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

Why breed? I'll tell you why.

Expand Messages
  • johnnysmash77
    First of all, don t whine to me about the effects of humans on the Earth over the next hundred years. I am talking about a longer timeline than that. Forever
    Message 1 of 10 , May 1, 2004
      First of all, don't whine to me about the effects of humans on the
      Earth over the next hundred years. I am talking about a longer
      timeline than that. Forever after today. Since VHEMT is talking
      about getting rid of humans FOREVER, logically I should talking about
      what will happen forever after whether it happens or not.

      I will start talking on a more personal and recent scale, and get into
      the long-term (forever) effects.

      So, why breed?:

      Removing your genes from the gene pool is like dying, only in a more
      grand and permanent sense. Children are a legacy. They are you,
      living on, battling their way through life and the future. Not having
      children cuts yourself short. No future. You die.

      Only recently in human history have humans really been a scourge to
      the environment. Sure- they have always cut down trees for timber and
      such, but there hasn't been a real problem since the last couple
      hundred years.

      Also of note, in the past fourty years we have made many great strides
      in protecting the environment. Technology for this sort of thing will
      only get better.

      Would the world be more healthy without humans? In some ways, yes.
      We are still hurting the environment more than we are helping it.

      However, without humans the world would be a stagnant entity floating
      in space until the sun dies out and everything dies. Time is nothing-
      everything will die whether humans do it or the sun does it. Time is
      nothing. Humans are the only hope for REAL change.

      Ironically, the only hope for the animals on Earth could be for humans
      to someday transport them to new planets.

      At this point, it comes down to two views:

      1. You could believe that nature has it's way, and that humans are
      only interfering. This cannot be a "humanitarian" stance, since
      saving animals NOW when their species will die eventually means nothing.

      2. You could believe that humans are nature's only real great hope for
      change and eventual perfection. The key element is time. With time
      there is evolution, and a gathering of information and knowledge. The
      more time, the more humans can learn to create a "perfect" universe-
      for all species.

      Now, eventually even a species such as cows would EVOLVE into an
      intelligent creature with aspirations to get knowledge and make a more
      perfect universe. But cows don't have the time for that. Our sun
      will have burned out long before cows become that. LONG before.

      Note that if you don't believe in evolution, the fact that cows will
      not have any of these traits is even more clear. In this case, in
      fact, it is very very clear that humans are the only hope.

      Humans are already there. And we have space travel. What does this
      translate to? Time. We can move away before the sun explodes. With
      time we will learn more about how to manipulate the universe. Should
      humans manipulate the universe? That is a moral question that people
      will have different opinions about.

      Saying "manipulate the universe" sounds bad, but the fact is that
      humans would only do it to make things better. You might say that
      humans would disregard other species and such, but at this point
      ESPECIALLY this would not be the case.

      Saving and helping the environment and wildlife is a popular cause-
      and certainly there are few people that speak against it, if any.
      While it is true that humans will often put themselves first, the
      environment and wildlife is something they want to help.

      Why do I mention all this? If humans get to the point where they have
      pretty good control over the goings-ons in the universe, they will
      work to preserve and help environments and planets and wildlife.

      What's that? You think it will just be like how it is now, only on a
      larger scale?

      Well, if the technology was the same, that would be true. But
      technology will advance.

      Imagine a machine that you can put an object into, and it will change
      that object to anything else. Sounds ridiculous? If you knock a
      proton out of an atom, it will become a different element. Scientists
      can do this right now, with a single atom. Doing this to millions of
      atoms at once and rearranging them correctly would seem like an
      impossible feat...

      But the fact is, if given enough TIME, it will happen. Logically, it
      MUST. And as I said before, it all comes down to time. With this
      technology, there will be no currency. Could matter itself be
      currency? No. You could change the very air or dirt into anything
      you wanted. Keep in mind there would be no such thing as "trash".

      So, with this technology clearly humans could provide for themselves
      with ease. At this point, with themselves provided for, humans would
      naturally want to keep their environment and wildlife healthy (which
      is, as i pointed out, a big goal for humans today. and who is doing
      it the most? countries that already have what they need.)

      What does this all come down to? Time. You know what gives us time?
      Breeding gives us time. If we didn't breed, the species would die.
      Earth would die in a few years (remember- time is nothing) when the
      sun burns out.

      And then the argument comes down to two things- Should nature run it's
      course without humans? Or should humans aspire towards a perfect
      universe?

      Humans are built to aspire towards a perfect existance. Don't believe
      in this goal? Don't breed. You are out of the gene pool. The human
      race will keep on striving while you, the rebel, died for a lost
      cause. And not just died- removed from the gene pool. You won't be
      part of the existance that humans are striving for. If there is a
      perfect universe, you will never see it.
    • Christine McIntyre
      I’d say let nature run its course. The earth was here billions of years before the first humans appeared. What did animals do before humans started to
      Message 2 of 10 , May 2, 2004
        I�d say let nature run its course. The earth was here billions of years before the first humans appeared.



        What did animals do before humans started to gather together and built civilization? The dinosaurs lived for millions of years before an asteroid collided and the effects of it killed off over two-thirds of all life on earth. Pre-historic creatures lived and died naturally�some died in the last great ice age�others were killed off by advancing humans.



        We, as humans, think we are special because we have the opposable thumb and a thinking, rational, creative brain. We�re able to speak in ways that other animals can�t�our language seems more abstract than a dog barking. But, if you take away our opposable thumb and the ability to reason and create�we are just another animals. We are �just another animal�!



        Right now, we can�t stop the natural forces around us. And why should we try to stop or alter nature? For our benefit? In the long run, the reason we try to protect and preserve the environment and wildlife is for our own gain. Yes, we�ve realized that without the environment and other animals, we couldn�t survive. It�s for our own survival. If we could survive without the mosquitoes, we would have exterminated them by now. If we could survive without the oxygen-giving plants, this whole world would probably be a concrete jungle by now.



        OK, so not everyone�s reason for preserving nature is selfish. A lot of people today are allowing non-humans to live out of respect and love.



        Your idea that in the future, nature will have to depend on us to transport them out of the solar system before our sun dies. Who�s to say that a cow is even going to exist in another 4 billion years, let alone humans.



        Have you read certain science fiction books? Some that I�ve read talk about man�s feeble attempt to relocate species from this earth to another earth-like planet, but those species died out because it wasn�t the same earth (all life is fragile and only those who can adapt very quickly will survive).



        You are also assuming that humans will still exist when our sun will be dying. You�re assuming that these humans will be the same then as we are now. If you believe in evolution, then you would have to assume that we�ll evolve into something else that will not be recognizable in another 4 million years. Hell, the earth�s inhabitants would also be unrecognizable by today�s humans. What�s not to say that in another 4 billion years, another species will evolve beyond humans. It is possible, you know. So it might not be a cow. I watched two shows once. The Most Extreme on Animal Planet�there was an episode on the 10 most intelligent animals (after man). Also saw a documentary on the evolution of animals in the next 250 million years (in this documentary, humans left earth, but sent probes to record data from Earth and some of the animals that scientists think will evolve into are strange). Maybe the squid will evolve and have the same intelligence as the early humans and if
        given the �time�, could exceed the humans of today.



        You think there won�t be time for nature to survive without humans. Well, earth has survived for over 4 billion years. What�s not to say that it can survive another 4 billion years? If you were to base earth on time�.look at a clock. Comparing the clock to life on earth�man has only existed for a minute or less�on that clock. So, if humans were to go extinct within the next millennium, and they leave the earth in one piece, and the earth survives for another 4 billion years�the clock will look much different then. Say the earth lives about 8 billion years. Humans might be a small blip on that clock�barely a second.



        Yes, I believe that life on earth can survive without humans. Let nature decide. It survived before us and it will survive after us.



        Oh, and you think that we will live long enough to make the universe a perfect place. How odd. So, are you assuming that one day, humans will be able to override the laws of the universe and prevent it from �dying� as well? It would be a miracle if humans live long enough to see the end of the universe.



        Why do you think that people who strive for the VHEMT will die for a lost cause? It may seem like a lost cause to you, but as long as there is even one person alive who shares the same views as VHEMT, then the cause is not lost.



        ~~~



        I�m sorry if I was all over the place. I decided to post a reply now�I haven�t gone to bed yet and I�m really tired. I�m strange that way.



        I'm also sorry for making mixed or wrong assumptions based on your post (if I made any).



        Anyway, I think its up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to breed and bring children into this world or join the VHEMT cause�or be somewhere in between. I just hope that more people think before they breed.





        Anyway, the bed is calling.



        Take Care!



        ~Christine



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Brian A.
        You have a lot of faith in technology. If humans get to the point where they have pretty good control over the goings-ons in the universe, they will work to
        Message 3 of 10 , May 2, 2004
          You have a lot of faith in technology.

          "If humans get to the point where they have
          pretty good control over the goings-ons in the universe, they will
          work to preserve and help environments and planets and wildlife."

          How does this follow?

          To me the more important question about breeding is how many humans can the planet sustain, and yes, the next hundred years is the important period. Many experts in the fields of ecology and geology (as it relates to fossil fuels) believe that the human population has passed the carrying capacity of the planet's ecosystem, and with declining petroleum availability, we are due for a big crash.

          Children are a legacy, you say? I say that if you want to leave a mark on the future, write a book or start a movement that will actually change something. Just producing more individuals doesn't guarantee that you will have a positive impact. Children are notorious for not doing what you would like them to do. Wouldn't it be a better world if Hitler's parents had decided to refrain from reproducing? Maybe the world would have been spared the horror of concentration camps. If we are indeed striving for a perfect existance, doesn't it make more sense to do what you can to improve your own personal life today, this instant and every instant from now on? The only person you can truly affect is yourself. Set a good example for others to follow by being a better person.

          Basically, the more people there are, the worse the world is going to be. Contrary to (apparantly) popular belief, there is a finite amount of energy available to sustain life. As a species, humans cause more suffering than any other form of life. How many people die of preventable causes every day? How many children under the age of five die of malnutrition, starvation, lack of basic needs like clean water? And that's just humans. The deaths of other animals with comparable sentience are staggering in comparison, not to mention the destruction of natural areas in favor of ever-growing human development.

          Yes, I have chosen not to breed. The way the world is going right now, I don't think it would be very nice to bring a new person in to share the misery, no matter how much it (misery) loves company. If the earth is indeed a sinking ship, why sell more berths? Don't get me wrong, I am not one of these people who think that life sucks. I enjoy being alive, but I often look around at all the trash and pollution and clearcut forests with new condos being built, and think that the world would be a lot nicer if there were fewer of us.

          In 20 years, if we are still around, we may look back and think that things could have been better if we had made some changes today. There's really no way of knowing exactly what the future will bring, and you won't see much more than 70 or 80 more years' worth of it no matter how many or how few children you have.

          By the time the sun destroys the inner planets of this solar system, humans, if they are still around, will most likely be completely unrecognizable to you and me. We wouldn't be recognized or understood by anything that existed a mere million years ago, so why would a future "person" from 4 billion years hence be familiar to us? I would like to think that humans could live "perfectly," but what does that mean? I don't think that the definition of a perfect existance could be agreed upon by two people, much less 6 billion or more.

          Humans are the darling of the moment. Reptiles reigned for millions of years before we mammals even got close to being able to think and use tools. Thanks to a catastrophe millions of years ago, mammals are now on top. Our technology has the power to destroy life on a scale that has previously only been possible by means of a massive asteroid impact. We have the choice: keep breeding indiscriminately and destroy ourselves and most other life on the planet, or control our population and try to save the future.

          johnnysmash77 <JohnnySmash77@...> wrote:
          First of all, don't whine to me about the effects of humans on the
          Earth over the next hundred years. I am talking about a longer
          timeline than that. Forever after today. Since VHEMT is talking
          about getting rid of humans FOREVER, logically I should talking about
          what will happen forever after whether it happens or not.

          I will start talking on a more personal and recent scale, and get into
          the long-term (forever) effects.

          So, why breed?:

          Removing your genes from the gene pool is like dying, only in a more
          grand and permanent sense. Children are a legacy. They are you,
          living on, battling their way through life and the future. Not having
          children cuts yourself short. No future. You die.

          Only recently in human history have humans really been a scourge to
          the environment. Sure- they have always cut down trees for timber and
          such, but there hasn't been a real problem since the last couple
          hundred years.

          Also of note, in the past fourty years we have made many great strides
          in protecting the environment. Technology for this sort of thing will
          only get better.

          Would the world be more healthy without humans? In some ways, yes.
          We are still hurting the environment more than we are helping it.

          However, without humans the world would be a stagnant entity floating
          in space until the sun dies out and everything dies. Time is nothing-
          everything will die whether humans do it or the sun does it. Time is
          nothing. Humans are the only hope for REAL change.

          Ironically, the only hope for the animals on Earth could be for humans
          to someday transport them to new planets.

          At this point, it comes down to two views:

          1. You could believe that nature has it's way, and that humans are
          only interfering. This cannot be a "humanitarian" stance, since
          saving animals NOW when their species will die eventually means nothing.

          2. You could believe that humans are nature's only real great hope for
          change and eventual perfection. The key element is time. With time
          there is evolution, and a gathering of information and knowledge. The
          more time, the more humans can learn to create a "perfect" universe-
          for all species.

          Now, eventually even a species such as cows would EVOLVE into an
          intelligent creature with aspirations to get knowledge and make a more
          perfect universe. But cows don't have the time for that. Our sun
          will have burned out long before cows become that. LONG before.

          Note that if you don't believe in evolution, the fact that cows will
          not have any of these traits is even more clear. In this case, in
          fact, it is very very clear that humans are the only hope.

          Humans are already there. And we have space travel. What does this
          translate to? Time. We can move away before the sun explodes. With
          time we will learn more about how to manipulate the universe. Should
          humans manipulate the universe? That is a moral question that people
          will have different opinions about.

          Saying "manipulate the universe" sounds bad, but the fact is that
          humans would only do it to make things better. You might say that
          humans would disregard other species and such, but at this point
          ESPECIALLY this would not be the case.

          Saving and helping the environment and wildlife is a popular cause-
          and certainly there are few people that speak against it, if any.
          While it is true that humans will often put themselves first, the
          environment and wildlife is something they want to help.

          Why do I mention all this? What's that? You think it will just be like how it is now, only on a
          larger scale?

          Well, if the technology was the same, that would be true. But
          technology will advance.

          Imagine a machine that you can put an object into, and it will change
          that object to anything else. Sounds ridiculous? If you knock a
          proton out of an atom, it will become a different element. Scientists
          can do this right now, with a single atom. Doing this to millions of
          atoms at once and rearranging them correctly would seem like an
          impossible feat...

          But the fact is, if given enough TIME, it will happen. Logically, it
          MUST. And as I said before, it all comes down to time. With this
          technology, there will be no currency. Could matter itself be
          currency? No. You could change the very air or dirt into anything
          you wanted. Keep in mind there would be no such thing as "trash".

          So, with this technology clearly humans could provide for themselves
          with ease. At this point, with themselves provided for, humans would
          naturally want to keep their environment and wildlife healthy (which
          is, as i pointed out, a big goal for humans today. and who is doing
          it the most? countries that already have what they need.)

          What does this all come down to? Time. You know what gives us time?
          Breeding gives us time. If we didn't breed, the species would die.
          Earth would die in a few years (remember- time is nothing) when the
          sun burns out.

          And then the argument comes down to two things- Should nature run it's
          course without humans? Or should humans aspire towards a perfect
          universe?

          Humans are built to aspire towards a perfect existance. Don't believe
          in this goal? Don't breed. You are out of the gene pool. The human
          race will keep on striving while you, the rebel, died for a lost
          cause. And not just died- removed from the gene pool. You won't be
          part of the existance that humans are striving for. If there is a
          perfect universe, you will never see it.



          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Sean Scrivener
          Nice one, well said, you get my vote :) Concern by VHEMT is one thing, human extermination is another. ... From: johnnysmash77
          Message 4 of 10 , May 2, 2004
            Nice one, well said, you get my vote :)
            Concern by VHEMT is one thing, human extermination is another.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: johnnysmash77 [mailto:JohnnySmash77@...]
            Sent: 02 May 2004 07:45
            To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Why breed? I'll tell you why.

            First of all, don't whine to me about the effects of humans on the
            Earth over the next hundred years. I am talking about a longer
            timeline than that. Forever after today. Since VHEMT is talking
            about getting rid of humans FOREVER, logically I should talking about
            what will happen forever after whether it happens or not.

            I will start talking on a more personal and recent scale, and get into
            the long-term (forever) effects.

            So, why breed?:

            Removing your genes from the gene pool is like dying, only in a more
            grand and permanent sense. Children are a legacy. They are you,
            living on, battling their way through life and the future. Not having
            children cuts yourself short. No future. You die.

            Only recently in human history have humans really been a scourge to
            the environment. Sure- they have always cut down trees for timber and
            such, but there hasn't been a real problem since the last couple
            hundred years.

            Also of note, in the past fourty years we have made many great strides
            in protecting the environment. Technology for this sort of thing will
            only get better.

            Would the world be more healthy without humans? In some ways, yes.
            We are still hurting the environment more than we are helping it.

            However, without humans the world would be a stagnant entity floating
            in space until the sun dies out and everything dies. Time is nothing-
            everything will die whether humans do it or the sun does it. Time is
            nothing. Humans are the only hope for REAL change.

            Ironically, the only hope for the animals on Earth could be for humans
            to someday transport them to new planets.

            At this point, it comes down to two views:

            1. You could believe that nature has it's way, and that humans are
            only interfering. This cannot be a "humanitarian" stance, since
            saving animals NOW when their species will die eventually means nothing.

            2. You could believe that humans are nature's only real great hope for
            change and eventual perfection. The key element is time. With time
            there is evolution, and a gathering of information and knowledge. The
            more time, the more humans can learn to create a "perfect" universe-
            for all species.

            Now, eventually even a species such as cows would EVOLVE into an
            intelligent creature with aspirations to get knowledge and make a more
            perfect universe. But cows don't have the time for that. Our sun
            will have burned out long before cows become that. LONG before.

            Note that if you don't believe in evolution, the fact that cows will
            not have any of these traits is even more clear. In this case, in
            fact, it is very very clear that humans are the only hope.

            Humans are already there. And we have space travel. What does this
            translate to? Time. We can move away before the sun explodes. With
            time we will learn more about how to manipulate the universe. Should
            humans manipulate the universe? That is a moral question that people
            will have different opinions about.

            Saying "manipulate the universe" sounds bad, but the fact is that
            humans would only do it to make things better. You might say that
            humans would disregard other species and such, but at this point
            ESPECIALLY this would not be the case.

            Saving and helping the environment and wildlife is a popular cause-
            and certainly there are few people that speak against it, if any.
            While it is true that humans will often put themselves first, the
            environment and wildlife is something they want to help.

            Why do I mention all this? If humans get to the point where they have
            pretty good control over the goings-ons in the universe, they will
            work to preserve and help environments and planets and wildlife.

            What's that? You think it will just be like how it is now, only on a
            larger scale?

            Well, if the technology was the same, that would be true. But
            technology will advance.

            Imagine a machine that you can put an object into, and it will change
            that object to anything else. Sounds ridiculous? If you knock a
            proton out of an atom, it will become a different element. Scientists
            can do this right now, with a single atom. Doing this to millions of
            atoms at once and rearranging them correctly would seem like an
            impossible feat...

            But the fact is, if given enough TIME, it will happen. Logically, it
            MUST. And as I said before, it all comes down to time. With this
            technology, there will be no currency. Could matter itself be
            currency? No. You could change the very air or dirt into anything
            you wanted. Keep in mind there would be no such thing as "trash".

            So, with this technology clearly humans could provide for themselves
            with ease. At this point, with themselves provided for, humans would
            naturally want to keep their environment and wildlife healthy (which
            is, as i pointed out, a big goal for humans today. and who is doing
            it the most? countries that already have what they need.)

            What does this all come down to? Time. You know what gives us time?
            Breeding gives us time. If we didn't breed, the species would die.
            Earth would die in a few years (remember- time is nothing) when the
            sun burns out.

            And then the argument comes down to two things- Should nature run it's
            course without humans? Or should humans aspire towards a perfect
            universe?

            Humans are built to aspire towards a perfect existance. Don't believe
            in this goal? Don't breed. You are out of the gene pool. The human
            race will keep on striving while you, the rebel, died for a lost
            cause. And not just died- removed from the gene pool. You won't be
            part of the existance that humans are striving for. If there is a
            perfect universe, you will never see it.



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


            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Sean Scrivener
            I think that the world would be a lot nicer if there were fewer of us Please, that s not the aim of VHEMT. Human extinction is the aim of VHEMT. When you say
            Message 5 of 10 , May 2, 2004
              "I think that the world would be a lot nicer if there were fewer of us"
              Please, that's not the aim of VHEMT. Human extinction is the aim of VHEMT.
              When you say "fewer" you are mixing in with a different crowd much greater
              than VHEMT that only aims to reduce overpopulation. So so many VHEMT
              members, I've noticed, say this. It's just not true. I know what you mean to
              say, but say it directly or don't say it at all.


              You made a good point about "perfect" existence, though.



              -----Original Message-----
              From: Brian A. [mailto:phelsumas@...]
              Sent: 02 May 2004 16:54
              To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: Why breed? I'll tell you why.

              You have a lot of faith in technology.

              "If humans get to the point where they have
              pretty good control over the goings-ons in the universe, they will
              work to preserve and help environments and planets and wildlife."

              How does this follow?

              To me the more important question about breeding is how many humans can the
              planet sustain, and yes, the next hundred years is the important period.
              Many experts in the fields of ecology and geology (as it relates to fossil
              fuels) believe that the human population has passed the carrying capacity of
              the planet's ecosystem, and with declining petroleum availability, we are
              due for a big crash.

              Children are a legacy, you say? I say that if you want to leave a mark on
              the future, write a book or start a movement that will actually change
              something. Just producing more individuals doesn't guarantee that you will
              have a positive impact. Children are notorious for not doing what you would
              like them to do. Wouldn't it be a better world if Hitler's parents had
              decided to refrain from reproducing? Maybe the world would have been spared
              the horror of concentration camps. If we are indeed striving for a perfect
              existance, doesn't it make more sense to do what you can to improve your own
              personal life today, this instant and every instant from now on? The only
              person you can truly affect is yourself. Set a good example for others to
              follow by being a better person.

              Basically, the more people there are, the worse the world is going to be.
              Contrary to (apparantly) popular belief, there is a finite amount of energy
              available to sustain life. As a species, humans cause more suffering than
              any other form of life. How many people die of preventable causes every
              day? How many children under the age of five die of malnutrition,
              starvation, lack of basic needs like clean water? And that's just humans.
              The deaths of other animals with comparable sentience are staggering in
              comparison, not to mention the destruction of natural areas in favor of
              ever-growing human development.

              Yes, I have chosen not to breed. The way the world is going right now, I
              don't think it would be very nice to bring a new person in to share the
              misery, no matter how much it (misery) loves company. If the earth is
              indeed a sinking ship, why sell more berths? Don't get me wrong, I am not
              one of these people who think that life sucks. I enjoy being alive, but I
              often look around at all the trash and pollution and clearcut forests with
              new condos being built, and think that the world would be a lot nicer if
              there were fewer of us.

              In 20 years, if we are still around, we may look back and think that things
              could have been better if we had made some changes today. There's really no
              way of knowing exactly what the future will bring, and you won't see much
              more than 70 or 80 more years' worth of it no matter how many or how few
              children you have.

              By the time the sun destroys the inner planets of this solar system, humans,
              if they are still around, will most likely be completely unrecognizable to
              you and me. We wouldn't be recognized or understood by anything that
              existed a mere million years ago, so why would a future "person" from 4
              billion years hence be familiar to us? I would like to think that humans
              could live "perfectly," but what does that mean? I don't think that the
              definition of a perfect existance could be agreed upon by two people, much
              less 6 billion or more.

              Humans are the darling of the moment. Reptiles reigned for millions of
              years before we mammals even got close to being able to think and use tools.
              Thanks to a catastrophe millions of years ago, mammals are now on top. Our
              technology has the power to destroy life on a scale that has previously only
              been possible by means of a massive asteroid impact. We have the choice:
              keep breeding indiscriminately and destroy ourselves and most other life on
              the planet, or control our population and try to save the future.

              johnnysmash77 <JohnnySmash77@...> wrote:
              First of all, don't whine to me about the effects of humans on the
              Earth over the next hundred years. I am talking about a longer
              timeline than that. Forever after today. Since VHEMT is talking
              about getting rid of humans FOREVER, logically I should talking about
              what will happen forever after whether it happens or not.

              I will start talking on a more personal and recent scale, and get into
              the long-term (forever) effects.

              So, why breed?:

              Removing your genes from the gene pool is like dying, only in a more
              grand and permanent sense. Children are a legacy. They are you,
              living on, battling their way through life and the future. Not having
              children cuts yourself short. No future. You die.

              Only recently in human history have humans really been a scourge to
              the environment. Sure- they have always cut down trees for timber and
              such, but there hasn't been a real problem since the last couple
              hundred years.

              Also of note, in the past fourty years we have made many great strides
              in protecting the environment. Technology for this sort of thing will
              only get better.

              Would the world be more healthy without humans? In some ways, yes.
              We are still hurting the environment more than we are helping it.

              However, without humans the world would be a stagnant entity floating
              in space until the sun dies out and everything dies. Time is nothing-
              everything will die whether humans do it or the sun does it. Time is
              nothing. Humans are the only hope for REAL change.

              Ironically, the only hope for the animals on Earth could be for humans
              to someday transport them to new planets.

              At this point, it comes down to two views:

              1. You could believe that nature has it's way, and that humans are
              only interfering. This cannot be a "humanitarian" stance, since
              saving animals NOW when their species will die eventually means nothing.

              2. You could believe that humans are nature's only real great hope for
              change and eventual perfection. The key element is time. With time
              there is evolution, and a gathering of information and knowledge. The
              more time, the more humans can learn to create a "perfect" universe-
              for all species.

              Now, eventually even a species such as cows would EVOLVE into an
              intelligent creature with aspirations to get knowledge and make a more
              perfect universe. But cows don't have the time for that. Our sun
              will have burned out long before cows become that. LONG before.

              Note that if you don't believe in evolution, the fact that cows will
              not have any of these traits is even more clear. In this case, in
              fact, it is very very clear that humans are the only hope.

              Humans are already there. And we have space travel. What does this
              translate to? Time. We can move away before the sun explodes. With
              time we will learn more about how to manipulate the universe. Should
              humans manipulate the universe? That is a moral question that people
              will have different opinions about.

              Saying "manipulate the universe" sounds bad, but the fact is that
              humans would only do it to make things better. You might say that
              humans would disregard other species and such, but at this point
              ESPECIALLY this would not be the case.

              Saving and helping the environment and wildlife is a popular cause-
              and certainly there are few people that speak against it, if any.
              While it is true that humans will often put themselves first, the
              environment and wildlife is something they want to help.

              Why do I mention all this? What's that? You think it will just be like how
              it is now, only on a
              larger scale?

              Well, if the technology was the same, that would be true. But
              technology will advance.

              Imagine a machine that you can put an object into, and it will change
              that object to anything else. Sounds ridiculous? If you knock a
              proton out of an atom, it will become a different element. Scientists
              can do this right now, with a single atom. Doing this to millions of
              atoms at once and rearranging them correctly would seem like an
              impossible feat...

              But the fact is, if given enough TIME, it will happen. Logically, it
              MUST. And as I said before, it all comes down to time. With this
              technology, there will be no currency. Could matter itself be
              currency? No. You could change the very air or dirt into anything
              you wanted. Keep in mind there would be no such thing as "trash".

              So, with this technology clearly humans could provide for themselves
              with ease. At this point, with themselves provided for, humans would
              naturally want to keep their environment and wildlife healthy (which
              is, as i pointed out, a big goal for humans today. and who is doing
              it the most? countries that already have what they need.)

              What does this all come down to? Time. You know what gives us time?
              Breeding gives us time. If we didn't breed, the species would die.
              Earth would die in a few years (remember- time is nothing) when the
              sun burns out.

              And then the argument comes down to two things- Should nature run it's
              course without humans? Or should humans aspire towards a perfect
              universe?

              Humans are built to aspire towards a perfect existance. Don't believe
              in this goal? Don't breed. You are out of the gene pool. The human
              race will keep on striving while you, the rebel, died for a lost
              cause. And not just died- removed from the gene pool. You won't be
              part of the existance that humans are striving for. If there is a
              perfect universe, you will never see it.



              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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




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


              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Brian A.
              This listserv is not about VHEMT. It s titled Why Breed? Sean Scrivener wrote: I think that the world would be a lot nicer if there
              Message 6 of 10 , May 2, 2004
                This listserv is not about VHEMT. It's titled "Why Breed?"

                Sean Scrivener <scriv@...> wrote:"I think that the world would be a lot nicer if there were fewer of us"
                Please, that's not the aim of VHEMT. Human extinction is the aim of VHEMT.
                When you say "fewer" you are mixing in with a different crowd much greater
                than VHEMT that only aims to reduce overpopulation. So so many VHEMT
                members, I've noticed, say this. It's just not true. I know what you mean to
                say, but say it directly or don't say it at all.


                You made a good point about "perfect" existence, though.



                -----Original Message-----
                From: Brian A. [mailto:phelsumas@...]
                Sent: 02 May 2004 16:54
                To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: Why breed? I'll tell you why.

                You have a lot of faith in technology.

                "If humans get to the point where they have
                pretty good control over the goings-ons in the universe, they will
                work to preserve and help environments and planets and wildlife."

                How does this follow?

                To me the more important question about breeding is how many humans can the
                planet sustain, and yes, the next hundred years is the important period.
                Many experts in the fields of ecology and geology (as it relates to fossil
                fuels) believe that the human population has passed the carrying capacity of
                the planet's ecosystem, and with declining petroleum availability, we are
                due for a big crash.

                Children are a legacy, you say? I say that if you want to leave a mark on
                the future, write a book or start a movement that will actually change
                something. Just producing more individuals doesn't guarantee that you will
                have a positive impact. Children are notorious for not doing what you would
                like them to do. Wouldn't it be a better world if Hitler's parents had
                decided to refrain from reproducing? Maybe the world would have been spared
                the horror of concentration camps. If we are indeed striving for a perfect
                existance, doesn't it make more sense to do what you can to improve your own
                personal life today, this instant and every instant from now on? The only
                person you can truly affect is yourself. Set a good example for others to
                follow by being a better person.

                Basically, the more people there are, the worse the world is going to be.
                Contrary to (apparantly) popular belief, there is a finite amount of energy
                available to sustain life. As a species, humans cause more suffering than
                any other form of life. How many people die of preventable causes every
                day? How many children under the age of five die of malnutrition,
                starvation, lack of basic needs like clean water? And that's just humans.
                The deaths of other animals with comparable sentience are staggering in
                comparison, not to mention the destruction of natural areas in favor of
                ever-growing human development.

                Yes, I have chosen not to breed. The way the world is going right now, I
                don't think it would be very nice to bring a new person in to share the
                misery, no matter how much it (misery) loves company. If the earth is
                indeed a sinking ship, why sell more berths? Don't get me wrong, I am not
                one of these people who think that life sucks. I enjoy being alive, but I
                often look around at all the trash and pollution and clearcut forests with
                new condos being built, and think that the world would be a lot nicer if
                there were fewer of us.

                In 20 years, if we are still around, we may look back and think that things
                could have been better if we had made some changes today. There's really no
                way of knowing exactly what the future will bring, and you won't see much
                more than 70 or 80 more years' worth of it no matter how many or how few
                children you have.

                By the time the sun destroys the inner planets of this solar system, humans,
                if they are still around, will most likely be completely unrecognizable to
                you and me. We wouldn't be recognized or understood by anything that
                existed a mere million years ago, so why would a future "person" from 4
                billion years hence be familiar to us? I would like to think that humans
                could live "perfectly," but what does that mean? I don't think that the
                definition of a perfect existance could be agreed upon by two people, much
                less 6 billion or more.

                Humans are the darling of the moment. Reptiles reigned for millions of
                years before we mammals even got close to being able to think and use tools.
                Thanks to a catastrophe millions of years ago, mammals are now on top. Our
                technology has the power to destroy life on a scale that has previously only
                been possible by means of a massive asteroid impact. We have the choice:
                keep breeding indiscriminately and destroy ourselves and most other life on
                the planet, or control our population and try to save the future.

                johnnysmash77 wrote:
                First of all, don't whine to me about the effects of humans on the
                Earth over the next hundred years. I am talking about a longer
                timeline than that. Forever after today. Since VHEMT is talking
                about getting rid of humans FOREVER, logically I should talking about
                what will happen forever after whether it happens or not.

                I will start talking on a more personal and recent scale, and get into
                the long-term (forever) effects.

                So, why breed?:

                Removing your genes from the gene pool is like dying, only in a more
                grand and permanent sense. Children are a legacy. They are you,
                living on, battling their way through life and the future. Not having
                children cuts yourself short. No future. You die.

                Only recently in human history have humans really been a scourge to
                the environment. Sure- they have always cut down trees for timber and
                such, but there hasn't been a real problem since the last couple
                hundred years.

                Also of note, in the past fourty years we have made many great strides
                in protecting the environment. Technology for this sort of thing will
                only get better.

                Would the world be more healthy without humans? In some ways, yes.
                We are still hurting the environment more than we are helping it.

                However, without humans the world would be a stagnant entity floating
                in space until the sun dies out and everything dies. Time is nothing-
                everything will die whether humans do it or the sun does it. Time is
                nothing. Humans are the only hope for REAL change.

                Ironically, the only hope for the animals on Earth could be for humans
                to someday transport them to new planets.

                At this point, it comes down to two views:

                1. You could believe that nature has it's way, and that humans are
                only interfering. This cannot be a "humanitarian" stance, since
                saving animals NOW when their species will die eventually means nothing.

                2. You could believe that humans are nature's only real great hope for
                change and eventual perfection. The key element is time. With time
                there is evolution, and a gathering of information and knowledge. The
                more time, the more humans can learn to create a "perfect" universe-
                for all species.

                Now, eventually even a species such as cows would EVOLVE into an
                intelligent creature with aspirations to get knowledge and make a more
                perfect universe. But cows don't have the time for that. Our sun
                will have burned out long before cows become that. LONG before.

                Note that if you don't believe in evolution, the fact that cows will
                not have any of these traits is even more clear. In this case, in
                fact, it is very very clear that humans are the only hope.

                Humans are already there. And we have space travel. What does this
                translate to? Time. We can move away before the sun explodes. With
                time we will learn more about how to manipulate the universe. Should
                humans manipulate the universe? That is a moral question that people
                will have different opinions about.

                Saying "manipulate the universe" sounds bad, but the fact is that
                humans would only do it to make things better. You might say that
                humans would disregard other species and such, but at this point
                ESPECIALLY this would not be the case.

                Saving and helping the environment and wildlife is a popular cause-
                and certainly there are few people that speak against it, if any.
                While it is true that humans will often put themselves first, the
                environment and wildlife is something they want to help.

                Why do I mention all this? What's that? You think it will just be like how
                it is now, only on a
                larger scale?

                Well, if the technology was the same, that would be true. But
                technology will advance.

                Imagine a machine that you can put an object into, and it will change
                that object to anything else. Sounds ridiculous? If you knock a
                proton out of an atom, it will become a different element. Scientists
                can do this right now, with a single atom. Doing this to millions of
                atoms at once and rearranging them correctly would seem like an
                impossible feat...

                But the fact is, if given enough TIME, it will happen. Logically, it
                MUST. And as I said before, it all comes down to time. With this
                technology, there will be no currency. Could matter itself be
                currency? No. You could change the very air or dirt into anything
                you wanted. Keep in mind there would be no such thing as "trash".

                So, with this technology clearly humans could provide for themselves
                with ease. At this point, with themselves provided for, humans would
                naturally want to keep their environment and wildlife healthy (which
                is, as i pointed out, a big goal for humans today. and who is doing
                it the most? countries that already have what they need.)

                What does this all come down to? Time. You know what gives us time?
                Breeding gives us time. If we didn't breed, the species would die.
                Earth would die in a few years (remember- time is nothing) when the
                sun burns out.

                And then the argument comes down to two things- Should nature run it's
                course without humans? Or should humans aspire towards a perfect
                universe?

                Humans are built to aspire towards a perfect existance. Don't believe
                in this goal? Don't breed. You are out of the gene pool. The human
                race will keep on striving while you, the rebel, died for a lost
                cause. And not just died- removed from the gene pool. You won't be
                part of the existance that humans are striving for. If there is a
                perfect universe, you will never see it.



                ---------------------------------
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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




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


                Yahoo! Groups Links








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


                Yahoo! Groups Links







                ---------------------------------
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Sean Scrivener
                Oh come on. There you go again... The aim of Why Breed? is to convince others that humans should voluntarily make themselves extinct. It would not be here
                Message 7 of 10 , May 2, 2004
                  Oh come on. There you go again... The aim of "Why Breed?" is to convince
                  others that humans should voluntarily make themselves extinct. It would not
                  be here otherwise.


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Brian A. [mailto:phelsumas@...]
                  Sent: 02 May 2004 17:39
                  To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: Why breed? I'll tell you why.

                  This listserv is not about VHEMT. It's titled "Why Breed?"

                  Sean Scrivener <scriv@...> wrote:"I think that the world would be a
                  lot nicer if there were fewer of us"
                  Please, that's not the aim of VHEMT. Human extinction is the aim of VHEMT.
                  When you say "fewer" you are mixing in with a different crowd much greater
                  than VHEMT that only aims to reduce overpopulation. So so many VHEMT
                  members, I've noticed, say this. It's just not true. I know what you mean to
                  say, but say it directly or don't say it at all.


                  You made a good point about "perfect" existence, though.



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Brian A. [mailto:phelsumas@...]
                  Sent: 02 May 2004 16:54
                  To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: Why breed? I'll tell you why.

                  You have a lot of faith in technology.

                  "If humans get to the point where they have
                  pretty good control over the goings-ons in the universe, they will
                  work to preserve and help environments and planets and wildlife."

                  How does this follow?

                  To me the more important question about breeding is how many humans can the
                  planet sustain, and yes, the next hundred years is the important period.
                  Many experts in the fields of ecology and geology (as it relates to fossil
                  fuels) believe that the human population has passed the carrying capacity of
                  the planet's ecosystem, and with declining petroleum availability, we are
                  due for a big crash.

                  Children are a legacy, you say? I say that if you want to leave a mark on
                  the future, write a book or start a movement that will actually change
                  something. Just producing more individuals doesn't guarantee that you will
                  have a positive impact. Children are notorious for not doing what you would
                  like them to do. Wouldn't it be a better world if Hitler's parents had
                  decided to refrain from reproducing? Maybe the world would have been spared
                  the horror of concentration camps. If we are indeed striving for a perfect
                  existance, doesn't it make more sense to do what you can to improve your own
                  personal life today, this instant and every instant from now on? The only
                  person you can truly affect is yourself. Set a good example for others to
                  follow by being a better person.

                  Basically, the more people there are, the worse the world is going to be.
                  Contrary to (apparantly) popular belief, there is a finite amount of energy
                  available to sustain life. As a species, humans cause more suffering than
                  any other form of life. How many people die of preventable causes every
                  day? How many children under the age of five die of malnutrition,
                  starvation, lack of basic needs like clean water? And that's just humans.
                  The deaths of other animals with comparable sentience are staggering in
                  comparison, not to mention the destruction of natural areas in favor of
                  ever-growing human development.

                  Yes, I have chosen not to breed. The way the world is going right now, I
                  don't think it would be very nice to bring a new person in to share the
                  misery, no matter how much it (misery) loves company. If the earth is
                  indeed a sinking ship, why sell more berths? Don't get me wrong, I am not
                  one of these people who think that life sucks. I enjoy being alive, but I
                  often look around at all the trash and pollution and clearcut forests with
                  new condos being built, and think that the world would be a lot nicer if
                  there were fewer of us.

                  In 20 years, if we are still around, we may look back and think that things
                  could have been better if we had made some changes today. There's really no
                  way of knowing exactly what the future will bring, and you won't see much
                  more than 70 or 80 more years' worth of it no matter how many or how few
                  children you have.

                  By the time the sun destroys the inner planets of this solar system, humans,
                  if they are still around, will most likely be completely unrecognizable to
                  you and me. We wouldn't be recognized or understood by anything that
                  existed a mere million years ago, so why would a future "person" from 4
                  billion years hence be familiar to us? I would like to think that humans
                  could live "perfectly," but what does that mean? I don't think that the
                  definition of a perfect existance could be agreed upon by two people, much
                  less 6 billion or more.

                  Humans are the darling of the moment. Reptiles reigned for millions of
                  years before we mammals even got close to being able to think and use tools.
                  Thanks to a catastrophe millions of years ago, mammals are now on top. Our
                  technology has the power to destroy life on a scale that has previously only
                  been possible by means of a massive asteroid impact. We have the choice:
                  keep breeding indiscriminately and destroy ourselves and most other life on
                  the planet, or control our population and try to save the future.

                  johnnysmash77 wrote:
                  First of all, don't whine to me about the effects of humans on the
                  Earth over the next hundred years. I am talking about a longer
                  timeline than that. Forever after today. Since VHEMT is talking
                  about getting rid of humans FOREVER, logically I should talking about
                  what will happen forever after whether it happens or not.

                  I will start talking on a more personal and recent scale, and get into
                  the long-term (forever) effects.

                  So, why breed?:

                  Removing your genes from the gene pool is like dying, only in a more
                  grand and permanent sense. Children are a legacy. They are you,
                  living on, battling their way through life and the future. Not having
                  children cuts yourself short. No future. You die.

                  Only recently in human history have humans really been a scourge to
                  the environment. Sure- they have always cut down trees for timber and
                  such, but there hasn't been a real problem since the last couple
                  hundred years.

                  Also of note, in the past fourty years we have made many great strides
                  in protecting the environment. Technology for this sort of thing will
                  only get better.

                  Would the world be more healthy without humans? In some ways, yes.
                  We are still hurting the environment more than we are helping it.

                  However, without humans the world would be a stagnant entity floating
                  in space until the sun dies out and everything dies. Time is nothing-
                  everything will die whether humans do it or the sun does it. Time is
                  nothing. Humans are the only hope for REAL change.

                  Ironically, the only hope for the animals on Earth could be for humans
                  to someday transport them to new planets.

                  At this point, it comes down to two views:

                  1. You could believe that nature has it's way, and that humans are
                  only interfering. This cannot be a "humanitarian" stance, since
                  saving animals NOW when their species will die eventually means nothing.

                  2. You could believe that humans are nature's only real great hope for
                  change and eventual perfection. The key element is time. With time
                  there is evolution, and a gathering of information and knowledge. The
                  more time, the more humans can learn to create a "perfect" universe-
                  for all species.

                  Now, eventually even a species such as cows would EVOLVE into an
                  intelligent creature with aspirations to get knowledge and make a more
                  perfect universe. But cows don't have the time for that. Our sun
                  will have burned out long before cows become that. LONG before.

                  Note that if you don't believe in evolution, the fact that cows will
                  not have any of these traits is even more clear. In this case, in
                  fact, it is very very clear that humans are the only hope.

                  Humans are already there. And we have space travel. What does this
                  translate to? Time. We can move away before the sun explodes. With
                  time we will learn more about how to manipulate the universe. Should
                  humans manipulate the universe? That is a moral question that people
                  will have different opinions about.

                  Saying "manipulate the universe" sounds bad, but the fact is that
                  humans would only do it to make things better. You might say that
                  humans would disregard other species and such, but at this point
                  ESPECIALLY this would not be the case.

                  Saving and helping the environment and wildlife is a popular cause-
                  and certainly there are few people that speak against it, if any.
                  While it is true that humans will often put themselves first, the
                  environment and wildlife is something they want to help.

                  Why do I mention all this? What's that? You think it will just be like how
                  it is now, only on a
                  larger scale?

                  Well, if the technology was the same, that would be true. But
                  technology will advance.

                  Imagine a machine that you can put an object into, and it will change
                  that object to anything else. Sounds ridiculous? If you knock a
                  proton out of an atom, it will become a different element. Scientists
                  can do this right now, with a single atom. Doing this to millions of
                  atoms at once and rearranging them correctly would seem like an
                  impossible feat...

                  But the fact is, if given enough TIME, it will happen. Logically, it
                  MUST. And as I said before, it all comes down to time. With this
                  technology, there will be no currency. Could matter itself be
                  currency? No. You could change the very air or dirt into anything
                  you wanted. Keep in mind there would be no such thing as "trash".

                  So, with this technology clearly humans could provide for themselves
                  with ease. At this point, with themselves provided for, humans would
                  naturally want to keep their environment and wildlife healthy (which
                  is, as i pointed out, a big goal for humans today. and who is doing
                  it the most? countries that already have what they need.)

                  What does this all come down to? Time. You know what gives us time?
                  Breeding gives us time. If we didn't breed, the species would die.
                  Earth would die in a few years (remember- time is nothing) when the
                  sun burns out.

                  And then the argument comes down to two things- Should nature run it's
                  course without humans? Or should humans aspire towards a perfect
                  universe?

                  Humans are built to aspire towards a perfect existance. Don't believe
                  in this goal? Don't breed. You are out of the gene pool. The human
                  race will keep on striving while you, the rebel, died for a lost
                  cause. And not just died- removed from the gene pool. You won't be
                  part of the existance that humans are striving for. If there is a
                  perfect universe, you will never see it.



                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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




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


                  Yahoo! Groups Links








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


                  Yahoo! Groups Links







                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

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



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


                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • Les U. Knight
                  Sean, you wrote: Concern by VHEMT is one thing, human extermination is another. Exactly. I don t know why it s so hard for some people to understand this
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 4, 2004
                    Sean, you wrote:
                    "Concern by VHEMT is one thing, human extermination is another."

                    Exactly. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand
                    this huge difference.

                    Human extermination is what's being done right now by
                    over-industrialized civilizations. Our complete extermination is
                    likely, based on extrapolations of current behavior and attitudes.
                    Despite disasters like Chernobyl, many continue to look to technology
                    as our savior. Some advocate more nuclear power, ignoring the fact
                    that the waste is a terrible thing to mind.

                    The alternative to human extermination is our gradual phase out to
                    extinction. This alone won't be enough: we also must change the
                    direction were are headed in. Hopefully it's not too late.

                    Les
                  • Sean Scrivener
                    Les, you wrote: we also must change the direction were are headed in I agree. However, even if I believed that voluntary wipeout of the human race was the
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 4, 2004
                      Les, you wrote:
                      "we also must change the direction were are headed in"

                      I agree. However, even if I believed that voluntary wipeout of the human
                      race was the only solution, I still wouldn't promote it, because it's
                      utterly futile: voluntary human extinction is never going to happen.
                      OK, let's say this is 'possible', as everything is possible. If you want
                      anyone to agree that this is 'possible' you must also agree that it is
                      'possible' to solve the problems of our world without resorting to voluntary
                      human extinction. And given that VHE is so incredibly improbable, any other
                      way is probably more probable :))






                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Les U. Knight [mailto:les@...]
                      Sent: 04 May 2004 14:43
                      To: Why_Breed@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: Why breed? I'll tell you why.

                      Sean, you wrote:
                      "Concern by VHEMT is one thing, human extermination is another."

                      Exactly. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand
                      this huge difference.

                      Human extermination is what's being done right now by
                      over-industrialized civilizations. Our complete extermination is
                      likely, based on extrapolations of current behavior and attitudes.
                      Despite disasters like Chernobyl, many continue to look to technology
                      as our savior. Some advocate more nuclear power, ignoring the fact
                      that the waste is a terrible thing to mind.

                      The alternative to human extermination is our gradual phase out to
                      extinction. This alone won't be enough: we also must change the
                      direction were are headed in. Hopefully it's not too late.

                      Les


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


                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Les U. Knight
                      ... I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but there really are two different issues here. One is our eventual extinction through voluntary means, and
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 6, 2004
                        Sean, you wrote:
                        >The aim of "Why Breed?" is to convince others that humans should
                        >voluntarily make themselves extinct. It would not be here otherwise.<

                        I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but there really are
                        two different issues here. One is our eventual extinction through
                        voluntary means, and the other is our continued breeding at a time
                        when each new human is detrimental to humanity and the biosphere.

                        We don't have to strictly keep the discussion on separate listserves,
                        since they do overlap, however, I don't think human breeding can be
                        justified by saying that we shouldn't go extinct. With 200,000 more
                        of us each day, there's no danger of us disappearing from a lack of
                        breeding.

                        If someone vehemently wants the human species to continue on into the
                        future, I think they would question our rampant reproduction -- it's
                        endangering our existence as much as nuclear weapons and all those
                        other threats we ignore.

                        If someone is concerned about human rights and the human condition, I
                        think they too would question our excessive fecundity.

                        You don't have to be in favor of our extinction to question our breeding.

                        I wrote:
                        "we also must change the direction were are headed in"

                        And you replied:
                        >I agree. However, even if I believed that voluntary wipeout of the human
                        race was the only solution, I still wouldn't promote it, because it's
                        utterly futile: voluntary human extinction is never going to happen.<

                        No, a phase out probably won't happen voluntarily. (We're not
                        promoting a "wipeout"). However, this doesn't mean it's not the best
                        thing that could happen to Earth's biosphere and to humanity.

                        Changing directions requires changing perspectives. If we see
                        ourselves as one of millions of species cohabiting the ecosphere, and
                        recognize that our existence is detrimental to all other life,
                        necessary changes are more easily understood.

                        >OK, let's say this is 'possible', as everything is possible. If you want
                        anyone to agree that this is 'possible' you must also agree that it is
                        'possible' to solve the problems of our world without resorting to voluntary
                        human extinction.<

                        Sure, that's a possibility. And, when our population density improves
                        to the point that we solve the problems of our world, we could
                        rethink our reproductive choices. In the meantime, why breed?

                        > And given that VHE is so incredibly improbable, any other
                        way is probably more probable :)) <

                        True. I think our most probable future includes a massive dieoff, but
                        that doesn't entice me to promote it.

                        It seems to me that many of our problems are caused, or at least
                        exacerbated, by a lack of vision. Collectively, we have a hard time
                        envisioning alternatives to the way we've always done things. When an
                        alternative is presented, even though it may have merit, often it's
                        rejected because "people will never go for that" or "the oil
                        companies won't let that happen."

                        Change begins with each of us making choices which influence the future.

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