. It could just be a normal cycle. (note that I'm not arguing with that) Therefore we should just keep doing whatever the hell we want".

On a somewhat unrelated note, it's not necessary to give up your life for humanity. If people would just stop having children, that would lower the population by quite a bit. Sure, for a few years we'd have a lot of old people, but we'd eventually die off. For an interesting look at this see The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement's web page.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

its on the tip of my tongue... that word for when someone is tricked into believing in something and paying money to see it, but its all a setup. Like P.T.Barnum or 'Ripleys believe it or not'.

The acts performed in a lot of porno are not necessarily acts which it is a great pleasure to perform.

They are not intended to feel good for the participants (who get paid to do it); they are intended to make money. Sex is essentially a tactile thing, not primarily visual.

To make money it has to look good. We don't have 'feelies' yet.

The sort of sex act that feels good may well not look good on camera. Duh.

What happens if its presented in such a way that a *LOT* of people wind up thinking that this is what sex really is?

Unwittingly, they join the Voluntary Human Extinction Project since these 'sex acts' are almost always non-reproductive; semen is usually deposited on some external surface. Think of it as a 'Catholic' guide to birth control.

Pro-wrestling is similar. Except with less bodily fluids. How many pro wrestling fans draw on what they see in 'the ring' as a benchmark for their internal model of physics? Their estimate of what happens to a person when a chair is broken across their back, for example? Maybe people arn't that dumb.

However, in both cases, I think theres an underlying dishonesty.

I could have got human stupidity all wrong, of course. :-/

I'm sorry, but that article is total bullshit.

The math is wrong. In a string of 10 dna bases there are only 4^10 possible combinations, and because of the way base pairs meet each other half of these are exactly the same.
(4^10)/2=524288

The article asumes that there is only one correct string of dna, and only that one correct string will work to allow life. this is false, but given their example the "magic" sequence would be one of only this small handfull.

If you have ever looked at dna you will see that it is mostly random with areas of repetition, not ordered in the way they put forth. there are huge swaths of DNA, that do nothing, in our genome.

The article asumes that there is only one correct string of dna, and only that one correct string will work to allow life. this is false.

Cells are not ordered. they are a complete mess of shit that somehow works. true there are regions within cells that do different jobs, but for the most part cells vary widely and could certainly not be considered "ordered" in the way that idea is presented.

also, the view of "information" they present is false. A string of digits in order contains 1 piece of information. a string of seemingly random numbers can mean an infinity of things depending on how you decipher it. there is a reason we call it genetic "code".

If you truly believe what that article says, read this website and kindly do not reproduce. It is as close as I have found to memetic birth control, and a weak-minded person might believe it's arguments leaving others to evolve without them.

I am afraid these guys are for real...

http://www.vhemt.org/

Well at least all the crazies over at VHEMT will finaly be happy!

I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in...

I guess since you feel that way you are an ideal candidate to do your part and join The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Protecting the kids is a solution. No more kids spending time with pornographers, no more porn involving kids...

First time I hear about that movement. I'm a bit uncertain how serious the site is (I'll admit I haven't exactly the time to read it entirely right now, I'll do that a bit later), but I certainly hope it's facetious, because it appears to me the only people who would be willing to join the movement are also those people who should not actually join it.

It's like, someone is trashing your house, and instead of stopping it, you just leave. Not exactly a responsible attitude, and very unlikely to save your house.

I've done tests myself that prove my tap water contains Dihydrogen Monoxide, but the government won't do anything about it. They say it's naturally occuring. Never mind that it kills 350 children under the age of six every year, and countless others who frequent beaches and lakes where industrial plants dump the stuff.

I'm no scientist, but it's obvious to me that we need stricter envrionmental controls to regulate this kind of thing. Multinationals are going to destroy the planet unless we do something.