#23241 - 04/12/09 02:11 PM
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
|
Nemesis
senior member
Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
|
Shortened to VHEMT , I was trolling the PETA forums and someone posted this as a jibe to the vegans against owning pets....a lot of threads dedicated to this, which elicited some laughs.
Reading through the VHEMT's website, naturally I wondered, "Are these idiots serious?" The answer is yes, yes they are.
From their "About the Movement" page:
The Movement may be considered a success each time one more of us volunteers to breed no more.
These hippies would have humanity phase itself out voluntarily, thereby rendering useless the great works and achievements our race has made. Sure, the Earth could do with a billion or so less of us on it, I fully agree with that. But the people that are running and volunteering for this "movement" are ones who were never planning on having kids anyway, are already too old, or are too young and are caught up in the ideology of it (much like PETAns).
However, I think a more practical solution to the overpopulation and destruction of the environment is not by discontinuing breeding altogether, but keeping the ratio of 2:1 for the next century. One set of parents, one child. Divorces don't figure into the equation, because the kid doesn't go away when the papers are signed. Very similar to China's birth control program. Offenders would be fined and possibly jailed for having more than one kid, and the second child would be adopted out to a childless couple. If the first child dies, then the parents can have another if they're able. Sounds draconian, I know, but is a much better alternative to VHEMT's plan.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23243 - 04/12/09 02:49 PM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: Nemesis]
|
Succubus666
member
Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 161
|
That’s the most ridiculous concept I’ve heard anyone come up with in a long time. These people are hippies to the point that they believe the earth is more important that human life. They’re telling people that we should die off in order to save the planet.
I’m all for stupid people volunteering not to breed, and having to be tested to get a license in order to have children. Unfortunately that’s still too politically incorrect a concept, so the earth will probably be destroyed by pollution and overpopulation before it becomes socially acceptable. In the end we are all just spectators. Who is really doing anything to ward off the insanity and get new laws passed?
I’ve volunteered not to breed, and it might just be because I have no maternal instincts and breeding unless you have a genius level of intelligence seems unnatural to me. I think the ones with the most to contribute to our race – intellectually, artistically – should continue to breed, the welfare cases should get jobs (as the economy allows) and there should be some movement to combat this need that poor people have to give birth to as many children as possible. They’re obviously trying to fill some sort of void in their own lives and infesting the earth with people of below average intelligence.
I can’t imagine spending a lifetime on welfare and doing nothing but having babies. What kind of a life is that, and who is it fair to? Even if I did want to have children, I would make sure that I was stable, had my own house, a steady job and enough money to not only take care of a child but put him or her through university. Breeding on welfare leaves children at the mercy of handouts from others and a gives them a one-way ticket to a poverty stricken childhood. It makes me angry just thinking about it, and unfortunately it’s completely legal.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23248 - 04/12/09 03:13 PM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: Jake999]
|
Nemesis
senior member
Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
|
D--
Naturally I'd have the "lesser" of humanity offed. Quality over quantity indeed.
Tala--
I have no maternal instincts either, at least when it comes to human children. Animals I can get along great with, but the very idea of carrying around another human, going through that physical and mental stress, then having to be responsible for it for the rest of my life? Uh uh. I'll pass on that one!
The main problem is that smart people tend NOT to breed. How many people here have kids? Not too many. If they do, they have one or two, tops. The best solution I see to this is keep the inferior bulk of the populace as surrogate parents, to have the fertilized egg of two healthy, intelligent people implanted in the woman. True, the kid would most likely grow up in poverty or a bad environment, but at least it'd be better than having them ourselves and having to go through all of that, lol.
Jake--
I've heard of the ZPG movement, and had forgotten to bring it up in my initial post. I could definitely see myself as an advocate of that kind of birth management plan, because eventually it's not going to be voluntary, it's going to be necessary in order for our species to survive.
Judge--
Yes, I'm aware of the problem China's having right now with so few females kept alive as the single child in the family. It's become quite the common occurrence for young women to be abducted and taken into the country to serve as either sex slaves or breeders, to fulfill the unfulfilled needs of the men that were, due to a cultural preference, screwed over. There would have to be a census taken every 5 years or so, to determine if the genders of babies were swinging towards either extreme.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23253 - 04/12/09 03:53 PM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: Nemesis]
|
Jake999
senior member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
|
Reminds me of the branch of Pilgrims (can't seem to find which ones) who preached lifelong abstinence, so much so that their religion died out due to lack of worshippers  .
Probably the Shakers. They were against natural procreation, but gained their membership by bringing in foundlings and other children taken in from orphanages to fill their memberships. There were laws passed in the late 1800s and early 1900s that stopped allowing religious organizations to cull children from orphanages, and their number began to drop rapidly.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23317 - 04/14/09 11:32 AM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: ChemicalSoiree]
|
6Satan6Archist6
stalker
Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
|
I think voluntary extinction is pretty fucking stupid. Yes human beings are a parasite, we are destroying the earth and all that other stereotypical hippy-bullshit. The thing is that, well, I think it is kind of our right to mess things up if we want.
After all, we are the dominant species on this planet and if our actions continue to go unchecked, then we will have to deal with the consequences. People either learn from their mistakes, or they do not. The earth will eventually be destroyed anyways; so why make a big fuss about it?
If people want to off themselves because they feel like the world will be better off, more power to them, they are probably right anyways. They just better not expect me to follow suit. I prefer to stay alive, burn plastic, drive around in the summer time with windows down and the AC blasting while hurling toxic waste into the ocean. Earth first, we'll fuck up the other planets later.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23319 - 04/14/09 12:27 PM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
|
JudgeFudge
stranger
Registered: 03/26/09
Posts: 19
Loc: Hills of Appalachia.
|
There would have to be a census taken every 5 years or so, to determine if the genders of babies were swinging towards either extreme.
Even still it seems problematic and hard to enforce unless you further expand the size and power of the state and it's jackals.
However, I am equally appalled at the current system of rewarding rampant breeding financially through welfare and child tax credits.
Agreed.
I think humanity’s impact on the world is largely exaggerated. Granted we have caused SOME harm (global warming and like theories are hoaxes based upon outdated data though) but not as much as some people claim and certainly not enough to were the voluntary phasing out of the species would be a “good idea.”
In my opinion the survival and continuation of our species triumphs all and while we certainly need to reform and change our behavior in some areas, all of what I see on their site is exaggerations and a much to do about nothing.
Good thing it’s just flash in the pan, .net “movement.”
Edited by JudgeFudge (04/14/09 12:27 PM)
_________________________
"Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves?"-Diogenes of Sinope.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23322 - 04/14/09 02:53 PM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: Nemesis]
|
The Zebu
senior member
Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1647
Loc: Orlando, FL
|
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.
One in a HUNDRED? More like one in infinity. The chance is so cosmically minuscule as to be impossible. You might as well be asking humans not to breathe. If they somehow think that they can "enlighten" every human being on the planet and convince them not to reproduce, they're seriously deluded. There will always be dissenters popping out as many babies as they please.
The only way the human race could go extinct is by force- ie, a plague, global catastrophe, nuclear holocaust, extreme climate change, the sun blowing up, etc. I see that as being very possible, and I don't mind. The idea of an earth without humans is a nice thing to look forward to considering how ugly and messy modern civilization can be. But expecting humans to just kill themselves off is laughable.
It goes against the core of human biological existence- to breed and multiply. Even if these guys had "the right idea", they have resigned themselves to the realm of crackpottery in expecting people to off themselves voluntarily. This isn't some ideological war, or some "we shall overcome" struggle achievable sometime in the future. This is the most unrealistic, wild pipedream I've ever seen produced by a human mind.
_________________________
«Recibe, ¡oh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23340 - 04/14/09 11:54 PM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: Nemesis]
|
OG MUPPET
stranger
Registered: 03/18/09
Posts: 17
Loc: st/louis Mo.
|
LMAO Earth 4.5 billion years old; "Man" 50,000 years old. We just got here!
This planet (&/or all life on it) is doomed, the core is going to lock up, all the atmosphere is going bye bye. Our moon is moving away at 1 inch a year(no more 23 & 1/3). Our star is middle aged and its not just going to burn out.(life will only "out live" Earth, if we take it with us.)
PETA seems to think man is second chair to all other life, instead of realizing "man is just another animal" and we have a place here to.
pop. control.
I'm a big adbocate of this, not out of spite, but fear. If the max carrying capacity of Earth is X, in good times. And Y is the MCC in shit times. X + Y will always = less then Y. So "Y" not just keep at a number that is easy to feed and water.
methods. One offspring per-person is a good start, but it will one day have to go a step farther as life expediency rise. You maybe required to be "of age" to avoid five generations existing at one time.
I had twin girls at 22, so fuckem & Hail Satan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#23375 - 04/16/09 02:21 PM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: OG MUPPET]
|
ceruleansteel
active member
Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
|
There are pros and cons to everything that has been suggested.
Successfully limiting offspring to one child per couple has a cost attached that I don't even know how to begin to calculate. Consider your proposed census. That's not freakin' cheap at all. And the cost of jailing offenders, relocating second children, culling genders that are too plentiful...it would consume more economic resources than it would save if you truly care about striking a balance.
Fostering second children to lower class humans is counterproductive. The reason being that nature is only a part of the equation. Placing superiour specimins with inferiour hosts will have a damaging effect on the children...the "nurture" portion of rearing.
As far as the VHEMT movement is concerned: I see no problem in allowing those people to non-breed themselves out. They are obviously intellectually challenged and easily manipulated. We could do with less offspring from that corner and I consider this something that - if you think about it - would be worth pushing for. I feel the same way about abortion, et. al. I say make abortions free. The lower classes, the stupid, and those that would make shitty parents anyway are generally the ones clamboring for an abortion in the fist place. As someone has already pointed out, the more enlightened and responsible portion of society has already taken steps to limit their breeding to one or two children, if they choose to breed at all.
I say make abortions free and set up a battery of tests etc. so that those in the upper eschelon of society have easier access to unwanted babies and those that are culled - for whatever reasons - from the lower class. Little Albert proved that children can be molded in almost any way when the parents take the time and put in the effort to bring about a certain outcome, so the odds of a lower class child NOT thriving and emulating upper class fostering is lower than that of an upper class child becoming a success when placed in a lower-class family.
When you consider the fact that there is only a tiny portion of society that is worth a shit to start with, allowing that portion to render themselves extinct in whatever way they choose is not such a bad idea. That being said, I think we should legalize (controlled) suicide as well. Let the weak sort themselves out, much like ghetto kids killing each other off as teens before they have a chance to grow up and maximize their criminal potential.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#49365 - 02/22/11 07:37 AM
Re: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
[Re: Hegesias]
|
XiaoGui17
active member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1149
Loc: Amarillo, TX
|
Oh dear, maybe mankind has spawned a new type of mutation that has no natural drives at all? This could be a polarised version of Christianity or simply a sect of Mormons?
In all fairness, I think Mormons are doing the exact opposite of trying to push humanity towards extinction. I imagine it's the bleeding-heart liberals who are so concerned about humanity's carbon footprint, not the religious folks.
I am besickened further by utterly passive and unnatural things such as this.
Foregoing a jelly doughnut while watching one's weight is utterly passive and unnatural. It's a function of reason taking over and saying, "My long-term interests are best served by denying this immediate biological impulse, the misfiring of a survival instinct that does not serve me as a human being in a developed nation."
I don't agree with the VHEMT, I'm just saying there's something to be said for going against the grain of one's natural instinct to indulge.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
I'm guessing an optimum would be something on the order of 500k humans worldwide. With diligence all dreams are possible. Hunting for dinosaurs. Men birthing twins. Extravagant televised intentional suicides. Ah the glories that lie ahead....
