Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Small Point

Expand Messages
  • majackmail
    Really, I wanted to email Les and say this, but I ll just post it here. This site is awesome, and sums up all the same things I ve been saying for years.
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Really, I wanted to email Les and say this, but I'll just post it here.

      This site is awesome, and sums up all the same things I've been saying
      for years. However, it uses the same terminology every
      environmentalist uses that sparks huge arguments between me and entire
      rooms full of people. "Save the Earth".

      We can't kill the Earth. The Earth has been around for alot longer
      than we have. The sun, asteriods and meteorites, volcanoes, and even
      the increase of oxygen 4 billion years ago have all created, at one
      time or another, ecological "crises" as bad or worse than the
      ecological plague the human species is. The Earth has survived all of
      these (albiet changed beyond all recognition from what it was before)
      and it will survive us. The concept of humanity being capable
      of "saving the planet" is just as egotistical as the concept of us
      being so important that we can wantonly destory the so-called lesser
      species - its just egotistical from the opposite side. The only thing
      we are capable of doing by volunteering for extinction is saving the
      current biological diversity as it is now, and, possibly, our personal
      species' ability to survive on this planet. But make no mistake - no
      matter what we do - something will survive and the whole thing will
      start all over.

      That doesn't mean I think we should go along as we are because its
      doesn't matter (because I don't), it just means that I think we should
      be honest with ourselves. Ego is what got us into this mess in the
      first place. Simply reversing the direction of the ego can't solve the
      problem because later in life the ego is too easily redirected back to
      where it was before. We need to eliminate the ego. Once that is done,
      we humans will be truly able to make a moral choice to not reproduce
      and stick to it.

      My two cents. Cheers.
    • Jessie
      I will agree that the chances of humans managing to do in all life on earth is pretty slim. However, it s not entirely impossible. That doesn t mean we re
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I will agree that the chances of humans managing to do in all life on earth is pretty slim. However, it's not entirely impossible. That doesn't mean we're better than other species because, unlike others, we've become a threat to the planet that we ought to be helping to thrive... that sounds like failure to me. There's nothing egotistical in realizing that your species has made a huge mistake and preparing for the possibility that that mistake is truly catastrophic. Nor is it egotistical to think we can save the earth. It's ultimate survival or demise may have nothing to do with us, but in the meantime we can save it from a lot of suffering. Or at least we can try.

        - Jessie

        majackmail <majackmail@...> wrote: Really, I wanted to email Les and say this, but I'll just post it here.

        This site is awesome, and sums up all the same things I've been saying
        for years. However, it uses the same terminology every
        environmentalist uses that sparks huge arguments between me and entire
        rooms full of people. "Save the Earth".

        We can't kill the Earth. The Earth has been around for alot longer
        than we have. The sun, asteriods and meteorites, volcanoes, and even
        the increase of oxygen 4 billion years ago have all created, at one
        time or another, ecological "crises" as bad or worse than the
        ecological plague the human species is. The Earth has survived all of
        these (albiet changed beyond all recognition from what it was before)
        and it will survive us. The concept of humanity being capable
        of "saving the planet" is just as egotistical as the concept of us
        being so important that we can wantonly destory the so-called lesser
        species - its just egotistical from the opposite side. The only thing
        we are capable of doing by volunteering for extinction is saving the
        current biological diversity as it is now, and, possibly, our personal
        species' ability to survive on this planet. But make no mistake - no
        matter what we do - something will survive and the whole thing will
        start all over.

        That doesn't mean I think we should go along as we are because its
        doesn't matter (because I don't), it just means that I think we should
        be honest with ourselves. Ego is what got us into this mess in the
        first place. Simply reversing the direction of the ego can't solve the
        problem because later in life the ego is too easily redirected back to
        where it was before. We need to eliminate the ego. Once that is done,
        we humans will be truly able to make a moral choice to not reproduce
        and stick to it.

        My two cents. Cheers.






        VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction



        SPONSORED LINKS
        Homo sapiens Cause Issues Cause and effect essay Causes of depression

        ---------------------------------
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


        Visit your group "Why_VHEMT" on the web.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Why_VHEMT-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        ---------------------------------





        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Mail
        Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Les U. Knight
        Majackmail, thanks for posting your comments here rather than emailing me personally. This way others who have the same concerns might get some answers. Plus,
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Majackmail, thanks for posting your comments here rather than emailing me personally.
          This way others who have the same concerns might get some answers. Plus, others can
          reply, as Jesse has. I'm just one of the Volunteers, so it's best to have more than one
          perspective.

          Rather than "save the Earth," I think we should stop destroying Earth's biosphere. If there's
          any place I use the phrase "save the Earth" on the VHEMT website, please let me know.

          When someone decides to join The Movement, http://www.vhemt.org/join.htm , I do say,
          "A few billion more of us and we'll save the planet once and for all." This is clearly meant
          to be humorous rather than literal.

          You wrote:
          >This site is awesome, and sums up all the same things I've been saying
          for years. However, it uses the same terminology every
          environmentalist uses that sparks huge arguments between me and entire
          rooms full of people. "Save the Earth".

          We can't kill the Earth. The Earth has been around for alot longer
          than we have. <

          I don't follow the leaps from one subject to another here. Are you saying that we can't save
          the earth because it can't be killed?

          No one will disagree with the fact that Earth has been around a lot longer than we have,
          but that doesn't mean we aren't doing irreparable harm.

          > The sun, asteriods and meteorites, volcanoes, and even
          the increase of oxygen 4 billion years ago have all created, at one
          time or another, ecological "crises" as bad or worse than the
          ecological plague the human species is. The Earth has survived all of
          these (albiet changed beyond all recognition from what it was before)
          and it will survive us. <

          You're right that Earth's biosphere has endured and recovered from worse than us, but
          that doesn't reduce the seriousness of our causing Earth's sixth major extinction spasm. A
          serial killer might argue that a tsunami kills a lot more than he ever killed.

          > The concept of humanity being capable
          of "saving the planet" is just as egotistical as the concept of us
          being so important that we can wantonly destory the so-called lesser
          species - its just egotistical from the opposite side. <

          The notion that we can save something when we are the ones destroying it is pretty
          bizarre to me. All we have to do is stop killing it.

          > The only thing
          we are capable of doing by volunteering for extinction is saving the
          current biological diversity as it is now, and, possibly, our personal
          species' ability to survive on this planet. But make no mistake - no
          matter what we do - something will survive and the whole thing will
          start all over.<

          Most likely life will remain in the soils and oceans no matter what we do, and in 100
          million years, a new diversity of life could regenerate. However, we could eliminate Earth's
          atmosphere or something as drastic, and turn the planet into another Mars. There may
          have been life on Mars before but there's none now. It's not impossible to kill all life on
          Earth.

          But that's hypothetical and we have plenty of down-to-Earth concerns.

          >That doesn't mean I think we should go along as we are because its
          doesn't matter (because I don't), it just means that I think we should
          be honest with ourselves. Ego is what got us into this mess in the
          first place. Simply reversing the direction of the ego can't solve the
          problem because later in life the ego is too easily redirected back to
          where it was before. We need to eliminate the ego. Once that is done,
          we humans will be truly able to make a moral choice to not reproduce
          and stick to it.<

          It seems to me that when we consider ourselves just one of the millions of species
          inhabiting this ecosphere, we gain a perspective that diminishes the ego. This is a major
          obstacle to getting people to understand what good the biosphere will be without humans
          around to appreciate it.

          From that perspective, we can see that justice dictates our extinction even if our only
          crime had been causing the atlantic grey whale to cease to exist. But, that's only one of an
          unknown and growing number of our crimes against Nature.

          When people say, "Save the planet," I think they mean that we should care about other life
          forms. It's a step in the right direction. They usually add, "For our children and their
          children," which reveals a human-centered perspective, but again it's a step in the right
          direction.

          It's going to take a while for everyone to gain an Earth-centered perspective -- to include
          all life in our collective ego.

          For a better world,
          Les
        • majackmail
          Les, Thank you for replying. The specific wording is used on the death page, in Grim Reaper to the Rescue , but its more the save the earth concept carrying
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Les,

            Thank you for replying. The specific wording is used on the death
            page, in "Grim Reaper to the Rescue", but its more the save the earth
            concept carrying throughout your essays when you refer to the health
            of the planet. Like I said, its a small point, so don't even worry
            about it. Mostly, I like to run my mouth off.

            Cheers and much respect, Majack

            --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" <les@...> wrote:
            >
            > Majackmail, thanks for posting your comments here rather than
            emailing me personally.
            > This way others who have the same concerns might get some answers.
            Plus, others can
            > reply, as Jesse has. I'm just one of the Volunteers, so it's best
            to have more than one
            > perspective.
            >
            > Rather than "save the Earth," I think we should stop destroying
            Earth's biosphere. If there's
            > any place I use the phrase "save the Earth" on the VHEMT website,
            please let me know.
            >
            > When someone decides to join The Movement,
            http://www.vhemt.org/join.htm , I do say,
            > "A few billion more of us and we'll save the planet once and for
            all." This is clearly meant
            > to be humorous rather than literal.
            >
            > You wrote:
            > >This site is awesome, and sums up all the same things I've been
            saying
            > for years. However, it uses the same terminology every
            > environmentalist uses that sparks huge arguments between me and
            entire
            > rooms full of people. "Save the Earth".
            >
            > We can't kill the Earth. The Earth has been around for alot longer
            > than we have. <
            >
            > I don't follow the leaps from one subject to another here. Are you
            saying that we can't save
            > the earth because it can't be killed?
            >
            > No one will disagree with the fact that Earth has been around a lot
            longer than we have,
            > but that doesn't mean we aren't doing irreparable harm.
            >
            > > The sun, asteriods and meteorites, volcanoes, and even
            > the increase of oxygen 4 billion years ago have all created, at one
            > time or another, ecological "crises" as bad or worse than the
            > ecological plague the human species is. The Earth has survived all
            of
            > these (albiet changed beyond all recognition from what it was
            before)
            > and it will survive us. <
            >
            > You're right that Earth's biosphere has endured and recovered from
            worse than us, but
            > that doesn't reduce the seriousness of our causing Earth's sixth
            major extinction spasm. A
            > serial killer might argue that a tsunami kills a lot more than he
            ever killed.
            >
            > > The concept of humanity being capable
            > of "saving the planet" is just as egotistical as the concept of us
            > being so important that we can wantonly destory the so-called lesser
            > species - its just egotistical from the opposite side. <
            >
            > The notion that we can save something when we are the ones
            destroying it is pretty
            > bizarre to me. All we have to do is stop killing it.
            >
            > > The only thing
            > we are capable of doing by volunteering for extinction is saving the
            > current biological diversity as it is now, and, possibly, our
            personal
            > species' ability to survive on this planet. But make no mistake -
            no
            > matter what we do - something will survive and the whole thing will
            > start all over.<
            >
            > Most likely life will remain in the soils and oceans no matter what
            we do, and in 100
            > million years, a new diversity of life could regenerate. However,
            we could eliminate Earth's
            > atmosphere or something as drastic, and turn the planet into
            another Mars. There may
            > have been life on Mars before but there's none now. It's not
            impossible to kill all life on
            > Earth.
            >
            > But that's hypothetical and we have plenty of down-to-Earth
            concerns.
            >
            > >That doesn't mean I think we should go along as we are because its
            > doesn't matter (because I don't), it just means that I think we
            should
            > be honest with ourselves. Ego is what got us into this mess in the
            > first place. Simply reversing the direction of the ego can't solve
            the
            > problem because later in life the ego is too easily redirected back
            to
            > where it was before. We need to eliminate the ego. Once that is
            done,
            > we humans will be truly able to make a moral choice to not reproduce
            > and stick to it.<
            >
            > It seems to me that when we consider ourselves just one of the
            millions of species
            > inhabiting this ecosphere, we gain a perspective that diminishes
            the ego. This is a major
            > obstacle to getting people to understand what good the biosphere
            will be without humans
            > around to appreciate it.
            >
            > From that perspective, we can see that justice dictates our
            extinction even if our only
            > crime had been causing the atlantic grey whale to cease to exist.
            But, that's only one of an
            > unknown and growing number of our crimes against Nature.
            >
            > When people say, "Save the planet," I think they mean that we
            should care about other life
            > forms. It's a step in the right direction. They usually add, "For
            our children and their
            > children," which reveals a human-centered perspective, but again
            it's a step in the right
            > direction.
            >
            > It's going to take a while for everyone to gain an Earth-centered
            perspective -- to include
            > all life in our collective ego.
            >
            > For a better world,
            > Les
            >
          • rayyf69
            ... I must say that it s egotisticial to assume that humans will save the planet with extremely advanced technology (asteroid deflection, atmospheric
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 14, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              > and it will survive us. The concept of humanity being capable
              > of "saving the planet" is just as egotistical as the concept of us
              > being so important that we can wantonly destory the so-called lesser
              > species - its just egotistical from the opposite side. The only thing

              I must say that it's egotisticial to assume that humans "will" save
              the planet with extremely advanced technology (asteroid deflection,
              atmospheric processing , artificial planetary construction). These
              technologies do not exist. I would , however, consider it arrogant to
              say these technologies never will be developed. That is the point i
              made a few months back. The planet is certainly doomed without these
              developments due to the sun's ephemeral nature. So what are valid
              arguments that assert these critical technologies can never be
              developed ? I don't think humans are in a position, certainly us, to
              speak on a technical nature of the potential of these devices or
              devices that would enable these things. The only thing any of us can
              agree on is that we don't know if they can exist or cannot, otherwise
              we might as well group ourselves with historical people who said the
              earth was flat, or that man will never fly.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.