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

stemming from the over population crisis

Expand Messages
  • sugarsmack100
    I have read parts of the VHEMT site, and i agree that the world is reaching its carrying capacity, and the fact that humans are responsible for the
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I have read parts of the VHEMT site, and i agree that the world is
      reaching its carrying capacity, and the fact that humans are
      responsible for the deterioration of interconnected ecosystems and
      it is disturbing in respect to the current healthcare system
      (lacking preventive methods, excess pharmaceuticals)we now can live
      much longer. However are those last years of life unable to function
      in a nursing home worth it? Could modern medicine prolonging life be
      an expensive misery? Someone is profiting from the elderly becoming
      completely dependent. When one part of your body stops functioning
      at an old age, most likely another will soon after- transplant may
      temporarily be of help, but if you look at the body as a whole, if
      it is ready to begin the unavoidable process of death, it will.
      Most, but not all people go through a lot of agony their final years
      trying to stay alive. Instead of attempting to fight nature why not
      skip over the final stage of suffering and implement an earlier
      death. People may appreciate life more if they abandon the search
      for the fountain of youth and accept death at a certain mandatory
      age. people may re-prioritize what really is important in life, have
      perhaps a clearer view of the big picture and spend much less
      time "sweating the small stuff" [suffering < quality of life]
    • Les U. Knight
      sugarsmack, our life spans are increasing a little, and some folks are kept alive in vegetative states, but I think most people still die too soon. Yes,
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        sugarsmack, our life spans are increasing a little, and some folks
        are kept alive in vegetative states, but I think most people still
        die too soon.

        Yes, another 10 years of human existence means another 10 years of
        negative environmental impact, but after working for decades, often
        at unpleasant jobs, people deserve some time to enjoy life. Retiring
        at 65 and living to the average expectancy in North America means a
        short 10 years of being free from wage slavery. Often the career has
        used up their bodies, precluding many activities. Let's not begrudge
        people the short time they have to prepare for that ultimate
        adventure.

        Avoiding one birth is the same as adding 10 years to seven people's
        lives, in terms of human impact years.

        Les
      • Tiffany Valverde
        So you believe that by banning abortions it is taking away rights? I agree. But isn t extincting the human population also taking away the rights of future
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          So you believe that by banning abortions it is taking away rights? I agree. But isn't extincting the human population also taking away the rights of future people? I feel this is a choice that people are making-yes-but to get at the root of the idea is to persuade people to stop bearing children. Either way, this is a sort of social reform. Eventually when we have rid the environment of humans we will have done exactly what you say you hate- taken away our rights. All of them.
          - Alex


          kate derrick <bunny_drac@...> wrote:
          I'm seething. As far as I'm concerned, all those stupid politicians against abortion can go suck themselves. There's a big furore about it here in Australia and what really gets on my nerves is the fact that anyone I see or hear speaking out about the issue is MALE. Why do women just sit back and accept this patriarchal bullshit?? It's called BULL-SHIT for a reason. How would they feel if women politicians began to unite to impose vasectomies on those cockheads?? That would be taking away their rights now wouldn't it. Makes me want to bitchslap them all. Kate

          "Les U. Knight" <les@...> wrote:sugarsmack, our life spans are increasing a little, and some folks
          are kept alive in vegetative states, but I think most people still
          die too soon.

          Yes, another 10 years of human existence means another 10 years of
          negative environmental impact, but after working for decades, often
          at unpleasant jobs, people deserve some time to enjoy life. Retiring
          at 65 and living to the average expectancy in North America means a
          short 10 years of being free from wage slavery. Often the career has
          used up their bodies, precluding many activities. Let's not begrudge
          people the short time they have to prepare for that ultimate
          adventure.

          Avoiding one birth is the same as adding 10 years to seven people's
          lives, in terms of human impact years.

          Les


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




          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/

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

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





          ---------------------------------
          Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.


          [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 Sponsor
          Get unlimited calls to

          U.S./Canada


          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/

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

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



          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • karlawilkins121
          Les, I think your argument is extremely illogical. ... years of ... often at unpleasant jobs, people deserve some time to enjoy life. So are you suggesting
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 12, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Les, I think your argument is extremely illogical.
            ---
            In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
            > sugarsmack, our life spans are increasing a little, and some folks
            > are kept alive in vegetative states, but I think most people still
            > die too soon.
            >
            > les: Yes, another 10 years of human existence means another 10
            years of
            > negative environmental impact, but after working for decades,
            often at unpleasant jobs, people deserve some time to enjoy life.

            So are you suggesting that we EARN our right to live a long life and
            time to enjoy it???

            Retiring at 65 and living to the average expectancy in North America
            means a short 10 years of being free from wage slavery. Often the
            career has used up their bodies, precluding many activities. Let's
            not begrudge people the short time they have to prepare for that
            ultimate adventure.

            On the one hand you're FOR prolonging life, but on the other hand
            you are pro-abortion backed up by environmental reasons. So you are
            for human existence but you are against it. Okay, i can accept this.

            les: Avoiding one birth is the same as adding 10 years to seven
            people's
            > lives, in terms of human impact years.
            >
            I would appreciate it if you could expand on this. I beg to differ,
            considering that this is an incorrect equation and makes absolutely
            no sense. One greedy multi-millionaire has far more impact than
            hundreds of middle-class Australians. I would say that each and
            every human being has the right to a peaceful and happy existence,
            free of work stress and a higher standard of living. In my ideal
            world computer technology would usurp governments and there would be
            less need for wage slavery. Humanity would previal over mother
            nature in that life would not be a fight against IT, but the human
            existence would be one of far less struggle and resistance.
            Cathedrals and mosques will be used for other purposes (galleries,
            biodomes??) And the world will finally become borderless when
            everyone has access to their own solar powered jetson spacejets.
            Pergaps I am just letting my silly fantasies take flight, but I am
            just thinking, surely these days will some day be known as the dark
            ages by some further evolved sentient being. Perhaps this is what
            our dirty little genes have in store for the future. Who knows?? We
            can only know the present. People seem to be preoccupied with the
            evolution of our intelligence. What crap. Thaink about it-
            intelligence is not necessarily a prerequisite to survival. Many
            species have remain just as intelligent for millions of years. We
            have remained pretty much unchanged for 40000 years. I don't know
            whether i believe in fate or not, but I think there is definitley a
            reason for why our genes progress and evolve. I do not believe it
            shoudl be our fate to go back to primordial conditions in order for
            our genes to evolve. I think it is perhpas Nature that we have
            developed enough intelligence to survive against the odds, to
            develop new technology to protect those precious genes and to pass
            them on. Yep, I am prepared to say that it just might be our genes
            which determine our fate. I am unfortunately totally ignorant but am
            open to other opinions. With respect, Kate
            >
            > > Les
          • Les U. Knight
            ... I m not sure which argument you re referring to, so I ll simply reply to your questions. ... I can see how my statement might be interpreted that way, but
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 13, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Kate, you wrote:
              >Les, I think your argument is extremely illogical. <

              I'm not sure which argument you're referring to, so I'll simply reply
              to your questions.

              I wrote:
              >> . . . after working for decades, often at unpleasant jobs, people
              >>deserve some time to enjoy life.<<

              >So are you suggesting that we EARN our right to live a long life and
              >time to enjoy it???<

              I can see how my statement might be interpreted that way, but that's
              not what I was implying. People do work for decades as wage slaves,
              and much of the time their jobs are unpleasant to say the least. This
              unfortunate situation needs amelioration, but in the meantime, that's
              the way it is.

              My statement was in response to the suggestion that people are living
              too long, that a way to deal with our adverse population density is
              for people to die sooner. I wrote:

              >>Retiring at 65 and living to the average expectancy in North America
              means a short 10 years of being free from wage slavery. Often the
              career has used up their bodies, precluding many activities. Let's
              not begrudge people the short time they have to prepare for that
              ultimate adventure.<<

              This is not intended to imply that this situation is alright, just
              that the least a society can do is allow people some time "off the
              clock" at the end of their lives.

              >On the one hand you're FOR prolonging life, but on the other hand
              you are pro-abortion backed up by environmental reasons.<

              I'm only pro-abortion if someone is pregnant. I'm much more
              pro-contraception and for men to take responsibility for their
              fertility than I am pro-abortion. Vasectomy and condoms prevent
              abortions. There are both humanitarian and environmental reasons not
              to carry a pregnancy to term.

              >So you are for human existence but you are against it. Okay, i can
              accept this.<

              No, I'm not for human existence, but people do exist once they're
              born. The only thing that will change this is death. Death comes soon
              enough without rushing it along.

              >>les: Avoiding one birth is the same as adding 10 years to seven
              >>people's lives, in terms of human impact years.<<

              >I would appreciate it if you could expand on this.<

              By "human impact year" I mean one human times one year of existence.
              When a person is born, we have potentially 70 to 80 years of
              impacting Earth's biosphere: 70 to 80 human impact years. If someone
              dies 10 years sooner, then 10 human impact years are avoided. 10 is
              only one seventh of 70, so I'm saying that avoiding one birth is like
              seven people dying 10 years early. If we asked 10 65-year-olds if
              they would be willing to cut 10 years off their lives so that a new
              human could be created without increasing our net environmental
              impact, I think they would decline.

              > I beg to differ, considering that this is an incorrect equation
              >and makes absolutely
              no sense. One greedy multi-millionaire has far more impact than
              hundreds of middle-class Australians. <

              You are correct in saying that some humans have more environmental
              impact than others. Continuing with your statement above, One middle
              class Australian has far more impact than hundreds of people who
              "live" on less than $1 a day.

              This is the situation, now what do we make of it? Do we say that some
              people have more right to breed than others? I don't think the
              creation of one more of us, whether multi-millionaire, middle-class,
              or starving, can be justified today.

              >I would say that each and
              every human being has the right to a peaceful and happy existence,
              free of work stress and a higher standard of living. <

              I agree. Now, how do we get there from here? You suggest:

              >In my ideal
              world computer technology would usurp governments and there would be
              less need for wage slavery. Humanity would previal over mother
              nature in that life would not be a fight against IT, but the human
              existence would be one of far less struggle and resistance.
              Cathedrals and mosques will be used for other purposes (galleries,
              biodomes??) And the world will finally become borderless when
              everyone has access to their own solar powered jetson spacejets. <

              An essential component of any effort to improve the human condition
              is an improvement in our population density. Utopia, like the one you
              describe, could be achieved as we phase ourselves out. As it is,
              we're constantly struggling to provide for 6.5 billion of us, plus
              210,000 more each day. This situation benefits multi-millionaires,
              just as masses of slaves benefitted rulers of ancient times. It
              doesn't benefit 99% of us, nor does it benefit Earth's biosphere --
              quite the contrary.

              Les
            • karlawilkins121
              One in 11 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer before age 75. Some women have an increased risk of developing cancer. One factor which raises a woman s
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 16, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                One in 11 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer before age 75.
                Some women have an increased risk of developing cancer. One factor
                which raises a woman's risk is having too few children or having
                them late. This is thought to be due to the effects of oestrogen on
                the breast tissue.

                I can quote the above but not the following. I am also sure that
                childbirth decreases the likelihood of developing other cancers
                (cervical?? not sure). So in the hope of "living long" a woman might
                consider it in her best interests to breed. Just a thought.

                --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
                > Kate, you wrote:
                > >Les, I think your argument is extremely illogical. <
                >
                > I'm not sure which argument you're referring to, so I'll simply
                reply
                > to your questions.
                >
                > I wrote:
                > >> . . . after working for decades, often at unpleasant jobs,
                people
                > >>deserve some time to enjoy life.<<
                >
                > >So are you suggesting that we EARN our right to live a long life
                and
                > >time to enjoy it???<
                >
                > I can see how my statement might be interpreted that way, but
                that's
                > not what I was implying. People do work for decades as wage
                slaves,
                > and much of the time their jobs are unpleasant to say the least.
                This
                > unfortunate situation needs amelioration, but in the meantime,
                that's
                > the way it is.
                >
                > My statement was in response to the suggestion that people are
                living
                > too long, that a way to deal with our adverse population density
                is
                > for people to die sooner. I wrote:
                >
                > >>Retiring at 65 and living to the average expectancy in North
                America
                > means a short 10 years of being free from wage slavery. Often the
                > career has used up their bodies, precluding many activities. Let's
                > not begrudge people the short time they have to prepare for that
                > ultimate adventure.<<
                >
                > This is not intended to imply that this situation is alright, just
                > that the least a society can do is allow people some time "off the
                > clock" at the end of their lives.
                >
                > >On the one hand you're FOR prolonging life, but on the other hand
                > you are pro-abortion backed up by environmental reasons.<
                >
                > I'm only pro-abortion if someone is pregnant. I'm much more
                > pro-contraception and for men to take responsibility for their
                > fertility than I am pro-abortion. Vasectomy and condoms prevent
                > abortions. There are both humanitarian and environmental reasons
                not
                > to carry a pregnancy to term.
                >
                > >So you are for human existence but you are against it. Okay, i
                can
                > accept this.<
                >
                > No, I'm not for human existence, but people do exist once they're
                > born. The only thing that will change this is death. Death comes
                soon
                > enough without rushing it along.
                >
                > >>les: Avoiding one birth is the same as adding 10 years to seven
                > >>people's lives, in terms of human impact years.<<
                >
                > >I would appreciate it if you could expand on this.<
                >
                > By "human impact year" I mean one human times one year of
                existence.
                > When a person is born, we have potentially 70 to 80 years of
                > impacting Earth's biosphere: 70 to 80 human impact years. If
                someone
                > dies 10 years sooner, then 10 human impact years are avoided. 10
                is
                > only one seventh of 70, so I'm saying that avoiding one birth is
                like
                > seven people dying 10 years early. If we asked 10 65-year-olds if
                > they would be willing to cut 10 years off their lives so that a
                new
                > human could be created without increasing our net environmental
                > impact, I think they would decline.
                >
                > > I beg to differ, considering that this is an incorrect
                equation
                > >and makes absolutely
                > no sense. One greedy multi-millionaire has far more impact than
                > hundreds of middle-class Australians. <
                >
                > You are correct in saying that some humans have more environmental
                > impact than others. Continuing with your statement above, One
                middle
                > class Australian has far more impact than hundreds of people who
                > "live" on less than $1 a day.
                >
                > This is the situation, now what do we make of it? Do we say that
                some
                > people have more right to breed than others? I don't think the
                > creation of one more of us, whether multi-millionaire, middle-
                class,
                > or starving, can be justified today.
                >
                > >I would say that each and
                > every human being has the right to a peaceful and happy existence,
                > free of work stress and a higher standard of living. <
                >
                > I agree. Now, how do we get there from here? You suggest:
                >
                > >In my ideal
                > world computer technology would usurp governments and there would
                be
                > less need for wage slavery. Humanity would previal over mother
                > nature in that life would not be a fight against IT, but the human
                > existence would be one of far less struggle and resistance.
                > Cathedrals and mosques will be used for other purposes (galleries,
                > biodomes??) And the world will finally become borderless when
                > everyone has access to their own solar powered jetson spacejets. <
                >
                > An essential component of any effort to improve the human
                condition
                > is an improvement in our population density. Utopia, like the one
                you
                > describe, could be achieved as we phase ourselves out. As it is,
                > we're constantly struggling to provide for 6.5 billion of us, plus
                > 210,000 more each day. This situation benefits multi-millionaires,
                > just as masses of slaves benefitted rulers of ancient times. It
                > doesn't benefit 99% of us, nor does it benefit Earth's biosphere --

                > quite the contrary.
                >
                > Les
              • Brian A.
                This is a myth. I have already seen it debunked. Next? karlawilkins121 wrote: One in 11 women will be diagnosed with breast
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 16, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  This is a myth. I have already seen it debunked.

                  Next?


                  karlawilkins121 <karlawilkins121@...> wrote:


                  One in 11 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer before age 75.
                  Some women have an increased risk of developing cancer. One factor
                  which raises a woman's risk is having too few children or having
                  them late. This is thought to be due to the effects of oestrogen on
                  the breast tissue.

                  I can quote the above but not the following. I am also sure that
                  childbirth decreases the likelihood of developing other cancers
                  (cervical?? not sure). So in the hope of "living long" a woman might
                  consider it in her best interests to breed. Just a thought.

                  --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" wrote:
                  > Kate, you wrote:
                  > >Les, I think your argument is extremely illogical. <
                  >
                  > I'm not sure which argument you're referring to, so I'll simply
                  reply
                  > to your questions.
                  >
                  > I wrote:
                  > >> . . . after working for decades, often at unpleasant jobs,
                  people
                  > >>deserve some time to enjoy life.<<
                  >
                  > >So are you suggesting that we EARN our right to live a long life
                  and
                  > >time to enjoy it???<
                  >
                  > I can see how my statement might be interpreted that way, but
                  that's
                  > not what I was implying. People do work for decades as wage
                  slaves,
                  > and much of the time their jobs are unpleasant to say the least.
                  This
                  > unfortunate situation needs amelioration, but in the meantime,
                  that's
                  > the way it is.
                  >
                  > My statement was in response to the suggestion that people are
                  living
                  > too long, that a way to deal with our adverse population density
                  is
                  > for people to die sooner. I wrote:
                  >
                  > >>Retiring at 65 and living to the average expectancy in North
                  America
                  > means a short 10 years of being free from wage slavery. Often the
                  > career has used up their bodies, precluding many activities. Let's
                  > not begrudge people the short time they have to prepare for that
                  > ultimate adventure.<<
                  >
                  > This is not intended to imply that this situation is alright, just
                  > that the least a society can do is allow people some time "off the
                  > clock" at the end of their lives.
                  >
                  > >On the one hand you're FOR prolonging life, but on the other hand
                  > you are pro-abortion backed up by environmental reasons.<
                  >
                  > I'm only pro-abortion if someone is pregnant. I'm much more
                  > pro-contraception and for men to take responsibility for their
                  > fertility than I am pro-abortion. Vasectomy and condoms prevent
                  > abortions. There are both humanitarian and environmental reasons
                  not
                  > to carry a pregnancy to term.
                  >
                  > >So you are for human existence but you are against it. Okay, i
                  can
                  > accept this.<
                  >
                  > No, I'm not for human existence, but people do exist once they're
                  > born. The only thing that will change this is death. Death comes
                  soon
                  > enough without rushing it along.
                  >
                  > >>les: Avoiding one birth is the same as adding 10 years to seven
                  > >>people's lives, in terms of human impact years.<<
                  >
                  > >I would appreciate it if you could expand on this.<
                  >
                  > By "human impact year" I mean one human times one year of
                  existence.
                  > When a person is born, we have potentially 70 to 80 years of
                  > impacting Earth's biosphere: 70 to 80 human impact years. If
                  someone
                  > dies 10 years sooner, then 10 human impact years are avoided. 10
                  is
                  > only one seventh of 70, so I'm saying that avoiding one birth is
                  like
                  > seven people dying 10 years early. If we asked 10 65-year-olds if
                  > they would be willing to cut 10 years off their lives so that a
                  new
                  > human could be created without increasing our net environmental
                  > impact, I think they would decline.
                  >
                  > > I beg to differ, considering that this is an incorrect
                  equation
                  > >and makes absolutely
                  > no sense. One greedy multi-millionaire has far more impact than
                  > hundreds of middle-class Australians. <
                  >
                  > You are correct in saying that some humans have more environmental
                  > impact than others. Continuing with your statement above, One
                  middle
                  > class Australian has far more impact than hundreds of people who
                  > "live" on less than $1 a day.
                  >
                  > This is the situation, now what do we make of it? Do we say that
                  some
                  > people have more right to breed than others? I don't think the
                  > creation of one more of us, whether multi-millionaire, middle-
                  class,
                  > or starving, can be justified today.
                  >
                  > >I would say that each and
                  > every human being has the right to a peaceful and happy existence,
                  > free of work stress and a higher standard of living. <
                  >
                  > I agree. Now, how do we get there from here? You suggest:
                  >
                  > >In my ideal
                  > world computer technology would usurp governments and there would
                  be
                  > less need for wage slavery. Humanity would previal over mother
                  > nature in that life would not be a fight against IT, but the human
                  > existence would be one of far less struggle and resistance.
                  > Cathedrals and mosques will be used for other purposes (galleries,
                  > biodomes??) And the world will finally become borderless when
                  > everyone has access to their own solar powered jetson spacejets. <
                  >
                  > An essential component of any effort to improve the human
                  condition
                  > is an improvement in our population density. Utopia, like the one
                  you
                  > describe, could be achieved as we phase ourselves out. As it is,
                  > we're constantly struggling to provide for 6.5 billion of us, plus
                  > 210,000 more each day. This situation benefits multi-millionaires,
                  > just as masses of slaves benefitted rulers of ancient times. It
                  > doesn't benefit 99% of us, nor does it benefit Earth's biosphere --

                  > quite the contrary.
                  >
                  > Les






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


                  Yahoo! Groups Links








                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Jim Burger
                  Hey guys! Neither of you two have given us anything except for a my word against yours style argument. ... Theres a big line up - careful what you wish for!
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 16, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hey guys!

                    Neither of you two have given us anything except for a my word
                    against yours style argument.

                    --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A." <phelsumas@y...> wrote:
                    > This is a myth. I have already seen it debunked.
                    >
                    > Next?

                    Theres a big line up - careful what you wish for!

                    Just a side note: Our planet has a plethora of problems. Population
                    is one of them. Resources are another. How about we just accept that
                    people are different and that we can all band together to save our
                    planet in different ways! If we take too much time deciding what to
                    do first then we will run out of time.

                    Jim Burger
                  • Jim Burger
                    To anyone who is interested, This essay (ha!) is in regard to a previous post on euthanasia on the Why Breed Forum, its also a bit of a bye bye for now: While
                    Message 9 of 10 , Dec 16, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To anyone who is interested,

                      This essay (ha!) is in regard to a previous post on euthanasia on
                      the Why Breed Forum, its also a bit of a bye bye for now:

                      While im not necessarily an advocate on 'youths in asia' i do think
                      that the increasing life span of our human race has a lot to do with
                      its spiralling population overload. Our original life span was a
                      fraction of what it is now. The fitter people survived longer and
                      therefore had more offspring. Eventually we found ways to lengthen
                      our lives through medicine and diet. The fact that we are still here
                      long after our breeding and parenting age is over has got to be a
                      factor in our population increase.

                      How else can we provide an explanation? Perhaps we should continue
                      to breed but instead euthanase our parents once we move out of home?
                      OK so this is just as immoral as enforcing a 'no breeding' policy on
                      the world.

                      Lets all avoid living long instead. Ill start a new
                      movement......VRMCMT Volunatry Rejection of Medical Care Movement.
                      Can you see why Im joking? China still has double figure growth with
                      one child. They also cant provide the necessary health care to
                      support 1 billion+ people. The only option in China is to adopt 'no
                      breeding'. Why hasnt it happened? Because it never will my friends.
                      You cant convince a planet rife with people who obey their genes to
                      stop breeding. Youve got some pretty big enemies too. The christians
                      for one, the islamics for another. Unless you can convince _every_
                      christian to be a priest your movement is doomed.

                      In the eyes of nature once we have bred all we can, it is time to
                      get killed or eaten by a creature that can breed. Especially if you
                      believe Brian (not briman the other one) that nature is a Nazi and
                      we are its death camp. That is to say, once we have finished
                      fulfilling our natural function - we should move over and let the
                      next generation move forward. In light of this - nature itself is
                      opposed to VHEMT. We dont exist for the purpose of navel gazing
                      folks. Otherwise nature would have given us the bare necessities to
                      keep a giant brain alive. OK so we can deny our genes and spread
                      memes. And I dont want to downplay the importance of the
                      overpopulation problem.

                      But at the end of the day - I feel as hopeless about stopping the
                      world from breeding as VHEMT supporters/volunteers feel about saving
                      the earth with technology. And in light of this I think at this
                      point I shall bow out of the argument and leave you all to discuss
                      whos right and whos wrong.

                      Just stumbling across the series of VHEMT websites and groups has
                      piqued an interest in me that happens rarely. It is very intruiging
                      to see the interactions of people on this level of thought. Its been
                      fun but Im afraid its also been taxing.

                      At this point in time Id like to add that I am also diagnosed
                      Bipolar. There may be a not come as a surprise to some. I am indeed
                      a mutant myself waterb0y (or so my doctor tells me). I just want
                      everyone to know that while it is considered a mental illness - I
                      believe it is not to be put in the same bag as others that
                      incapacitate the ability to think. In fact it does the opposite. We
                      think too much. Singling out Kate for being hypomanic was in my mind
                      a horrible thing to do. I would also like to let those of you that
                      may be interested in my point of view to know, that I am indeed
                      hypomanic myself at the moment. The internet and its endless
                      possibilties triggers my mania. This is another reason why I must
                      leave. The pain of being bipolar is not just the depression but
                      knowing that being abnormally happy/cheerful/motivated is actually
                      not a good thing. Hope this helps some of you accept the point of
                      view from other Bipolars.

                      So this will be my last post for a while - this message will be
                      posted to both Why_breed and Why_VHEMT?. I intend to keep up the
                      Seland chronicles in Why_VHEMT hopefully as a monthly. This will be
                      my last post to Why_Breed. Thanks for the hospitality. Feel free to
                      pick my arguments to pieces as I may have attempted to do to others
                      for the benefit of the opposing theories advancement.

                      However can I encourage everyone on both sides to provide some
                      evidence(a quote or reference) whether you are supporting _or_
                      refuting a new developement? Seeing a bunch of people bickering
                      about the size of their intellects is less than endearing.

                      For those of you at Why_VHEMT - I've picked on Seland mainly because
                      he has brought nothing new to the table yet succesfully scared off a
                      number of people I hold dear from speaking their minds. Going
                      through the archives I see nothing but racial hatred, scare
                      mongering, contradictions and out and out bullying. Sorry but I know
                      two wrongs dont make a right but sometimes one has to fight fire
                      with fire.

                      A wise man once said, "If you are not part of the solution - you are
                      part of the problem". To this end I think that we should stop
                      fighting about who his right and just work together to find a
                      solution that works for each and every one of us. We have all been
                      guilty of not being a part of the solution merely by wasting our
                      time arguing about it.

                      Both sides of this argument want to achieve the same net result. A
                      happy healthy planet. Take it from a Bipolar - the world isnt black
                      and white - there are many shades of grey.

                      Yours for the future of this Earth

                      Jim Burger

                      --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, kate derrick <bunny_drac@y...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Hey Sugarsmack!
                      >
                      > You wrote: >Instead of attempting to fight nature why not
                      > skip over the final stage of suffering and implement an earlier
                      > death.<
                      >
                      > You're advocating Euthanasia. Do you mean that this should be
                      implemented voluntarily or involuntarily (such as Dr Death)? Quite
                      simply, it's hardly a solution to overpopulation when you consider
                      that breeders will continue to add to the population at their own
                      will.
                      >
                      > On the up side there'd be not so many sick pensioners to support
                      in their old age-I'm not being serious-the elderly should be
                      treasured. What I can't stand is people who say they want kids to
                      support them in their old age-how selfish can you be?? These people
                      are likely to be people who will morph into annoying crones and
                      geezers who become offended when their kids and grandkids couldn't
                      be bothered to visit them. They should be grateful to have lived
                      such a long time IMO.
                      >
                      > >However are those last years of life unable to function
                      > in a nursing home worth it? Could modern medicine prolonging life
                      be
                      > an expensive misery?<
                      >
                      > Hot topic. My great Aunt couldn't wait to die at 98. I wouldn't
                      like to do the euthanasing as a doctor. But then again, capital
                      punishment still exists. I don't advocate that.
                      >
                      > >Someone is profiting from the elderly becoming completely
                      dependent.< Not us. We have to support them with taxes.
                      >
                      > >When one part of your body stops functioning at an old age, most
                      likely another will soon after transplant may temporarily be of
                      help, but if you look at the body as a whole, if it is ready to
                      begin the unavoidable process of death,it will.<
                      >
                      > We are approaching death every day. Your body begins to degenerate
                      in your early twenties. There's much progress being made in breeding
                      pigs which will be genetic compatible with your body so that they
                      can be your personal organ donor. How about breeding humans to be
                      compatible to be donors for endangered species??? Doubt it would
                      ever be possible, but i wouldn't mind donating my innards to a
                      Siberian Tiger after I'm dead. It would be of more use than to
                      incinerate me then stash my filthy ashes in vase. I wouldn't care if
                      they fed my well-nourished overpriviledged hide to the dogs. It
                      might be disgusting for the person feeding the animals but I find
                      morticians repulsive and so is capital punishment for that matter.
                      At least the meat on my bones would give the critters a damn good
                      meal. It's all part of the life cycle and it's really quite
                      beautiful. I prefer the idea of being fed to a Siberian tiger after
                      I'm dead than rotting six feet under ravaged by slugs. I'll be dead
                      either way
                      > so who cares?? People need to get over it.
                      >
                      > >People may appreciate life more if they abandon the search
                      > for the fountain of youth and accept death at a certain mandatory
                      age.< So you're advocating murder??? I wonder how many people
                      would "accept" this voluntarily?? Definitely far less than those who
                      accept the idea of not breeding.
                      >
                      > >people may re-prioritize what really is important in life, have
                      > perhaps a clearer view of the big picture and spend much less
                      > time "sweating the small stuff" [suffering < quality of life]<
                      Suffering is a part of life. We have to live with it at any age. Age
                      is not a factor in maturity or living well. My Nan lived alone until
                      she died and had an active social life and much to contribute. She
                      was more independent than I am now. But dependency can be a
                      beautiful thing too. Kate
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > Why_breed-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Brian A.
                      Hello everyone, Just for the record, I don t believe that nature is a Nazi. Everything that lives must die. I am not even sure if I wrote that; you may be
                      Message 10 of 10 , Dec 20, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello everyone,

                        Just for the record, I don't believe that nature is a Nazi. Everything that lives must die. I am not even sure if I wrote that; you may be seeing my response to something someone else wrote that wasn't clearly designated as such.

                        VHEMt is a movement. It isn't about coercing anyone. This is a grassroots effort to inform others about the dangers of rampant human breeding, undertaken by people who have made the decision to refrain from producing offspring of their own. The feeling among VHEMt supporters is that they have "reached awareness" of our situation. So many problems faced by humanity, and indeed by all sentient life on this planet, are due to the activities of humans, and the number of humans on the planet has doubled several times in the last few hundred years. The amount of energy available to all life on the planet is still limited to what comes from the sun, and while there's been a lot put into storage in the form of fossil fuels, we are burning through that reserve at an exponentially increasing rate. It's simply inevitable that there is going to be a crash. It's happened many times to many populations throughout history.

                        You want to know my position? I am not going to father any children. That's about the long and short of it. My reasons are manifold, and there's really not anything that anyone is going to say that will change my mind about breeding. I am here to advocate "not breeding" and in order to do that, I attempt to make reasoned arguments based on facts as I understand them. I apologize to anyone who may be offended by my statements, but I will say this in my defense: most people I have known who get offended by things others say, have problems of their own that prevent them from processing new ideas without getting emotionally involved. Just try to keep an open mind and not get all worked up when someone challenges your ideas.

                        That's all for now. Love to all,
                        Brian.

                        Jim Burger <j1mburg3r@...> wrote:


                        To anyone who is interested,

                        This essay (ha!) is in regard to a previous post on euthanasia on
                        the Why Breed Forum, its also a bit of a bye bye for now:

                        While im not necessarily an advocate on 'youths in asia' i do think
                        that the increasing life span of our human race has a lot to do with
                        its spiralling population overload. Our original life span was a
                        fraction of what it is now. The fitter people survived longer and
                        therefore had more offspring. Eventually we found ways to lengthen
                        our lives through medicine and diet. The fact that we are still here
                        long after our breeding and parenting age is over has got to be a
                        factor in our population increase.

                        How else can we provide an explanation? Perhaps we should continue
                        to breed but instead euthanase our parents once we move out of home?
                        OK so this is just as immoral as enforcing a 'no breeding' policy on
                        the world.

                        Lets all avoid living long instead. Ill start a new
                        movement......VRMCMT Volunatry Rejection of Medical Care Movement.
                        Can you see why Im joking? China still has double figure growth with
                        one child. They also cant provide the necessary health care to
                        support 1 billion+ people. The only option in China is to adopt 'no
                        breeding'. Why hasnt it happened? Because it never will my friends.
                        You cant convince a planet rife with people who obey their genes to
                        stop breeding. Youve got some pretty big enemies too. The christians
                        for one, the islamics for another. Unless you can convince _every_
                        christian to be a priest your movement is doomed.

                        In the eyes of nature once we have bred all we can, it is time to
                        get killed or eaten by a creature that can breed. Especially if you
                        believe Brian (not briman the other one) that nature is a Nazi and
                        we are its death camp. That is to say, once we have finished
                        fulfilling our natural function - we should move over and let the
                        next generation move forward. In light of this - nature itself is
                        opposed to VHEMT. We dont exist for the purpose of navel gazing
                        folks. Otherwise nature would have given us the bare necessities to
                        keep a giant brain alive. OK so we can deny our genes and spread
                        memes. And I dont want to downplay the importance of the
                        overpopulation problem.

                        But at the end of the day - I feel as hopeless about stopping the
                        world from breeding as VHEMT supporters/volunteers feel about saving
                        the earth with technology. And in light of this I think at this
                        point I shall bow out of the argument and leave you all to discuss
                        whos right and whos wrong.

                        Just stumbling across the series of VHEMT websites and groups has
                        piqued an interest in me that happens rarely. It is very intruiging
                        to see the interactions of people on this level of thought. Its been
                        fun but Im afraid its also been taxing.

                        At this point in time Id like to add that I am also diagnosed
                        Bipolar. There may be a not come as a surprise to some. I am indeed
                        a mutant myself waterb0y (or so my doctor tells me). I just want
                        everyone to know that while it is considered a mental illness - I
                        believe it is not to be put in the same bag as others that
                        incapacitate the ability to think. In fact it does the opposite. We
                        think too much. Singling out Kate for being hypomanic was in my mind
                        a horrible thing to do. I would also like to let those of you that
                        may be interested in my point of view to know, that I am indeed
                        hypomanic myself at the moment. The internet and its endless
                        possibilties triggers my mania. This is another reason why I must
                        leave. The pain of being bipolar is not just the depression but
                        knowing that being abnormally happy/cheerful/motivated is actually
                        not a good thing. Hope this helps some of you accept the point of
                        view from other Bipolars.

                        So this will be my last post for a while - this message will be
                        posted to both Why_breed and Why_VHEMT?. I intend to keep up the
                        Seland chronicles in Why_VHEMT hopefully as a monthly. This will be
                        my last post to Why_Breed. Thanks for the hospitality. Feel free to
                        pick my arguments to pieces as I may have attempted to do to others
                        for the benefit of the opposing theories advancement.

                        However can I encourage everyone on both sides to provide some
                        evidence(a quote or reference) whether you are supporting _or_
                        refuting a new developement? Seeing a bunch of people bickering
                        about the size of their intellects is less than endearing.

                        For those of you at Why_VHEMT - I've picked on Seland mainly because
                        he has brought nothing new to the table yet succesfully scared off a
                        number of people I hold dear from speaking their minds. Going
                        through the archives I see nothing but racial hatred, scare
                        mongering, contradictions and out and out bullying. Sorry but I know
                        two wrongs dont make a right but sometimes one has to fight fire
                        with fire.

                        A wise man once said, "If you are not part of the solution - you are
                        part of the problem". To this end I think that we should stop
                        fighting about who his right and just work together to find a
                        solution that works for each and every one of us. We have all been
                        guilty of not being a part of the solution merely by wasting our
                        time arguing about it.

                        Both sides of this argument want to achieve the same net result. A
                        happy healthy planet. Take it from a Bipolar - the world isnt black
                        and white - there are many shades of grey.

                        Yours for the future of this Earth

                        Jim Burger


                        ---------------------------------
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        The all-new My Yahoo! � Get yours free!

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