pig

A couple of quick thoughts on this; I read it earlier today and wasn't sure that I wanted to post anything.

1. I don't think the site, nor the organization, are purely tongue-in-cheek, nor do they simply seem to be advocating an extreme position to make the less extreme "population control" option seem more viable. My reading of the site leaves the impression that they believe in exactly what they are saying - while allowing that everyone who contributes the site doesn't necessarily hold the most extreme position. I think they are trying to leave the doors open to people of less extreme positions, but that doesn't mean that the actual position adopted and defended in the content of the site/organization is any less extreme that that they actually advocate.

2. I seem to recall a lot of conversation regarding whether or not we actually want moderators to avoid stating their opinions in these kind of threads. If we're going to expect them to be (cue Steven Seagal) "above the law;" then we have to cleanse all the smartassery that flies around on the boards, and probably give them a non-descript "Moderator" login which they use to "moderate," and regular usernames they use to contribute. They're not just moderators; they're members too. Some of the mods basically gave a reaction of "are you fucking kidding me?" - that's true. However, as far as I know discussion has been allowed both advocating and disavowing the position of the OP; I don't see how the OP should have been intimidated from following up or trying to defend his/her position.

3. I personally agree that people should be more careful when bringing new people into existance, and that we should consider options like adoption more often than people do; it's not clear that eliminating humans from the picture will make everything all rosy and great. Bad things happened with the dinosaurs, etc. The biggest motivation for humanity to regulate its birth rate, it's release of toxic and non-biodegradable substances in the environment, and it's consumption of natural resources is the continued survival of humanity - not the continued survival of everything else. If we send it all straight to shit; things will evolve again (as the site noted, and of course this assumes one believes in such pesky notions as evolution - otherwise, it can all just be created again, etc) and nothing will have changed in the net. Let's just suppose that humans evolved in response to a natural progression of events, which would lead to the development of an "intelligent" species which could destroy all life on planet Earth; what is to say that if humans were removed by a baby-making strike, that a similar life form wouldn't just evolve to replace us. It would seem more probable, if one accepts the basic premise of the organization that we will eventually destroy all life in Matrix-like viral infection of Earth, that we are here to learn how to embrace sustainable and responsible lifestyles. Why must one adopt the position that we are, in the long term as a species, the problem and not the potential solution, so to speak?

edit: i had misconjugated a verb

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style