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

Giving up is not acceptable

Expand Messages
  • vincitveritas2001
    Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 4 12:04 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow
      Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and
      resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.


      Well, that's just that then. I guess we should just toss in the towel
      and acknowledge our defeat. Isn't that what this is trying to say?
      Sorry we fucked up, just give us our "F" and let us be on our way.
      You can disguise the message in semantics all you want, but that's
      the general idea.
      Is there nothing worth salvaging of our existence, our cultures? I'd
      like to think there's a better solution than to leave the planet full
      of empty cities and structures as if someone had called for an
      evacuation order. To follow an extreme to the extent of martyring our
      race for the good of the world is to turn our backs on ourselves. Our
      quest is to proceed towards enlightenment, we cannot solve problems
      by ending the quest but by continuing to push forward. Our existence
      is plagued with every day issues that we cannot continue to ignore,
      but I would like to believe we have it within ourselves to make the
      hard decisions that lie before us.
      To get to the heart of the matter at hand, let's get an accurate idea
      of just what it is we're dealing with. Our greatest challenge does
      not lie in our level of intelligence, our ability to resolve issues.
      Our greatest challenge is in our method of solving big problems. In
      most instances mankind is a race of reactionary problem solvers, not
      preventative problem solvers. We typically don't like to really move
      on anything until there's no turning back, when the cards are on the
      table and it's time to deal. It's analogous to a leak in a roof. A
      crack develops and the water begins dripping in. In terms of human
      problem solving, what are we likely to do? We'll put a cup under the
      water; but eventually, we get fed up with running back and forth to
      the sink so often, so we use a bucket. Eventually we may find quite
      an ingenious way of running the water to the sink without having to
      leave our chair. All the while we deal with the water and not the
      crack in the roof. When the crack becomes a gapping hole, then it's
      time to deal with the roof. Meanwhile we'd have spent less time and
      trouble if we'd dealt with the hole when it was still a crack and
      would have solved the problem once and for all.
      Recently I was discussing with friends an example of this flaw that
      relates to this topic. There had been a study done revealing that
      there was a rise in children born with ADS and bipolar disease. It
      was believed that environmental conditions were causing this, but we
      focus on the water first. What is our first concern? How do we cure
      ADS and bipolar disease is the first reaction. We'll dump millions of
      dollars into research from governments and donors to find the answer
      and down the road some brilliant medical scientist will find the
      answer. We shake his hand and give him a Nobel prize because this is
      something tangible and marketable… a revolutionary break through.
      We're firmly focused on the water and not the roof.
      Now, meanwhile, some environmental scientist has come up with an
      equally brilliant solution. He comes along and says, "Hey everyone,
      we can prevent this altogether if we do something about the
      environment." But we look out the window and think, "The sun is
      shining, the sky is blue, the grass is green… it's not as bad as they
      say." So we tell this guy, "Well this is all great, but do you know
      how much that would cost? We'd have to change everything we're doing
      now," and we send him away and tell him not to come back until he
      comes up with something easier and more economical. The crack isn't a
      hole yet, we don't have to deal with it right now, and even still,
      the water isn't dripping on our heads specifically… which is a reason
      some of us may not even donate money to help find a cure for ADS and
      bipolar disease. Now don't lose the point of this message behind the
      concept of selfishness. The point is how we focus our attention. If
      you break your leg, it isn't enough to just take enough painkillers
      to fix the symptoms. Now we have exposed the error in our problem
      solving. We have so many fixes for so many symptoms that we have
      masked the core problems. It's an onion with many layers to peel
      before we get back to the heart of those problems.
      Now let's address this issue of resources. We have a choice, we can
      consume them all now and be forced into an "abrupt stop", or we can
      use them responsibly and see future generations live on. We have a
      unique ability to destroy every living thing on this planet; but we
      also have a unique ability to save and protect it as well. We must
      learn to give back as much as we take. Our race has reached a boiling
      point that is going to boil over into every facet of our lives. For
      example, it affects what we eat in terms of the fertilizers and
      pesticides that we use and the drain that livestock puts on our
      resources, all of this leading to a break down in our soil. Chemicals
      are killing the anaerobic bacteria in the soil and the livestock are
      grazing the land down until the wind blows the topsoil away, yet our
      population continues to grow creating a need to pursue this further.
      We also have decisions to make about the effects of how we use
      resources for construction and manufacturing, our choices for fuel
      and transportation, our creation of waste from septic to solid, even
      the clothing that we wear drains resources. These decisions are going
      to be tough to make but I believe we will make the right ones. By
      actions alone our race does not deserve to survive, but let's earn
      that right. That makes more sense than giving up.
      What do we have to do first? There are certain things that I think
      have to happen in order for us to save ourselves. I don't, by any
      means, claim to have the answers or the means to make these
      decisions. I'm hardly qualified nor informed enough to solve this
      problem. All I have are thoughts. We have to get the population down,
      that's a no-brainer. This means that we have to have fewer children
      until the population comes down a supportable level. This may mean
      that only one in a few couples can have children for a few
      generations. How do we do that fairly? I'm not sure, maybe by lottery
      system, bloodlines… I really don't know. How do we enforce something
      like this? We can't, it must be voluntary. The intentions of this are
      good, but we risk trampling on civil liberties and "God given"
      rights. I think this is why education is key. We must educate
      ourselves so that we may make more responsible decisions about our
      future. We must understand the choices and consequences of our
      actions.
      This leads me into another factor, economics. What good is it to
      educate people on what happens when you cut down rainforests and
      pollute the environment if the only result to these people is to have
      them starve. Our global system of economics must fail. It is, in
      fact, designed to fail; it works best when everyone can be working
      but it also is advantageous to companies to find cheaper methods of
      replacing the people. This is a phenomenon that will continue to grow
      over time, the system working against itself. We can't create enough
      new jobs to replace the obsolete ones. Economics has already failed
      more people in the world than it has benefited… the water just isn't
      dripping on my head yet. If we collapse this flawed system then we
      can't hide behind it anymore. It would no longer be justifiable to
      make irresponsible decisions in the name of "economics", an excuse
      that leaves a feeling of an absolute lack of quality in reasoning.
      There would be no reason not to take whatever action necessary to
      repair our damage and distribute resources more equitably over the
      global population. Obviously this can't happen overnight and the
      population must decline before we can eliminate certain kinds of
      suffering, but we must start somewhere, even if at first we fail. We
      have our backs against the wall and it's time to move out of our
      infancy towards a higher awareness that is not powered by self-
      interest.
      These are just a couple of factors leading to the leak in the roof,
      in my opinion. I will not go on with this for fear of accidentally
      writing a book here. These ideas may seem a little idealistic; I
      don't mean them to be, I'm just trying to stay vague and brief here.
      In conclusion, my response to the VHEMT is that I find your solution
      to be no different than any other extreme reaction and I don't see it
      as anymore than a knee-jerk reaction in the name of some "college
      idealist" cause. You're advocating giving up, and that has never been
      an acceptable method of solving problems at any point in our history.
      You don't cure diseases by killing all the patients. I choose life
      over death, light over darkness. I believe in that uncanny human
      quality to persevere through extreme adversity, but the clock is
      ticking and our days are numbered if we don't address the crack in
      the roof immediately. The bomb must be diffused before the clock hits
      zero and that requires an effort, not a lack there of.
    • wmw0
      VHEMT is realistic. Barring disaster, human population is not going to zero. So we re not giving up . You seem to have missed the point that ecological
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 8 7:27 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        VHEMT is realistic. Barring disaster, human population is not going
        to zero. So we're not "giving up". You seem to have missed the
        point that ecological problems scale with population. Scaling back
        the population will reduce the problems of natural resource
        consumption and ecosystem damage, but you will still have plenty of
        problems to solve. Stop breeding and buy some time.

        Or are you one of those folks with 10 kids who gets green "for the
        children" while driving them around in a gigundo SUV and watering
        your lawn in Arizona?
      • Les U. Knight
        vincitveritas2001 I agree that giving up is not acceptable, though we may not be able to motivate others who have already done so. It seems to me that a
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 21 8:30 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          "vincitveritas2001" I agree that giving up is not acceptable, though
          we may not be able to motivate others who have already done so. It
          seems to me that a majority of humanity has given up on society and
          on efforts to make the world a better place. For billions of people,
          just getting through the day is enough of a challenge. Some of us, on
          the other hand, have time and resources to spare. What do we choose
          to do with them?

          >Is there nothing worth salvaging of our existence, our cultures?<

          Nothing that has any value for non-human species.

          > I'd like to think there's a better solution than to leave the planet full
          of empty cities and structures as if someone had called for an
          evacuation order. <

          And there is. As we phase out, we can return our cities to viable
          ecosystems. It's a huge job, but as we know, giving up is not
          acceptable. There's too much at stake.

          >To follow an extreme to the extent of martyring our
          race for the good of the world is to turn our backs on ourselves. <

          Yes, that would be, in a sense, but that's not what we're suggesting.
          Phasing out our species by not breeding is not the same as martyring
          ourselves. At present, we turn our backs on our fouled nests as we
          move on to the next place.

          >Our quest is to proceed towards enlightenment, we cannot solve problems
          by ending the quest but by continuing to push forward.<

          Exactly. Reproduction consumes energy which could be used to solve
          problems, and the problems themselves will be easier to solve as
          there are fewer of us.

          > Our existence is plagued with every day issues that we cannot
          >continue to ignore,
          but I would like to believe we have it within ourselves to make the
          hard decisions that lie before us. <

          And for many of us, deciding to not add another of us to the
          burgeoning billions is a hard one to make.

          >To get to the heart of the matter at hand, let's get an accurate idea
          of just what it is we're dealing with. Our greatest challenge does
          not lie in our level of intelligence, our ability to resolve issues.
          Our greatest challenge is in our method of solving big problems. In
          most instances mankind is a race of reactionary problem solvers, not
          preventative problem solvers. We typically don't like to really move
          on anything until there's no turning back, when the cards are on the
          table and it's time to deal. <snip>

          That does seem to be our method: deny the problem until we can't, and
          then try to deal with it after it's too late.

          ><snip>Now we have exposed the error in our problem
          solving. We have so many fixes for so many symptoms that we have
          masked the core problems. It's an onion with many layers to peel
          before we get back to the heart of those problems.<

          Right on. Or the root of the problems if you will.

          >Now let's address this issue of resources. We have a choice, we can
          consume them all now and be forced into an "abrupt stop", or we can
          use them responsibly and see future generations live on. <

          Future generations of humans, right? Resources which are only of
          value to humans can run out without harming the biosphere. In fact,
          the sooner we run out of oil, the better as far as ecosystems are
          concerned.

          >We have a unique ability to destroy every living thing on this planet; but we
          also have a unique ability to save and protect it as well. <

          The thing is, we are the only thing that it needs protection from.

          >We must learn to give back as much as we take. <

          This is not possible. We have nothing to offer natural ecosystems
          besides undoing what humans have done, and mitigating the damage we
          continue to do. What is it that we might give back to Nature as we
          take everything we're able to?

          >Our race has reached a boiling point that is going to boil over into
          >every facet of our lives. For
          example, it affects what we eat in terms of the fertilizers and
          pesticides that we use and the drain that livestock puts on our
          resources, all of this leading to a break down in our soil. Chemicals
          are killing the anaerobic bacteria in the soil and the livestock are
          grazing the land down until the wind blows the topsoil away, yet our
          population continues to grow creating a need to pursue this further. <

          You're sounding like a VHEMT Supporter. Congratulations.

          >We also have decisions to make about the effects of how we use
          resources for construction and manufacturing, our choices for fuel
          and transportation, our creation of waste from septic to solid, even
          the clothing that we wear drains resources. These decisions are going
          to be tough to make but I believe we will make the right ones. By
          actions alone our race does not deserve to survive, but let's earn
          that right. That makes more sense than giving up. <

          No, you're right. We have to learn to make the right decisions as we phase out.

          >What do we have to do first? There are certain things that I think
          have to happen in order for us to save ourselves. I don't, by any
          means, claim to have the answers or the means to make these
          decisions. I'm hardly qualified nor informed enough to solve this
          problem. All I have are thoughts. We have to get the population down,
          that's a no-brainer. This means that we have to have fewer children
          until the population comes down a supportable level. This may mean
          that only one in a few couples can have children for a few
          generations. How do we do that fairly? I'm not sure, maybe by lottery
          system, bloodlines… I really don't know. How do we enforce something
          like this? We can't, it must be voluntary. <

          That's the idea. But how can the intentional creation of one more of
          us by anyone anywhere be justified today?

          >The intentions of this are good, but we risk trampling on civil
          >liberties and "God given"
          rights. <

          Even convicted child abusers have the right to create more potential victims.

          Others' reproductive choices also trample civil liberties and "God
          given" rights. Perhaps procreating should be unrestricted, but not
          unquestioned. I don't think it should be subsidized.

          >I think this is why education is key. We must educate
          ourselves so that we may make more responsible decisions about our
          future. We must understand the choices and consequences of our
          actions. <

          That's the intent of the VHEMT website.

          >This leads me into another factor, economics. What good is it to
          educate people on what happens when you cut down rainforests and
          pollute the environment if the only result to these people is to have
          them starve.<

          Cutting the forests causes starvation, but I think I see what you're
          getting at. Given the choice between not killing wildlife and
          starving, people will always choose the former.

          > Our global system of economics must fail. It is, in
          fact, designed to fail; it works best when everyone can be working
          but it also is advantageous to companies to find cheaper methods of
          replacing the people. This is a phenomenon that will continue to grow
          over time, the system working against itself. We can't create enough
          new jobs to replace the obsolete ones. Economics has already failed
          more people in the world than it has benefited… the water just isn't
          dripping on my head yet. If we collapse this flawed system then we
          can't hide behind it anymore. It would no longer be justifiable to
          make irresponsible decisions in the name of "economics", an excuse
          that leaves a feeling of an absolute lack of quality in reasoning.
          There would be no reason not to take whatever action necessary to
          repair our damage and distribute resources more equitably over the
          global population. Obviously this can't happen overnight and the
          population must decline before we can eliminate certain kinds of
          suffering, but we must start somewhere, even if at first we fail.<

          One of the strongest efforts we can take against this economic system
          is to stop feeding it. It feeds on our young.

          > We have our backs against the wall and it's time to move out of our
          infancy towards a higher awareness that is not powered by self-
          interest.<

          Right.

          >These are just a couple of factors leading to the leak in the roof,
          in my opinion. I will not go on with this for fear of accidentally
          writing a book here. These ideas may seem a little idealistic; I
          don't mean them to be, I'm just trying to stay vague and brief here.
          In conclusion, my response to the VHEMT is that I find your solution
          to be no different than any other extreme reaction and I don't see it
          as anymore than a knee-jerk reaction in the name of some "college
          idealist" cause. <

          A lack of difference alone doesn't seem like much of a conclusion.
          Can you be more specific about what is wrong with advocating that we
          stop breeding? How will our continued reproduction make matters
          better?

          >You're advocating giving up, and that has never been
          an acceptable method of solving problems at any point in our history. <

          Well, I hope you know by now that we aren't advocating giving up,
          just the opposite.

          >You don't cure diseases by killing all the patients. I choose life
          over death, light over darkness.<

          This analogy doesn't fit, since we aren't suggesting killing anyone.
          Choosing life doesn't mean creating a new life. Each new human life
          we create means death and darkness to many other animals.

          > I believe in that uncanny human
          quality to persevere through extreme adversity, but the clock is
          ticking and our days are numbered if we don't address the crack in
          the roof immediately. The bomb must be diffused before the clock hits
          zero and that requires an effort, not a lack there of. <

          We are more in agreement than disagreement. Trying to deal with the
          increase in human population density without dealing with
          reproductive choices is like putting pans under the leak.

          Les
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.