Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

**Eric** · June 21, 2006, 12:24 AM

So have you guys heard of VHEMT? The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. These nuts think that the needs of the biosphere outweigh the rights of our species as a whole. They support human males sterilizing themselves, since apparently a vasectomy isn't enough. They want every human male to be sterilized, since even one human breeding pair is a threat to the biosphere apparently. They reject China's one child policy because "One Child is too many". That's just crazy, what about our species' right to live? To thrive, to procreate. I know that humanity is being pretty destructive, but humanity voluntarily driving itself to extinction is too much, that's not the answer either. Personally, before I get married, i'll make sure my wife supports me in having a dozen children at least, just to tick these wackos off. **** plants, **** animals and **** the biosphere, i'm breeding like a rabbit!

Crazy... just crazy

**Turnus** · June 21, 2006, 12:50 AM

That's fairly ridiculous. The purpose of conservation is to ensure that humans can continue to survive in this world as they have throughout history. It really shouldn't be unfounded altruism to the biosphere as seen here. Is this actually a large movement?

**Sétanta** · June 21, 2006, 12:53 AM

Watch them try to pull something from Rainbow Six and try to kill the whole world with a disease.

they hate the Human race so much. They can go kill themselves.

**IamthePope** · June 21, 2006, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Turnus

That's fairly ridiculous. The purpose of conservation is to ensure that humans can continue to survive in this world as they have throughout history. It really shouldn't be unfounded altruism to the biosphere as seen here. Is this actually a large movement?

No, it's a fairly small web based community (like the one we have here) comprised of far left eco terrorist types. I thought they were a joke too at first until I looked into it.

**Denny Crane!** · June 21, 2006, 07:47 AM

Aside from the craziness that is that cult, the population of the world needs to decrease substantially before we become sustainable.

If there is ever a state possible where the entire world can enjoy life in relative comfort and prosperity then it will happen naturally. Either that or bird flu will sort it out.

Peter

**Remco** · June 21, 2006, 09:12 AM

The are probably to pacifistic to try to eradicate all humans. They don't seem like a treat to me, they are just stupid.

**Publius** · June 21, 2006, 09:19 AM

Well, they are a little extreme, but one cannot help but wonder what our future holds for us, as our exponentially rising population skyrockets and all of the natural disasters which actually in a sense maintain the "balance" have been gotten around by modern innovation.
I always think about what Agent Smith says in the matrix about the human race being comprable to a virus, and you must admit that the analogy does has its merits.
This is not to say I would advocate sterilization or destruction of our society, but still - I see only pain and conflict in the future of planet earth. Call me a pessimist

**Last Roman** · June 21, 2006, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

Well, they are a little extreme, but one cannot help but wonder what our future holds for us, as our exponentially rising population skyrockets and all of the natural disasters which actually in a sense maintain the "balance" have been gotten around by modern innovation.
I always think about what Agent Smith says in the matrix about the human race being comprable to a virus, and you must admit that the analogy does has its merits.
This is not to say I would advocate sterilization or destruction of our society, but still - I see only pain and conflict in the future of planet earth. Call me a pessimist

fine: pessimist

though on the whole, I'm afraid I agree with you. At the rate we the human race is growing, the earth cannot sustain us.

**Remco** · June 21, 2006, 09:27 AM

We do not need to fear overpopulation, in a few decades, or maybe less, science will come up with a solution. By then meat can be grow en crops have 100% resistance against disease. There would still be a limit however.

**The White Knight** · June 21, 2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Remco

We do not need to fear overpopulation, in a few decades, or maybe less, science will come up with a solution. By then meat can be grow en crops have 100% resistance against disease. There would still be a limit however.

I wouldn't count on it. I learned for example, that the population will be doubled in Ethiopia in less than 30 years, a trend which is more or less the same in all developing countries.

In a industrialised country like Belgium however, to double its population would take 700 years!

The problem is that over-population in a continent like Africa would be disastrous, there is too much famine already.

**Lord Tomyris** · June 21, 2006, 11:10 AM

Didn't Stephen Hawking recently argue his case for humanity needing to make their homes on other planets, and soon?

**the_mango55** · June 21, 2006, 10:31 AM

As heartless as it sounds, industrialized countries don't really need to worry about it. The US could probably support a billion people without worrying about famine, while Africa can't even support the number of people it has now. Unfortunately the countries that have the least ability to support population increases are the ones growing the fastest.

**Denny Crane!** · June 21, 2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by the_mango55

As heartless as it sounds, industrialized countries don't really need to worry about it. The US could probably support a billion people without worrying about famine, while Africa can't even support the number of people it has now. Unfortunately the countries that have the least ability to support population increases are the ones growing the fastest.

I love blanket statements like that, a billion people.

You have a looming energy crisis, you have vast tracts of farmland relying on fossilised or depleted aquifiers and you already have social and economic problems. The USA would be on a self destruct course to continue to increase its population.

TWN highlighted what he said when he said though that the population growth in the west is negligible it is the populations in poor countries that need to be brought under control. Unfortunatly the only way to do that is to make economic and social conditions more palatable and more westernised.

Peter

Peter

**Shaun** · June 21, 2006, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by El Guapo

IYou have a looming energy crisis, you have vast tracts of farmland relying on fossilised or depleted aquifiers and you already have social and economic problems. The USA would be on a self destruct course to continue to increase its population.

Nope, America has plenty of Farmland and fuel to increase its population, its bad management that would cause problems.
If a new presidnet came in and started to improve Americas social and economic probelms, America could quite easily increaase its population.
Its things like tax benefits for the rich that causes social problems, its easily fixed.

**Denny Crane!** · June 21, 2006, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Shaun

Nope, America has plenty of Farmland and fuel to increase its population, its bad management that would cause problems.
If a new presidnet came in and started to improve Americas social and economic probelms, America could quite easily increaase its population.
Its things like tax benefits for the rich that causes social problems, its easily fixed.

Farmland that is dependant on rapidly dropping aquifiers and oil intensive agriculture.

If the aquifiers (in some case fossil aquifiers ie. they never fill up again) can't keep up with the current farming methods what exactly do you think would be the results of making more farmland?

Not only that growing food on an industrial scale requires fertilisers in vast quantities, where exactly are they going to come from? There will in the next fifty years be serious problems invovling water, food and oil. How exactly are the Americans going to cope with an extra 700 million people? Or even another 100 million.

Peter

**I Have a Clever Name** · June 21, 2006, 12:07 PM

"Volunteers" are people who believe in the VHEMT goal of eventual human extinction, and have decided to have no children (or no more, if they already had children when they joined the movement) in order to further that goal.

Sounds likea loop hole to me. I could have twenty children and then join the self-righteous bandwagon.

**Shaun** · June 21, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by I Have a Clever Name

Sounds likea loop hole to me. I could have twenty children and then join the self-righteous bandwagon.

Yep,they are already starting to show them selves as hyprocrits. And what good does saying "Im not going to have any more children" do when you are in your 50s, and they are such a small group that thier reproduction of children is insignificant to the world, thus it dosent matter if they decide to have children really, infact they are probably better off having children, as its more followers.

**John Wayne** · June 21, 2006, 09:28 PM

Ah, such an elequant group! Damming the rest of the world for doing what our psych tells us to do, and not paying attention to Mother Nature! The all present Goddess of our planet! We must end our races' existence by sterilizing our men! For shame humanity for not doing this already! For shame!

**RZZZA** · June 21, 2006, 09:31 PM

I admire people for choosing to not have children in this day and age. But this group sounds nuttier than a jar of JIF.

**Farnan** · June 21, 2006, 09:32 PM

Its satire, it goes to the exteme of enviromentalism to make fun of the far-left environmentalism that they believe is hurting humanity to help nature...