Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
 

Hello everyone.

Has anyone of you heard of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) ?
Here is its website:
http://www.vhemt.org
Please share your opinions with me.
Personally, I'm a VHEMT Volunteer, and agree with its statements.


Here are some additional links about incoming oil crash and human civilization downfall:

http://dieoff.org
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://www.oilcrash.com
http://www.peakoil.com

IMHO there's no need to actively do persue it. It's going to happen at some point in time in the future. That's just the way that it is, if we don't do it ourselves the sun will do it for us in a few million years.

Good Idea. Infact, I came up with the same idea a while back while ranting about stuff on another site. I mention it in this jumble of words:

It's towards the end if you don't feel like reading the rest of the stuff, but it kind of builds towards it. Kind of. This was the train of thought that led to it anyway.

"I wouldn't say I have a view. Those were just my insane morning rants and rambles, although it's even earlier now and I've been up all night so I don't know if what I'm saying now is going to be anymore sane. Although I am on acid, so I have that going for me. Isn't any government a democracy. The masses always have the power. In hitler/whateverotherfuck's case the will of the people was the will of that person. When I said I was for a dictatorship what I was saying was that I think we'd be alot better if I was in charge of everything, or anyone else here. The educational system is just another tool of whoever to keep people in the dark. We pretend people are being educated history, math, blah, blah. Fuck the schools. That's how they trap people. I mean 12 years of telling kids that they need that shit to get a job so they can go buy buy buy, and by then they are done programming you, and you'll never escape. Fuck schools. Give kids some fucking books to read. Mandatory reading. That would be school enough for everybody. Fuck the seriousness of the world. Can't people just enjoy simple experience. I don't even understand how things can be the way they are. I don't think capitalism is to blame. I think it's jsut ignorance. This is just a stream of consciousness sort of thing by the way. I hate the idea of socialism. I hate the idea of trapping people into doing what is right. I have a better trap anyway. Make things so only women can have any sort of power. There, that would work out better than any complex economic system. Capitalism isn't inherently bad. It's just that it can be perverted in such a way that it gets out of control and fucking power hungry idiots with absolutly no idea of why they are here get way too much power and fuck everyone in the ass. What is the point of all this anyway. Science and things. Who gives a shit how much we understand. I mean are we on a quest to live forever, or inhabit other planets, because those are the only benefits of science. Is all this shit here to cure diseases. If not then what the fuck is it for. Let's all live in huts, and fucking enjoy what we were meant to enjoy, other people's company. Nevermind. Ignorance is the fucking problem with everything. I mean if we could smash it all to the ground and start over with the same constitution, except this time with some fucking ideas about where we are headed I think it would do just fine. Tell people who they are voting for instead of tricking people into voting, and forcing them into impotence. I seriously think a oligarchy would be the way to go. Start out with like group of just bright, good people to rule, and just keep that group in power, and have them select new people and just keep that going. It's just too hard to let people rule themselves. The psychology of it is just too complicated. You never know what kind of things can happen. People thought about the system we have now what alot of people on here think about socialism or whatever. Sorry I'm an ignoramous, but anyway. In the beginning they were just trying to set things up so people could lead good happy lives, and now look what it's become. You just can't put all your faith into something. Infact you can't put any faith into it. You have to be 100% sure things are going to work out or youre fucked. Who decides laws in a socialist government anyway? I'm sorry I feel like an ass, knowing so little about things, and having opions on them, but just bare with me. Like in socialism, why are the people going to allow gay marrige? Why will they decide drugs are legal? What will people do with criminals, and don't say there will be no crime because there will be, that's the kind of thing im talking about, faith, you have faith that there will be no crime, there will be? Even that shit can spin out of control. I mean people just have to make sure things get started off on the right foot with whatever system is being put in place. Have some consciousness. What is the point of human existence anyway. Just so people can experience? I mean why not just let everyone die, and that'll be it for humanity. Big deal. Let animals experience. joy, companionship, and such. You know there are alien planets out there where this same shit is happening, and no matter how good things get here, there are just some aliens out there experiencing some shitty shit. Maybe god should step in and fix things, but then he'd fuck up his test you know. Life, this test we are taking for god, all quadrillion of us in the universe. sorry im not trying to sound deep, im not trying to sound any sort of way, please dont get angry at me, im not arrogant, i dont think im right, im just having a hard time sleeping and i felt like communicating, so take all this with a grain of salt whatever that means."

How is doing ourselves in, as a species, "natural selection"?
If, and when, our time, on this planet, is up...then it's up. Period. What's the point of hastening the process along? Talk about impatience...sheeesh.

woah.... need some paragraphs.

but one thing caught my eye.

Fuck schools?

I'll tell you that I see plenty of uneducated people and they don't have the ability to be critical thinkers to even understand what you wrote.

call me crazy but for some reason i find some of the articles on that site revolting.

I completely disagree with this movement. For one, there is nothing natural/animalistic about it. The point of every living species is to continue the legacy of it's genes. Plain and simple.

If this was true and the people had faith in there cause they should remember it's all about baby steps, and leading by example.

Hey...

I want my fuckin' five minutes back.

haha how silly. This just makes me want to waste more just to spite these people. Maybe its just me but in my opinion we have just as much right to be here as any other animal and the way we act is also up to us. Its just another experiment in evolution, eventually something will over throw us if we dont accidently do it ourselves

I definitely agree that there are way, way too many humans on this planet and that a lot of us need to stop breeding, but I don't think everyone should stop. I mean, I know you can't just say, "Okay, you guys over there are allowed to breed, but not the rest of you....stop fucking!!" I just wish a lot of people would just use some birth control a little more often. :)

hal, that's like saying that the point of nuclear bombs is to devestate whole states. The fact that they can do it, that there's even a drive to make them and use them, doesn't mean that they should be used. Similarly, even though people and animals have a sex drives and biological clocks and mid-life crises that compel them to reproduce, it doesn't mean that it should be done.

I saw this on CNN.com today and thought it was related to this topic:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science....ap/index.html

*shakes head*

I'm trying to figure out how to respond to this constructively....

*gives up*

What you're arguing is only made possible through conscience. A red-back spider doesn't offer himself up to a black widow because he wants to die, he allows himself to get eaten so that he can spend more time inseminating her. All creatures follow their drive regardless of the consequences. We humans, as a whole species do the very same.

No offense, but it's the stupidist thing I've ever heard of.

Honestly, I'm with kthulhu on this one. While having kids is not the lark it's made out to be, and I am all for people who want the freedom that comes with being childless, the idea that the world would be a better place without humans is ludicrous. <b>Who would care?</b>

If I continue, I will begin to insult, so let's just leave it there, shall we?

Fair enough--if you don't have a conscience, you don't worry about such things.

Ok, I took a look at the site just for kicks, and I just think it's the most rediculous thing. Especially after reading this paragraph:

Not a bit of sense was made with this, and I'm sure if i read the rest I could come up with a whole bunch of stupid quotes, but I have better things to do- like having 15 kids and destroying the world.

Now part 2 of my point, and it involves a little complicated logic.

Nature dictates our purpose as a species.
We are HERE because of nature.
We FOLLOW nature's encoded instructions within our brains.

I can only deduce that a certain amount of self-loathing is involved with someone who wholeheartedly believes in this movement. It could be depression or it could be dissociation from your humanity. To act in a fashion that defies your humanity commonly fits you under the study of abnormal psychology - you have a disorder.

There you have it. I've just labeled everyone who completely believes in this crap as 'mentally abnormal.' Note, it's not pathological or anything to be ashamed about, so don't get upset.

I just see it as a justification mechanism to harbor the general notion of "I hate my species and I refuse to mate."

Anyone care to joust?

I will keep living on, kthx.

They said it all.
There. Im full now.

This remindes me of the idea that if one truly cared about saving the planet from humans, one would kill as many people as possible and then kill one's self.

Nature seems to encourage dominant species to thrive until they lose their ability to thrive. What humans do, while short-sighted and tragic, is completely natural. We are the result of nature, and consequently the world as is could not be more natural. Attribute whatever morals you want to that.

Hmm. I personally believe that nature already has a population-control mechanism in act. It's called homosexuals. Do they choose to be gay? No, they simply are. I honestly believe it's nature's way of population control.

My girlfriend sprung that theory on me a while back and I support it 100%!

-Lasereth

How about instead of trying to join a movement or thrust our beliefs on other people, we all just hug?

How about it?

You know, i've been planning on not having kids for my entire life. I never want to have any, not ever, but this website is totally contrary to my own reasons for not doing so.

I just hate kids. I don't want to have to look after multiple people at all times of the day for the rest of my life. A woman is more than enough for me.

Call me selfish if you want, I personally don't give a shit what you wanna call it. I'd actually be interested in having someone explain how that could be- in any way, shape, or form- selfish. Hasn't happened yet, I'd like to see it done (though I know it can't).

To me- and there are tons of people who fit this description- I find the notion of having kids just to further your line is selfish- all those moms and dads who live out their unfulfilled fantasies vicariously through their children, it's sick.

On top of all that, however, is my belief in the following: nature- meaning the planet and all it's various, collective inhabitants, and who (if anyone, i.e., a "god") controls it all- will sort it out.

I'm laughing my ass off though, because I bet the religion assholes are pissing themselves over this- "first gay marriage, and now this??" lol

Movements are all well and good, so long as they don't involve the "convert to our way of thinking OR ELSE..." mentality- the "thrust our beliefs" people you mentioned.

Other than that, you rock my socks. very well put, thank you.

I'm down with hugs.


Analog,

I used to hate kids, until I started teaching, and realized that kids are interesting little people. They're just like us, but with this cute innocence to them.

I look at some of the kids I teach, no dad, a young mother trying to swing it by herself. I realize I'm looking at some of the most interesting souls that will ever live.

That's why I'm not down with vehement. I've read their whole website in my own little misanthropic phase.

I realized that I like people. People do some messed up things to each other, but it is my absolute belief that if you put two people in a room for 3 days, there is a 90% chance that they'll emerge as best friends (and a 10% chance that they'll each other). It's how we're built. People like people, we're supposed to get along. It's only ignorance and narrowmindedness that turn us into enemies.

When its our time, we will go. Probably when we choke the Earth with poison, or nuke each other to oblivion. I personally hope that we don't kill all the animals along with ourselves. That would be sad, to say the least.

Fuck nature, if you don't mind the french.

So, it was a process of Nature that resulted in us. You could say the same about Physics, lightning, hydrochemicals, or in some people's case the rapist of their mother.

You are not beholden to your cause. A rapist is evil, hydrochemicals are gooey, we don't live our life in order to equalize static charge buildup (dispite what fabric softener companies claim), Physics is a tool, and we owe Nature nothing.

Now, we have all these genes and instincts designed (through random selection, or whatever means you believe in) mostly for relatively unintelligent animals. We also have a capacity for abstract thought well beyond any other known thing in the universe. The instincts we come with are the legacy of our animal past, there is nothing holy about them. Our minds, while much rougher and less refined, are the one thing that makes us as a species unique.

I was caused by Nature. My job now is to live my life as I see fit. I'll use Nature for my own best interests, and our species should do the same.

We shouldn't be dumb about it: if we just go and destory it, we'll get what we deserve. The ecosystem is a massive life support structure, and we are cannibalizing it at disturbing rates. But, don't expect to hold up Nature's Purpose as some holy grail and expect everyone to drink from the cup.

Could not find server.

But anyway, what an arrogant little species we are. A huge fuckin meteor and a couple million years of iceage couldnt destroy life on this planet what makes us think that we can? And do you really think that if nature wanted us extinct there would be thing one we could do about it?

Let life take its course, when our time on this clod of dirt is up then so be it

Hell, maybe the next time an asteroid meant to cause extenction to the humans comes around we'll even be able to defy that!

I want us to learn as much as possible and communicate with as many other life forms in the universe as we can.

The argument most people seem to have against population control is, if it feels good, do it.

I guess i'm not as hedonistic as others--conscience bothers me. You don't break the law flagrantly because you are afraid of the consequences against you. You don't go to vegas and spend your family fortune every weekend because you are afraid of the consequences to the ones you love as well as yourself. Similarly, some people don't want to cause grief to future generations of living things by reproducing what they percieve as the top of the food chain that also happens have the potential to destroy all life on earth, because they are afraid of the consequences to the idea of life, which they love. It's all a matter of where you draw the line. Hal has a point though--I think there must be a big element of self-loathing associated with wanting humans to go extinct. But that's kind of an ad hominem attack.

I'm not really for the extinction of the entire human race, but a little population control could do wonders for unemployment, standard of living, quality of the environment. Everone must see that fewer people=fewer environmental issues (unless you think the environment's not an issue at all, which is a different topic altogether). The population when I was born (about 30 years ago) was less than 4 billion--now it is over 6. By the time I'm 70, I can expect the population to be 10 billion people to be on the planet, most of them cramped up in high-rise apartment buildings and stuck in traffic all day. If you like that kind of lifestyle and you think your kids would like it too, by all means keep producing babies. I'd much rather have the population go down a bit and enjoy life more.

A more interesting (and humorous) site regarding population control is the Church of Euthanasia, whose dogma is based on 4 pillars associated with population control: suicide, canibalism, sodomy, and abortion. One of their mottos is "Save the Planet - Kill Youself"

www.churchofeuthanasia.org

An interesting note: it's estimated that every 4 days the human population increases by 1,000,000. Imagine this: if we wanted to keep reproducing at the same rate but keep the population at a steady 6 billion, here are a couple ways to do it:

Have an event on the scale of September 11th ninety times every day (2800 killed). If we divide the grief proprtionally between countries based on population, this would mean the US gets attacked once every 6 hours (since the US acconuts for about 5% of the global population).

Have a continuous global war on a scale 14 times greater than WWII (50 million casualties over the course of 8 years)

or we can wait until something drastic occurs, forcing the population to drop all of a sudden by an even bigger margin due to plague, megawar, pestilence, famine. on the other hand, it's way in the future, and we'll all be dead, so why worry if it doesn't affect us?

I'm all for people joining that society. ;-)

But, more seriously, with the ideal of democracy, your say is purportional to your population. In order to increase the say of your position, you have to either convert others to agree with you, or have children and indoctrinate them in your beliefs...

The political party that breeds the most makes the decisions.

And we expect parties whose power is based on having kids to make sane decisions about how to prevent overpopulation?

Hell, each and every one of us has a dispurportione number of ancestors who chose to have children, and our parents typically try to nudge us towards thinking like them. Those of us who choose not to have as many (or any) children will be that much less effective at passing on to the next generation the idea of having less children.

It's a mess.

yakk: good point. actually, bf skinner argued the same thing in his utopian book Walden Two. He suggested that the best way to spread the word about his wonderful utopian society that he created was to have everyone living in it produce as many babies as possible. That way they would overwhelm with numbers. Some might argue that the success of Catholocism is due partly to their anti-birth control stance, which produces larger number of catholic babies.

On the other hand, you can take a modified hindu look at the situation--having babies is like reincarnating yourself into a new life. by not having babies, you remove yourself from the cycle of suffering and reach nirvana :)

If you really had any kind of belief in voluntary human extinction, and you wanted to do something useful, you'd help build open democratic societies in poor third world countries. It's proven that open societies with enough industry and agriculture to support themselves, have populations that naturally stabilize themselves. People will naturally have fewer children, and your goal is one step closer.

Of course, the problem is that those people would have to do something more than just telling people not to breed.

kutulu: i was in peace corps, currently I'm an environmental engineer, i don't preach but I will argue if the topic is brought up like this.

Also your argument is like someone trying to get out of a speeding ticket, saying cops should have worse criminals to go after.

IMO, it's a retarded topic and deserves a retarded sarcastic response.

Lord...how arrogant can one species be? When the Earth wants us gone, it'll kill us off. Simple as that. Why are we meddling?

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.

the last thing that I have to say about these kinds of posts..

if you haven't read Angrymom's Child Protection Services you'll see that no mod in there held back from voicing their opinion in a negative way.

Again, you get slack if you've been here for some time, but if it's your first post, again, it doesn't seem like you'll be contributing too much to the community.

Oh dear god........

I just realized something......

Lebell, Tecoyah, and I all had the same reaction to this thread.

Perhaps it IS the end of the world. Hold me!

so somehow...the OP was supposed to interpret "I'm glad you're going to die off" to mean, "please don't just post a bunch of crazy links without your opinion attached to it?"

Cyn--I don't see how you can compare a woman who potentially abuses her children to an organization of people who don't want to have children in the hopes of easing overpopulation.

I am not comparing the topics, I am comparing the FIRST posts of ROOKIES.

cyn--reading through Angrymom's post, it looks like you and the other Mods handled things the way I usually see them handled. You, cyn, are kind and civil at the beginning and asked for more information about the situation. After she provided a bit more info, you said you had doubts about her side of the story but that you would 'reserve judgement' until there was more info. Mal did similarly--even saying, 'let's not all jump on angrymom here' near the beginning of the thread. Only after more facts became known did you start coming out with stronger statements. And even the strong statements say things like "you made some really bad choices", not "I'll be glad when you rot in jail."

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be comparing between that post and this one.

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

Final Thoughts
 

My intent in this thread was not to state opinion....but rather to remove what I considered to be a potential Spammer. The links, and status of the person in question indicated potential for the thread being considered propoganda....and the job of your Moderators is to weed this out of the community before it makes this a lesser place. It may be interesting to members to understand the thinking here:

When we see these things appear in your community....we must decide quickly if it is "worthy" of TFP...and act decisively. In this case we did not....and instead let the thread stand (against better judgement in some minds), as it was borderline. Had we decided to Ban and delete none of this would be an issue, as you all would have never seen it in the first place. Moderation will never be perfect, and personality, as well as opinion will be a part of it regardless of how we may avoid posting to appear unbiased. But, the reality remains.....we do the best job we can, to make this place what it is, and what you see as bias, or opinion on a matter...usually has much more behind it than you know.

Well, neo-ocelot... if you ever come back to read this...

I do agree that there is a problem, but it's not an issue of overpopulation. See, in nature, overpopulation is generally taken care of by predators, diseases or disasters. With humans, we have found ways to overcome MOST of these issues. The problem, however, is not that there are too many humans. The problem is that humans feel (generally) very little need to be in their natural state. I'm not saying, either, that technology is wholly bad. I love technology. But thigns could be more earth friendly. We can make enough food (and already do, actually) to support several billion more humans than there are. The reason some people starve is due to human politics and culture. We can make cars that run on hydrogen and we CAN make hydrogen fuels themselves in environmentally friendly ways. But there are human politics and money issues involved.

It's more than population.

I find myself in complete agreement....and if Ustwo chimes in as well....I will pass out

The point of our genes is to propegate themselves, we're just here for the ride.

Personally, if you feel that this movement is good for you, go for it, don't breed, keep the gene pool nice and warm for the rest of us.

I agree. I don't mean to hold mods to a higher standard--I mean to hold them to the same standard as everyone else. My understanding is that personal attacks aren't allowed at TFP. Saying you're glad that someone won't be having any children is a personal attack.

I would have had no problem if they had said, "that's a load of bullshit."

Then you have my personal apology.....seriously....I for one will not do so again.

What is a humans natural state?

If you look at countries where they have an overpopulation vrs those where we have a stable or population in decline, the countries in population decline are all wealthy and high technology. The populations on the rise are those in countries with little technology and poor economies. When you are well fed and well off you can turn off those survival genes that say 'make more babies' and start to rationalize things like having children.

Whatever is done lowering the standard of living is not the answer, if anything we need to raise it across the board. The problem with more 'earth friendly' concepts is they lower or in some cases VASTLY lower the standard of living.

Based on the content of the website it was a bit of sarcastic black humor.

Its not the same as saying 'I hope you die'.

Lighten up.

Not true.

* Organic meats and vegetables: Negatives? They cost more. Positives? They put less harmful chemicals into the environment and into our bodies making us and the Earth healthier.

* Recycling: Negatives? If done wrong, can be harmful to the environment. Positives? If done right, can be quite beneficial. Recycling can also go on ad infinitum, more or less. Plastic bags turn into pop bottles which can turn back into bags, or sandwich bags or milk jugs which can be recycled back into pop bottles. This goes for most metals and paper and MOST plastics. Also less of a need to deforest the planet entirely.

* Alternative fuels: Negatives? High cost in R&D. Also can be bad if done wrong. Positives? Hydrogen and electric vehicles could SIGNIFICANTLY reduce ozone depleting chemicals and smog producers. The creation of electricity can be done using solar/wind/water power for ultra-clean, and controlled nuclear power for semi-clean (still much better than coal and the like which is used is many countries around the world, including the US). Hydrogen can be created using reduction methods that do not have harmful byproducts.

* Soaps and detergents: Negatives? Neutral and biodegradeable products are considered "niche" and are more expensive. If they were requested 100% then they would not be niche and would cost less (probably not as much as 'cheaper' stuff, but still). Positives? They are better for you, the Earth, animals that must swim in, live in or drink our planets water.


I'd be interested to hear about "earth friendly" options that would lower the standard of living in civilized countries.

Negatives, lower crop yields on top of the higher cost. Mmmm doesn't sound good for feeding the growing population. This will be handled of course by genetic modification.

Negatives, higher costs in some cases than making the product new. Recycling is fine but won't solve the population puzzle.

This one is the kicker. THIS is where the standard of living takes the dive. Cheap and plentiful energy = higher standard of living. Currently solar, water, and wind can't do it. Nuclear is fine with me, but anything that makes energy more expensive is bad.

Very minor problem, the real water problem in most areas is fertilizer run off.

I was reading that figuring how to respond. I love listening to how people spend enough time figuring out how we are the big problem and that we should die, etc. I reminds me of a philosophy major I once knew, he said he got a degree in Philosophy, which granted him the legal right to "think deep thoughts about being unemployed." Maybe if they put a little less effort into this movement, and a little more effort into making their lives, and only 2 other lives a little bit better, then perhaps a small percentage of this world would be better.

As you wish.

What you posted is a load of bullshit :icare:

Actually, I'm going to do (most of) that now. Not that it matters much at this point, but looking into the "user's" registration info and times, he is very clearly a spammer who had no intention of participating in this community whatsoever, or in actually having any discussion in this thread. THAT is why he didn't return (except once, 2 months later, most likely to check on the status of his spam), not because he was scared off by relatively mild comments of dark humor regarding the absurdity of his spammed website. I have nothing fundamentally against voluntary population control whatsoever (although I do doubt it's ability to have any effect), but I *DO* have something against spammers.

I'm leaving this thread open, however, because an interesting discussion has somehow popped up (and not the one I'm responding to).

Agreed. I'm not trying to down anybody here, but these people are fucking nuts. People are part of nature, as much as you want to deny it, it just happens that we can make tools to kill things better; and reproducing is about as natural as it gets. Aren't most people afraid of one type of animal or another (e.g. bears, sharks)? Note to these people: we can't let plants, animals, and shit die out because we need to kill them to survive.