Voluntary Human Extinction MovemenT
"May we live long and die out"
"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow the Earth's biosphere to return to good health".
While surfing the web the other day, I ran across VHEMT. Never heard of it, so of course I looked. Imagine my surprise. They are advocating the complete extinction of the human race, done through no procreation. Plenty of sex, just no more pregnancies. I mean as an atheist, I believe not only in evolution, but in our place in nature. We are a part of nature, one end product (as of now) of evolution. The urge for procreation is a biological imperative, but we also have a mind, which can make us go beyond our biological programming and act altruistically, as it were. Since most species on the planet have become extinct (as high as 98% in some studies I have read, of all species ever to exist on the planet), our turn is coming. Whether selected by nature, or at our own hand. So should we let "nature take its course", or help it along by voluntarily exterminating ourselves?
A few things here of note:
"we are among the most amazing (and stupid) creatures on earth"
This immediately brought to mind Ernie Cline's "Dance, Monkeys, Dance!"
"I have one son for the record, who probably has aspergers syndrome, he is 5 and is being tested at the moment."
This does not make him less than human, or even necessarily not able to contribute to the greater good, the same can be said for many different endogenic afflictions. There are indications that autism spectrum has a genetic component to it, but it is just one component, not the root causality.
Eugenics is a bad idea, period, one need not raise the specter of the Third Reich to make this point. Remember why eugenics and nazis are an inevitable conflation: Sure, one can diminish the degree of separation from "nazi" in how eugenics can be employed in a "different way", but this doesn't and can't separate the elements of eugenic practices that have "same way" aspects to them.
Over-population has the potential to be a problem, but Malthusian predictions proved to be wrong. Where the tipping point is we do not know, I suspect we will when we get there; I also suspect that there will be a self-limitation to population growth/sustainability that will ameliorate by natural means, …it always has. There's no reason to doubt that it always will.
As for parenting licensing as a practice, while it may look good on paper, it does't take into consideration the power of the individual to self-determination, …and that one can go either way - regardless of quality of parenting.
It disappeared from its original web page a few years back, and although Cline has a few of his own versions up, this one, I think is the best. So I uploaded it to my YouTube channel.
I found this version (unauthorized) on the interwebs many years ago and extracted the Flash file from the page to archive it.
I used to watch it from time to time whenever I'd become disgusted with various and sundry aspects of human stupidity, …and it always made makes me smile.
as you can see
these are some fucked up monkeys
are at once
the ugliest and the most
creatures on the planet
and the monkeys don't want to be monkeys
they want to be something else
…but they're not
"Ya could've mentioned the swearing though"
Sorry, as it's poetry, I probably have a bit of a blind spot there. I also have children around, I've taken to having headphones permanently plugged into the ol' iMac as well.
However, mea culpa...
Although they are way over the top there is something there. I have been saying controlled breeding was our only hope for years. The world is already supporting way more of us than it can now. The obvious end is extension. Morons like the ones you hear about all the time with 19 kids is not helping the situation at all. If we limited the birthrate to a mandatory 1 kid we would be on the right track. I really believe even more extreme limits should be enforced. Like, if you can't support them you shouldn't have them. A certain amount of mental stability should be a must. I catch flak anytime I voice this opinion but really its like being a christian turned Atheist, you might not like to face the truth, but it is the truth.
The percentage of extinct species, as far as I know, is 99.9% that are now extinct, fyi. I've heard Dawkins use that figure as well. Not saying that makes it true, but that's also the figure I've seen most often and by people who've actually done research on the subject.
I've heard of VHEMT before. I watched a show once where they were talking about their ideas on procreation. I gotta agree with Tommy here. I think there's definitely some good ideas there, but they've taken it to the extreme. This could be expected with just about any movement. Look at WBC, for example. There is truth in the idea that the world would be fine if humans were extinct, however that's unlikely to happen and I don't think that's the way to go about fixing the Earth anyway. The only way way to fix the population problem, I think, is to fix the problems that make people have so many kids in the first place. Lack of education and poverty are what seem to be the two main problems that result in "mass producing" children, which only makes the problem worse because then their kids are likely to be poor and uneducated...and more likely to believe in a religion, by the way, as most of you already know. If we focus on education, however, the poverty problem, I think, will fix itself. Education is proportionate to salary. There are myriad studies that confirm this. That's what we should focus on. Uneducated people don't make very good decisions.
The Earth is our environment. That's why people are concerned with "saving the Earth". It's the only place we have to live right now. I haven't seen anyone here who suggests that the Earth has a soul. A lot of people here don't believe in the concept of a soul for a person, let alone for inanimate objects, so I think you've missed a point here.
For me, there was no morality in my mind when I wrote my response. It has to do with simple math. Our population is growing and our focus on science has decreased, in the U.S. at least. We cannot possibly effectively handle a massive population without the help of science. We can't possibly feed so many people nor could we control diseases and things that would utterly destroy us as a species, and no, I'm not thinking about all the sick, starving children around the world. For the purposes of my reply, it doesn't matter that they die horribly, the fact is that they are dead and become part of a statistic, from which I'm drawing my conclusion. It has nothing to do with moralizing, for me. It has to do with survival and advancement of our species. It's just logic. There are only so many places suitable for humans to live, unless we use science to create new environments for ourselves in the places that aren't suitable. We can't possibly think that people will come up with any plausible ideas unless they are properly educated about reality - how the world works and, more importantly, clearing up misconceptions about observations, for example, praying for rain and rain comes.
All I was trying to say is that real knowledge given to people instead of "knowledge" from a holy text or other misconceived observation will undoubtedly fix a lot of the problems people see as moral issues, like starving, diseased children. The math shows that more education leads to less poverty, as well as less superstitious beliefs. The math shows that less poverty leads to fewer children being born. The math shows that fewer people in the world leads to more supply for the ones who are living. Then we get to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which, while it's "just a theory", it seems to hold an awful lot of water. As basic needs are met, society, as a whole, becomes happier and more productive. Again, it's simple math.
So you can only see things literally...gotchya. I meant the human population of the Earth. I'll stop feeding the troll now. *eyeroll*