--- In Why_VHEMT@y..., "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
> Paul, you asked:
> >Do you believe that there is no way we can stabilize the
environment
> on Earth and other planets through innovation and new technology?<
>
> Based on past performance, I have to say, yes, there is no way. The
> odds are so slim, and the stakes so high, that it seems foolish to
me
> to assume so.

But later in the same message, he wrote:
> Luckily, humans have the mental capacity to humanely remove
ourselves.

I find it interesting that you believe humans have the mental
capacity to humanely "phase themselves out," but do NOT have the
mental capacity to stabilize the environment on Earth and other
planets without doing so.

You are willing to use "past performance" as a metric for the
latter.  Would you be willing to address "past performance" as a
metric for the former?

Regards,

Jay

--- In Why_VHEMT@y..., "xanex_2000" <xanex_2000@y...> wrote:
> As one Eric Cartman would say
>
> "Its all a bunch of tree hugging hippy crap, screw you guys i'm
going
> home"
>
> Chris

Heh... Chris, my friend, I suspect that using Eric Cartman as a
spokesperson for your point of view will only cause people to take
you *less* seriously. :)

-- Jay

--- In Why_VHEMT@y..., "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
> I've never heard of Eric Cartman, but I'd advise him to try hugging
a
> tree sometime, especially when the wind is strong.
>
> Les

Eric Cartman is one of the characters on the TV show "South Park."
He exists primarily to make other stupid characters look
comparatively smart.  In that regard, his fictional persona owes much
to the comedies of the 1980's.

-- Jay

Jay, you raise a valid point. Correct me if I'm paraphrasing you
wrong: if we have the capacity to voluntarily phase ourselves out,
why don't we have the capacity to live in harmony with Earth's
biosphere?

VHEMT Supporters feel that we could, at some point in the future,
breed again rather than dying out. Volunteers, like myself, feel that
this is too great a risk for other species.

Speaking as a Volunteer, the odds are against our voluntarily phasing
ourselves out, but they're even worse for our living in harmony with
other species. We've risen and we can't get down.

>I find it interesting that you believe humans have the mental
capacity to humanely "phase themselves out," but do NOT have the
mental capacity to stabilize the environment on Earth and other
planets without doing so.

You are willing to use "past performance" as a metric for the
latter.  Would you be willing to address "past performance" as a
metric for the former?<

You're right, we've never phased ourselves out before. Although I'm
sure others throughout history have come to the same basic conclusion
about our existence as we VHEMTers have, there has never been a
better time for globalization of a meme than now.

At the same time, I have to admit we're losing ground: 210,000 more
people inhabit Earth each day, and they aren't joining VHEMT nearly
as fast. The odds are certainly against a peaceful phase out, or even
a peaceful improvement in our density, but the alternative scenario
is so much worse -- for all life.

Les

--- In Why_VHEMT@y..., "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
> Jay, you raise a valid point. Correct me if I'm paraphrasing you
> wrong: if we have the capacity to voluntarily phase ourselves out,
> why don't we have the capacity to live in harmony with Earth's
> biosphere?

That's an accurate paraphrase, I think.  (I almost wrote "I suppose,"
but that seemed to carry a connotation of doubt or reluctance... yet
the words mean the same thing.  Funny how delicate an issue word
choice can be.  But I digress.)

> Speaking as a Volunteer, the odds are against our voluntarily
phasing
> ourselves out, but they're even worse for our living in harmony
with
> other species. We've risen and we can't get down.

I'm not sure I agree.  But I'm not sure I disagree, either.  So: can
you provide some documentation that supports your statement? (Word
choice again: had I said "claim" instead of "statement," that
sentence would've smelled much different.  Egad.)

I had written:
> >I find it interesting that you believe humans have the mental
> capacity to humanely "phase themselves out," but do NOT have the
> mental capacity to stabilize the environment on Earth and other
> planets without doing so.
>
> You are willing to use "past performance" as a metric for the
> latter.  Would you be willing to address "past performance" as a
> metric for the former?<

You responded:
> You're right, we've never phased ourselves out before.

Well, that's true, but I actually meant something a little deeper
than that.  All of these aims of which we speak are goals, towards
which processes are built.

> At the same time, I have to admit we're losing ground: 210,000 more
> people inhabit Earth each day, and they aren't joining VHEMT nearly
> as fast.

So then, in terms of the "past performance" metric, the question
seems to be: is the rate of change of our per capita environmental
impact better or worse than the rate of change of our population
growth?

Or, perhaps we should ask: have we yet developed a useful way to
compare the two?

More thoughts soon...

-- Jay

Jay, I wrote:
>>We've risen and we can't get down.<<

And you asked:
>can you provide some documentation that supports your statement?<

A negative can't be proved, and it's theoretically possible for us to
return to living on the food chain, but the chances of our doing so
are too slim to measure.

There are accounts of feral children surviving for a time in the
wild. A few thousand people reportedly are living within Amazonian
rainforest without detrimentally impacting their ecosystem. However,
a large area with a small population is required for those tribal
people's lifestyle. If their numbers increase, and their territory
shrinks, other species begin to diminish in number.

How likely is it that modern humans will adopt this lifestyle? Right
now, there are far too many of us, but assuming we improved our
density -- say a million globally -- would we ever live as tribal
peoples again? Camping is funŠ if we pack a lot of gear.

Or perhaps living in harmony with nature doesn't require our giving
up technology. If there were only a few of us, our impact could be
absorbed by the biosphere. The problem is that there's nothing
stopping us from breeding ourselves right back to where we are today.

>So then, in terms of the "past performance" metric, the question
seems to be: is the rate of change of our per capita environmental
impact better or worse than the rate of change of our population
growth?

Or, perhaps we should ask: have we yet developed a useful way to
compare the two?<

Paul Ehrlich, and someone whose name doesn't come to mind, came up
with this formula: I = PAT. Impact = Population X Affluence X
Technology. Of course, the type of technology makes a difference, and
what we do with our affluence can change our impact. Nonetheless, it
seems to work. This assigns equal value to each of the three.

Yes, our per capita environmental impact, particularly in
over-industrialized regions, has grown faster than our population
density. Ecosystems have become disrupted to the point that it's
easier to damage them further. We also have more technology, such as
snowmobiles and dirt bikes, which enable deeper penetration of the
lesser spoiled areas. If we're affluent enough, we'll buy large
vehicles with low gas milage.

Les

philomathia, thanks for the Rousseau quote.

I noticed one line in particular, "We do not imagine that plant
structure might merit any attention itself.... " sounds like early
deep ecology: other life forms have an intrinsic value.

Efforts to preserve what's left of Nature are often presented in
terms of what they can do for us, or for our great-grandchildren.

Les

It seems that nobody has been able to answer me on this subject.

If VHEMT stands for Voluntary Human Extinction Movement .... T...
What does the T stand for???
It seems according to the site vhemt.org that there is the anagram of
THEM mentioned, so i guess the question should be where's the V...

THEM V <-> VHEM T

go figure...!!!

TRIANGLE
TOP
TITS
TROUBLE
TANK

the possibilities are endless
I still belive that this movement was created by a few Drunken (For
our american counterparts) (Pissed... for our English conterparts)
socialogy students one night. And quite possibly Stoned (Off their
faces, ratfaced, under the influence of the green weed)

Chris
(who writes this shit anyway?)

Haven't you ever heard of Darwins Theory of Evolution, if all you good
minded citizens decide not to participate in the strengthening of the
gene pool, it will degenerate into a cestpool :-)

ie: do you really want to leave the world and it's spoils to the
eventual generic human that will be the result of this kind of genetic
manipulation.

Think about it.


regards

Robert Moonen

> It seems that nobody has been able to answer me on this subject.
>
> If VHEMT stands for Voluntary Human Extinction Movement .... T...
> What does the T stand for???



The T is more aesthetic than anything, to make the abbreviation
read "vehement."

Chris X

Hello Chris.

>If VHEMT stands for Voluntary Human Extinction Movement .... T...
What does the T stand for???<

It means that this movement suits humanity to a "T".

>It seems according to the site vhemt.org that there is the anagram of
THEM mentioned, so i guess the question should be where's the V... <

There's no "V" with THEM. "V" stands for voluntary, and the Terrorist
Human Extermination Movement is not voluntary. True, people
voluntarily participate, though many will tell you they need the
money to support their families, making it not quite so voluntary. On
the other hand, their creation of that family was likely voluntary.
Recipients of THEM's toxic and violent activities are not voluntarily
participating, although some feel they must live and work in toxic
areas to support their families. With all the restrictions on
reproductive freedom, they may not have voluntarily created that
family.

>the possibilities are endless
I still belive that this movement was created by a few Drunken (For
our american counterparts) (Pissed... for our English conterparts)
socialogy students one night. And quite possibly Stoned (Off their
faces, ratfaced, under the influence of the green weed)

Chris
(who writes this shit anyway?) <

I thought you wrote it -- you signed it. Maybe you have one of those
beautiful minds that creates and then doesn't remember it later.

Les

Robert, you wrote:
>Haven't you ever heard of Darwins Theory of Evolution, if all you good
minded citizens decide not to participate in the strengthening of the
gene pool, it will degenerate into a cestpool :-) <

C'est la pool. Many of us admit to having faded genes, and passing
them on won't necessarily strengthen humanity's pool.

>ie: do you really want to leave the world and it's spoils to the
eventual generic human that will be the result of this kind of genetic
manipulation.<

The real manipulation happens through fertility treatments and heroic
efforts to save every newborn regardless of its defects. This only
happens in industrialized regions, and then only with the insured, so
it's not going to influence our species as a whole all that much. I
wish there were enough of us refusing to breed that it would
genetically manipulate our increase of 209,000 per day.

>Think about it.<

That's the idea -- think it all the way through. By not breeding, we
are leaving the world, and its spoiled parts, to those who do so.

Those who breed, in spite of all the obvious reasons not to, might
not be as intelligent as those who have a clue, which could be an
inherited trait. Therefore, our species becomes progressively, or
regressively, more stupid.

The alternative you seem to be suggesting is that those of us who
realize that our excessive breeding is destroying Earth's biosphere
should keep pace with the breeding of stupid people and breed smart
people -- smart like us.

Now, let's assume we are successful and the average IQ of Homo
sapiens rises to, say, 110. Will this 10 percent improvement reduce
our environmental impact by 10 percent? Or, if we don't succeed and
the average IQ drops to 90. Will our environmental impact increase by
10 percent?

It seems to me that human intelligence gets assigned too much value.
You probably know brilliant people who drive SUVs that burn a gallon
every 10 miles -- emissions galore. When a toilet is flushed, does
the IQ of the flusher make any difference?

It's the number of us consuming, producing, and usurping habitat that
really matters. That, plus our financial ability to do more of those
things than poorer folk. Maybe a better way to reduce our impact is
to make people less wealthy instead of more smarter. There seems to
be a grand effort going on toward this goal.

Les

Actually, that is part of the Operation:Deadworld approach. The plan is to
simply allow the human
race to self-destruct by letting them keep doing what they are doing and
encourage more of it.

It has been shown that there is an inverse relation between education/wealth and
reproduction, so
the smart and entreprenuerial keep decline and the poor and ignorant keep
growing. Then we
encourage waste and accelerate deforestation, pollution and urban sprawl to the
point that human
life becomes unsustainable. Sure, a lot of innocent species will get lost in the
process, but Gaia
is very clever and will come up with new ones.

So let the gene pool become a cesspool. It is a quicker way to save the world.

--- rmoonau <rmoonau@...> wrote:
> Haven't you ever heard of Darwins Theory of Evolution, if all you good
> minded citizens decide not to participate in the strengthening of the
> gene pool, it will degenerate into a cestpool :-)
>
> ie: do you really want to leave the world and it's spoils to the
> eventual generic human that will be the result of this kind of genetic
> manipulation.
>
> Think about it.
>
>
> regards
>
> Robert Moonen
>
>


=====


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Jim, you wrote:
>Actually, that is part of the Operation:Deadworld approach. The plan
>is to simply allow the human race to self-destruct by letting them
>keep doing what they are doing and encourage more of it.<

This approach might be easier to sell than conservation and
restraint. In fact, it's the easiest way to go. There's no need to
encourage deathculture -- it's accelerating on its own. Efforts to
stop or slow the onslaught have been futile. 20 years of work to
preserve an ecosystem are wiped out with the stroke of a pen.

Another way of approaching this situation is to accept the likelihood
of massive collapse of human civilization, and preserve as much of
Earth's biosphere as possible until it happens. Maybe one could drive
a gas guzzler while preserving a wetlands at the same time with this
approach.

>It has been shown that there is an inverse relation between
>education/wealth and reproduction, so the smart and entreprenuerial
>keep decline and the poor and ignorant keep growing. <

Higher education has little to do with intelligence. It's just a
hurdle to insure a disparity of income. You have to have money to get
a college education, and you have to have a college education to have
money. Intelligence has almost nothing to do with it. As for
ignorance, lots of college educated folks are still ignorant.

As for the correlation between education and birth rates, I think
they're both functions of the same causation: opportunity to do
something besides breed. If someone can go to college, they have
options. If they can't go to college, they don't have as many
options, and breeding looks like the thing to do. It looks like the
thing to do if you're more educated, just not as many.

>Then we encourage waste and accelerate deforestation, pollution and
>urban sprawl to the point that human life becomes unsustainable.
>Sure, a lot of innocent species will get lost in the process, but
>Gaia is very clever and will come up with new ones.<

Easy for us humans to say. Yesterday I saw a T-shirt covering a seat
in a jacked-up Jeep parked at a gun store: "Kill'em all, let God sort
'em out." Maybe that's an extreme comparison, but the idea is the
same.

>So let the gene pool become a cesspool. It is a quicker way to save
>the world.<

If speed were the most important factor, continuing as we are would
be the way to go. Voluntarily phasing out will take much longer than
crashing and burning.

Les

"Reason's biological function is to preserve and promote life and
to postpone its extinction as long as possible.  Thinking and
acting are not contrary to nature; they are, rather, the foremost
features of man's nature.  The most appropriate description of
man as differentiated from nonhuman beings is: a being
purposively [sic] struggling against the forces adverse to his
life."-- Ludwig von Mises

What kind of planet (?) or environment would best suite
humans?
What kind of place could 'he' inhabit where he would NOT to be
in a constant struggle with and against it?

Any ideas?

Kquen ~~~~ morning musings





.

Some human beings, probably small, are going to cease breeding because of
the arguments proposed by your movement. Others may reach the same
conclusions independently and also stop breeding.  But many who are
indifferent, or even hostile to your ideas, will continue to reproduce as
before.

Have you considered that this may genetically select against the very traits
that might lead people to consider and be concerned about the extinction of
other species?  i.e., that traits in humans such as moral consideration,
openness to ideas, aesthetic and intellectual appreciation of nature, etc.
might become rarer over time if your movement did grow in influence?

One possible response is that ecological catastrophe large enough to
actually get people's attention and seriously impact humans will likely take
place long before the length of time required for such evolutionary changes
to really occur, but I still think it's an interesting question to consider.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

While in favor of a smaller and sustainable world population, I think vhemt is
the greatest expression yet of the "will to nothingness" that sickens our
planet.
When self-consciousness sees itself as a problem, when it sees everlasting
deep sleep as the supreme state of being, there is burrowed beneath it a
deep resentment of life, the feeling of being alive.  Pain and suffering are not
objections to human existence; they are hurdles to be overcome.

rank54 wrote:

>When self-consciousness sees itself as a problem

Who said it did?

> everlasting
> deep sleep as the supreme state of being

Who said that?

> burrowed beneath it a
> deep resentment of life, the feeling of being alive.

What are you smoking, to have come up with these wild
projections?

> Pain and suffering are not
> objections to human existence;

Who said they were?

> they are hurdles to be overcome.

Yes, and one way is to STOP breeding (reproducing). Perhaps
you should go back and read the site before making untrue
assertions about it its objectives.

Kquen

I've read your site.  I thought about it, and I choked on my pity.
Supposedly, vhemt is some glorious and noble step for the sake
of the rest of the critters on the earth, the "biosphere."  But when I
think about my values, my hierarchy of value, I'm at the top of the
list.  I actually do think the world is better place because of my
being in it.  This does not exclude my concern for others nor
other life forms.  I was an only child and plan on a small family.  I
actively support environmental initiatives.

So you see, my point is that I don't share your philosophical
rejection of egoism.  I love myself, and the good things I try to do
in the world are an expression of that self-love, not fear, not
asceticism, not guilt about things that extend the scope of my
power.

Lastly, I forsee the caveat that I'm still speaking within a sphere
of human values, a sort of homo-centrism.  Vhemt seems to
hold this odd position (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the
"biosphere" would be better off without homo-sapiens-sapiens,
somehow returned to a natural splendor, but fails to understand
that a value of "biosphere" life over human life is still a human
value.  You might like to get outside of your own skin, but you'll
always fail, that is why I draw the conclusion that vhemt is an
expression of self-loathing and resentment against being alive.

I imagine I sound arrogant or unwilling to listen to your views.
Fact is, I've heard this kind of viewpoint many, many times before
and I fear that it should poison my conscience.



--- In Why_VHEMT@y..., "kjquen@p..." <kjquen@p...> wrote:
> rank54 wrote:
>
> >When self-consciousness sees itself as a problem
>
> Who said it did?
>
> > everlasting
> > deep sleep as the supreme state of being
>
> Who said that?
>
> > burrowed beneath it a
> > deep resentment of life, the feeling of being alive.
>
> What are you smoking, to have come up with these wild
> projections?
>
> > Pain and suffering are not
> > objections to human existence;
>
> Who said they were?
>
> > they are hurdles to be overcome.
>
> Yes, and one way is to STOP breeding (reproducing). Perhaps
> you should go back and read the site before making untrue
> assertions about it its objectives.
>
> Kquen

Rank, you wrote:

>I've read your site.  I thought about it, and I choked on my pity. <

Was your pity for humanity? There's plenty of reason for that,
especially for future humans. Was it for other species? They too
could invoke pity. Was it for those of us who have decided not to
breed? If so, there's no need. Was it for yourself? I doubt it was, I
just had to ask for the sake of completeness.

>Supposedly, vhemt is some glorious and noble step for the sake
of the rest of the critters on the earth, the "biosphere." <

Oh, I don't know how glorious and noble eschewing fecundity is. If
someone really wanted to co-create a new human, and then decided that
they wouldn't do so for the sake of Earth's biosphere or existing
humanity, that would be noble. They wouldn't get much glory though.
Many of us realized what adding another human to the billions would
mean before we were old enough to think about procreation for
ourselves.

>  But when I think about my values, my hierarchy of value, I'm at the
>top of the
list.  I actually do think the world is better place because of my
being in it.  <

That's okay, we're not suggesting that you not be in it. Our time for
passing will come soon enough.

>This does not exclude my concern for others nor other life forms.  I
>was an only child and plan on a small family. <

There are plenty of existing children who would love to be a part of
your small family. Taking one in would be a good way of showing your
concern for others. You could even have a big family and still
actively advocate environmental efforts that way.

>So you see, my point is that I don't share your philosophical
rejection of egoism.  I love myself, and the good things I try to do
in the world are an expression of that self-love, not fear, not
asceticism, not guilt about things that extend the scope of my
power.<

I can see how the philosophy of voluntary human extinction might seem
like a rejection of egosim. Actually, it's a rejection of one
specific method of expressing egoism: breeding. I can't speak for all
Volunteers, but all that you described may easily be applied to many
of us. Sure, some are motivated by guilt and/or fear, as are many
breeders. However, I think if one expands self-love to encompass all
life on Earth, eventually the conclusion could be that breeding
expresses a lack of self-love.

>Lastly, I forsee the caveat that I'm still speaking within a sphere
of human values, a sort of homo-centrism.  Vhemt seems to
hold this odd position (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the
"biosphere" would be better off without homo-sapiens-sapiens,
somehow returned to a natural splendor, Š<

Correct. At least what's left of the biosphere by the time we're gone
would be allowed to flourish.

>Šbut fails to understand that a value of "biosphere" life over human
>life is still a human value.<

Seems paradoxical, huh? To value life for its intrinsic value, and
not for the value we place on it, is still a human value.
Nonetheless, my human value system makes me think that a toe is less
important that the whole body. We're just one of 10 to 100 million
species.

>You might like to get outside of your own skin, but you'll
always fail, that is why I draw the conclusion that vhemt is an
expression of self-loathing and resentment against being alive.<

For some it could be. We are each motivated by our own conscious
conscience. That certainly doesn't apply to me -- I love life and
want other species to have a fair chance at it. In order for this to
happen, we and our domesticated plants and animals will have to phase
ourselves out. As we do, we can continue to love ourselves and be
egoistical and even egotistical -- if our friends will tolerate us.

I'm unable to grasp the connection between your conclusion that vhemt
is an expression of self-loathing and that valuing Earth's biosphere
is a human value.

>I imagine I sound arrogant or unwilling to listen to your views.
Fact is, I've heard this kind of viewpoint many, many times before
and I fear that it should poison my conscience.<

If this view sounds like something you've heard many times before,
it's possible that you're confusing it with another kind of
viewpoint: misanthropy, nihilism, or one you mentioned above.

Some views do poison our beings down to our very soul, and we're
better off avoiding them. They seem so nice at first, too. Like
producing another of ourselves. A large part of my intent with the
VHEMT website is helping others think things through to understand
potential results of actions.

For a better world,
Les

Bill,

Your concern has been raised many times. I've tried to address this
on the VHEMT website:

Q: Won't VHEMT die out when all its members die off?

If an idea lacks enough merit to be passed on without being force-fed
from an early age, it probably deserves to be forgotten.

Awareness isn't passed along in our genes. Every VHEMT Volunteer or
Supporter is the result of a breeding couple, and yet we have all
decided to stop reproducing. Often, we arrived at this conclusion
independently and without support from friends and family.

The concept of voluntary human extinction has a life of its own. It's
an idea whose time has come, though it may be a little late. <

You wrote:
>One possible response is that ecological catastrophe large enough to
actually get people's attention and seriously impact humans will likely take
place long before the length of time required for such evolutionary changes
to really occur, but I still think it's an interesting question to consider. <

This is a possibility. Although it appears that the human capacity
for denial knows no bounds, and ecological catastrophes are already
occurring, maybe conditions will become so bad that people actually
admit there's a problem and stop breeding. Too bad conditions may
have to get horrible before we stop denying the consequences of our
actions.

In the meantime, helping people rethink their reproductive options
may encourage responsible choices.

Les

http://geocities.com/esty_as/

BS!

stumanan wrote:
>
> http://geociies.com/esty_as/

You people make me laugh.  If you were so gung-ho about over
population and extinction, THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU STILL ALIVE? lol
I mean shit, you think the world over populated, do your part and
kill yourself already.  Quit your whining.

   pandy
  --- In Why_VHEMT@y..., "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
> Hi Chris. Thanks for adding your perspective to the mix.
>
> >I'm all for the lowering of the population and better usage of the
> resources, but this is sick.<
>
> What's so sick about one more species going extinct when between
> 6,000 and 100,000 species go extinct because of us each year? Maybe
> our callous destruction of wildlife habitat is what's truly sick.
>
> >condemming people just for having a familly, what do your parents
> think of this?<
>
> If we were condemning people for breeding, my parents would
probably
> remind me to be polite and not do that. We are suggesting that
people
> think before they breed. "[H]aving a family" is great, and there's
no
> need to create another of us to do that.
>
> >I also noticed that you have edited a lot of the messages, I have a
> copy of this email and I will know if u have changed any thing.<
>
> If you're referring to the exchanges I've shared on the website,
very
> little has been left out, and no text is ever changed from the
> original. That would be dishonest, and as you say, copies of email
> exist to prove the deception.
>
> If you're referring to this forum, messages don't go through me for
editing.
>
> >Do you really expect people to just give up, <
>
> Unfortunately, that's what most people seem to be doing. I hope
> people will choose to go against the odds and work toward a better
> world.
>
> >we evolved from mindless apes, Š<
>
> That would explain a lot.
>
> >Šsome like yourself would say we havent changed, but you
> contradict yourself so many times.<
>
> If I said we haven't changed, then I certainly would be
contradicting
> myself. We've evolved into a species incompatible with Earth's
> biosphere.
>
> >my Girl said this when she read it
> "i recon it was written by a bunch of pissed environmental science
> students early sat morning who were taking the piss"<
>
> Actually, that's a good time to think about our impact on the
natural
> world: where dies our urine go, anyway?
>
> >There is also a problem with genetics, The human race was almost
> wiped out some centuries ago, this has caused the population to
> rebuild itself and with it many genetic diseases have arisen, with
> genetic variety comes the protection, its like me making a clone of
> myself, a clone has not the protection of genetic diversity, so what
> kills me will also kill him, the same goes for the reducing of the
> population, we have only just about to regain the diversity and
> protection of DNA.<
>
> I wish more people understood the importance of a large and diverse
> gene pool for many higher-order species such as ourselves. As
> populations of mammalian carnivores diminish, even if we do avoid
> causing their extinctions, their genetic strength may never fully
> recover.
>
> As for Homo sapiens sapiens, 6.3 billion of us is a bit excessive,
> despite the bottleneck a hundred or so millennia ago.
>
> >Slow the population growth - YES<
>
> But we'd still be growing. I recall your comment, "I'm all for the
> lowering of the populationŠ"
>
> >EXTINCTION - NO<
>
> We are heading for a massive dieoff, if not our extinction. We'd
just
> like to make our inevitable voluntary and relatively peaceful.
>
> >we are a learning species, there are many other species out there
> that have caused the extinction of others, and they have no idea
> about it,Š<
>
> Exotic species, like cane toads in Australia, do cause extinctions.
> Can you give me an example of a species not introduced by humans
that
> caused the extinction of others?
>
> >  at least we are trying to do something.<
>
> Yes, VHEMT, for example.
>
> >on a personal note, i do think that this movment was started by a
> group of Pissed, 23 year old, spotty , startrek esc' (nooffense to
ST
> fans) USA Ugly VIRGINS , who can't pull to save their masturbation
> saturdays, so decided to extinct the human race<
>
> Interesting hypothesis. Volunteers and Supporters are such a
diverse
> bunch that someone must fit that description. However, The Movement
> has been around for thousands of years, and no one knows who
> "started" it.
>
> What's so special about Saturdays, Mate? All that pissing and
masturbating. . .
>
> >Im sure there were many more things that i wanted to say but have
not
> the time now to do so.<
>
> Alas, all things must end.
>
> Les

Hi pandy,

--- In Why_VHEMT@y..., "frazzledazzled2000" <frazzledazzled2000@y...>
wrote:
>   You people make me laugh.

Nice to have amused you.

> If you were so gung-ho about over
> population and extinction,
> THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU STILL ALIVE?

I'm not sure.  I think it has to do with
brain waves.

> lol
> I mean shit, you think the world over
> populated, do your part and
> kill yourself already.

I've thought about it, but just killing
myself wouldn't reduce the world's population
for even half a second.  Even if I were to
take out a few thousand people in a huge act
of terrorism, the population would recover in
a matter of minutes, and apparently this would
have a negative impact (as a recent event has
demonstrated) since people will put in extra
effort to breed afterward.  Seems like reducing
the supply of humans is definitely better than
trying to kill them off.

> Quit your whining.

Right.  Gotta remember - nobody likes a whiner.
How can you tell whining in text?

-andy

QUOTE:
"The few million people who now advocate that we stop breeding will
never make enough of a difference in population growth to preserve
and restore Earth's biosphere."

(they must make some difference, no?!)

but only 74 yahoo group members? hey, I guess we need to start
somewhere ontop of the 'millions of members'

Sorry, just seems strange to me. I've read through the site, and am
surprised by the intelligent thought put into it. I think most of the
philosophy sounds well and good, although to this..

"A high percentage of the other six billion plus humans will have to
progress to this phase of awareness as well."

-Although I agree, is a big big stretch. forgive me, I value
idealism, passion, commitment, awareness, etc. but I don't think 6
billion plus humans will ever progress to that phase of awareness.
I'm not an unhopeful, but realisticly, I think if we can't get six
billion people to get along in the world, and 3 of the 6 billion
either divorce, or a 3rd of them kill each other off for thousands of
years, and the 6 billion people mostly eat red meat and kill animals
rather than eat broccoli despite 'millions' of anti-animal killing
pro-broccoli activists, why do you think 6 billion people will
progress to this one specific phase of awareness if they can't in any
of the others?

And why do you claim to have 'millions of members' in your group
when, here, you apparently have only 74? Is it a suggestive
advertising trick to make people think you are bigger than you really
are to create a better impression and get people in? or am I wrong?
if i am, let me know. Not to harp, I just like to put on sherlocke's
cap everyonce in a while.

I think population today can be a problem. Especially with mexicans
who traditionally seem to breed and have six children at a time (from
where I live & what i see) it's like an epidemic, I'd push for a law
that limits it like china or japan did (2 or so children every 10
years)tell the mexicans to not have as many children, from what I see
here in CA they breed like rabbits! they are your target audience.
The thing is it's been a family tradition for thousands of years
since and before the maya. It's natural/and you can't really stop it,
or people's traditions, genes unless you influence them however,
(alot of time).
So I'd say do your best, or just accept it, let people screw, and let
people have they're own problems, when you equate the constant
increase of deaths (natural and unnatural) every year you'd see it
all balances out/ (although our pop. did reach 6 billion recently) we
will kill each other off regardless for population control
subconsciously, like we have for ages otherwise we'd be shoulder to
shoulder by now.

World War III I think is coming, so that may leverage out the
population again, unfortunately. Anyways, I was browsing around,
found the site and this interesting topic got me thinking.

Life is short, reproduce, if you want children, have them! never give
up what you want in the name of a group, or cause, because that's
just another chunk of individuality taken out of you./Be yourself and
do what you want (just don't breed 10 children at a time ok? go adopt
some poor abandoned kids if you really want to have that much
responsibility)
-END

Ayn Rand, one of my personal heroes, had a lot to say about
environmentalists that felt that humans were evil, or that animals
had the same rights as humans. Now, I wouldn't go as far as she did,
because I do feel that extremism is dangerous, and moderation is the
way to go (of course, you even need moderation in moderation...). But
I do happen to agree with her main idea: hating man is a dangerous
and rather telling belief. I would say that we perceive the
archetypal man based on primarily who we are, in addition to who
everyone else we know is. If you cannot believe that humans can live
without overpopulating, you believe that you yourself can't, or that
the people you've met can't, or both. We derive large conclusions,
stereotypes, based on largely limited knowledge. It is for that
reason that I think it's inherently dangerous to want something as
extreme as complete extinction of the human race. I do, however,
support voluntarily not procreating, as a favor to the future
generations who are getting handed an increasingly crappy deal. Any
thoughts?

TAD

> Higher education has little to do with intelligence. It's just a
> hurdle to insure a disparity of income. You have to have money to
get
> a college education, and you have to have a college education to
have
> money. Intelligence has almost nothing to do with it. As for
> ignorance, lots of college educated folks are still ignorant.

If there is one complaint I have about your site, it's this - your
views tend to be extremely one sided towards an American viewpoint.
I would like to point out that in countries like Germany and, I
believe, France, Higher Education is free to all.  Even to
foreigners, at least in Germany, provided that their German is of a
high-enough level.  Learning the German itself can cost next to
nothing and seems to be a popular options amongst Eastern Europeans
as a gateway into a higher standard of living.  I am fully aware of
the limitations regarding the, in my opinion, decidedly poor
education standards in the USA but please do not apply this on a
global scale.  England, alas, no longer has a free education system
and appears to following a similar route to America - if for no other
reason than social pressuring against 'lazy, layabout students'.

> Have you considered that this may genetically select against the
very traits
> that might lead people to consider and be concerned about the
extinction of
> other species?  i.e., that traits in humans such as moral
consideration,
> openness to ideas, aesthetic and intellectual appreciation of
nature, etc.
> might become rarer over time if your movement did grow in influence?

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that traits
such as 'morality', 'intelligence', 'wit' and the like are genetic in
nature.  There may be <i>some</i> evidence suggesting that one person
may be more genetically predisposed towards these things than another
but this by no means guarantees that those who are more predisposed
will follow what many would consider to be 'moral' path.

There is a lot more evidence to suggest that societal and religious
indoctrination have a huge impact on the development of our social
awareness and skills.  Take for example the Polynesians.  Some time
ago, it was considered perfectly moral to eat the flesh of your dead
ancestors, this was a form of ancestor worship and was done to absorb
the knowledge and power of your wise elders.  Similarly, the flesh of
your enemies would be eaten.  Of course, in a 'Western' civilisation
this would be considered immoral and 'wrong'.  Is that a Genetic
trait?

The Polynesians, realistically, had few places to use as burial
grounds and not a great deal of wood with which to burn their dead -
thus eating them proved to a practical measure of dealing with
bodies.  What stops us from eating our dead?  We are taught, in
Western civilisation that the body is sacrisanct, that we should have
fear either of or for our dead - the former because their soul may
linger here on earth and the latter because their soul might go to
Hell and not Heaven.  Is that a Genetic trait?

Humans, as a species that has foregone physical strength (with the
exception of our incredible stamina) and replaced that with the
capacity for higher mental states, are capable of being empathetic (a
vital part of our social structure).  Even today we still attribute
dogs with emotions such as Love and Care, though we know the four
sectors of the brain that are used in order to generate the feeling
of love and that dogs do not have all those sectors.  We can, in
fact, artificially induce this state of being (we can also induce
Nirvana) with carefully placed electrodes in the brain, but I
digress.  We attribute animals to having the same range of emotions
and pain/pleasure responses that we do, despite the fact that we
know, as a society, that they do not - this is a human centred point
of view that is often applied to everything we do; I would feel x way
or perform y action within z situation so everything and everyone
else will too.  This <b>is</b>, I believe, genetic, therefore an idea
such as VHEMT will not die out with the last of its current members
as it is displayed across many diverse cultures.

Genes can be a more modern way of suggesting that responsibility of
our actions is beyond our fault, no better or worse than a pseudo-
scientific manner of claiming "It's the Will of God."

Hello Dooma. I'll try to answer some of your thoughtful questions and
clarify some points about VHEMT. I can't speak for everyone in The
movement.

>QUOTE:
"The few million people who now advocate that we stop breeding will
never make enough of a difference in population growth to preserve
and restore Earth's biosphere."

(they must make some difference, no?!)<

Yes, especially in North America: each new person we don't create is
a lifetime of mega consumption, production, usurping habitat, and
potentially, breeding. However, a third of the world's population is
under 15-years-old. Most will breed.

>but only 74 yahoo group members? hey, I guess we need to start
somewhere ontop of the 'millions of members'<

This list is for discussion and debating the concept of voluntary
human extinction. The list for Volunteers and Supporters is a bit
larger.

You're right about the unlikeliness of everyone agreeing on anything,
breeding included. Maybe this is all the more reason to choose
non-reproduction.

>And why do you claim to have 'millions of members' in your group
when, here, you apparently have only 74? Is it a suggestive
advertising trick to make people think you are bigger than you really
are to create a better impression and get people in? or am I wrong?
if i am, let me know. Not to harp, I just like to put on sherlocke's
cap everyonce in a while.<

"Millions" is an extrapolation from the number who contact me to say
that they came to the same basic conclusion on their own. A small
portion of the three or four million I estimate who are "members" of
VHEMT by default know that I gave it this name. Most don't speak
English, don't have computers, and so on.

Many who do know, and consider themselves Volunteers or Supporters,
have no time for email discussion lists, so list subscription
membership has limited value. Many on the VHEMTers' list may have
forgotten that they're subscribed. At this moment, the official
number of subscribers to the Yahoo list is 420. Cool, huh?

Regarding people from Mexico breeding excessively when they move
here, this is common all over the world: when people's expectations
of the future improve, they create more of themselves. There's no
incentive not to here with all the government subsidies on breeding.

>I'd push for a law that limits it like chinaŠ<

It may become necessary to prevent large scale starvation, but for
now I'd like to see the $1,000 per child tax credit eliminated.

>tell the mexicans to not have as many children, from what I see
here in CA they breed like rabbits! <

Rabbits don't exceed their food supply -- really, they breed like humans.

>they are your target audience. The thing is it's been a family
>tradition for thousands of years
since and before the maya. <

There's more mixing with indigenous peoples in the former Spanish
colonies than in the former British colonies like Canada and the US,
but the dominant culture for all of the Americas is now European. We
Europeans are the ones who breed like crazy, that's why we had to
expand all over the world.

>It's natural/and you can't really stop it, or people's traditions,
>genes unless you influence themŠ<

That's the idea. Obviously, we can stop it by personal choice.

>So I'd say do your best, or just accept it, let people screwŠ<

Screwing isn't the problem -- conception is.

>Š and let people have they're own problemsŠ<

Gladly -- got enough of my own. ;-)

>Š when you equate the constant increase of deaths (natural and
>unnatural) every year you'd see it all balances out/ (although our
>pop. did reach 6 billion recently) <

At present, births minus deaths results in an increase of more than
two per second. They call it "natural increase" but I don't know how
natural it is.

>we will kill each other off regardless for population control
subconsciously, like we have for ages otherwise we'd be shoulder to
shoulder by now. <

Wars have usually increased populations as the losers and winners
both go home and make babies.

>World War III I think is coming, <

You don't think it's already going on?

>so that may leverage out the population again, unfortunately. <

I sincerely hope that war isn't the method we use to improve our
population density. Contraceptives are so much nicer.

>Anyways, I was browsing around, found the site and this interesting
>topic got me thinking.<

Great! That's the whole idea.

>Life is short, reproduce, if you want children, have them! never give
up what you want in the name of a group, or cause, because that's
just another chunk of individuality taken out of you./Be yourself and
do what you want <

That seems to be what most of us will do, given the opportunity.

>(just don't breed 10 children at a time ok? go adopt
some poor abandoned kids if you really want to have that much
responsibility)  <

Exactly. There are plenty of children already around who need homes.

Les