that's correct.... pointing to worse behavior doesn't excuse the bad behavior. It's still bad.

No... you wouldn't. As I said earlier, open democratic societies naturally produce less offspring. It's really quite amazing, take a semi-prosperous society that isn't based on agriculture, and it will naturally begin to slow it's rate of growth.

Actually,

I'm pleased that anyone who believes this sort of thing chooses not to continue their genes.

If you believe in earth-as-organism, then we are both her gamites and her brains.

Humanity is the first species she has produced that has the possibility of colonizing other planets and stars, allowing the Earth to reproduce.

If life is as common as it seems right now (Methane on mars!), and intelligence keeps on showing up, eventually a planet-organism is going to generate a brain/gamite life form that will successfully reproduce. I hold that it hasn't happened yet, otherwise we'd be part of a larger organism, or have evidence from them, already.

Personally, I'd prefer it to be Gaia that wins that particular race.

I tend to side with george carlin on this one- when the planet gets sick enough of us , we go, and we cant much hope to stop it-

as for pop controll- I favor famines, wars and natural disasters- they build character, and the strong and lucky naturaly rise to the top- thus improving the species....

I used to teach 2nd grade religious education at my Catholic Church. Doing so only solidified my thoughts that they're evil. I dunno why, but I only see little bastards.

*shrug*

PS- your teaching is greatly appreciated, keep it up.

the more people we cram on this planet, the more need to go elsewhere, and the MORE intelligence per capita, the more welfare for the elder generation, and the faster we evolve...

I say fuck more, have more kids, live better, and hey.. I might even get to live on mars! whee...

Hey I am doing my part.

Damn...beat me to the punch....I think it is a wonderful society, and seriously hope all members follow it religiously. Almost a form of eugenics in itself.

Huh? How do you figure creating more people will do any of those things? I'm curious to know why you'd think that.

I think that most of you don't even realize what enormous problem overpopulation is. Please do some research and learn something instead of making fun of. Maybe you will understand...someday.

Yes, overpopulation is a problem. Its a huge problem, we all know this.

Most of this population comes from less-developed countries. Like others have said, less-developed, less well-educated countries produce more offspring. Many more. Like 9, 10 per woman. The population growth isnt being cause by the relatively miniscule amounts of people in the US, and it certainly isnt going to be affected by a few people deciding they arent going to have kids. Go tell that to all the people in China or Africa.

Love that line, it makes so much sence.

Personally I can say that I can understand afew main points that the site has. This earth is over-populating and growing at a rapid rate, and yes we will run out of un-renewable resources that immensely effect our lives. Human extinction is certainly a way to fix this problem but it is NOT the right way of doing it. The more logical way is to use our knowledge and maintain/ help the current state of the world. Along with inventing substitutes for things like oil etc. Un-renewable resources will run out whether there is 10 billion people or 5 billion people, there is no way of getting around this. So instead of killing ourselfs off by not "mating", we can think of a way to fix this problem before it is too late.

By that line of reasoning:

Homocide is a problem. Its a huge problem, we all know this.

Most murders occur in less stable countries. Many more. In comparison, murder is occuring in relatively miniscule amounts in the US. Go tell all the people in Africa and the Middle East to stop murdering.

EDIT: on a related note, Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others

I don't advocate their beliefs but that is best death-type cult I've seen. They encourage freedom, and education, and discourage murder and suicide. Might be that some intelligent person decided to start that to give misanthropes a better alternative than those murderous/suicide cults. The best way to get rid of something isn't to outlaw it, it is to give better alternatives. So I like it in that sense, and that I agree we shouldn't be breeding so fast, but in no way do I think we should actually kill our whole race off.

I support voluntary human extinction, but I'm doing the best to make sure that the rest of the world goes with us.

Wait - if people stop having kids, won't that mess social security up?

Wow! See, I actually despie humanity because I think it's a mockery of what it could be. However, I still find this movement to be utterly ridiculous. In fact, I'd have to say that those who are firmly in alignment with those beliefs are a bit tilted (and not in the good wholesome way of this forum).

All animals (humans are animals) have instinctive drives to reproduce. In fact, in many cases we are attracted to people specifically because of the chance it allows us to breed, and then secondarily by our chace to have children that have a greater chance of reproducing. It's why people who believe themselves to be unattractive (whether or not they actually are) will seek others that they may find unattractive because they feel it increases their chance of reproducing. People who find themselves attractive will try to proceate with the most attractive people they can so as to make attractive babies that will turn into attractive adults and have greater mating options. It's actually how our brain is wired.

It's a matter of saving the species by killing a lot of it off. Like amputating an infected arm to save the body. It's clear from the lack of fresh water, clothing, food, and heat that we are not able to support our current population. I'd like to see negative population growth over the next few thousand years. I've heard sarter men than I say that the Earth can easily support several hundred million people. Why isn't that good enough?

I intend on having kids. For a lot of the reasons they believe that they've countered in their chart.

I think it's unfortunate that people are destroying the world, but I think that better use of resources coupled with newer technologies will help us with this, and if not, if Gaea wants us gone, she'll boot us herself.

Why is this thread back?

Lebell already won it.

Just for clarification, from the FAQ of the VHEMT website:

It's an organization dedicated to *population control*, not human extinction. They're just using hyperbole to get your attention.

The site mentions the arguments that are frequently brought up against the movement. I will list them below, substituting the word 'babies' with 'puppies'. If you can see the argument for animal control, why can't you see the argument for human population control?

* "Dogs are going to have sex, you can't stop that."
* "It's a canine instinct to breed."
* "But I just love puppies."
* "Some dogs should reproduce because they're better than others."
* "Dogs are a part of Nature."

By default they are taking themselves out of the gene pool and replacing there genes with those who do not comply to the notion.

Darwin 1 VHMET 0

Ustwo--you make it sound like the goal of your life is to spew your DNA all over the place.

Despite my high sex drive, I think there are better things in life to shoot for (pun intended).

Darwin would not approve of such statements. Darwin only cares for your sweet, sweet DNA.

In the end its the DNA that matters. Lets say you have a 'jerk' gene and a 'nice guy' gene. Half the people are jerks and the other half are nice guys. Lets say there is only enough food to keep 50% of the people alive. The jerks all eat and the nice guys go without. They did a great thing.

Only problem is next generation is now 100% jerks.

You could say the same thing for these guys. Overpopulation IS a problem but it is NOT a problem in the Western world, our populations are naturally declining. Doing something like this doesn't save the planet, it just makes more room for those who don't subscribe to its ideals.

This sounds like the kind of thing aging yuppies would subscribe to to justify the fact they treat their dog like a child and make their empty home seem less cold.

The planet has survived FAR FAR worse than we people will ever dish out to it, the whole concept is just assinine.

Yes overpopulation is a problem.

Yes I will still have kids.

No I will not join a group of people who see humanity as the one poison of this world. ;)

PS. Mods are usually pretty careful about making sure new users feel welcome when they express their philosophies--that people are tactful in their criticism of other posters' opinions. What happened in this case?

From the original post:And in response:
Basically, the mods told the original (rookie) poster that they're glad that people like him will die off. The original poster never returned after seeing the responses here.

Technically I think he found support for his cause from the people criticising him...

Those wacky mods, calling something wacky, wacky.

If Lebell and Tecoyah agree on something there is a pretty good chance they are correct in their assesment.

Perhaps what these deep thinkers need to do is look at what societies have stable populations which do not, and instead of working to become genetic dead ends, they should work to change those nations that are having population issues.

Ustwo--I'm hoping they'll agree that they made a mistake.

I'm not.

To post an incredible trollish item for a first post isn't usually going to be a contributing member. Even the person who posted about the Child Services taking her children away came back because she believed in what she was saying, and moderators were much more direct and harsh in that thread.

Cynthetiq--the organization, as I mentioned above, is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. And even if it weren't, it's a movement that promotes *voluntary* cessation of offspring generation. Most people here would agree that, if you subscribe to a philosophy that makes you happy without hurting others, it's okay. At least, I *thought* that's what most of you folks believed.

Many people don't have time to check, double check, and triple check facts, they will more often than not voice their opinion on the topic at hand off the cuff. I for one did not read the sites in depth and your inital post showing that it's a farce I did not read until you posted it again.

The OP spoke as it was fact not giving much up in the face of it being tongue in cheek. Hence, in my book, trollish. If you want to make a discussion, make the discussion, if you want to be a smart ass, you'll get smart ass responses.

I stopped bothering with many politics threads for the very reason that people inundating each other with fact and counter fact left little time to digest to truly understand and make for meaningful decision making.

Again, even if it weren't tongue-in-cheek, why are people so against an organization that wants people to do something *voluntarily*? VHEMT isn't advocating child molesting or murder--they're advocating not having children. People do it all the time without society frowning down on them (except for their mothers who really really want to have grandchildren).

again, you do something like hit and run without any frame work to direct the discussion you'll get those kinds of remarks in discussion. Look carefully at the OP. It's filled with links, stating that the OP agrees with them and is a volunteer. That's it. What do you expect for discussion? Look at other similar threads and you'll equally see people supporting it or naysaying it. I see no difference but you seem to.

There are plenty of people in the thread that DO agree with not having any offspring.

If you truly think that this is a discussion worthy thing, then frame it around something that isn't so patently absurd such as the title of this thread.

http://www.childfree.net/websites.html

There are plenty of people who know they don't want to have kids, some of them are mods, myself included. But one doesn't have to be asinine in their presentation for discussion.

There are plenty of reasons to not have kids we can agree with.

Doing it to save the planet is just silly in my opinion.

As for the OP, he seemed like a one issue wonder, a 'what do you think about my cause, come support my cause' type of poster, not someone who wanted to be part of the community.

There were two options in this situation.....

1) decide the post was spam (due to the links and the status of the poster). Had this been decided upon this member would have simply been banned immediately , and the thread removed. (likely you all have no Idea how often this occurs)

2) use another means of letting the individual know we are not accepting of this sort of advertisement within these forums.....we chose #2.


I mean ...come on people....Mods need to have fun too.

There's a difference between saying, "I disagree with your opinion" and saying "I'm glad your kind will eventually die off." Mods know that--part of what makes TFP great (I think) is that level of kindness and understanding towards posters from all walks of life. I realize that some posters here are not as socially-graced, and occasionally some crass remarks come out, but to have such remarks come from *Moderators* who are almost always sensitive to the issue strikes me as odd. I'm guessing they didn't realize that the OP was part of the organization.

ps. Yes, the OP didn't state much of an opinion. He was a *rookie*, and probably didn't know how things work.

EDIT: Statements like "I think that's a shitty opinion", are fundamentally different from statements like "You are a shitty person." The first statement is not a personal attack, while the second is. Personal attacks, last I remembered, are not allowed on TFP.