The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
Their message is simple: “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.”
Although they acknowledge that it’s unlikely their stated goal—the total disappearance of humans through a universal voluntary choice not to reproduce—will ever be reached, they believe that by promoting this idea and gradually converting more people to the option of not having children, they are making the world an incrementally better place.
STORK BOMBS
To the extent that we can agree that overpopulation is a problem, and that profligate consumption of resources in the affluent West is an equally severe problem, then the modest portion of their mission—significantly reducing the overall human birth rate—seems acceptable, even laudable.
But let’s consider the deeper, more radical proposal. Should humans make the collective voluntary decision to “phase ourselves out”? On balance, is the human presence on the planet doing more harm than good? Would the universe, or at least the Earth, be a happier place sans people?
It’s an interesting question to ponder for several reasons:
First, it demands that we take stock in ourselves, that we tally up an account of both the good and the bad influences we are having on the biosphere and the myriad other forms of life with which we share this watery rock. How are we doing? How can we do better? How serious are we about changing our ways?
Second, it forces us to evaluate our values. Since humans are, as far as we know, the only strongly meta-cognitive creatures in the universe, and since we, as humans, naturally place a high value on cognition and especially on sapience, then would a world lacking those qualities truly be a better place? Can we assume that in our absence some other species might increase in intelligence until they meet or surpass our own current level of smarts? And if they did, would their stewardship for the planet necessarily be any more responsible than ours?
Third, it challenges us to consider other alternatives to the status quo—continual breeding, industrializing, and consuming—and the choice of voluntary extinction.
What else might we do instead? Is there any hope that we might somehow actually become better residents of Earth and nicer neighbors to the millions of other species around us? Can we perhaps look toward a future where a healthy environment (however we define it) has been restored, where we live in equilibrium with our resources and within our ecosystem, and where we are making a net-positive impact, or at least no longer a net-negative one?
If that is indeed a possibility, it seems it will require the safe development and wise use of emerging technologies. It might even entail the gradual conversion of humans into something different, something improved, a step that transcends our naturally evolved state and transforms us into higher level beings.
Along the way, of course, it could be quite helpful if we worked hard at reducing our rate of resource consumption and improved sustainability. One component of that would be if more people had fewer children, and to that extent, I think the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is on the right track.
As for the more radical part of their mission, well, that should make for an interesting discussion on bloggingheads.tv.
Mike Treder is the Managing Director of the IEET, and former Executive Director of the non-profit Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
Print •
Email •
permalink •
(70) Comments •
(5240) Hits •
subscribe •
•
•
•
•
•
COMMENTS
Wasn't that the premise of "Idiocracy"? If you get some folks to stop reproducing -- the more open-minded, reflective ones who are capable of being persuaded by reason -- then, by definition, you'll have more and more less-rational folk left over. And they'll just have the run of the planet themselves.
P.S. This post is sponsored by Carl's Jr. and Brawndo, the Thirst Mutilator with electrolytes (it's what plants crave).
If they are willing to commit SUICIDE right this second, I would believe they were serious.
This is just another cult of Malthus.
Take a gun, and offer to do them the favor of giving them their wish, see how quickly they actually offer to die for their beliefs.
Sound harsh? Not really. I will lay you odds that very few of these people will really chose to "not reproduce" given the right conditions. The fears of Overpopulation are a fallacy based on two mistaken views. The Malthus fallacy, and the "Apparent Truth" of overpopulation created by overcrowding in heavily urbanized zones. The Malthus fallacy was proven in error over a century ago, but still loved by anti-progressives. The "Overpopulation" fallacy is a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc error made from assuming that the problems of resource allocation created by various other problems that make such allocations difficult are caused by "population" rather than the true causes.
We could provide a toil free existence for five times the total population we currently have on this planet, except that we are evolutionarily wired to seek personal gain and have become experts at diverting the shared resources of the collective into our personal quest to improve our personal status within the collective. We create the "problems" of Overpopulation to justify our failure to properly allocate resources because we are so busy stealing those shared resources to pad our personal nests.
This is just another attempt to lay blame somewhere other than where it squarely rests, on the evolutionary drive to seek status that turns each of us into a notch on the social pecking order.
Population will naturally stabilize as we detach sex from reproduction by creating safe effective birth control that eliminates the possibility of all non consensual reproduction. Every nation in which a high standard of living has become normalized, birth rates have fallen to near replacement rates, and in many cases BELOW replacement rates.
So if they truly want to remove themselves for a fallacy, the sooner they do so the better.
I wouldn't take you up on that offer because even a bullet to the brain can result in lingering unpleasantness. Now, if you had a nice drink I could take before bed, maybe. I hold considerable sympathy for VHEMT opposition to reproduction. Creating a feeling being strikes me as a morally dubious act at best. As the Buddhists say, life is suffering.
They do believe our best achievement was Apollo 11. As if there were no Spirit & Opportunity etc. A popular myth of "slowing progress", a kind of same Malthusian bullshit. Even worse: Malthus didn't witness any subsequent stages of solving the hunger cycle, we did.
> "Although they acknowledge that it's unlikely their stated goal:the total disappearance of humans through a universal voluntary choice not to reproduce:will ever be reached,"
Unlikely? There's a greater probability that Christopher Hitchens will be the next Pope.
You should inquire about their understanding of the evolutionary implications of partial success for their movement: genetic or memetic traits that make people buy the VHEMT ideology would tend to be bred out of the population. This might reduce, alongside voluntary low fertility, environmentalism, progressive political sentiments, and other things that they like.
Have you read anything on vhemt.org? If not, please do, you might be enlightened. You sound just like any indoctrinated and dogma brainwashed person I've ever met. You sound very convinced of your beliefs, just like some religious fundamentalists we all love so much...
I wish your offspring a great life, though I'm quite sure my wish won't come true.
Richard Eskow • http://nightlight.typepad.com • Jul 7, 2010
The Shakers didn't want to reproduce either. These guys sound like the Shakers on acid. The Shakers made good furniture. How are they at arts and crafts?
That said, it's a provocative idea that stimulates debate, and those are always welcome in my book. If they're serious about their beliefs, it's a fascinating sort of inverse millenialism. If they're just provocateurs, that's okay too.
I once interviewed a country music songwriter who was fond of saying "humans are the most interesting people." These humans qualify - and if they were successful, what would our successor AIs do for entertainment?
Please post the bloggingheads segment - I'll watch it. Then we can hum a few bars of "Tis a Gift to be Simple" and get on with our lives. Interesting question, though: Do any of them have kids?
It doesn't really matter what else they believe. The simple fact that they CALL FOR HUMAN EXTINCTION makes them my enemy.
Why? Because my entire goal in life is to save as many human lives as I can. Every action I do, every post I write has as it's ultimate goal the purpose of saving as many human lives as I can until we can achieve sufficient technological advancement to enable us to end death from any cause but personal choice.
If these people merely wanted to kill themselves off, More Power Too Them.
But they don't, do they? They want the entire human race to go with them.
That makes them as big an "Existential Threat" as Nuclear War, Grey Goo, A Collapsed Biosphere, an AI Genocide or an Asteroid Impact.
They can dress it up in shiny "noble intentions" all they like, THEY ARE SEEKING THE DEATH OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE.
Does that sound "indoctrinated" or does that sound like someone who ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS THEIR INTENTION and isn't fooled by the pretty shiny stuff? Genocide in a pretty mask is still Genocide.
I pay attention to the semantics Dave. Even if you are willing to fool yourself, I am not.
And if you really want to discuss my religious views, you might be utterly shocked to find I see the entirety of Western Religious thought to be in the exact same category as a threat to continued human existence.
Richard Eskow • http://nightlight.typepad.com • Jul 7, 2010
Valkyrie, I suppose you're right: they are an extinction threat - if you take them seriously. But they're not advocating genocide, just a voluntary cessation of reproduction (at least as I understand their views).
In reality, it will be hard to take them seriously as a threat until there are at least as many "Voluntary Human Extinction" bumper stickers are there are ones that say "Ask Me About My Grandchildren."
Which is precisely why they need to be ridiculed out of existence PRIOR to that occurrence. You pull a weed when it first sprouts, not once it's already taken over the garden.
It's understandable that several of the comments above are opposed to the concept of voluntary human extinction. Without reading the first sentence on the VHEMT site, or the second paragraph in Mike's article, many assume we are advocating an increase in death. A natural reaction might be to tell us to commit suicide and accuse us of genocide. It's difficult to pay attention to semantics without reading the words.
Valkyrie Ice, we are in agreement that "safe effective birth control that eliminates the possibility of all non consensual reproduction" would be a wonderful improvement. As it is, hundreds of millions of couples who don't want to breed more than they have are denied the means to avoid conception. Your entire goal in life, to save as many human lives as you can, is compatible with our suggestion that people refrain from creating more of us. Tens of thousands of children die on an average day from preventable causes. If their parents had reproductive health services, many of these deaths would be avoided.
Carl, awareness isn't inherited. All of us in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement came from people who bred and yet we've decided not to.
Z, I don't know how you got the idea that we "believe our best achievement was Apollo 11." Maybe some VHEMTer somewhere does, but personally I think our invasion of near space simply continues what we're doing on Earth: there's an abandoned car on the moon now.
I really fail to understand how you're saving human lives by bringing more people into this world. In fact, you're making everyone's (including your offspring) lives worse. I also want to save as many human lives as I can, along with as many lives as I can. Not necessarily human. I don't see us as better than any other creature or plant on Earth. Besides, there is no way you can guarantee that technological advancement will bring human population and resource utilization to a level where we can live sustainably on this planet. In fact, so far it's going the other way. The way I see it, unless we return to monkey-level living (and I don't know a single person who is willing to do that), things will get worse for us and all of life on Earth. So our dying off is inevitable, but we can choose it to be peaceful while we lead great and fruitful lives, while gradually dismantling as much of the damage to Earth as we possibly can, or it can be catastrophic, be it massive famines and starvation, wars, nuclear disasters, and the destruction of countless more species of plants and animals. I like the first one better.
I don't see any reason to kill myself off, I love life and I value all life, which is precisely why I don't want to create more humans who will eventually exploit and take a larger toll on life.
Yes, I am seeking the eventual death of the entire human race, as it is my belief that we are the equivalent of a cancer on the living body which is the composition of all living forms on Earth.
And I didn't say you were religious, I said your views were similar to a religious person's as far as this subject matter is concerned.
Quote - "Yes, I am seeking the eventual death of the entire human race, as it is my belief that we are the equivalent of a cancer on the living body which is the composition of all living forms on Earth."
This is nuts!! If you are serious, then you are indeed a threat to human existence.
Downsizing human population through birth control is sensible and rational to preserve and reverse damage to the Earth's ecosystem. And this has to be thought through rationally.
"Yes, I am seeking the eventual death of the entire human race, as it is my belief that we are the equivalent of a cancer on the living body which is the composition of all living forms on Earth."
I wouldn't call this "nuts" but it takes a special, very difficult ability to step outside one's own (anthropomorphic) perspective to appreciate this possibility. Not saying that the statement is true, but that it's not a claim that should be dismissed so easily, as dangerous as it is.
It deserves some consideration, but even then, the conclusion that we should strive to extinguish the species is not foregone. Less radical population control is another possible remedy. Geoengineering and sustainable living are others. Etc.
I don't know how I am a threat to anything, especially current human existence. I try to do my best to help out other humans in whatever their needs are whenever possible, and don't believe to have ever done anyone any wrong.
I am most definitely not nuts, I have scores of people who can testify to that and I'm a well-functioning member of society, thank you very much. I'm sure I'll easily pass any sanity test.
What I'm proposing is madness if:
A) You believe that human beings are the same as all other living creatures on Earth in the way they interact with nature, along with having more right to life than those living creatures for whatever reason (since we carry on driving them to extinction through our own self-interests)
B) You believe that despite the fact that so far we have shown interest only in our well-being at the present, without considering the well-being of all life on the planet, or the well-being of our progeny, we will overcome this and one day will become responsible and somehow manage to reach a status quo with nature, where we give back as much as we receive.
I have trouble accepting the above two, I don't see us as superior to anyone, and I seriously believe that we have the choice not to continue our species, and should do so for the good of whoever is alive at the moment, and whoever will be alive in the future.
And for the record, I'm not opposed to any other methods or attempts of improving life on Earth, we all have the same goal....
@Valkyrie Ice: "Why don't you just kill yourself?" is, apparently, one of the most frequently asked questions that VHEMT advocates get. Thus, there is quite a bit of literature (as Les U. Knight implies above) on the VHEMT website responding to this question; I suggest that you peruse it. Another interesting : although much too brief(!) : article relating to this topic can be found here: http://www.vhemt.org/wildearth.pdf
What I find especially intriguing are the similarities between VHEMT and transhumanism. Both parties, I believe, would agree that our present situation is unsustainable. Something has to give: human exploitation of the environment has resulted in massive biodiversity loss [1], the collapse of ecosystems, global warming, and so on. (Not to mention risks like ecophagy and nuclear warfare, both of which would be environmentally devastating.)
Thus: How do we best respond to this situation; something must change, but what?
On the one hand, VHEMT advocates the gradual, voluntary ejection of Homo sapiens from our sputtering spaceship Earth. The reasoning is, of course, that one way to solve a problem is to simply eliminate it; thus, since we humans are the problem, we ought to be eliminated : and refraining from procreating is a rather pleasant way to achieve this end. As a result, the biosphere will once again flourish, regaining the "homeostasis" that human activity has so severely disrupted.
On the other hand, transhumanism advocates the creation of a novel species of "posthuman" beings : in particular, creatures whose capacity for creativity, wisdom, problem-solving and "virtuousness" (as Mark Walker emphasizes [2]) far exceeds the maximum attainable by current humans. While transhumanists do not explicitly advocate the elimination of Homo sapiens, the transhumanist project would still succeed if humans were completely replaced by a more "advanced" posthuman species. ("Posthuman" should not be confused with "posthumous"; but the former could indeed bring about the conditions of the latter.)
So, it seems that both views recognize that our present situation is precarious and must change. The situation is urgent. But while one view looks "backwards," in a sense, by advocating the elimination of Homo sapiens, the other view looks "forwards" by advocating the creation of a new, smarter and more responsible type of being (either through radical enhancements or artificially intelligent systems). Homo sapiens is thus central to neither position's futurology.
Insofar as VHEMT poses an existential risk, then, it is not solely by advocating the extinction of Homo sapiens, since the transhumanist project might also result in our extinction. Rather, it is by advocating : although this remains only implicit in their arguments, as far as I can tell : the elimination of any being that we might create to take our place. Although there are clear differences, VHEMT and transhumanism also seem to share some intriguing similarities.
@Carl Shulman: This is definitely an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it holds water. Biological evolution requires that some trait -- in this case the inclination to espouse VHEMT values -- be the effect of a particular gene. Through differential reproduction, then, this gene either increases or decreases in populational frequency. But it's almost certainly not the case that "being inclined to espouse VHEMT values" has the sort of biological basis that genetic evolution requires of a trait. It is not the effect of a specific "VHEMT gene." Thus, VHEMT members refraining from having children would, by itself, have no effect on the strength of the movement. (This fits with Les U. Knight's statement above that "all of us in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement came from people who bred and yet we've decided not to.")
Rather, VHEMT is a cultural phenomenon, and according to one controversial theory (as you mention), culture evolves in Darwinian fashion with memes instead of genes as the replicators. But memes can "leap" from mind to mind via external artifacts; consider the meme of, say, stone choppers from the Oldowan tradition. This meme was preserved for millions of years not in the minds of any individual(s) but in the artifacts themselves. (One could probably think of many better examples than this.) Thus, the partial success of VHEMT might not have any "negative feedback effect" on the movement itself: the idea of voluntary extinction might continue to be propagated (through the internet, books, and so on) even as the number of VHEMT members declined.
Drawing comparisons between transhumanism, posthumanism and VHEMT is not helpful, and neither should it be assumed that humans or Homo sapiens should or would be made redundant. The positive outlook is that humans and their extensions transhumans, posthumans can and will live together, (existential catastrophic events aside).
The best way to reduce and reverse damage to our planet's ecosystem is to wise up, not to promote extinction of the human species in any manner. It is sheer lunacy and stupidity to promote such ideas, yet it is good to know that such human minds and ideals do exist, so thankfully we are all aware of them.
@ Dave...
Sorry, but despite your gentle rhetoric, your statement is quite clear. There are many ways to reverse damage to our planet's ecosystem, and you should not confuse either yourself or others by aligning your ideals with the progression and promotion of the human species.
There are many philosophies that discourage "selfishness" and promote the wisdom of connectedness to our environment, other species, our planet and the cosmos, as well as the need for philosophical and cultural change. And I readily support them all.
And btw I did not say you were "Nuts", (although I cannot be so sure?), only that the ideal of mass extinction is nuts and madness. I am hoping that you will see the light of your most basic error, and I have confidence that you will. I respect your opinion and your freedom of speech, but alas not your ideals.
You still cannot change the simple fact that you seek the END OF THE HUMAN RACE.
"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health."
Same goes for Dave.
Your arguments all come down to "humans need to die so that "nature" can live.
Robert Heinlein says it best.
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" : but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race : i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women : it strikes me as a fine arrangement : and perfectly "natural" Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature."
So at both of you, feel free to die if that is your wish, but stop trying to take the human race with you.
I happen to be a member of the Immortality Institute, we work towards life extension and improving the quality of life for all. Long after you've let yourselves go the way of the Dodo, I'll still be here, using the technological innovations that we HUMANS will devise to address and fix all those problems you have decided are unfixable and living a wonderful life in a world without physical suffering, but endless mental challenge, and every few centuries maybe I'll stop by and say "told you so" to your graves.
And, for the record, it doesn't matter whether or not you "agree" with some of my views. Your end goal as YOU HAVE CLEARLY STATED IT is genocide. Genocide in a pretty face is still Genocide. No amount of "dressing it up" will change that.
Not to be provacative, but here's an honest question:
Is it not genocide when we aim for the eradication of harmful bacteria and viruses, e.g., smallpox, Ebola -- or even some mammals, e.g. rats and other "vermin", or fish, e.g., Asian carp?
These killings seem to be ok, suggesting that genocide in and of itself is not intrinsically bad -- it's objectionable only when it's about a species we (humans) value. If so, then this may be a "speciest" or an anthropomorphic bias on the face of it (without giving, say, a utilitarian or ecological analysis).
Not sure which side of the debate this point affects, but that's where the arguments seem to be headed...
To be more clear, I guess my point is: It's understandable that we would want to eradicate the sources of pestilence and other things contrary to human interests. Self-preservation is a powerful motive.
But that doesn't imply -- by itself, without further argument -- that human beings have a greater moral right to exist than other living things do. Other than religious texts which claim that our species is the Chosen One, I haven't seen any convincing arguments that we have any such moral right.
Again, that doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that humans should disappear for the greater good of the planet. But it's not a totally unreasonable position insoar as some argument could possibly support the conclusion...
"You still cannot change the simple fact that you seek the END OF THE HUMAN RACE."
I should correct that statement: we're a species, not a race. I know I'll never see the end of our species, but you're right, that's exactly what we're advocating -- by voluntary means.
Robert Heinlein is a great writer but ecology isn't his strong point. There's a world of difference between the ecological effects of a beaver dam and a man-made dam.
Genocide applies to wiping out a specific ethnicity, or trying to anyway. The VHEMT plan doesn't make such distinctions, so it's more like "speciescide". However, that suffix "cide" doesn't apply because we're not advocating death -- that happens naturally to all of us. Well, except for you. Maybe you'll climb in the tree that grows out of my corpse.
@ Philippe
That's a great comparison between VHEMT and transhumanism. Would it be okay for me to use it on the VHEMT site? I'm not sure where I'd put it, but it seems worth thinking about.
@ CygnusX1
"The best way to reduce and reverse damage to our planet's ecosystem is to wise up, not to promote extinction of the human species in any manner."
Why not both? Perhaps we could agree that until we wise up we should stop making more of us. After all the species we've eliminated, what's the big deal about one more?
However you assume much to think I endorse the elimination of any biological organism. My preferred solution is not eradication, but rending humanity immune to disease organisms and dangers posed by other biological organisms.
As for the difference between beavers and the Hoover Dam? It's only one of scale. Nothing else. Humanity is as "Natural" as a Beaver.
And YOU PERSONALLY may not advocate "killing" but you still advocated the end of the human species. Seriously, when your ideology is rejected by the majority, how long before one of your "followers" decides to stop allowing it to be a "choice" and starts working on a "species killer" to ensure it? You may be benevolent, but your ideology is not. It is an "Existential Threat" and needs to be weeded out of the meme pool. You may THINK you don't advocate death, but just like most western religions, you are viewing "Death" as "A release from suffering" and thus as a desirable goal. Sooner or later, one of your followers will begin viewing it as a CRUSADE, and start killing.
And even if you manage to avoid that eventuality, like Greenpeace, you will likely hinder all efforts to address the very problems you seek to "solve" that do not "mesh" with your view that "humanity needs to die" such as life extension, improved medical technology, human enhancement, eco-egineering and most other transhumanist goals.
Putting aside the other issues raised here, a key problem with the intentional extinction of humans seems to be this:
The remaining humans likely will suffer a declining quality of life. Without a sizable workforce needed to operate power plants, farm crops, perform difficult surgeries, etc., life would be harder. We'd return to a less technological state. This might be fine with a lot of folks -- e.g., email is a choking digital leash for many of us -- but nonetheless life expectancy probably will drop (and this would be fine for the VHEMT), which means more suffering.
Now, some countries have turned to technology to replace their declining workforce and offset their ageing population. In Japan, about 1 in 25 workers are robots. Italy is headed down the same path, given a similar trend in demographics. But these are mostly manufacturing and service jobs, not healthcare or creative or research-oriented or education jobs which are all needed to prop up quality of life.
Say humans stop reproducing as of right now. How much would the remaining population suffer over the rest of their natural lives, and is that suffering reason enough to stop VHMET's social experiment?
Does VHEMT have a plan to address this issue? (I don't know either way.)
The very last batch of humans won't have doctors or nurses or pharmacists to attend to them, when they're injured or dying. They'd either have to commit suicide, or die a potentially slow and painful death alone. And even before the last batch of humans, the remaining ones will feel the same kind of neglect, though maybe to a lesser degree (since some, but dwindling numbers of doctors, etc. will be around).
Is the benefit to the planet by extinguishing humans greater than the suffering of these remaining people? How do you even calculate that?
Alternatively, is the harm to the planet and its inhabitants greater than the extra happiness we (sometimes...hopefully most of the time) create by bringing more humans into the world?
Peter Singer wrote a great article about these kinds of issues in the NY Times last month: here. Also, check out his reply to commentators: here.
I'm not entirely sure the artificial vs. natural distinction is relevant. One can hold that a species X is indeed within the realm of nature while also holding that X is in some way bad for the ecosystem (and thus it would be better if X didn't exist). I do often wonder, as a thought experiment of sorts, what we humans would do to another species if it threatened the biosphere as we are now threatening it. (No doubt, we would squash species X immediately, for the good of all Earth-originating life!)
"There's a world of difference between the ecological effects of a beaver dam and a man-made dam." This seems to me a crucial point, if only because I think it's absolutely correct. While beaver dams do indeed have massive ecological impacts (it is one of the prime examples of "niche construction" in the literature), the dam-building phenotype of beavers evolved in a gradualistic manner over long stretches of evolutionary time. Beaver dams are sustainable, as is the creation and use of all other non-human artifacts. In contrast, human alterations to the environment (e.g., dams) have been, in a relative sense, both sudden and widespread : too quick and extensive for the vast majority of organisms to adapt. Thus, we have the Holocene extinction event.
@ Les U. Knight:
Absolutely. I think there is a legitimate debate to be had between those who want to solve the problems facing us today by accelerating human evolution, through the careful development of enhancement technologies or friendly AI, and those who want to solve them by eliminating humans from the biological mix. ("Advancing," by the way, requires quite a bit of spelling out -- a task that transhumanists have, I think, done a fairly good job of doing.) I look forward to the bloggingheads.tv discussion!
As I have said before, I write about future technology, and have done extensive research into the technologies we are working on.
This "Crisis" we are in economically is a natural result of the eroding effect technology is having on an "economy of scarcity" in which human needs as well as all other human activities are centered around how "rare" an item is. This "rarity" is determined by the amount of effort needed by a human to make a resource "available" and by the physical amount of resource available at any given time.
This gives an item a "value" based on how "common" it is. That should be easy enough to understand. The fact that we incorporate this "value" into our social status games also provides a "status" value to every resource. "Common" resources have little "status" value "rare" resources have far more.
However, technology is rapidly devaluing material resources, because it is making ALL material resources either more common, or it is enabling the creation of new technologies based on far more common resources.
This is eroding the "value" of material resources, both in terms of the amount of human effort needed to obtain and the rarity of material goods.
This is resulting in a cascade effect, causing many previously "valuable" resources to become significantly less valuable, either through making it easier to make, enabling multiplicity of function, or through a shift to an entirely new method of use.
This benefits low status members of society far more than it benefits those who have built their "status" on scarcity. Thus they attempt to "misuse" collective resources (i.e. the government) to attempt to prevent this "loss" of status, and maintain the "Status Quo"
Much of the "declining quality of life" is occurring because of these "status games" We COULD provide a uniformly high standard of living for all humans at the minimal base level of low middle class America for ALL PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. But this would require a MASSIVE loss of status on the part of high status individuals.
But again, this is becoming less necessary every day, as we draw closer to being able reduce the effort needed to provide for all human needs to near zero through such automation technologies as 3D printing, Bio-Printing, THz computers, and narrow AI.
Within 20 years, it seems feasible that we will be able to create "meat factories" that can print out any food source we have a DNA code for. We are likely to have "Desktop Manufacturing Units" which can print out nearly any arbitrary device or component of a device for individual assembly. And we are likely to have the ability to use stemcells as a "universal medical nanobot" to repair nearly any form of damage done to the human body. And that's not even mentioning the possible vast improvements in medical care and the service industries as fast computers make narrow AI's and "virtual workers" commonplace.
And thats providing that the pessimists are right and true nanotech is more than 20 years away, which I do not agree with.
The point is, that yes, we are likely to see an increase in suffering for some period of time as high status actors seek desperately to prevent the creation and use of such technologies in an effort to retain their present status, but they will not be able to succeed for any significant period of time, as in months to years, not decades.
Inevitably, automation and innovation will drive material resources to the lowest end of the market, as they will become so common and available that they have little "value" economically or socially. this will finally remove deprivation of needs as a tool to enforce "status" and thus remove "physical suffering" from the day to day life of the human race.
It will additionally remove much of the burden from the biosphere, as switching to new energy technologies, vastly improved recycling of resources, and the creation of "smart materials" will reduce pollution to near zero, and waste creation to near zero.
It's also going to enable us to recreate any extinct species which we have DNA for, and eventually enable us to recreate the DNA of many which we don't.
So no, the premise that VHMET's tenets are built on fly directly in the face of developing technological trends.
20th century tech was indeed everything you say, including "unsustainable"
The problem is that you make the assumption that we have not learned from those errors, and that we cannot correct them in the near future.
See my response above.
We are creating new ways to do things daily. A vast number of those new innovations enable us to reduce the amount of resources needed to make new items, enable us to reduce the amount of waste produced by manufacturing items, enable us to change from "limited" resources to "renewable resources and numerous other "green goals"
Most of the "problems" we face now are not about technology, but about the fight of those who have achieved high status in our society to prevent the loss of that status by seeking to prevent the adoption of newer technologies by preservation of the old. This is a game that has been played over and over through history, and every time with the same result. They succeed for a short period, and then either collapse, are revolted against, or get bypassed and become a curiosity.
We are in a very fast changing world, and if you only look at a few signposts, like the mature phases of Nanotech, Biotech, robotics and AI, then you are missing the ten thousand little developments that are building up into a tidal wave of change in the very near future.
As for the "natural" vs "artificial" distinction, to me, that is the error Les is making. I hold no distinction between human artifacts and animal artifacts. Both are equally "natural"
Humankind is the only chance we know for getting mastery over the phenomenon of suffering that has plagued countless animals since millions of years. If we disappeared, evolution would probably follow the same too costly path for millions of years again. We must survive and establish a satisfying collective management of suffering, through what I have proposed to call an algonomy (see algosphere.org).
IMHO, overpopulation is indeed a significant and much too neglected part of the problem in the current situation of the world. The present lower middle class American way of life would not be sustainable for a population of six billions or more. But I agree nevertheless with Valkyrie's line of solution, if at least it is acknowledge that there ought to be a reasonable limit to the number of humans.
Richard Eskow • http://nightlight.typepad.com • Jul 8, 2010
@Robert Daoust - intriguing comment. It suggests a Singularity for animals.
This entire discussion reminds me of the interview I did with J Hughes. When we talked about the idea that superintelligent AIs could be made safe for humanity by designing them to be compassionate, I asked the question: "Compassionate to whom?" Compassion for other species might lead them to the same conclusion this group is making.
We could make it sustainable if the government could nationalize food production and distribution, medical care, all educational institutions, and the housing industry in the same fashion that they have done with security (police, fire, military) to not only maximize production but enable it's provision to all individuals on a "free" basis, thus enabling massive employment, and freeing up the vast majority of "income" to be devoted to economic recovery, and to "cushion" society as we transition from a material based economy to a non-material one.
That will however be resisted by those who are currently making enormous profits off supplying NEEDS.
As for population, standard of living has a negative correlation with population growth. The higher it gets, the fewer children it produces. thus the quickest way to stabilize population is to provide a low middle income American standard of living to the entire population.
It's a long term self interest win-win scenario, which short term self interest will do everything to prevent.
Since some VHEMT supporters here are much better with words than I am, I will only shortly address what VHEMT opponents here are saying.
Basically, VHEMT opponents believe that humans are somehow better than the rest of living beings and even, in a way, sacred. They also seem to believe that we are definitely an evolutionary achievement rather than an unfortunate (for the rest of living creatures, and in fact, for ourselves) mistake. Because we are so great, and so intelligent, we will eventually find solutions to all of our habitat destruction and sustainability problems.
While that would be great if it did happen, the way I see it today, it is complete science fiction. Nothing comes for free, and all the great possible future technological achievements discussed here will not come for free. Up until now, every new technology came with a price and side effects, which in some cases we were not able to predict or which became obvious much later. I see no reason to believe that new technology will not be the same.
Despite all this, it would be great if it did happen, and I wish all those working on technology and ideas that would bring us (and by us, I mean all living beings) to a sustainable state on Earth great luck. My belief is that all those attempts are doomed from the start. At the moment, I know for a fact that our net effect on all life, including our own (as a collective) is negative. In order to reverse this, the only thing we can do is disappear. In my mind, to believe otherwise is the same as believing in god - there's no factual proof, and in fact much to be said for the contrary, yet people lead entire lives based on belief alone, ignoring facts and shunning responsibility.
In fact, I'm not at all depressed. I'm very happy, have a great life, and contribute to the lives of those around. You're welcome to come visit and see if I'm depressed.
And I haven't given up at all. If I had given up, I would probably have kids. I have good hopes for the future, in which humanity ceases to exist, for its own sake and the sake of life on Earth. I'm very optimistic about this.
No need to commit suicide, just stop having children. Meanwhile, live life to the fullest.
@Laoch
I'm against involuntary death - I'm for voluntary extinction of the human race (that is in fact what what the acronym VHEMT means). Involuntary death is indeed negative, and this is exactly where it's going at the moment - the involuntary death of all life on Earth including and caused by the human race. And nothing about relinquishing life, unless you only believe humans are included under "life".
@Dave who writes: "At the moment, I know for a fact that our net effect on all life, including our own (as a collective) is negative. In order to reverse this, the only thing we can do is disappear."
Negative? Even if that was true, the belief that our disappearance is the only thing we can do at a time when we are acquiring radical new powers to change things, that belief looks to me as much more irrational and dangerous than the belief that "new technology will not be the same" as old ones.
I'm glad that you convinced yourself and can live happily ever after.
I can also act like a child and say "You Are an Existential Threat!!!"
Doesn't make any of us any smarter or better.
Besides, me being happy has predated my desire for the end of the human race. So really, it doesn't have much to do with.
Besides, what do you care if I won't have children? Obviously, my genetics are messed up and my children will also be "existential threats", won't they?
But way to prove points to yourself. Thumbs up!
@Robert Daoust
It's obvious that our trust and belief in future technology is vastly different. Just one example, when we started using coal power plants, it was also a "radical new power to change things". Did the world a lot of good, didn't it (besides maing life more comfortable, in some ways, for us humans)?
What you see as promising technology for a better future, I see as further options for us to continue destroying the world and ourselves in some cases, and science fiction in the others.
I've never been the one trying to claim wanting the death of humanity is "harmless"
It's not the desire to not have children that is the problem and never has been. It's the fact that you want humanity as a WHOLE to go extinct. That is the crux, the whole, the entirety of the issue. You can defend it however you wish, but it still comes down to that one single fact.
And beyond that, you have made an EFFORT to make your desire happen. And are making an effort now.
Were you focused on an individual, that would be sufficient to take steps to protect that individual from you.
And why I have been the one pointing out over and over again that nothing you represent makes that goal "noble, just, righteous," or any other cosmetic masks you seek to put over it.
You want me dead. You want everyone in this forum dead. You want every person everywhere in the world dead. You seek the death of every single human. It doesn't matter that you cloak that in "voluntary". It doesn't change the end result, and I have no reason to assume your continued benevolence in allowing me or any other human a choice. I know you want me dead, and I'm supposed to trust you not to kill me? So sorry. No deal.
I am all in favor of exterminating the whole universe (or the Earth, or humankind, or life itself) if its net effect on all (sentient) life is negative. But we are so far yet to be able to know such things for sure. You cannot presume that humans will always have a negative net effect. On the contrary, what we know for sure is that nature, since at least millions of years, produces billions of animals that at times suffer too much, and that since a few thousands of years there are pain-reducing novelties brought up by us humans, one among other animal species that are powerless in the face of too much suffering. You would want to stop the production of those novelties? Why? Because you believe that we, poor humans, are responsible for nature's woes? You give us too much credit! As you have graciously granted, we may wish, instead, that through those who work on technology and ideas that would bring a better world, we would become nature's way to solve its own problem. Until we know for sure, we must hope against all hopes and all fears.
I think VHEMT idea is worth to be expressed, for various reasons. But the cosmic horror of humankind premature disparition, voluntary or not, must be made clear to all sensible people who hear about such an idea.
I'm growing tired of discussing something with someone who refuses to even read the first paragraph of what VHEMT says.
I don't want you, or anyone else currently alive, to die of anything other than natural causes. I wish all of us good health and a long life.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with death, we (and all living creatures, aside from some microscopic beings who live in interactive colonies, and it can't really be said for certain we're talking about a single creature or a collective) die eventually. This is something that is certain and has been happening since the beginning of life.
@Robert Daoust
It's not I that gives much credit to humans, just ask all the species of plants and animals that have gone extinct solely because of our destruction of their habitat, for whatever reasons.
The way I see it, our destruction as a species is inevitable, and the way it's going now, it's gonna come catastrophically and painfully, taking with us a lot more of the currently existing life on Earth in the meantime. I advocate a method which will bring the end of our species painlessly, while preserving the life that still exists here. I think we owe it to ourselves and all of life. I rather not bring children into a world which is rapidly heading for disaster, where they will be a part of the cause for this disaster.
@Everyone
I understand that I will not convince those with firm beliefs in humankind's capability of creating technology that would bring a completely sustainable world into being, and you must also understand that I will not be convinced either.
I myself will continue to seek and create (you might be surprised to learn that I work in the medical imaging industry, where I create products that help save lives) technology that might make this a better world for those who are alive, while I'll try to keep as much of a sustainable lifestyle as I can. And I will not have children, and won't be shy about expressing my viewpoint and explaining why to anyone interesting in hearing about it.
It's been a nice discussion, but seriously, This has to stop somewhere. I thank you all for helping me consolidate my views further, it always helps to have opposing viewpoints just so you can understand your own viewpoint even better.
I grow tired of repeating that the rest of your views have absolutely no bearing. I have read your website. It's all fluff and cutesy and giggle giggle giggle and not one word of it changes the fact that you want humanity to go extinct.
I could dress up an executioner in a clown suit too. Wouldn't change the fact he's an executioner.
@Patrick
"Is it not genocide when we aim for the eradication of harmful bacteria and viruses, e.g., smallpox, Ebola -- or even some mammals, e.g. rats and other "vermin", or fish, e.g., Asian carp?"
Smallpox and similar diseases may be eradicated without harming the rest of Earth's biosphere because they are human-specific, most likely mutated from domesticated animal diseases.
Introduced species -- like us everywhere except Africa -- disrupt ecosystems they didn't evolve in, and when possible it's better for those ecosystems if they're eradicated. This usually doesn't work, but if it does, the species would still live in their native ecosystem -- unless we've converted that ecosystem to human habitat.
"The remaining humans likely will suffer a declining quality of life... Say humans stop reproducing as of right now. How much would the remaining population suffer over the rest of their natural lives, and is that suffering reason enough to stop VHMET's social experiment?"
Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future, but I foresee a sustained improvement of our lives as there are fewer of us. We would still need to deal with the inequities caused by those who control most of the wealth, as Valkyrie Ice explained, but potentially there would be more of everything for everyone. We don't need billions of people to maintain a highly technological society. As our population density reaches the low end, we would likely gravitate to the warmer climates and be able to live off Nature's bounty with little effort. Our medical problems are usually related to dirty industrial practices, which would be greatly reduced. Proportionately, there could be just as many of us in necessary professions as we phase out. The society Valkyrie Ice described on 07/08 at 06:50PM would eliminate more than half of the work now done in our inefficient system. If we continue to increase by 75 - 80 million per year, all the advancements will be eaten up, as they have been literally with the Green Revolution.
"Alternatively, is the harm to the planet and its inhabitants greater than the extra happiness we (sometimes...hopefully most of the time) create by bringing more humans into the world?"
Certainly. We are clever enough to find happiness in many ways, but we aren't clever enough to live without displacing other life forms.
World peace could be achieved when we don't have to fight over resources.
@ Robert
"Humankind is the only chance we know for getting mastery over the phenomenon of suffering that has plagued countless animals since millions of years."
Ecosystems which comprise the biosphere symbiotically maintain a balance by eating each other, and that suffering can't be mastered by humans without causing a collapse of the whole system. We have exponentially increased the suffering of non-human animals with our industrialized meat production. Rather than suffering only in death, they often suffer their entire lives. The fewer of us there are, the less suffering there will be.
@ Valkyrie Ice
"It's not the desire to not have children that is the problem and never has been. It's the fact that you want humanity as a WHOLE to go extinct. That is the crux, the whole, the entirety of the issue. You can defend it however you wish, but it still comes down to that one single fact.
And beyond that, you have made an EFFORT to make your desire happen. And are making an effort now."
True, and this applies to all VHEMT Volunteers who share the concept with others. Our peaceful phase out has been defended in many ways, some of which have been known to evoke giggles. What I haven't seen defended is humanity's continued replication of ourselves. What good will the creation of one more of us do?
"I could dress up an executioner in a clown suit too. Wouldn't change the fact he's an executioner."
Also true. But, back to the subject of voluntary human extinction. Many have a difficult time making the distinction between our deaths and births. Births are the result of couples co-creating a new human being which didn't exist before. Deaths occur at the end of our lives because we were born. Death is the end of a life which exists, whereas birth begins a life which didn't exist. We are recommending that everyone stop creating new human lives, which will eventually end in death whether we want that to happen or not. Fewer births mean fewer deaths. May we live long and die out.
What part of IT IS STILL DESIRING THE DEATH OF THE HUMAN RACE is not penetrating here?
It doesn't matter how you prettify it. It doesn't matter how you justify it. It doesn't matter how many times you claim to wish people to "live long" when you add "and DIE OUT."
GET IT YET?
You are still trying to paint cosmetics on the face of an executioner.
Fine. I get the fact that you all are depressed, and that rather than work to solve the problems, you've given up and decided death is the only choice. Go ahead and die however you chose. Just STOP TRYING TO TAKE THE HUMAN RACE WITH YOU.
You want to advocate for population reduction? More power too you. BUT STOP USING SPECIES EXTINCTION AS YOUR MOTIVE.
You want to help the environment? You'd make a hell of a bigger one by contributing to research to create green technologies and eco-friendly power sources, all of which are within reach and benefiting from a number of new electronics developments. Help get them to the market instead of throwing up your hands and going "I'm done, time to kill off the human race!"
Your views and goals REGARDLESS OF HOW LAUDABLE become just so much lip service hypocrisy when you use them as justifications for Species extinction. You could share 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of my opinions and viewpoints, and it would still be utterly meaningless because you have given up, and I have not. You have decided that death is the only course, and I have decided life is the only one. We are still going to be diametric opposites because of that one single overarching goal.
What good will the creation of one more of us do? If that one more is the person who come up with the solution, every good in the world. Will a lot of people suffer? Yes, but unlike you, I realize the root cause of that suffering is human behavior, not population. I also realize that numerous developments to reign in that human behavior are in labs right this second, and I am aware enough of history to see the patterns that have happened time and again all around me, and see no reasons why those patterns won't result in the same, POSITIVE, manner that they have through out history. We are a developing species, we make mistakes. If we are responsible enough, we TAKE those mistakes and LEARN FROM THEM. And while we may make similar mistakes, and far too many of us forget the lessons, on the whole, each learning cycle results in positive development.
But no matter how you try to conceal it in noble ideals, or transhumanist thought, you still seek a NEGATIVE SOLUTION. You chose to RUN from responsibility rather than embrace it.
Is this planet fucked up? You betcha. And if we all die out, it will take millennia or longer for all the damage done to slowly heal.
Or, we can continue along the path we are on to cleaner technology and nanotechnology, and we could repair all that damage in less than a current human lifetime and return to living in harmony with a nature that has been rendered harmless to us because we've improved ourselves to the point we'll no longer have to change our environment just to survive.
So, yes, you could say we share the same vision of a healed nature vibrant with life.
But in MY vision, humans are just as natural a part of it as any bacteria, plant, insect, animal, or fish.
@ Valkyrie: Not that I buy all or many of VHEMT's arguments -- including Les' last reply to me -- but I think there's a basic bias that you're not able to overcome in order to appreciate at least the possibility that VHEMT could be right.
The point you keep raising is that they are desiring the death of the human race, and that's supposed to make the conversation a non-starter. Well, that point certainly sounds bad, but can you really explain why it's bad? I suspect that it's just an anthropomorphic bias (I know I've said that before).
Imagine that we are all viruses, living in some organism. We could be slowly killing it or just making it occasionally sick. Now imagine that one virus says to another, "I propose we stop self-replicating and extinguish ourselves." And the other one exclaims, "But that's ridiculous...you're desiring the death of our virus-species!"
What do you think -- is the argument over at this point? Or can an argument be made by the first virus for self-extinction? If so, why can't that argument also apply in the human conversation about self-exctinction?
I'm not saying that it would be an identical argument. There are important differences between viruses and humans: we have hopes, dreams, sentience, etc., and that makes killing humans a lot worse than killing viruses (though we're not talking about killing here, just voluntary self-selection out of the natural gene pool).
But my point is that it's difficult to see -- without appealing to some religious text that merely asserts it -- why humans would have such a special place in the universe that it's unthinkable to consider our self-termination. Life is life is life, and we are just one form of it. We're likely not even the most advanced life form possible but merely on a higher rung on the evolutionary ladder than most others on our planet.
Again, for a very good related discussion, check out the Peter Singer articles in the NY TimesI linked to previously.
Beyond the evolutionary drives which created us, beyond the drives that demand we survive, beyond the fact that man is as deserving of life as every other bio-organism, beyond the fat that we are evolutionarily programmed to self improve? That we are programmed to grow and learn and make mistakes and above all to evolve?
If the universe itself is insufficient reason for our existence and continued existence, then nothing I have to say on a "moral" or "ethical" basis has meaning. It is just justification for my desire to continue living, and serve my own long term self interest.
We have no SPECIAL place in the universe, but at no point in evolution does the concept of "self termination" promote survival.
@ Les: I appreciate your last reply, and to respond:
Smallpox and similar diseases may be eradicated without harming the rest of Earth's biosphere because they are human-specific, most likely mutated from domesticated animal diseases.
So you seem to be suggesting that eradicating a species is ok if it doesn't harm the rest of the biosphere. Would love to hear the argument that supports that point. Further, doesn't disease play an important role in nature's population control? Eradicating them would seem to be counter to VHEMT's ultimate aim!
But most importantly, if humans were eradicated, the biosphere would be harmed, to the extent that many animals depend on us, e.g. cows, chickens, dogs, etc., most of which would not exist if it weren't for humans. Do you propose that they should disappear too...or be let loose in the wild and see what happens? This is similar to the dilemma of bringing back an extinct species S1: What then becomes of the other "unnatural" species S2 that had flourished in S1's absence? Isn't it bad to reduce S2's population, just to return to some arbitrary initial state of nature?
---------------------------------------------------
Introduced species -- like us everywhere except Africa -- disrupt ecosystems they didn't evolve in, and when possible it's better for those ecosystems if they're eradicated. This usually doesn't work, but if it does, the species would still live in their native ecosystem -- unless we've converted that ecosystem to human habitat.
First, I don't see how Africans are exempt as "introduced species." Just because human life is said to originate there doesn't mean that Africa is the only place humans should exist. We migrated to other lands, and this is different from an "introduction" which implies an intentional or accidental tinkering with the norm or otherwise "unnatural" (which is a very fuzzy and loaded concept).
When the wind carries seeds across mountain ranges, plains, and lakes, does that upset some balance or natural state that ought to be preserved (and why should it be preserved) -- does the wind introduce these species to new geographies, thus giving us moral permission to roll back the clock and remove them? For better or worse, the ecosystem now is how the ecosystem is now. Changing it in any way would likely cause a cascade of unforeseen effects, including displacing (killing) many species that now exist which perhaps might not have existed without humans. (See my question about bringing back an extinct species above.)
---------------------------------------------------
Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future...
I'm surprised you've resorted to this line of reasoning (Neil Bohr's quote), since that's exactly an objection that can be used against VHEMT. Sure, it's possible that continued human existence will lead to the death of the planet...but predictions are hard to make, especially about the future.
---------------------------------------------------
Anyway, it's good to have a civil dialogue about these and other issues. I know it's hard to be patient with arguments and critics, but if you really expect VHEMT to succeed, then you'll need to win the hearts and minds of billions of people -- and clear, compelling arguments (and their critical examination) are essential for that. (Critics of VHMET seem to not have this burden of proof, but should still be patient and civil anyway, or just don't engage at all.)
@ Les who writes: "Ecosystems which comprise the biosphere symbiotically maintain a balance by eating each other, and that suffering can't be mastered by humans without causing a collapse of the whole system. We have exponentially increased the suffering of non-human animals with our industrialized meat production. Rather than suffering only in death, they often suffer their entire lives. The fewer of us there are, the less suffering there will be."
If ecosystems cause too much suffering, and we know for sure that the only solution is to cause a collapse of the whole system, let's go ahead and destroy all life, not just human life.
Industrialized meat production is a monstrosity, but it is still a tiny part of the monstrosities that have plagued countless animals since millions of years. Excessive suffering occurs regularly, and not only in dying animals, without humans being involved. The fewer of us that there may be is zero, and that is what you advocate, but I am afraid you are missing completely the point that I am trying to convey: it is most probable that if humans disappeared today, there would not be less suffering in the future but on the contrary there would be millions of years of useless excessive suffering before nature gets another chance at rationally mastering the phenomenon of suffering.
Don't you see the monstruous risk there is in the VHEMT idea, and the cosmic amount of certainty it takes before it should be advocated?
I don't think anyone has mentioned the likelihood of convincing everyone to voluntarily do anything, much less, so boldly defy their innate biology. It reminds me of Dvorsky's Postgenderism essay. If you really expect everyone (or even a sizable percentage of the population) to adhere to any ideology, you'll have to force them. This is simply axiom.
Another axiom is "Survival of the Fittest". Human "specialness" is no god-given right; it is simply a self-evident fact observed by early humans. We are the dominant species. In Nature's eyes, that makes us "special". Species who cannot coexist with the dominant species will die. This is the essence of Nature. It has been this way since the beginning of life, and it will remain this way as long as life persists. Nothing will change it. Despite her beauty, Nature is uncaring and unforgiving. Nature has no conscience. Nature loves the strong and fit, and doesn't give a damn about the weak and unfit. And if there's anything that goes against Nature, it's voluntary extinction of the dominant species.
Nature doesn't give a damn about the Ecology. She only has eyes for us, humans, for now into the unforeseeable future. That said, I think humanity really should clean up its act. I like plants and other animals, and losing them makes life for us incrementally worse.
Nature has put us in the driver's seat. It's up to us to decide where we go from here. Let's not drive off a cliff, voluntarily or otherwise.
@Valkyrie Ice
"What part of IT IS STILL DESIRING THE DEATH OF THE HUMAN RACE is not penetrating here?"
I share your frustration.
"It doesn't matter how you prettify it. It doesn't matter how you justify it. It doesn't matter how many times you claim to wish people to 'live long' when you add 'and DIE OUT.'"
A candle dies out at the end of its "life" if it's not extinguished before that. We are suggesting that we do the same: die out without being extinguished.
"Fine. I get the fact that you all are depressed, and that rather than work to solve the problems, you've given up and decided death is the only choice. Go ahead and die however you chose. Just STOP TRYING TO TAKE THE HUMAN RACE WITH YOU."
When faced with a message we don't like, sometimes we blame the messenger: maybe they're depressed, crazy, angry, or something. They say "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." Similarly, if we are never depressed about what's going on, we're insensitive. Dealing with awareness takes some effort. Denial can be a temporary refuge, but without the help of a strong belief system, reality will keep breaking through to consciousness. Religious beliefs are useful: a god will come soon, or this is all according to its plan. A technological version imagines a deus ex machina just around the corner.
"What good will the creation of one more of us do? If that one more is the person who come up with the solution, every good in the world."
Thank you for answering my question. It may seem like the more people we throw at the world's problems the more likely one will find a solution. However, we already have billions of potential solvers whose brains aren't getting the nourishment they need to think beyond digging in the dirt and making more of themselves. How many potential Einsteins were among the tens of thousands of children who died yesterday? I say, don't breed 'em, feed 'em.
Incidentally, what if the solution they came up with was a voluntary phasing out of our species?
"Will a lot of people suffer? Yes, but unlike you, I realize the root cause of that suffering is human behavior, not population."
I think we agree on this: human behavior is the problem, population is just a measure of how many of us are behaving as humans.
"You chose to RUN from responsibility rather than embrace it."
I agree we should embrace our responsibility to undo what we've done. While we're at it, we should stop doing what has to be undone as much as possible. The technological advancements which might help us do this could still be developed if we stopped breeding, in fact they could be easier to develop if we stop squandering our resources on military conflicts. Wars are the result of resource scarcity, which results from excessive population density. I share your vision of a world beyond this scarcity, and perhaps we can continue to head toward the same goal on separate paths.
@ Patrick Lin
"So you seem to be suggesting that eradicating a species is ok if it doesn't harm the rest of the biosphere."
Eradicating exotic species which are disrupting the ecosystem they have been introduced to normally doesn't cause their extinction.
"Further, doesn't disease play an important role in nature's population control? Eradicating them would seem to be counter to VHEMT's ultimate aim!"
The idea that we do not want to increase deaths seems to be very difficult to comprehend. Maybe you can help me find the wording that will get the idea across.
"But most importantly, if humans were eradicated, the biosphere would be harmed, to the extent that many animals depend on us, e.g. cows, chickens, dogs, etc., most of which would not exist if it weren't for humans. Do you propose that they should disappear too...or be let loose in the wild and see what happens?"
Our domesticated species should be phased out with us. In most cases, they should be phased out long before us. They are extensions of our existence and multiply our impact.
"First, I don't see how Africans are exempt as "introduced species." Just because human life is said to originate there doesn't mean that Africa is the only place humans should exist. We migrated to other lands, and this is different from an "introduction" which implies an intentional or accidental tinkering with the norm or otherwise "unnatural" (which is a very fuzzy and loaded concept)."
Determining when an exotic invader has become a part of an ecosystem and when it's still disrupting it can be a challenge, even for field biologists. More often, there's no doubt about it, just a question of how much.
African wildlife evolved with humans and was able to avoid extinction at our hands as a result, though our use of fire likely eliminated a few species -- we started doing that before we became us. The difference between our intentional migration and an introduction by a third party doesn't change an exotic's status. In Africa we have evolved into a virtual exotic and I'm told the only place wildlife still significantly exists is in the preserves. If I had a family to feed, I too would probably kill an endangered species to feed them rather than watching them starve to death.
@ Robert
"If ecosystems cause too much suffering, and we know for sure that the only solution is to cause a collapse of the whole system, let's go ahead and destroy all life, not just human life."
Ecosystems don't cause too much suffering. Humanity causes too much suffering. Regardless of how violent a wild animal may be killed by its predator, it doesn't suffer as a caged animal does its whole life. Confining animals in cages doesn't seem to me like progress toward "rationally mastering the phenomenon of suffering."
@ Edward
"I don't think anyone has mentioned the likelihood of convincing everyone to voluntarily do anything, much less, so boldly defy their innate biology."
Yes, it's indeed a challenge to help people gain a new perspective. Fortunately, we don't have to defy "innate biology." Our biological urges are to have sex and offspring often result. The urge isn't to conceive, that's cultural conditioning. This programming is so strong it feels biological for some, so I'm not discounting the difficulty in overcoming it.
"Survival of the fittest" refers to individuals within a species. Predators which wipe out their food supplies are not very fit for their ecosystems.
"Nature has put us in the driver's seat. It's up to us to decide where we go from here. Let's not drive off a cliff, voluntarily or otherwise."
Now that we've got control of hurricanes and oil gushers, where shall we drive ourselves to next?
You don't even come close to understanding or sharing my frustration, because you are still completely clueless as the causes and sources of the problems your "solution" is not an answer to.
And I can only chalk that up to deliberately ignoring everything I've said in this thread, because you don't want to hear it.
Simply put, the human race, through evolution, has been programmed to act in certain ways. There are no "resource" shortages on this planet. There are only those who hoard far more resources than are needed to maintain their "status", and those who are denied those resources because those with status refuse to share them.
It's an Evolutionary BUG. Wars get fought to determine "status" not over resources. We got into a war in the Middle East because "America" lost face, and because GW wanted to "Avenge Daddy's Honor" and the oil companies took advantage. We are still fighting because to pull out would be to admit "WE COULDN'T TAKE EM" and lose our status as bully of the world.
The solution? REMOVE STATUS FROM THE PROVISION OF HUMAN NEEDS.
I've said it over and over. But rather than listen, you go off on some rant about how "hopeless it all is" "we can't ever possibly improve anything" "Humanity is a cancer" "Death is the only option"
You know why that pisses me off? BECAUSE I HEAR IT EVERY FUCKING DAY. I LIVE with a suicidally depressed person. I hear these excuses all the time. I have to answer these same "reasons" over and over and over and over.
So pardon me if I am ALL TO FAMILIAR WITH YOUR CIRCULAR REASONING, and can recognize the symptoms of clinical depression that you are in denial of. I've been dealing with your brand of pseudologic and refusal to listen to anyone, convinced that you've found "the miracle cure" through killing yourself.
Except that like her, you're too scared to actually do yourself in, so you want someone or something else to do it for you. She constantly tries to get me angry enough to kill her, and you are seeking to get the human race to die with you so you won't feel like a coward for not having the nerve to put the gun to your head.
Try it on someone who's NOT wise to all the tricks your psychological problem uses.
At Les who writes: "Ecosystems don't cause too much suffering. Humanity causes too much suffering. Regardless of how violent a wild animal may be killed by its predator, it doesn't suffer as a caged animal does its whole life. Confining animals in cages doesn't seem to me like progress toward "rationally mastering the phenomenon of suffering.""
I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding what I say so much that I must give up discussing with you. In the face of suffering in the world, with or without humans, it seems to me that the VHEMT idea (which I suppose aims, at least among other goals, at lessening suffering) has no point at all, for the time being.
You're right, I had no idea how frustrating your situation is. You join a discussion only to find yourself confronting the very thing that's so frustrating in your personal life. My frustration with being erroneously told I want to kill and die pales by comparison.
I agree with you that many of societies' problems grow out of hierarchy.
@ Robert
If we were talking face to face, we could better understand each other.
Les, to be erroneously saying you want to kill and die you would have to NOT WANT HUMANITY TO GO EXTINCT AND NOT WANT TO DIE YOURSELF. Both of those are facts that you have repeated over and over and over and over.
The METHODS you want to use do not change the END RESULT.
You're focusing on the wrong part of that sentence. I am putting emphasis on the fact that you cannot convince literally everyone to see your point of view. It's not difficult; it's statistically impossible. That said, with your current methodology, you guys will never achieve your goal of human extinction. It's not unlikely; it's not a possibility. Do you recognize this?
Survival of the fittest does in fact apply to the species. Species that cannot adapt to a changing environment will die out. To a large extent, we decide how the environment changes. Animals species that can adapt to it will coexist with us. Those that cannot will die. It's all natural.
To my knowledge, there are no domestic animals on the endangered species list. By the way, "dominant species" does not necessarily imply an apex predator, or any predator at all for that matter.
Controlling the weather may be tentatively out of the range of our abilities, but oil disasters like the BP foul up are well within our power to control. Really though, I was referring to our evolutionary path, and how we shape our world.
On a side note, what brings you to the Institute for the Ethical Use of Emerging Technologies site if you don't have any faith in human ingenuity?
@Valkyrie
He doesn't actually want to kill us all. He just wishes we were all dead. Including himself. It's so saddening.
Did you ever hear the old chinese joke about the man sentenced to die by the emperor? He was given a choice about the method. He chose "Old Age".
If I had a means of giving you a hundred thousand years of life, but I let you die of old age at 86, I would consider that murder. I may not have "pulled the trigger" directly, yet indirectly I did.
If Les succeeds in getting his "way" I would be denied life extending treatments in favor of "natural death" all because he thinks the human race "Needs to Die"
The MEANS DON'T MATTER. The END STILL RESULTS in Mass Murder.
Hitler thought he was helping out the "Master Race" by "ethnic cleansing". How is "helping the planet" by "human cleansing" any different?
This is one of those times when it actually makes sense to hold on to our anthropomorphic bias, in my opinion. Quite simply put, if humans care about human problems, then objectively speaking human problems should take priority to humans (because objectively speaking, no species matters...no life form matters). When the problems of other species become human problems, they should take priority as well, but only in those cases.
If we're equal to other species, then as a species we should prioritize ourselves. After all, that's what all the other species do.
If we go extinct, then the possibility of our solving our problems becomes zero. As long as we're still here, there's a chance for improvement. If we disappear, then (as far as we're concerned), what happens next will be left to chance.
It seems that the choice is between 1) a small chance of correcting our mistakes and solving the problems we face on this planet, and 2) no chance of correcting our mistakes and solving the problems we face on this planet.
I'll take a small chance over no chance every time.
That said, I do not intend to reproduce. My reasons are entirely different from VHEMT, however.
@ Edward
"On a side note, what brings you to the Institute for the Ethical Use of Emerging Technologies site if you don't have any faith in human ingenuity?"
I have great faith in human ingenuity: it's going to take some ingenuity to successfully phase ourselves out, though it won't take as much ingenuity as dealing with our increasingly excessive population density will.
I joined this discussion about VHEMT in hopes of clearing up misconceptions. Using emerging technologies ethically, or not, directly relates to our extinction.
Chances of VHEMT's success are slim, but as Corey notes, I'll take a small chance over no chance. Whether everyone would ever stop creating more of us or not, we can still discuss the ethics of such an idea.
"He doesn't actually want to kill us all. He just wishes we were all dead. Including himself. It's so saddening."
Life is too short to be sad about our misconceptions, or our inability to clear them up. Look on the bright side: at least we tried.
So you acknowledge that there are viable alternatives, yet you still choose extinction. I may be mistaken, but you give the impression that you are a misanthrope.
Exactly how does "phasing out" require ingenuity?
The chances of success are not slim; they're non-existent. You simply cannot convince literally everyone to cease reproducing. This really isn't an ethical question. It is one of rationality.
For your goal of human extinction to be realized, I, and everyone else, will have to die. For the record, 'old age' is not a recognized cause of death. So in essence, you hope for Alzheimer's, Cancer, or some other terrible aging related disease to claim our lives, do you not?
"So you acknowledge that there are viable alternatives, yet you still choose extinction."
I couldn't find where I posted something to give you the impression that I think there are viable alternatives for avoiding the extinction of millions of other species. Our involuntary extinction due to ecological collapse won't avoid that.
"I may be mistaken, but you give the impression that you are a misanthrope."
A misanthrope wouldn't waste time with voluntary methods, gender equality, reproductive freedom, lowering death rates, and so on. Misanthropes tend to obsess over death: homicide, suicide, genocide, and the like.
"Exactly how does "phasing out" require ingenuity?"
We need to be ingenious to overcome natalist pressures of society, the reproductive fascism of major religions, and the patriarchal subjugation of women. The logistics of providing every man with a vasectomy who wants one will require ingenuity, and there are many other fixes needed.
"The chances of success are not slim; they're non-existent. You simply cannot convince literally everyone to cease reproducing. This really isn't an ethical question. It is one of rationality."
The question may be approached in several ways. If the chances of our avoiding a dieoff are non-existent, a rational approach would be to not sentence another of us to life.
"For your goal of human extinction to be realized, I, and everyone else, will have to die."
That's the way of all flesh. We have but a short time from cradle to grave.
"For the record, 'old age' is not a recognized cause of death. So in essence, you hope for Alzheimer's, Cancer, or some other terrible aging related disease to claim our lives, do you not?"
My hopes don't seem to have a great deal of influence on reality.
Well, I didn't want to write here anymore, but since it's gone personal, allow me to retort.
First, I didn't realize I was being diagnosed by a trained professional. Thanks to your professional diagnosis, I will go and seek help. Right.
Second, I'm thankful to learn that all you wrote here is just an outlet for your frustrating life. I would probably act the same if I were in your place. I'm sorry if I sounded mean to you, and hope I didn't do you any further damage then you've already taken.
Third, writing in capital letters doesn't make your words more powerful or more understood. It just shows frustration and inability to accept the fact that no everyone agrees with you views.
Again, I wish everyone here luck with whatever it is they think to do which is best for humankind/life/Earth/whatever. I'm sure it's all well-intentioned, just as VHEMT is. And like I've said before, since all of us VHEMT volunteers are so messed up, wouldn't it be great for you to get us out of the human gene pool?
So it appears that you don't have 'great faith in human ingenuity'. If you actually did, you'd have faith that human ingenuity would provide an alternative to human extinction.
A misanthrope is someone with a contempt for the human species. Nothing more. Is there any greater contempt than a desire for the demise of the object thereof?
Human technological ingenuity has nothing to do with global politics. Warfare? Sure. Vasectomies are not hard to get for men in developed countries.
"That's the way of all flesh. We have but a short time from cradle to grave."
This is not necessity. As I'm sure you're aware, a widely shared goal of transhumanists is to defeat aging related disease, increasing the human life expectancy indefinitely.
"My hopes don't seem to have a great deal of influence on reality."
"If the chances of our avoiding a dieoff are non-existent, a rational approach would be to not sentence another of us to life."
I never said avoiding a 'dieoff' was impossible. I said that VHEMT is doomed to fail; the methodology makes achieving its goal impossible.
Do you mean to say that because future generations will suffer, and eventually die, it is better that they are never born? That doesn't sound very rational.
Your usage of the word "sentence" also suggests that you view life as a negative state of being. Is this so?
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog