Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

	This Environmentalism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

A Troubling Prospect

The worst thing about this concept is that the people who are intelligent enough to get it are the ones who will stop breeding, while the ones who do not have the mental capacity to understand it are the ones who will keep relentlessly breeding. This just makes the whole situation even more uncomfortable for everyone.

ASIDE: Does anyone else just love the fact that VHEMT themselves actually replied to (albeit an older version of) this article? RockyRob97 (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What will happen

...To all the species that are directly or indirectly dependent upon humans (which would include leprosy, HIV, and various other diseases, domesticated animals, human-manipulated-environment-users etc). There are also the species which humans have bred from very small populations into self sustaining ones etc, etc.

And viable extra-terrestrial human populations would need a suitable ecosystem to sustain them. Anna Livia (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

To be blunt, natural selection would happen. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Arguments for section could use deep re-write with counter arguments

The section really seems like a VHEM’s member stream of conciseness, and it seems to be a huge appeal to emotions with speculative and unsourced (I don’t think there are any sources in that whole section) scenarios. I definitely think it could use a re-write. I might do a bit of a re-write/a frame work for one later today but if anyone has any good ideas for it please feel free to edit (as this is a volunteer-ran wiki… I think I need to go to bed).—WMS (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinion piece: humanism

Whenever I read about VHEMT, their lack of common sense makes me want to set fire to my computer. If it weren't for how it would violate the blocking policy, I would necro-block Earth indefinitely out of rage with my sysop status. With my idea of snark, let's dissect everything they've said.

"It has nothing to do with any cult. Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is a movement which is completely based on scientific understanding of our planet, environment, humankind and the relation of humankind with the environment. As any political philosophy or social movement relies upon mass education, i.e. to acknowledge and educate people about their cause, Voluntary Human Extinction Movement also believes in mass education and public participation. At a first glance it may look like it is a group of some eccentrics, but if you dig deeper and carefully read their arguments from a scientific point of view (SPOV) and neutral point of view (not from human viewpoint), you will understand there is weight in what they are saying."

Everyone will always read things from a "human viewpoint" because we are all humans. Looking at anything from a different viewpoint is incoherent when you are a human. Furthermore, SPOV and NPOV are extensions of the human point of view because those concepts are human inventions. Thinking you should use those instead of our human perspective is like saying you should use knives instead of cutlery. RationalWiki hasn't seen any merit in VHEMT's views despite always using SPOV. Wikipedia's NPOV article doesn't do them any favors despite being a featured article.

"As the philosophical position of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is quite difficult to understand for many people, it is written in a FAQ style. This page addresses many issues related to environment."

It's not difficult to understand, just impossible to consistently accept if you genuinely care about humanity. I can guarantee how every RationalWiki editor with a clear conscience towards volunteering here would understand yet disagree with VHEMT.

"When asteroids crash into the planet, the temporary harm done to the local ecosystem is fixed by nature itself. But the gradual development of civilization results in gradual biodiversity loss and destruction of the ecosystem. The effect of an asteroid crash is "mitigated", but the damage done to the environment by human activities cannot be "mitigated". Think about forests. In West Africa alone, more than 90% of the forest is wiped out due to human activities. And this deforestation will continue, as human population growth will continue. Are you disputing the fact that a large number of species have become extinct only due to human activities? Yes it is true extinction events happened throughout the history of earth, but biodiversity loss due to human activities is different from that. Scientists have already predicted many well-known species like elephant may become extinct within 50 years if proper step is not taken. Human population is growing at an alarming rate and it will have a disastrous consequence on both ecosystem and human lives. Now if you think of a human-less world, there will be no anthropogenic air pollution, no anthropogenic water pollution, no anthropogenic deforestation, no gradual biodiversity loss, no green house gas, no anthropogenic climate change, no anthropogenic see level rise, no anthropogenic flood and Earth's ecosystem will return in it's form as it was 2.5 million years ago."

So what? Everything you say is true, but taking it to mean humans should go extinct is the most dangerous non sequitur and appeal to nature ever. For whom will that wonderful world exist? As the only sapient animal to ever inhabit this planet, we're the only beings capable of judging good or bad. A beautiful world without sapient creatures to view it as such is meaningless.

"You guys simply speaking from a human viewpoint. Someone above suggested "There are many many things that are unique about humans & their achievements, & I think that many of them are worth preserving". I will say for whose benefit these "achievements"? The answer is simply for the benefit of the humans. It may sound like a joke, but it is true. Someone suggested "meaning-of-life", if the life of one species do harm to the lives of all other species, that life is better to be ended (i.e. species extinction)."

Everyone here is speaking from a human viewpoint, including you. Yes, we are preserving our achievements merely for human benefit, but that's all the justification we'll ever need. Humans are the only sapient animal, meaning we have the exclusive right to make value judgements. Neither you nor anyone else will ever have the right to claim human extinction would do good. Value is a human invention, meaning the concept loses all meaning if humans aren't around to apply it.

"Regarding human achievement, what is achievement in human viewpoint is destruction of environment. Yes, humans send men to moon. For who's benefit? For human's benefit. Yes humans have achieved progress in industrial technology, but this results in gradual degradation of the environment."

Once again, human benefit is all the justification we'll ever need beause humans are the only arbiters of value. Protecting the environment is a means to an end humans invented to benefit ourselves, not the end itself. We care about the environment because it nourishes humans most of the time. If benefiting humans means degrading environment, so be it, which is why humans are so set on killing as many pathogens as possible despite pathogens being as natural as anything else. While we prefer a good ecosystem, if the choice is between that and human welfare, we won't.

"Hi, I'm back after a long time. You guys turned this page into a complete criticism piece. To understand VHEMT's philosophy, you have to understand properly how our ecosystem works. To answer GooRoo's question, all animals in the ecosystem of this planet has a particular "duty"/role. For example, tertiary consumers like tigers help to maintain the natural number of primary consumers like the herbivores. Herbivores help to maintain the proper number of plants. If the number of the organisms in any trophic level increase or decrease, it will affect the entire ecosystem."

We understand that, and it doesn't change anything. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good, and as the ultimate apex predator, we're unrestrained. Stop pretending humans breaking this natural mold makes us evil.

"Now look at the role of humans in our planet's ecosystem. All mammals are hunters (except human, off course). They do not store food, they consume only that amount of food which is necessary for their survival. But contrary to other animals, humans are traders, they want a surplus. This is why they consume more resources than what is necessary for their survival. This results in permanent depletion of Earth's resources. You want example? Dodo, Passenger Pigeon, Caribbean Monk Seal, Carolina Parakeet etc. For example, consider the case of Carolina Parakeets. They were considered pests, and were killed indiscriminately. Why? Because humans wanted to produce surplus food through agriculture. Does this activity of humans do any good to the ecosystem? No, it destroys the ecosystem. This is exactly the point why the activities of human beings should be considered "unnatural". What humans have contributed to the nature? Green house effect, deforestation, habitat loss for other animals, sea level rise, melting of polar ice and consequential disturbance in local ecosystem. So what is positive in mankind's survival?"

For the last time, I will tell you. While there is techically no such thing as objective morality, we have enough consensus on basic things like these to treat them objectively in practice. Yes, humans taking surplus food is unnatural, but unnatural ≠ evil, and two main reasons exist here. Firstly, as I have explained, doing good for the ecosystem has always been secondary to human welfare. If we put the former before the latter, we have just defeated the whole point of doing good. Without humans, "good" and "bad" are meaningless concepts. If destroying the environment would benefit humans, we do that, as seen with pathogen purging. Saying human extinction would cause benefit is incoherent because humans wouldn't be around to deem it beneficial. While we prefer a diverse ecosystem, if given a choice between human extinction and the extinction of everything but humans and the animals neessary for human survival, we pick the latter. Compared to the social and abstract human properties letting us have this conversation in the first place, we afford no more value to the environment than we do for a tool. Diverse ecosystems aren't valuable because of their diversity alone but because they have potential to benefit humans, so killing humans to help the world is self-defeating. Even if you reject it all, humans still benefit the world. No matter what evils you think humans inflict on this planet, entropy is guarenteed to inflict far more when it degrades everything. If you eradicate humanity to help the world thrive in the short run, you've only removed its only potential defense against the universe in the long run. As sapient organisms, we're the only species with even a chance of saving the world from it. Preaching VHE objectively harms the universe. If we doubt humanity's role in the world, we are lost.

"(being humorous) Well, there is NO big task assigned to VHEMT supporters ("May we live long and die out"). The only thing you have to do is to use contraceptives while fucking, this how you can save this planet :D"

Your humor falls on deaf ears. Despite you not having any burdens, your movement has shouldered everyone seperate from it with the task of debunking you. I have a low opinion of Earth, but who knows? Maybe they've turned away from this fantasy in the decade between their last activity here and my scathing critique of VHEMT. Earth, as a non-religious agnostic atheist, I hope you hear me. RationalWiki has dedicated itself to dismantling this vein of bogus. When you finally manage to appreciate humanism and face a day without your esoteric delusions, then we'll talk. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nina Paley? Really?

Kiwi-Farms glorifying, anti-trans Nina Paley?

https://www.heterodorx.com/gender-wars-cards/

That image is from Wikimedia Commons[1] and dates back to at least as far as 2010,[2] predating Spinster.xyz and as far as I'm aware predating Paley's involvement in the TERF movement. We generally do include official graphics from the websites that we cover, and this is one of them. Bongolian (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)