Want to Help the Planet? Just Die!

[Guard Dog]

 

ABOUT THE MOVEMENT

Q: What is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth's ecology.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It's going to take all of us going.

 

Link:http://www.vhemt.org/

 

I would like to announce my unqualified support for this fine organization and the fruits who believe in it. People who believe this stuff should not breed!

 

BTW, they are accepting new members should any of you wish to sign up!

Edited May 15, 2008 by Guard Dog

[SteveThaiBinh]

Humans are indeed a deadly virus and the Earth must be cured. I congratulate these people on their purchase of the Matrix DVD box set, though I can't imagine where they got the money from.

ABOUT THE MOVEMENT

We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits...

How typical. Once again, we misanthropic anti-social Malthusian misfits are excluded. Thank Darwin for the internet, our place of solace.

VHEMT (pronounced vehement)

Not really.

[Guard Dog]

You just gotta laugh at this stuff!

[Musopticon?]

Bah, they don't stand a chance against the the World Immolation Cabal!

 

Uhh, once we get the gas ships going, I mean...

Edited May 15, 2008 by Musopticon?

[Pidesco]

What these morons have trouble understanding, is that life on Earth can take humanity on and survive. The point of not hurting the environment isn't to save it, but rather to save ourselves.

[Walsingham]

What these morons have trouble understanding, is that life on Earth can take humanity on and survive. The point of not hurting the environment isn't to save it, but rather to save ourselves.

 

Hear hear!

 

I say these fools should lead by example. Make themselves extinct.

[samm]

Ehm, yes Walsingham, that's what the movement is about I think it's funny, and also: true

[Sand]

Well, going off and hoping an extinction of a species is wrong, we are seriously overpopulated. We need to find a way to cut our numbers down and the best way of doing that would be aborting unwanted children, widespread use of birth control, and the like. There is always news about food and water shortages, fuel shortages, and whatnot. If we had a more managable population we wouldn't have shortages.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

So do these guys support school shootings?

 

:|

[Gorth]

I think there is a subtle but important difference between suggesting violence and killing, and then suggesting not breeding

[Laozi]

I think there is a subtle but important difference between suggesting violence and killing, and then suggesting not breeding

 

 

 

We should test that theory. First we'll kill walkerguy. Then, well.... Lets get that done before we spend too much time worrying about phase II.

[Volourn]

I like how how they claim not be anti human yet go on to basiclaly say all specis should be saved from extinction but us. LMAO I'd be angry at them; but it's hard to be really angry at the obvious insane. R00fles!

[Gorth]

I like how how they claim not be anti human yet go on to basiclaly say all specis should be saved from extinction but us. LMAO I'd be angry at them; but it's hard to be really angry at the obvious insane. R00fles!

Say, how many kids do you have Volourn?...

 

Or are you one of those who contributes to the extinction of the human race

[Kor Qel Droma]

I think there is a subtle but important difference between suggesting violence and killing, and then suggesting not breeding

 

 

 

We should test that theory. First we'll kill walkerguy. Then, well.... Lets get that done before we spend too much time worrying about phase II.

 

Is phase III profit? I never found out about phase II.

[Gorgon]

the poor and the stupid have more babies than the rich and the smart, statistically. I don't see much hope for this approach. We need all the geek children we are going to get, who else is going to design the fission reactors.

 

Anyway I tire of this mother earth crap where the bad bad humans are always separate from nature rather than what seems most logical -, the most successful players in it.

[Humodour]

Sorry, what's so wrong here? These people are offering a partial solution to helping the environment which hinders us and them the least, yet so many of you are blowing your tops about it? If you ask me it is not they who are the "retards".

[random n00b]

This is the kind of satire organization I would set up if I had lots of free time... and actually gave a ****.

 

10/10

[LadyCrimson]

I keep thinking that whole website/group has got to be a long-running joke/hoax for chuckles/fame by some really bored people, but a quick Google makes me think they're actually serious.

 

I mean, I agree overpopulation is a problem for many reasons, and that education about it being a problem is good, and that a very drastic reduction over the next 200 years would be pretty cool...but this "movement" is just silly.

[Humodour]

Satire hey?

 

The funny thing is, the more developed and educated people get, the less they breed. You may not be aware of it, but by 2042, Europe's population will decrease by 10%. The West in general is experiencing a steady population growth decrease, and that extends to Asia (including China and India).

 

Meanwhile, places like China have used lesser forms of this movement to try and improve living conditions and resource availability (by decreasing population growth) - see one child policy.

 

This is an extremist group, certainly, but like many extremes, it has much merit in moderation. 0% population growth and decay should be the eventual aim of any civilised and developed society (replacement, not addition). While I do not support VHEMT in full (and myself plan to have 2 kids), they offer a good method of rapidly curtailing population growth as a means to achieve zero growth.

 

I personally believe that effort should instead be focused on dealing with the aging population produced by population decrease (which I see as inevitable).

 

It is also worth noting this group is opposed to terrorism and force; it does not support violence or suicide.

 

Asia (inc. India and China) will stabilise at around 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period.

Europe will fall below its population of 1950 by 2150.

Japan will fall to its 1970's level population by 2050.

Australia and Oceania will continue to increase at a modest growth rate, doubling in size by 2100

Latin America will experience just slightly above 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period.

Northern America (Canada and the USA) will stabilise at 0% growth for the 2050 to 2150 period.

Africa and the Middle East will continue to increase rapidly, albeit at a slower rate for the 2050 to 2150 period

 

Overall, it looks like Earth's population will peak at the 10 billion mark for the 2050-2150 period.

2050 world population: 9 billion.

2150 world population: 9.8 billion.

 

More information on demographic transition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

[Rosbjerg]

These figures are bases on what? current death rates vs development of birthrates over the last decade.

 

In the 70's they were afraid of a massive famine, if the current birthrates vs deathrates continued. But development in farming (pesticides) enabled us to grow mass amounts of food.. problem solved, for a while..

 

What if we find a cure for cancer within 10 years? or if a multi resistent bacteria strain, immune to penicillin etc, cause an pandemic?

 

There are alot of factors which we can't predict - especially when you are taking about developments well into the 22nd millenia.

 

But in all fariness, we need these predictions to get a rough estimates on where we are headed.

[Gorth]

But, those selfish people eat all our bio fuel, how are we going to get to work if this keeps up

 

I would hate to see humanity running in the same consequences as any other species suffers when they experience overpopulation: Starvation, infighting, cannibalism... all kinds of unpleasant stuff.

[random n00b]

Satire hey?

Yes, satire. I simply cannot help but guffaw when presented with a "movement" that identifies itself as "vehement" and whose stated goal is "voluntary human extinction". I'm also hard pressed to believe that is not their intended effect (laughs, not extinction).

 

It seems far more plausible to me that this is an effort by anti-environmentalists seeking to discredit their opponents in a tongue-in-cheek manner, than actual environmental activists.

 

But what do I know, there are plenty of nutcases after all.

 

 

The funny thing is, the more developed and educated people get, the less they breed.

I don't know what exactly you're trying to get at with this, nor how is it exactly relevant to voluntary human extinction. Are you saying that educated people will agree that the smart thing to do as a species is to stop breeding? What?

 

 

places like China have used lesser forms of this movement to try and improve living conditions and resource availability (by decreasing population growth) - see one child policy.

One child policy is deprecated enough that I'm not going to bother discussing it. And, at any rate, totalitarian practices aren't considered to be of much use when trying to support one's position, more like the opposite.

 

 

You may not be aware of it, but by 2042, Europe's population will decrease by 10%. The West in general is experiencing a steady population growth decrease, and that extends to Asia (including China and India).[...]

 

Asia (inc. India and China) will stabilise at around 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period.

Europe will fall below its population of 1950 by 2150.

Japan will fall to its 1970's level population by 2050.

Australia and Oceania will continue to increase at a modest growth rate, doubling in size by 2100

Latin America will experience just slightly above 0% growth rate for the 2050 to 2150 period.

Northern America (Canada and the USA) will stabilise at 0% growth for the 2050 to 2150 period.

Africa and the Middle East will continue to increase rapidly, albeit at a slower rate for the 2050 to 2150 period

 

Overall, it looks like Earth's population will peak at the 10 billion mark for the 2050-2150 period.

2050 world population: 9 billion.

2150 world population: 9.8 billion.

 

More information on demographic transition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

That is a prediction model, and as with all models, it should not be taken as gospel. The more complex a system is and the further in time a prediction is made, the less reliable said prediction becomes. In this case, the farthest reaching predictions are of 200 years (it's a 40's theory), while disregarding important factors such as migratory movements, and changes in societal roles, which interestingly, ties in with your original statement of the tendencies of educated populations.

[Nick_i_am]

I predict that i'll pick my nose in 10 seconds.

 

EDIT: salty!

Edited May 16, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Humodour]

n00b: I make no claim those figures and projections are exact. But they are less hypothetical than you might think, as they do in fact consider immigration levels, and are typically based on high/low/middle projections which examine extremities.

 

Regardless of the ethical acceptability of China's communist government policies, the one child policy certainly served its purpose of lowering TFR and alleviating resource pressure. The politics of it are irrelevant; it is simply an example of the fact that such an idea has pragmatic use. Moreover, as a voluntary movement, VHEMT is capable of producing the same result whilst circumventing such ethics arguments.

 

And yes, I am saying that the smart thing to do is to lower breeding rates: to have 0% growth. That means we still breed, but we do so to replace, not to increase. This VHEMT movement is an extreme (satire or not), but it represents some useful ideas and information, whilst simultaneously helping to speed up the rate of decrease of population growth rate.

 

Finally, obviously such a movement would be ridiculous in a world where population growth rate were negative. Until then, it holds high real-world merit.

 

It might be worth reading the site's FAQ fully, as well, as they seem like anything but crackpots - simply people who've decided not to have kids. I doubt anybody who really wants kids will be persuaded by this site, nor does it the site's intention to do so. If anything, the site seems first and foremost in support of informed and planned parenting, regardless of the eventual decision for or against kids.

 

As for your dismissal (I think?) of demographic transitioning - sounds similar to dismissals of evolution "oh it's just a theory", regardless of high explanatory power and closeness of fit. It's a big picture theory, so wars, outbreaks, and revolutions cause perturbations only locally, being unlikely to change the overall end result (but making timeframe less certain).

 

Rosjberg: they are typically based on maximum, minimum and likely (middle) projections. They are formulated from data on population growth rate, rate of population growth rate, immigration levels, immigration growth rate, total fertility rate, birth rate, death rate, and related data. As you can see, it's not a simple linear projection - the use of the 1st and 2nd derivatives here is very important.

[random n00b]

n00b: I make no claim those figures and projections are exact. But they are less hypothetical than you might think, as they do in fact consider immigration levels, and are typically based on high/low/middle projections which examine extremities.

No, they don't consider migratory movements, as the causes behind those are too unpredictable to make the factor a constant. What the theory does in retrospective is a different matter.

 

 

Regardless of the ethical acceptability of China's communist government policies, the one child policy certainly served its purpose of lowering TFR and alleviating resource pressure. The politics of it are irrelevant; it is simply an example of the fact that such an idea has pragmatic use. Moreover, as a voluntary movement, VHEMT is capable of producing the same result whilst circumventing such ethics arguments.

No. Germany circumventing the Versailles Treaty served the purpose of turning post-WWI Germany into a solidly industrialized country. But that didn't end too well. That's usually the problem with "the ends justify the means" politics, they tend to get exploited quite a bit.

 

And no, VHEMT can't produce the same results as China's one child policy precisely because it lacks any means to enforce their ideas. Just read the reactions in this thread. Most people will at least scoff at the idea of not having children as a means to attain some goal species-wide. Unenforceability, in this case, means unfeasibility.

 

 

And yes, I am saying that the smart thing to do is to lower breeding rates: to have 0% growth. That means we still breed, but we do so to replace, not to increase.

Smart thing, according to whom, and with what purpose? No species survives by not expanding. And the purpose of the human race is to survive, not to preserve some idea of natural balance or some equally arbitrary new-age ideal.

 

 

As for your dismissal (I think?) of demographic transitioning - sounds similar to dismissals of evolution "oh it's just a theory", regardless of high explanatory power and closeness of fit. It's a big picture theory, so wars, outbreaks, and revolutions cause perturbations only locally, being unlikely to change the overall end result (but making timeframe less certain).

The mistake you are making is equating the theory itself with the models derived from it, and the predictions said models yield. I don't dispute the worth of the evolutionary system, but will take any predictions based on evolution, that in X years people will have wireless interfaces instead of ears, with a grain of salt.

 

That's the practical difference between theory and law.

Edited May 16, 2008 by random n00b