PDA

View Full Version : The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement


SilentScope001
07-22-2007, 10:30 PM
http://www.vhemt.org/

This is an political organization dedicated in convincing the human race to stop reproduction (you can still make love, just do it with birth control), thereby ending the human race and saving the Earth from us. Doing so would be the ulitmate showcasing of our superiority, by showing that we are willing to die in order to save something much more important than us. It seems like an interesting movement, but one doomed to utter failure. /shrugs.

The human race is growing far too much, and limiting the population may be futile. Evne if you do, they will still consume resources. If you invent technologies, that will consume resources, and you rely on plain luck, hoping that the new technologies will save the human race, when it is likely it won't. And moving to other planets after we trash Earth...well, we're going to likely destroy those other planets as well.

Doesn't seem like condoning eco-terrorism, altough I do fear comments by the founder of the movement which suggests he would desire a virus that would render infertile all humans so that they would be forced to choose extiniction. So much for voluntary. But for the most part, that seems an idle comment, and they are mostly going down the political route.

Okay, a quick challenge. Go to that site, read it, and then come up with an objection to it. The reason I ask? I read that site, I like it, and I want to find objections to that site so that I remain as netural as possible. I don't want to be biased towards VHEMT at all, so well, I hope we can get some good criticism that can knock this movement flat.

Dagobahn Eagle
07-22-2007, 11:12 PM
While there is overpopulation in the world and this should probably be remedied, extinction is going a good deal of steps too far, and the whole site seems pretty poorly thought through.

We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.Nope. They're one and the same thing. Human extinction is the outcome of human disasters, if said disasters are severe and numerous enough. They wouldn't be opposites if their metaphorical lives depended on it.

Q: What is the official position of VHEMT?

Since the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement isn't alive with a brain or a mouth, it can't take positions or have opinions. It can't get into arguments, tell people what to do and think, nor get punched for doing so.And yet this is what it is doing. Nice contradiction, saying that 'we have no official position, and that official position is that we think it'd be great if humans died out'.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.If they're just 'experiments of Nature', why's it so bad that we're killing them? To first advocate human extinction to save these species, and for then to downplay their deaths this way, seems very contradictory.

The Movement is life-affirming and will benefit all life. We are not advocating suicide, nor an increase in human deaths.Another contradiction: Does not human life count here? Are we not part of 'all life'? What's in it for us?

No reason to worry, though. It's basically just an abstinence movement with a fancy and scary web site, and we all know how successful they tend to be:D. Heck, these people know themselves they won't succeed: It has been suggested that there are only two chances of everyone volunteering to stop breeding: slim and none.A voluntary fight against windmills, as it were. I'm more worried by far about people who want to allow euthanasia and stop prevention of suicides.

Web Rider
07-22-2007, 11:52 PM
Lets start with their mission statement:
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

Statistical truth, the fewer organisms using up resources, the better. However, this is equal reason to advocate the extinction of all non-human species on the planet. Since they wouldn't be using OUR recourses anymore, we'd naturally have more of them, right? but the argument that the earth will improve as there are fewer humans is impossible to prove because the number of humans is only increasing, and the earth's climate is not improving. So the opposite result is only a negative version of a mathematical function. Much like the concept of "white holes" are a direct positive balancing counterpart to black holes. But we haven't found any "white holes" yet, so the idea that less humans=better earth is only hypothetical. not to mention the concept in and of itself allows for the advocation of the destruction of all non-human life.

VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.

Isn't there some argumentational fallacy of attacking the people with the opposite position? or, anyone who doesn't take your position? Obviously, people who only care for a particular kind of life on earth, EXACTLY the same as the people who would advocate an Abrahamic view(that the earth is here entirely for us to use and abuse) of human life and animal life.

And yes, they are correct that with fewer humans, when natural disasters strike, probability says that there is a smaller chance of something bad happening to them. but again, statistics are entirely what you want them to be.

We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.

but you just did.

As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.

why do they deserve to live and not us?

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

read: everyone who doesn't do it our way is a bad person!

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons.

but humans of course, do not fall under this category because we're bad critters.

True, wildlife rapidly going extinct and 40,000 children dying each day are not laughing matters, but neither laughing nor bemoaning will change what's happening. We may as well have some fun as we work and play toward a better world.

again, numbers are exactly what you want them to be. Does not much of animal life not make it beyond the first few years? Or even the first few weeks? Many animals are known to smother the runts of the litter.

Besides, returning Earth to its natural splendor and ending needless suffering of humanity are happy thoughts -- no sense moping around in gloom and doom.

We have little to no idea what earth was like before humans, assuming it was better than it is now, the idea is sound, but that's only an assumption, not fact.

It has been suggested that there are only two chances of everyone volunteering to stop breeding: slim and none. The odds may be against preserving life on Earth, but the decision to stop reproducing is still the morally correct one. Indeed, the likelihood of our failure to avoid the massive die off which humanity is engineering is a very good reason to not sentence another of us to life. The future isn't what it used to be.

so much for not giving into the doom and gloom, read: life sucks, nobody wants to live in the horrible future, so lets all die now.

Even if our chances of succeeding were only one in a hundred, we would have to try. Giving up and allowing humanity to take its course is unconscionable. There is far too much at stake.

Assuming humanity's course is a bad one, I suppose that's true. However, neither they, nor I can see the future, we can imply what the future may be like from studying the past, but thats not a guarantee that we'll be right. Of the myriad of possible futures, they see only the worst ones. And their reaction is, like Hillary's to video games, a knee-jerk reaction.

After we've seen a few hundred TV dramas where the good guy kicks the bad guy's butt, it's tempting to look at the real world with this same knee jerk, zero-sum mentality. We might look for an enemy to attack when championing our righteous cause, but in reality our enemy doesn't have a butt to kick.

after you've already attacked those horrible doom and gloomers who are sentancing their children to a horrible fate of the future. Can I ride my white horse now? Or at least kick their soapbox out from under them?

In the end, the real "enemies" are human greed, ignorance, and oppression. We can achieve more by promoting generosity, awareness, and freedom than we can by vainly kicking at a buttless foe.

Great progress will be made toward improving the quality of life on Earth by countering greed with responsibility, ignorance with education, and oppression with freedom.

so human extinction isn't necessary, just societal change. I'm down with that. both rank up there in the '"slim to none" in their chances.

that's about 1/5th to 1/4th of their "about", I think that's enough holes for this post.

MdKnightR
07-23-2007, 12:16 AM
See my posts about "The Planet Is Fine" by George Carlin in the thread about the global warming threat meter. This is pure BS.

SilentScope001
07-23-2007, 01:08 AM
Thanks all for responding! Glad to always manitan an NPOV viewpoint!

mimartin
07-23-2007, 02:02 PM
Glad to always manitan an NPOV viewpoint!


The extinction of the human species is not something a lot of humans will remain neutral about. Our entire existence since we set foot on this planet has been one of survival. Survival and procreation is the essences of whom and what we are. It actually seems to be two things that we are actually good at.


Iím all for protecting the environment, but for our future generation not because I want the cockroach to have a better way of way of life. Iím for voluntary population control, but not to the point of extinction.

SilentScope001
07-23-2007, 02:08 PM
The extinction of the human species is not something a lot of humans will remain neutral about.

Well, true. I just desire to just hear both sides of an issue, rather than remain biased towards VHEMT or against it. I don't like taking sides for anything for that matter.

Jae Onasi
07-23-2007, 03:01 PM
From a theistic point of view--we're all put here for a reason, so voluntary extinction is not an appropriate choice.

From an evolutionary point of view--we've evolved just like any other creature, and have just as much right to be here as any other creature. This is an extreme response to the problems that humanity creates. I'm sure there are other far better solutions than this. Besides, there may be things that the world needs from us as humans that no other creature or thing can provide. Assuming that we're bad for the world when we haven't even fully explored our risks and benefits to earth is rather presumptuous.

Darth InSidious
07-23-2007, 04:47 PM
You remember that kid on the playground that no-one, but no-one liked? The one that pretended to have major problems but didn't?

It seems they've formed a club.

John Galt
07-23-2007, 06:02 PM
those guys are schmucks. If they want to remove THEMSELVES from the gene pool, more power to 'em. However, the moment they try to do the same to anyone else against their will, they need to be shut down. immediately.

Jae Onasi
07-23-2007, 09:58 PM
However, the moment they try to do the same to anyone else against their will, they need to be shut down. immediately.Not to mention put in jail for murder/attempted murder.

John Galt
07-23-2007, 10:05 PM
Not to mention put in jail for murder/attempted murder.

I was specifically referring to the "sterility virus" thing, but you do have a good point.

Besides, if they value nature so much, why can't they accept that (as per George Carlin) EVERYTHING people make is natural, because humanity is part of nature?

Nancy Allen``
07-23-2007, 10:23 PM
I've been to that site before and in my mind, for them to want some type of virus that would effectively wipe out the human race, I'll put it this way: if they want to harmonise with nature they can go harmonise. Be dumped in the middle of nature with nothing at all and see how much they like it, how dangerous and indiscriminate nature is.

PoiuyWired
07-24-2007, 04:12 AM
Well, I don't see anything voluntary about their ideas. At best, they should be considered bio-terrorists.

I mean, this is quite a bit different from the "get yourself neutered(by neutered I don't mean rip your balls off obviously, guys would reather die than be ballless) and you get a radio and 50 bucks" movement.

Granted, I dso think that the world is fare too over populated, and it would indeed be nice if people are to produce less spawnlings. If anything, there are more resources to go around for us to play with. Unfortunately it seems that only the more civilized parts of the world have caught on the the idea of breeding(for offsprings) less.

Dagobahn Eagle
07-24-2007, 01:24 PM
From a theistic point of view--we're all put here for a reason, so voluntary extinction is not an appropriate choice.Excluding the end-of-the-world cults:p.

GarfieldJL
07-25-2007, 10:30 AM
You remember that kid on the playground that no-one, but no-one liked? The one that pretended to have major problems but didn't?

It seems they've formed a club.


Hey don't lump unpopular kids into this, seriously I wasn't exactly popular and I'm still not popular, but I think the idea of voluntary extinction to be stupid.

LesUKnight
07-25-2007, 12:12 PM
You're right SilentScope 001, I don't advocate a virus that renders all male Homo sapiens sterile. That wouldn't be voluntary. We're not in favor of increasing human deaths and diseases. We're saying that the intentional creation of one more of us by anyone anywhere can't be justified -- at least not at this time. We're not advocating restrictions on breeding. Everyone who doesn't want to breed should have the freedom to not do so.

John Galt
07-25-2007, 12:26 PM
You're right SilentScope 001, I don't advocate a virus that renders all male Homo sapiens sterile. That wouldn't be voluntary. We're not in favor of increasing human deaths and diseases. We're saying that the intentional creation of one more of us by anyone anywhere can't be justified -- at least not at this time. We're not advocating restrictions on breeding. Everyone who doesn't want to breed should have the freedom to not do so.

Last time I checked, we do have that freedom, at least in the US and presumably most (if not all) of the civilized world. The fact is that the desire to procreate is hard-wired into the human psyche, at least for most of us. If you don't want kids, that's fine, but attempting to take away others' freedom to procreate is, in my opinion, a despicable violation of individual rights.

Just my two cents.

Web Rider
07-25-2007, 01:55 PM
You're right SilentScope 001, I don't advocate a virus that renders all male Homo sapiens sterile. That wouldn't be voluntary. We're not in favor of increasing human deaths and diseases. We're saying that the intentional creation of one more of us by anyone anywhere can't be justified -- at least not at this time. We're not advocating restrictions on breeding. Everyone who doesn't want to breed should have the freedom to not do so.

that's a short sighted policy. We can't justify reproducing now. But maybe later?

well, there won't be a later if there isn't a now. Not to mention, that all the people who would voluntarily participate, would be the people you WOULDNT want to not reproduce. Not to mention that the human body is only designed to be able to reproduce for a select number of years, so it's literally, do or die.

And: everyone who doesn't want to breed HAS the freedom, save freedom from natural urges, to not breed.

SilentScope001
07-25-2007, 04:24 PM
You're right SilentScope 001, I don't advocate a virus that renders all male Homo sapiens sterile. That wouldn't be voluntary. We're not in favor of increasing human deaths and diseases. We're saying that the intentional creation of one more of us by anyone anywhere can't be justified -- at least not at this time. We're not advocating restrictions on breeding. Everyone who doesn't want to breed should have the freedom to not do so.

Good to know.

Nancy Allen``
07-25-2007, 06:34 PM
I'm going to use as much of the planet's resources as I possibly can just to p--- these people off.

John Galt
07-25-2007, 08:53 PM
I'm going to use as much of the planet's resources as I possibly can just to p--- these people off.

I think I will too.

So, wanna clear-cut a forest so we can barbecue a herd of buffalo? j/k.

Web Rider
07-25-2007, 09:22 PM
I think I will too.

So, wanna clear-cut a forest so we can barbecue a herd of buffalo? j/k.

can we butcher some baby seals first?

Darth InSidious
07-26-2007, 06:06 PM
Whaling trip, anyone?

:xp:

Jae Onasi
07-26-2007, 06:54 PM
Yeah, after we kill off a bunch of endangered birds, frogs, and other species, re-release CFCs into the atmosphere, and burn every drop of oil possible in the next 2 years, I think it'll be time to get back on topic.... ;)

Nancy Allen``
07-26-2007, 07:00 PM
To want the human race dead, to want some virus that would kill off the human race, it's evil. There's a million better ways to describe it but I think that's an accurate description of them, it's evil.

ET Warrior
07-26-2007, 08:02 PM
To want the human race dead, to want some virus that would kill off the human race, it's evil. There's a million better ways to describe it but I think that's an accurate description of them, it's evil.While I don't agree with their aims, I hardly think you can call them evil. I read nothing on that site that promoted active thinning of the population, rather a passive approach to slowly phase out a species that is quite unconcerned with the effects it has on anything else.

In fact, they quite explicitly state on their site that they don't want some virus to wipe out humanity. They just want people to stop having babies, because our rate of growth is quite clearly unsustainable.

Nancy Allen``
07-26-2007, 09:11 PM
They want a virus that would wipe out the human race. I'd say that qualifies as monsterous.

JediKnight707
07-26-2007, 09:54 PM
I read nothing on that site that promoted active thinning of the population, rather a passive approach to slowly phase out a species that is quite unconcerned with the effects it has on anything else.

Quite the contrary, we're essentially the species that is the most concerned with the effects we have on everything. This is simply because we are the smartest species. I doubt that a bird flies overhead, and thinks to itself "better not crap in that pool, because that'd p--- off that house owner."

In response to this website, I think that this is a stupid idea, simply because it will never work. Millions of people don't believe in birth control, and you'd have a really hard time getting them to change.

Do I think that the human race is overpopulated? No. More brains means more thinking. Thinking is always a good thing. Will we consume more resources? Yes, that's a given. But, you have to think that because we consume these resources, there's a better cause than to just stay alive. I'd like to believe that if the savior of the Earth (assuming one is needed) will consume all the resources they need.

Allronix
07-26-2007, 11:14 PM
Full disclosure: I was on their mailing list a LONG time ago (as in, before I had my depression treated), because I really wanted to speak to people who had chosen NOT to have kids and better explain to my family why. The options for "childless by choice" (especially for unmarried women) were pretty sparse.

Frankly, I'm all for volunteering to have fewer kids. I'm definitely not for extinction, but I am for "zero is fine, one is enough, two is plenty." Again, it's part of believing the Earth's here for everyone to share, not just for human benefit. Frankly, Mother Nature DOES have a mean streak, and the more of the Earth we abuse, the nastier the fallout will be. I'd almost say it's in our own best interest to scale back our numbers and put more thought into why we want kids. It's become better in recent years, but there's still stigma attached to those who forgo children, and people who put a lot of effort into having kids and little thought as to why.

John Galt
07-27-2007, 12:56 AM
I personally don't want children because I find them annoying. However, I'm all for letting other people procreate, hopefully within the confines of reason (never understood why anyone would want 23 kids-yes, I know some one from a family of 25).

Web Rider
07-27-2007, 01:26 AM
I'm not wholly against children, but I'm certinaly no fan. I've seen the effects of having two sibling pets, and I assume the same principle works for children, so ideally, if I ever had a wife and had kids, I'd go for two. Which is zero population growth. However, I'm an only children, so I'm cool with one, but being an only child has it's downsides that I'm all too familiar with.

In any case, I think one of the best solutions to population growth is waiting longer to have children. Currently, many people are having kids every 20 years(not counting excessively large families), But it's: parent, turns 20ish, child, child turns 20ish, kids, kids turn 20ish, more kids, ect..., if everyone waited till 35, population growth would slow dramaticly simply because the ratio of death to birth would get closer. what is it, like, ever 50 seconds somebody dies, while ever 15 somebody is born?

ET Warrior
07-27-2007, 01:59 AM
They want a virus that would wipe out the human race. I'd say that qualifies as monsterous.
Q: Will new viruses, wars, famine, and toxic waste help the cause of human extinction?

No. Epidemics actually strengthen a species if enough of them are living to have an adequate survival rate. With over six billion of us, there is no virus that could get us all. A 99.99% die off would still leave 650,000 naturally-immune survivors to replicate, and in less than 50,000 years we could be right back where we are now. For any disease to simply hold the human population where it is, more than 200,000 of us would have to succumb to it each day. Suffering and death cannot help but hurt.
Seems to me that they obviously don't want a virus to wipe out humans.

Quite the contrary, we're essentially the species that is the most concerned with the effects we have on everything. This is simply because we are the smartest species. I doubt that a bird flies overhead, and thinks to itself "better not crap in that pool, because that'd p--- off that house owner."And I also doubt that you will ever find a flock of birds strip mining a mountainside for ores to process into alloys, pumping copious amounts of toxic fumes into the air. While we are certainly natural creatures there is absolutely no denying that we have used our intelligence to separate ourselves from nature. While there are some who are genuinely concerned with our effects on nature, as a species we have shown very little regard for it.

SilentScope001
07-27-2007, 02:15 AM
They want a virus that would wipe out the human race. I'd say that qualifies as monsterous.

As that founder of the movement posted, it was indeed nothing more than an idle comment (calling for a virus that would render the human race infertile, NOT causing massive Black-Plague painful deaths), really meaning nothing.

JediKnight707
07-27-2007, 02:30 AM
And I also doubt that you will ever find a flock of birds strip mining a mountainside for ores to process into alloys, pumping copious amounts of toxic fumes into the air. While we are certainly natural creatures there is absolutely no denying that we have used our intelligence to separate ourselves from nature. While there are some who are genuinely concerned with our effects on nature, as a species we have shown very little regard for it.
This taking, for the most part, was unintentional. I don't think that inventors in the Industrial Revolution wanted to harm our Earth. Yes, we have seperated ourselves from nature, for better or for worse. And that's the key. Is our serperation a good or a bad thing? Is taking something from Earth detrimental or is it good?

Jae Onasi
07-27-2007, 10:35 AM
As that founder of the movement posted, it was indeed nothing more than an idle comment (calling for a virus that would render the human race infertile, NOT causing massive Black-Plague painful deaths), really meaning nothing.

When you found a movement that advocates the extinction of the human race, no comment you say 'really means nothing' or is just 'idle'.

mimartin
07-27-2007, 11:20 AM
Seems to me that they obviously don't want a virus to wipe out humans.

I believe we are taking semantics here. They wouldnít mind a virus that would render the population sterile, a virus that would slowly wipe out the human species. The end of humanity would be the same if it happened in three days or over one life time. So I really donít see the difference. My question is couldnít the same virus effect other mammals?

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement obviously is not going to work. It goes against our very nature. So once these ďvolunteersĒ realize this, will they resort to other measures? Will they actively seek out way to create a virus to meet their goals? After all they are already thinking about a virus even if it is just idle thoughts.

If vhemt is now and will remain strictly voluntary, then I do whole heartedly support them in their endeavor. The end of their family line will mean more resources and more room as my family line continues.

SilentScope001
07-27-2007, 11:43 AM
When you found a movement that advocates the extinction of the human race, no comment you say 'really means nothing' or is just 'idle'.

These people do have a sense of humor though. Maybe it's not funny to those who don't exactly like the movement, but it's still there. Mostly preaching to the choir humor though.

mimartin: The reason they want the human race to be voluntarly extinct is that so it would be the ultimate showcasing of our intelligence of us as a species, especially in knowing our limits, our problems, and how we are willing to give up living in order to save something far greater. Sounds a bit romantic sentiment, and I do believe they want to keep it that way. I don't think they will want to engage in causing an involuntary exinction.

I'm also sure the volunteers realize the cause is a bit, well, hard, but prehaps they are aiming high to accomplish a more realistic goal. By drawing attention to extiniction, they also draw attention to population control and stopping reproduction. If they can accomplish that, by lowering the population down to the carrying capacity of the Earth, then I suppose that VHMENT would be happy as well. That goal however seems hard as well, because even in developed countries, one human does consume lots of resources, more resources than an equilvinat human in the third-world country...and in the end, the human race is the natural predetors of society. Unless a new predator comes in wanting to eat us, then it seems as though it will be impossible to truly curtail our growth as we'll keep growing and growing until, well, there may be no more plants or animals for us to eat...or resources to use. Of course, by then, we would be able to fly off...and repeat the same process?

The main question however remains: Is our growth a good thing or a bad thing? That can only be answered by personal opinon.

mimartin
07-27-2007, 12:15 PM
showcasing of our intelligence of us as a species

Then that is the first flaw in their argument, depending on the human species to be intelligent means their cause is surely loss.

The main question however remains: Is our growth a good thing or a bad thing?

As I wrote earlier, I feel that overpopulation is indeed a bad thing. Iím all for voluntary population control just not to the point VHMENT is advocating. Iím all for protecting the environment and other species, but I believe this should be done for the future of the human race. I actually agree with these people that perhaps the human race is blight on this planet, but like ďIf a tree falls down in the woods does it make a noise?Ē Who cares if there is no one there to hear it, same goes if the planet is better off without us, if their no one there to appreciate it who cares?

ET Warrior
07-27-2007, 12:24 PM
When you found a movement that advocates the extinction of the human race, no comment you say 'really means nothing' or is just 'idle'.Same as when you are part of a group that believes everyone not in your group will burn in hellfire for eternity?

Kidding aside, why can't they have idle comments? Their life philosophy is such that everything they say must be taken completely serious?

Honestly, the word 'VOLUNTARY' is in the name of the movement. If we have to be so concerned with what they might eventually do about it then we should also start being genuinely concerned about those Christians wishing for the rapture.

Achilles
07-27-2007, 12:46 PM
Honestly, the word 'VOLUNTARY' is in the name of the movement. If we have to be so concerned with what they might eventually do about it then we should also start being genuinely concerned about those Christians wishing for the rapture. And there it is.

mimartin
07-27-2007, 01:26 PM
If we have to be so concerned with what they might eventually do about it then we should also start being genuinely concerned about those Christians wishing for the rapture.
And there it is.

I don't get it? Are you both saying that we should not be concern over someone advocating the extinction of the human race and someone that already has the means defined hypothetically on their website. Yet you say we should be worried about some Christians that are wishing for the rapture to take place. Something that they have no means to control or instigate and something that neither of you believe in. Did I get this wrong?

Achilles
07-27-2007, 02:04 PM
I can't speak for ET, but I'd say you got most of it.

The distinction is voluntary vs. involuntary. If some group thinks that we should voluntarily, on an individual basis, make the conscious decision not to reproduce, I say "great". If some group thinks that our involuntary destruction will be the single greatest thing ever, I think it's cause for concern.

Keep in mind that something like 44% of americans think that it's either definite or very likely that this thing will occur in the next 50 years. Then ask yourself how such people view global issues such as climate change, pollution, human trafficking, war, famine, etc, etc. Do you think they are giving these issues proper attention? Or do you think these people might have adopted the "all part of god's divine plan/jesus will be here soon to fix it all up" strategy? Considering their radical religious views in this area, how do you think that translates towards other religious topics such as their tolerance of atheists, homosexuals, unmarried couples, and so on?

I think it's pretty obvious which group I consider to be the real threat :)

PS: Whether or not I believe in the rapture is completely irrelevant. If someone was pointing a gun at your head because he believed voices had told him to kill you, does it matter much that you don't hear them also?

Allronix
07-27-2007, 02:52 PM
And folks, you're getting so caught up in ONE LINE that you aren't seeing the rest. The whole motto is:

"May we live long and die out."

No one says anything about releasing a virus. No one says anything about making a virus. No one says a damn thing about forcing people not to reproduce. VOLUNTARY is the word here. We have more to fear from religious nuts and nuclear bombs than we ever will from these folks.

The idea of extinction is extreme, and even they'll acknowledge that it's a foregone conclusion. Still, the idea of being more mindful about our reproduction is not a bad thing.

Achilles
07-27-2007, 03:40 PM
They seem to be pretty emphatic that the message should not be mis-interpretted as a mass-suicide. I think that message was lost somewhere in the first 10 posts.

mimartin
07-27-2007, 07:04 PM
Keep in mind that something like 44% of americans think that it's either definite or very likely that this thing will occur in the next 50 years. Then ask yourself how such people view global issues such as climate change, pollution, human trafficking, war, famine, etc, etc. Do you think they are giving these issues proper attention? Or do you think these people might have adopted the "all part of god's divine plan/jesus will be here soon to fix it all up" strategy? Considering their radical religious views in this area, how do you think that translates towards other religious topics such as their tolerance of atheists, homosexuals, unmarried couples, and so on?

No, I think it pretty obvious I did not get what you were speaking to. If I did I would have kept my big mouth shut because I agree. I was actually thinking about Rapture and not how people might react if they thought it was about to happen. I know how Iíd hope people would react in a matter the complete opposite of what you described, but that is not human nature. Good point and I stand corrected.

PS: Whether or not I believe in the rapture is completely irrelevant. If someone was pointing a gun at your head because he believed voices had told him to kill you, does it matter much that you don't hear them also?

Again I was thinking about Rapture itself and not the side effect of people believing they know the time it is going to happen. As a Christian I assure you I have no clue when it will happen and Iím also not wishing for it. I would not even be arrogant enough to speculate on the date and time of Rapture, as it is none of my business. I just could not see why it would worry you and ET, but I did not perceive the side effects of people thinking it was about to happen. As I wrote above again, I stand corrected.

Still, the idea of being more mindful about our reproduction is not a bad thing.
Agreed, it is a very good thing.

Nancy Allen``
07-27-2007, 07:14 PM
The thing is these people are advocating killing off the human race. They said they want a virus that would effectively do so. If people attack theists because of things said in their religion then here we have a group pushing for something real, as opposed to something that may be fiction.

Achilles
07-27-2007, 07:39 PM
The thing is these people are advocating killing off the human race. They are not advocating this at all. They are advocating a voluntary suspension of reproduction.

By their own arguments, increasing the death rate would not achieve the desired goal, as new humans would be introduced via a steady birth rate.

They said they want a virus that would effectively do so. I think it might be worth your time to go back and re-read their page. I think you might be confused, specifically on that point.

Here is the link for those that want read what the authors actually said about viral epidemics: http://www.vhemt.org/death.htm#mortality

If people attack theists because of things said in their religion then here we have a group pushing for something real, as opposed to something that may be fiction. They are not advocating that anyone kill anyone else. In fact they specifically point out that killing people in immoral (unlike the bible and the quran).

The fact is that theists have killed for their religion, whereas I am not aware of any evidence that would lead me to suspect that any of this groups' members are guilty of murder (not that an individual action would mean anything anyways).

No, I think it pretty obvious I did not get what you were speaking to. Fair enough. Since I incorrectly assumed (which I should not have done) that those points would have been self-evident, I apologize if opened a flood gate with my response. :)

I do you see your point though that atheist fear of theists might seem a little irrational until you put things into that context. Considering that it is likely that the aforementioned 44% make up a majority of the voting public in the US and that the US is the only superpower, I hope you can understand why some atheists are in crisis mode. ;)

Thanks for reading.

SilentScope001
07-27-2007, 07:46 PM
Egad! Let me explain! I'll grab the quote where he actually makes the Idle comment. It's really idle but interesting, nothing more! Sheesh.

From the Agreement section, a guy named Mike wrote (his words are in Red):

>Up to now, only my poor, beleaguered wife has listened to me fulminate against the human race and call for a new incurable plague rendering us all infertile (actually, I inflict the same rants on the family at holiday dinners -- cheers, everyone!).<

Yeah, I quit doing that when everyone began rolling their eyes and sighing loudly as if to say, "Here we go again." They stop listening after a while -- after a very short time, actually. Maybe half a sentence if it sounds like something they don't agree with. They begin looking for a trash can in their minds: "Let's see, is it the misanthrope trash? Maybe the baby-hater trash can. Yeah. Did anyone watch Seinfeld last night?"

I agree that the best thing that could happen to Earth would be for all Homo sapiens sperm to lose viability forever. Sure, sperm counts are down world wide, but that hasn't slowed our growth much if at all. I wouldn't credit it with the drop from 90+ million per year to the estimated 80 million present growth. People are saying the population explosion is over because of this little dip. As one population activist commented, just because the tidal wave is 80 feet high instead of 90 is not cause for celebration.

Unless some space alien joins forces with us, that global infertility dream is going to remain a dream. We have to take other steps. I've chosen awareness. I like to believe I've prevented a few humans from being conceived -- gives me a warm feeling.

Nancy Allen``
07-27-2007, 07:48 PM
They said they want a virus that would wipe out the human race. They can't unsay it.

Atheists have also killed because religion is something they cannot understand or tolerate.

Achilles
07-27-2007, 07:50 PM
They said they want a virus that would wipe out the human race. They can't unsay it. Quote please.

Atheists have also killed because religion is something they cannot understand or tolerate. Legitimate source please.

Nancy Allen``
07-27-2007, 07:55 PM
It's been done.

Stalin and Mao were Atheists and killed those who followed religion. Twist it about anyway you like but the fact remains they kill theists.

Achilles
07-27-2007, 08:00 PM
It's been done. Which post are you referencing?

Stalin and Mao were Atheists and killed those who followed religion. Twist it about anyway you like but the fact remains they kill theists. That argument has been shown to be invalid more than once. Please provide a legitimate source to support your claim, show that your argument is not a strawman, or withdraw your comment. Thanks in advance.

SilentScope001
07-27-2007, 08:03 PM
Nancy Allen''', I provided the quote where he actually mentioned it, and Les personally said that it was idle in this very thread.

Achilles, can you please get back on topic? I do not want this thread to be derailed. The Rapture can't be caused by anyone anyway, it's supposed to be done by God whenever he so desires, and it's not even confirmed in the Bible anyhow.

Nancy Allen``
07-27-2007, 08:07 PM
Up to now, only my poor, beleaguered wife has listened to me fulminate against the human race and call for a new incurable plague rendering us all infertile (actually, I inflict the same rants on the family at holiday dinners -- cheers, everyone!).<

Yeah, I quit doing that when everyone began rolling their eyes and sighing loudly as if to say, "Here we go again." They stop listening after a while -- after a very short time, actually. Maybe half a sentence if it sounds like something they don't agree with. They begin looking for a trash can in their minds: "Let's see, is it the misanthrope trash? Maybe the baby-hater trash can. Yeah. Did anyone watch Seinfeld last night?"

I agree that the best thing that could happen to Earth would be for all Homo sapiens sperm to lose viability forever. Sure, sperm counts are down world wide, but that hasn't slowed our growth much if at all. I wouldn't credit it with the drop from 90+ million per year to the estimated 80 million present growth. People are saying the population explosion is over because of this little dip. As one population activist commented, just because the tidal wave is 80 feet high instead of 90 is not cause for celebration.

Unless some space alien joins forces with us, that global infertility dream is going to remain a dream. We have to take other steps. I've chosen awareness. I like to believe I've prevented a few humans from being conceived -- gives me a warm feeling.

Now are you going to sit there and claim that there is no such statement?

Stalin killed theists, he killed them because they followed religion. You can claim it being a strawman all you like, if you are going to claim that religion is evil because theists kill then you must also accept that intolerance to religion does the same thing.

Achilles
07-27-2007, 09:28 PM
Now are you going to sit there and claim that there is no such statement? Yes, I am going to sit here an accurately state that nowhere in the organization's online charter do they make any such statement. I will acknowledge that one guy made an aside on the comments page. Is that your case?

Stalin killed theists, he killed them because they followed religion. You can claim it being a strawman all you like, if you are going to claim that religion is evil because theists kill then you must also accept that intolerance to religion does the same thing. I'll assume at this point that you aren't interested in defending your point and have opted to repeat yourself rather than withdraw your statement.

Allronix
07-27-2007, 10:49 PM
Admitting a dark fantasy and actually being serious about it are two different things, Ms. Allen. If everyone who envisioned the end of the humanity was taken that seriously, we'd be tossing Stephen King and Alan Alan Weisman in jail.

And Achilles has a point. We have seen the Stalin and Mao argument. It's becoming a sad variant on Godwin's Law. It wasn't just the religious those killed - it was anyone threatening their stranglehold on power, much like Roman emperors and medieval kings did in their era. Religious heretics and political opponents are always the best targets for tyrants, no matter what flag they want to fly.

Totenkopf
07-28-2007, 01:09 AM
Far as I'm concerned, if people in the VHEM want to phase their gene line out of the human race.... have at it. I'd only ask that Zero Population advocates, as well as the members of ALF/ELF/Earth First all join in with them. I'm sure there are many other groups that could join in too. Let them all be bold and lead by example. If worse comes to worse, at least they won't be forced to feel bad if the world really does go kablooey after they "leave". :D So long as they don't cross the line from suicide into homicide.......no big deal.

ET Warrior
07-28-2007, 04:06 AM
So long as they don't cross the line from suicide into homicide.......no big deal.
They're not even advocating suicide/ The absolute only thing that the group is doing is not having any more babies. That's it. No murder, no suicide, no forced sterilization of the populace. Just a voluntary choice to stop procreating.

Totenkopf
07-28-2007, 10:10 AM
That's merely a form of genetic suicide, ET. My point is that anyone who wants to leave the earth "cleansed" of humanity is welcome to do so as long as they restrict their efforts to themselves. And, since they don't seem to be advocating anything beyond themselves......I'm not getting exorcised over it. ;)

Web Rider
07-28-2007, 12:50 PM
That's merely a form of genetic suicide, ET. My point is that anyone who wants to leave the earth "cleansed" of humanity is welcome to do so as long as they restrict their efforts to themselves. And, since they don't seem to be advocating anything beyond themselves......I'm not getting exorcised over it. ;)

not really, suicide is the purposeful destruction of a currently living, not about to die naturally thing.

I think extinction is still be most accruate term, because they're letting themslves die out, they're not outright killing themselves or anyone else.

i_shot_the_jedi
07-28-2007, 01:27 PM
Before I dismiss this as lunatic ravings, I'm pondering just how serious this group is trying to be: they seem to accept that their cause is hopeless and present a friendly, humorous attitude; yet they do seem to be pressing their points pretty hard (the pictures being the spoonful of sugar perhaps).

I'll step back from the monster-raving-loony assessment of their character for a second and try to analyse this with a balanced mind.

Let's address their apparent aim: the total extinction of mankind. I'd like to suggest - though it's likely that I'm overstimating their intelligence or just reaching for a position of sanity - that this "human extinction" position is simply a striking absurdist attempt to gain attention and generate discussion; the actual objective being human selflessness and respect for all life achieved through making us think heavily on the matter of Earth minus humanity. For all you Star Wars fans, you may recall a likeminded old coot stating (I can't find the exact quote) "a good teacher doesn't mash a book in his student's face shouting 'Learn this bit here!'".

Then again, I could be pursuing sense and reason when there is none. If their aim is indeed to destroy mankind, then I guess I would agree that this is a sad case of entirely losing faith in humanity for the 'greater good' of all life.

Totenkopf
07-28-2007, 04:03 PM
not really, suicide is the purposeful destruction of a currently living, not about to die naturally thing.

I think extinction is still be most accruate term, because they're letting themslves die out, they're not outright killing themselves or anyone else.


That's why I wrote "a form of genetic" versus physical. If you purposefully keep your own genetic material out of the common gene pool, you've in essence commited a form of genetic suicide. Thus, you've purposefully destroyed your genetic line. If you guide your own "extinction", you've effectively commited suicide (and are just waiting around to die physically).

Jae Onasi
07-28-2007, 10:07 PM
Nancy Allen''', I provided the quote where he actually mentioned it, and Les personally said that it was idle in this very thread.

Achilles, can you please get back on topic? I do not want this thread to be derailed. The Rapture can't be caused by anyone anyway, it's supposed to be done by God whenever he so desires, and it's not even confirmed in the Bible anyhow.

Bingo--time to get back on topic. I pruned the off-topic posts. For everyone, not just Nancy and Achilles, keep the religion discussion in the religion threads, please. Thanks. :)