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

Why breed?

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Gail Haws
    Hubbard EngineeringI first must acknowledge it isn t clear to me whether your true goal is extinction or human population control. If your goal is species
    Message 1 of 10 , May 9, 2003
      Hubbard EngineeringI first must acknowledge it isn't clear to me whether
      your true goal is extinction or human population control.

      If your goal is species extinction, I would say the reason why I might breed
      is that I do not share your goal. Your goal is based on your core belief
      that the earth has value separate from and higher than its meaning and
      purpose to humans. My rejection of your goal is based on my core belief
      that the earth has no value separate from its meaning and purpose to humans.
      If we ridicule each others' core belief we simply show our baser selves.
      But we can honestly expound, explain, and defend our core belief with each
      other if you wish.

      If your goal is human population control, then until we develop a way to
      capture childhood independent of breeding, we must breed because we need
      childhood/children among us to teach us the meaning and uniqueness of
      humanity. If we lose children/childhood, we lose essential facets of
      humanity including morality. Please pause for a year or twenty and rear a
      two children or ten before you say this is not so, for the reality is that
      if humanity has any meaning, childhood/children are an essential part.

      Tom Haws
      Gilbert, Arizona


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • andy
      Hi Tom, ... My goal is to curtail the current spasm of extinctions and to allow biodiversity to recover. ... My goal is to avert extinctions. ... To me (a
      Message 2 of 10 , May 12, 2003
        Hi Tom,

        You wrote:
        >Hubbard EngineeringI first must acknowledge
        >it isn't clear to me whether your true goal
        >is extinction or human population control.

        My goal is to curtail the current spasm of extinctions
        and to allow biodiversity to recover.

        >If your goal is species extinction, I would
        >say the reason why I might breed
        >is that I do not share your goal.

        My goal is to avert extinctions.

        >Your goal is based on your core belief
        >that the earth has value separate from and
        >higher than its meaning and purpose to humans.

        To me (a human), Earth's meaning and purpose is an
        abundant source of life. It needs no further
        value to support my goal.

        >My rejection of your goal is based on my core
        >belief that the earth has no value separate
        >from its meaning and purpose to humans.

        Not surprising, I doubt many creatures are able to
        imagine values beyond their own purposes. I
        congratulate you on your ability to expand your
        view to include (all?) humans.

        >If we ridicule each others' core belief we
        >simply show our baser selves. But we can
        >honestly expound, explain, and defend our
        >core belief with each other if you wish.

        OK. Just remember, I am a single supporter of
        VHEMT, so I can't speak for the movement as a
        whole.

        >If your goal is human population control,
        >then until we develop a way to capture childhood
        >independent of breeding, we must breed because we
        >need childhood/children among us to teach us the
        >meaning and uniqueness of humanity.

        You mean like adoption, foster care, working in
        day care, teaching, and so on?

        >If we lose
        >children/childhood, we lose essential facets of
        >humanity including morality.

        Are you saying there is no morality without children?

        >Please pause for a
        >year or twenty and rear a two children or ten
        >before you say this is not so, for the reality is
        >that if humanity has any meaning, childhood/children
        >are an essential part.

        If you have reared some children, perhaps you could
        save me the trouble and tell me the meaning of humanity.

        Thanks.

        -andy
      • jari_repo
        My answer is actually a question: Why protect current biosphere? I do think we are stupid because we destroy it as we do, and as it seems, we can either
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 11, 2003
          My answer is actually a question: Why protect current biosphere? I do
          think we are stupid because we destroy it as we do, and as it seems,
          we can either destroy ourselves or the world around us. Unless
          population is reduced to much lower level than it is now, which seems
          a bit distant goal now. But really, why to protect current biosphere
          with our extinction? If we consider long-term thinking, life on earth
          will cease to exist when sun burns earth and vaporizes all water in
          it... and universe will either expand or collapse, either way our
          decision will not affect it that much. Even if we manage to destroy
          most of the current biosphere and probably kill ourselves in the
          process, I think earth will produce a new biosphere after us (unless
          we truly mess things up). Or, we destroy ourselves, and there is room
          for something else to be born, which may take our place
          as "destroyers". Best option IMHO would be that we realized our
          population must be greatly reduced and then acted based on it, but it
          won't change the results in any way on the long run (well, maybe God
          likes / hates us more if there is god at all).
          I do think that currently adding another child into the misery of the
          world is wrong, because we can't even now take care of all the
          children in the world. I may become (supportive) member... yet my own
          desires may be too selfish (at least for now), only time will tell.
          Actually, it seems that I find answer myself as I am writing this, we
          should try to reduce our population and protect biosphere to bring
          better life to future generations. We have right to live here as any
          other animal does (meaning exactly that we still do not have right to
          put too much load on biosphere)...
          So finally, Why breed? It is our right as living organism on planet
          earth, although we are not forced to do it. There is no nature law
          against it, because then we would not be able to do it. We are able
          to kill ourselves with too much population in the long run. So, to
          breed uncontrollably, equals cease to exist in the long run. Sounds a
          bit bad, but now it seems we breed to kill ourselves because we are
          not thinking clearly enough.
        • Les U. Knight
          Jari, you ask: Why protect current biosphere? From a human-centered perspective, it s our life support system. Really, it s not so much protecting the
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 11, 2003
            Jari, you ask: "Why protect current biosphere?" From a human-centered
            perspective, it's our life support system.

            Really, it's not so much protecting the biosphere as stopping our
            destruction of it. Why should we stop destroying it when it's just
            going to be vaporized in a few billion years anyway? You've given one
            answer: "Što bring better life to future generations."

            I assume you mean future generations of humans, but this also applies
            to other species. If we have any concern for the lives which will
            follow us, we won't leave them a toxic environment.

            Earth's years are numbered, but it matters what happens in between.
            It's not okay to hurt old folks just because they're going to die
            soon anyway.

            >Even if we manage to destroy most of the current biosphere and
            >probably kill ourselves in the process, I think earth will produce a
            >new biosphere after us (unless we truly mess things up).<

            True. There are bacteria in the soil which will survive and in a few
            hundred million years, new life forms will have evolved from them.
            Even if we radiate the entire surface, the life which "re-evolves"
            will be able to survive in it, as bacteria now does in radioactive
            places. Does this make it okay to reduce ancient ecosystems to a few
            species?

            >Best option IMHO would be that we realized our population must be
            >greatly reduced and then acted based on it, but it won't change the
            >results in any way on the long runŠ<

            You're right, in the very long run nothing we do matters. You and I
            will be dead in the blink of an eye, relatively speaking. However,
            during our brief time on Earth, we have many choices which affect
            those around us.

            >I do think that currently adding another child into the misery of
            >the world is wrong, because we can't even now take care of all the
            >children in the world. <

            And that's reason enough not to breed, in my opinion as well.

            >I may become (supportive) member... yet my own desires may be too
            >selfish (at least for now), only time will tell. <

            Yes, we go through attitude changes in life. With procreation, we
            only have to want to for a short time and there we are -- multiplied.
            To avoid it, we have to not want to for our entire fertile lives.
            This is why putting off the decision to reproduce is almost the same
            as deciding to do so.

            Both breeding and not breeding may be motivated by selfish desires. I
            doubt any of us in The Movement are motivated entirely by altruistic
            desires.

            >We are able to kill ourselves with too much population in the long
            >run. So, to breed uncontrollably, equals cease to exist in the long
            >run. Sounds a bit bad, but now it seems we breed to kill ourselves
            >because we are not thinking clearly enough. <

            Clearly so. And as more of us think it through, as you are doing,
            we'll realize that we don't have to breed ourselves to death like
            mindless yeast in a batch of beer.

            Thanks for considering the VHEMT perspective. That's all we can ask of anyone.

            For a better world,
            Les
          • Tom Haws
            I apologize for the poor tone of my message. Thank you for responding so kindly. Tom Haws
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 11, 2003
              I apologize for the poor tone of my message. Thank you for
              responding so kindly.

              Tom Haws
            • Tom Haws
              Dear Andy and other VHEMT, The tone of my first message was truly poor and arrogant, for which I apologize again. I appreciate the fact that you are
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 17, 2003
                Dear Andy and other VHEMT,

                The tone of my first message was truly poor and arrogant, for which I
                apologize again.

                I appreciate the fact that you are courageously espousing an
                unpopular cause that is much greater than yourself. In fact, I can
                envision that such unselfishness, if it is from the heart, will be a
                great joy to you at the last day when you stand in the presence of
                God. How delightful it would be if such stirrings were fostered in
                all of humankind and were the driving force in all our thoughts and
                deeds.

                The earth is a beautiful and wondrous place. Selfish men have too
                long carried the banner of the Holy One while extorting its riches
                and despoiling its purity instead of living as reverent and grateful
                stewards. I loved your expression that you seek to curtail
                extinctions and allow biodiversity to recover. Would that all people
                fostered such sensitivities, noting the sparrow's fall.

                In a quiet moment away from accusation and pressure, I suppose many
                of the supporters of VHEMT (whether or not they have reared 2
                children or ten) would express their delight in the gift of
                childhood. As you enumerated, "adoption, foster care, working in
                day care, teaching, and so on" as well as natural parenting are all
                activities that refine the soul and allow the sensitive mind
                opportunity to increase in love and forsake selfishness. It is a
                particularly loving thing to participate in the gentle parenting of
                one who is not your natural child.

                Even the more base among us are lifted oh so slightly by their
                interaction with children. Who but the darkest soul could be deaf
                and blind to a child's ways?

                As long as there are children without homes, or who need a loving
                hand to hold, there is no reason why I personally must breed.
                Parenting alone is enough.

                But should man-and-woman-kind as a whole ever refuse to multiply even
                enough to keep children (that sacredly precious commodity) among us,
                I would be among the first to pray I were a woman to volunteer.

                Kindly yours,

                Tom Haws
              • hovphe
                no need to explain why, as it has already been explained by Les: http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#wrongpeople We breed because God said so? yeah right, God
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 22, 2006
                  no need to explain why, as it has already been explained by Les:
                  http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#wrongpeople


                  We breed because God said so? yeah right, God doesn't even exist you
                  just put up a FAITH upon him/her and let him assumes responsiblity
                  of "in search of meaning of life for you" and you ONLY need to follow
                  whatever God says on the biblical scriptures. So, I bet many
                  Christian, non-Christians who dare oppose our idea are simply simple
                  minded individual who can not think deep...

                  so, why breed?

                  bottom line:

                  According to Les's observation, many human animals are less likely to
                  think when engaging sex than those of chimpanzees. Obviously, they
                  are way too caught up with "art of getting proper orgasm" and getting
                  more wilder than those animals in the wilderness. Thus, we see
                  explosive numbers of human population just crowded everywhere on
                  earth...as if they own the place.

                  I believe if world needs to be changed, first it needs to cut down
                  human population.
                • Les U. Knight
                  kncnicole, thanks for thinking about VHEMT and for asking for clarification on points you weren t sure of. SantinoBee and Andy have given a good replies about
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 1, 2006
                    kncnicole, thanks for thinking about VHEMT and for asking for
                    clarification on points you weren't sure of. SantinoBee and Andy have
                    given a good replies about most of your considerations. I'll try to
                    clarify some others and reply to your second posting as well.

                    >3. If you are so worried about this world, get off your computer,
                    off your butt, out of your house, and do something! Help find a
                    solution that may be actually feasible.<

                    Sorry I couldn't reply right away but I was off my computer, on my feet, out of
                    my house, preserving wildlife habitat.

                    I hosted a booth at an Earth Day celebration, presenting the VHEMT
                    concept to those who hadn't heard of it. Each human who decided to
                    not breed, preserved 24 acres of biologically active land for 75
                    years. 24 acres is the average ecological footprint of a US resident,
                    and 75 years is our average live span. Enough people made the pledge
                    at the booth
                    to preserve over 1,500 acres for the next 75 years.

                    > The human race is not going to choose not to exist, and it would be
                    >a shame if it did.<

                    A bigger shame would be if we went extinct without choosing it.

                    > Animals with dwindling populations, by our fault or
                    another, are taken into wildlife homes or zoo's and bred and taken
                    care of.<

                    Keeping a species alive in captivity is not a viable solution. They
                    need natural habitat to survive. Breeding to release into the wild
                    can be helpful if there's any wild to release them into. I don't know
                    of any cause for species' population dwindling today besides us.

                    >In short, I think your just looking for the do-nothing solution.
                    It's alot eastier to do nothing and say the problem will fix itself
                    then to actually go out and make a difference.<

                    True, it's not enough for us to all stop breeding. If not one more
                    human were ever born, and we didn't improve our relationship with the
                    natural world,
                    there wouldn't be much left by the time we're all gone.

                    Nonetheless, doing nothing beyond leaving an ecosystem alone will
                    allow "the problem to fix itself." Areas where humans have been
                    prevented from converting wildlife habitat to our habitat are teaming
                    with life: Chernobyl, the Korean DMZ, Vieques Island, and a few
                    others.

                    >That is your theory at least, but do you have any proof that
                    something, perhaps worse, wouldnt come along?<

                    It isn't impossible that another species will come along and do as we
                    are, just highly unlikely. No species, as far as we know, has ever
                    taken the evolutionary sidetrack we have. Many species, not just
                    apes, exhibit intelligence on a par with us -- even though we try to
                    skew the scale of intelligence to make it seem like we're the
                    smartest. None of them seem to be in line to convert the rest of the
                    world into their habitat as we are doing.

                    Some mighty evil deeds could be justified with this line of thinking.
                    Arms dealers might say. "If we didn't sell arms to petty dictators,
                    someone else would, and they might sell them even worse weapons."

                    > In some ways our
                    meddling is good...while I hate hunting, people kill deer to reduce
                    the winter population to decrease starvation so that not as many
                    starve to death. In the end, this results in a greater number
                    surviving. <

                    Reintroducing the predators we eliminated does an even better job.
                    Again, undoing what we've done and leaving ecosystems alone helps
                    more than our continued meddling.

                    >Whose to say, once we go, the animals wont go crazy and
                    one become over-populated, one which would not think of 'phasing
                    themselves out' and they might harm a great number of another
                    species. Unless you have a magic ball, you don't know.<

                    Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future. However,
                    according to the "super predator" theory, occasionally one species
                    evolves to the point that no other species preys on it. It exceeds
                    the carrying capacity, kills off it's own food supply, and dies out.
                    We are a super predator with a difference: we can see what we are
                    doing and can stop doing it before we destroy our life support
                    systems and die out involuntarily.

                    >>Have mosquitoes caused any extinctions?<<

                    >Have you any proof that they havent? I don't believe we are solely
                    responsible for extinction of animals but we have had an impact. So
                    have they. Anything that spreads disease or destruction has.<

                    A negative can't be proved. There's no evidence to suggest that
                    mosquitos have caused any extinctions, and no reason to suspect that
                    they have. Yes, they have an impact, as do all species in Earth's
                    biosphere. We don't like them, and they do spread diseases deadly to
                    us, but they're also an important link on the food chain of other
                    species.

                    >>Each child I have not created has saved wilderness, not polluted etc.<<

                    >And has made no difference whatsoever.<

                    Have you any proof that it hasn't? ;-)

                    > Meanwhile my mothers children
                    (myself and three sisters) have; begun a campaign to use a minimum
                    pollutant gas alternative, started fundraising and researching to
                    help Koala's (This would be my youngest sister, started at the age
                    of 9) Shelterd a countless number of stray dogs, set up recycling
                    programs in our home and school, volunteered more places then I can
                    list to benifit earth, people and animals, and are in the works of
                    many more projects. Oh yes and reproducing. While you say it's not
                    likely a kid will follow in the mothers footsteps, I followed my
                    mom, followed hers, followed hers...I get the feeling mine will do
                    the same.
                    Oh, and my cousins help out allot, to. All 40-something of them. <

                    Congratulations to you and all who are endeavoring to improve
                    conditions. There's much to be done to mitigate human existence.
                    Creating more of us to do this, however, is counter-productive.

                    >What about when it is not our fault the animals help? Beached wails,
                    animals caught nearly drowning, one animal killing another and
                    caring for the offspring. What comparison do you have for that?<

                    When it's not our fault that an animal "needs help," we shouldn't
                    interfere. Sometimes orphaned animals should be rescued, but only
                    because their populations have been reduced by human activity.

                    >> Domesticated animals can be phased out as we are. I'm sure you
                    expect to outlive your puppy and hampster.<<

                    >And if the phasing out doesnt go so well? They breed alot faster
                    then we do--the gestation period of a hampster is 13 days. That
                    means they can have two litters in a month of 3-7 hampsters...you
                    expect them to be easily phased out? There are already enough cats
                    in the world for each human to own 7, with plenty left over. Some
                    get by on their own, but many depend on scraps at least.<

                    True, but they still don't live very long. It's our breeding of them that
                    keeps them going. Feral house cats only live about three years and it's not
                    a pleasant life. It may be a challenge to phase out some of our
                    domesticated animals, but it's necessary -- one more example of
                    undoing what we've done.

                    >NOT breeding IS doing nothing. It's sitting around and saying "If I
                    dont contribute to the problem, and my friends dont contribute, we
                    can say we did our part, and dont have to help FIX the problem"<

                    I realize it may seem as if not breeding is all we do. Actually, not
                    adding another human is simply the greatest single action we can take
                    to help reduce our ecological footprints. There are others, as you
                    know and participate in. The reason the VHEMT website doesn't
                    advocate specific methods of further helping to undo what we do, is
                    that there are so
                    many of them. It's a matter of individual choice which ones we choose.

                    Some feel that eating low on the food chain avoids much pollution,
                    habitat loss, and suffering. Some use alternative transportation,
                    though not everyone can do that. Some of our choices are more
                    significant than others. Creating another human negates turning off
                    the water while brushing our teeth, to say the least.

                    >The
                    problem isnt over population per-say, its the mess we make, and
                    instead of leaving it there for Mother nature to clean up, we should
                    clean it up ourselves.<

                    Certainly. And by not breeding, we have more time to ameliorate
                    our messes.

                    >Population density has nothing to do with the fact that no one is
                    taking repsonsibility.<

                    Right, it's the other way around: we are so dense because people are not
                    taking responsibility.

                    > If we could convince even HALF the people
                    alive to go out and make a difference, we would hardly have a
                    problem.<

                    It would depend on the form of transportation those 3.25 billion
                    people used while going out and which difference they made.

                    I think we are agreed that convincing people to make a difference will help
                    reduce problems. Between one third and one half of humanity is under
                    reproductive age. If half of them don't breed, we may be able to
                    avoid a massive die off in the collapse of Earth's biosphere we are
                    engineering. I'm optimistic that there's a chance we haven't passed
                    the point of no return, despite the evidence.

                    For a better world,
                    Les
                  • SantinoBee
                    I m windering about something I heard.... There s so much pollution....the ozone layer is full of holes/thinning, on the TV. they said that if we signifcantly
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 1, 2006
                      I'm windering about something I heard....
                      There's so much pollution....the ozone layer is full of holes/thinning,
                      on the TV. they said that if we signifcantly reduce the emissions and the haze lets up a bit, we'll fry because of the ozone holes.
                      The haze is preventing us from warming to some degree.
                      MY US HUMANS HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB!!
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Les U. Knight
                      To: Why_Breed@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:30 PM
                      Subject: Re: Why breed?


                      kncnicole, thanks for thinking about VHEMT and for asking for
                      clarification on points you weren't sure of. SantinoBee and Andy have
                      given a good replies about most of your considerations. I'll try to
                      clarify some others and reply to your second posting as well.

                      >3. If you are so worried about this world, get off your computer,
                      off your butt, out of your house, and do something! Help find a
                      solution that may be actually feasible.<

                      Sorry I couldn't reply right away but I was off my computer, on my feet, out of
                      my house, preserving wildlife habitat.

                      I hosted a booth at an Earth Day celebration, presenting the VHEMT
                      concept to those who hadn't heard of it. Each human who decided to
                      not breed, preserved 24 acres of biologically active land for 75
                      years. 24 acres is the average ecological footprint of a US resident,
                      and 75 years is our average live span. Enough people made the pledge
                      at the booth
                      to preserve over 1,500 acres for the next 75 years.

                      > The human race is not going to choose not to exist, and it would be
                      >a shame if it did.<

                      A bigger shame would be if we went extinct without choosing it.

                      > Animals with dwindling populations, by our fault or
                      another, are taken into wildlife homes or zoo's and bred and taken
                      care of.<

                      Keeping a species alive in captivity is not a viable solution. They
                      need natural habitat to survive. Breeding to release into the wild
                      can be helpful if there's any wild to release them into. I don't know
                      of any cause for species' population dwindling today besides us.

                      >In short, I think your just looking for the do-nothing solution.
                      It's alot eastier to do nothing and say the problem will fix itself
                      then to actually go out and make a difference.<

                      True, it's not enough for us to all stop breeding. If not one more
                      human were ever born, and we didn't improve our relationship with the
                      natural world,
                      there wouldn't be much left by the time we're all gone.

                      Nonetheless, doing nothing beyond leaving an ecosystem alone will
                      allow "the problem to fix itself." Areas where humans have been
                      prevented from converting wildlife habitat to our habitat are teaming
                      with life: Chernobyl, the Korean DMZ, Vieques Island, and a few
                      others.

                      >That is your theory at least, but do you have any proof that
                      something, perhaps worse, wouldnt come along?<

                      It isn't impossible that another species will come along and do as we
                      are, just highly unlikely. No species, as far as we know, has ever
                      taken the evolutionary sidetrack we have. Many species, not just
                      apes, exhibit intelligence on a par with us -- even though we try to
                      skew the scale of intelligence to make it seem like we're the
                      smartest. None of them seem to be in line to convert the rest of the
                      world into their habitat as we are doing.

                      Some mighty evil deeds could be justified with this line of thinking.
                      Arms dealers might say. "If we didn't sell arms to petty dictators,
                      someone else would, and they might sell them even worse weapons."

                      > In some ways our
                      meddling is good...while I hate hunting, people kill deer to reduce
                      the winter population to decrease starvation so that not as many
                      starve to death. In the end, this results in a greater number
                      surviving. <

                      Reintroducing the predators we eliminated does an even better job.
                      Again, undoing what we've done and leaving ecosystems alone helps
                      more than our continued meddling.

                      >Whose to say, once we go, the animals wont go crazy and
                      one become over-populated, one which would not think of 'phasing
                      themselves out' and they might harm a great number of another
                      species. Unless you have a magic ball, you don't know.<

                      Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future. However,
                      according to the "super predator" theory, occasionally one species
                      evolves to the point that no other species preys on it. It exceeds
                      the carrying capacity, kills off it's own food supply, and dies out.
                      We are a super predator with a difference: we can see what we are
                      doing and can stop doing it before we destroy our life support
                      systems and die out involuntarily.

                      >>Have mosquitoes caused any extinctions?<<

                      >Have you any proof that they havent? I don't believe we are solely
                      responsible for extinction of animals but we have had an impact. So
                      have they. Anything that spreads disease or destruction has.<

                      A negative can't be proved. There's no evidence to suggest that
                      mosquitos have caused any extinctions, and no reason to suspect that
                      they have. Yes, they have an impact, as do all species in Earth's
                      biosphere. We don't like them, and they do spread diseases deadly to
                      us, but they're also an important link on the food chain of other
                      species.

                      >>Each child I have not created has saved wilderness, not polluted etc.<<

                      >And has made no difference whatsoever.<

                      Have you any proof that it hasn't? ;-)

                      > Meanwhile my mothers children
                      (myself and three sisters) have; begun a campaign to use a minimum
                      pollutant gas alternative, started fundraising and researching to
                      help Koala's (This would be my youngest sister, started at the age
                      of 9) Shelterd a countless number of stray dogs, set up recycling
                      programs in our home and school, volunteered more places then I can
                      list to benifit earth, people and animals, and are in the works of
                      many more projects. Oh yes and reproducing. While you say it's not
                      likely a kid will follow in the mothers footsteps, I followed my
                      mom, followed hers, followed hers...I get the feeling mine will do
                      the same.
                      Oh, and my cousins help out allot, to. All 40-something of them. <

                      Congratulations to you and all who are endeavoring to improve
                      conditions. There's much to be done to mitigate human existence.
                      Creating more of us to do this, however, is counter-productive.

                      >What about when it is not our fault the animals help? Beached wails,
                      animals caught nearly drowning, one animal killing another and
                      caring for the offspring. What comparison do you have for that?<

                      When it's not our fault that an animal "needs help," we shouldn't
                      interfere. Sometimes orphaned animals should be rescued, but only
                      because their populations have been reduced by human activity.

                      >> Domesticated animals can be phased out as we are. I'm sure you
                      expect to outlive your puppy and hampster.<<

                      >And if the phasing out doesnt go so well? They breed alot faster
                      then we do--the gestation period of a hampster is 13 days. That
                      means they can have two litters in a month of 3-7 hampsters...you
                      expect them to be easily phased out? There are already enough cats
                      in the world for each human to own 7, with plenty left over. Some
                      get by on their own, but many depend on scraps at least.<

                      True, but they still don't live very long. It's our breeding of them that
                      keeps them going. Feral house cats only live about three years and it's not
                      a pleasant life. It may be a challenge to phase out some of our
                      domesticated animals, but it's necessary -- one more example of
                      undoing what we've done.

                      >NOT breeding IS doing nothing. It's sitting around and saying "If I
                      dont contribute to the problem, and my friends dont contribute, we
                      can say we did our part, and dont have to help FIX the problem"<

                      I realize it may seem as if not breeding is all we do. Actually, not
                      adding another human is simply the greatest single action we can take
                      to help reduce our ecological footprints. There are others, as you
                      know and participate in. The reason the VHEMT website doesn't
                      advocate specific methods of further helping to undo what we do, is
                      that there are so
                      many of them. It's a matter of individual choice which ones we choose.

                      Some feel that eating low on the food chain avoids much pollution,
                      habitat loss, and suffering. Some use alternative transportation,
                      though not everyone can do that. Some of our choices are more
                      significant than others. Creating another human negates turning off
                      the water while brushing our teeth, to say the least.

                      >The
                      problem isnt over population per-say, its the mess we make, and
                      instead of leaving it there for Mother nature to clean up, we should
                      clean it up ourselves.<

                      Certainly. And by not breeding, we have more time to ameliorate
                      our messes.

                      >Population density has nothing to do with the fact that no one is
                      taking repsonsibility.<

                      Right, it's the other way around: we are so dense because people are not
                      taking responsibility.

                      > If we could convince even HALF the people
                      alive to go out and make a difference, we would hardly have a
                      problem.<

                      It would depend on the form of transportation those 3.25 billion
                      people used while going out and which difference they made.

                      I think we are agreed that convincing people to make a difference will help
                      reduce problems. Between one third and one half of humanity is under
                      reproductive age. If half of them don't breed, we may be able to
                      avoid a massive die off in the collapse of Earth's biosphere we are
                      engineering. I'm optimistic that there's a chance we haven't passed
                      the point of no return, despite the evidence.

                      For a better world,
                      Les


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





                      SPONSORED LINKS Issue management Root cause analysis Money issue
                      Cause rheumatoid arthritis Hair loss cause Cause of hair loss


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

                      a.. Visit your group "Why_breed" on the web.

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

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


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



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.