8 ms·
A Look at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
- adamstark 11y agoLuckily for us, they'll all be dead before they can do any serious damage to humanity.
- imartin2k 11y agoElaborate, please. What damage would that be? Less people on Earth? How is that damage to humanity?
- TuringTest 11y agoI'd pretty much count extinction as damage to humanity.
- agumonkey 11y agoEverything is harmful in high doses. That said, a little bit wouldn't hurt ... :fff
- tempodox 11y agoBy then, nobody will be left to care.
- imartin2k 11y agoAfter having read the book Sapiens, I finally understood how a thriving human population happened basically at the cost of millions of other species that went exctinct. So the philosophical question I see here is whether an extinct humanity which would let other species live and thrive, would be a good or bad thing. Not that I have an answer. But I find it worthwile to question the paradigm of human reproduction for the sake of human reproduction.
- cLeEOGPw 11y agoI expect this movement to die off eventually.
- x5n1 11y agoAll things are temporary all we have is a little bit of time. Everything you care about, everything you are, is eventually dust. All your ideas and your history is very short lived. So yes everything dies eventually, these guys are just looking to speed up the process. As if that will "save" the planet. We are animals, we should live like them and not worry about anything. You think a squirrel cares about all the stupid shit other squirrels are doing to the planet? I don't control my own life. Hold on the universe... hah. I am simply here, soon I won't be here. That's all that there is to this. We are infinitesimally small and our lives are infinitesimally short. And the amount of power we have in the human systems that we inhabit are much smaller than that. We are little more than bees that are obsessed with things that should not concern us. edit: in response to user temporal below, because it's rate limiting me. > conscious, self-aware, sentient beings on this planet no we are none of those things. we believe we are, but we are actually not. our systems behave much like systems of any other animal we just consume different things from other animals but we're little more than bees. > . That is, perserving ecosystem is better than destroying it because we like it that way. i like other bees don't care about the eco-system. i care about the nectar from the flowers so i can go on. the nectar exists for me. and without me what would be the point of the nectar?
- TeMPOraL 11y agoDo you believe that or are you just summarizing their position? Those guys are missing one crucial insight - values are features of mind, not of matter. And since as far as we know, we're the only conscious, self-aware, sentient beings on this planet, it means values are in our minds. That is, perserving ecosystem is better than destroying it because we like it that way. Yes, in a way, it's all about us. If humans were to go extinct, the Earth would be like a Disneyland with no children to enjoy it. Without purpose.
- Pyxl101 11y ago> no we are none of those things. we believe we are, but we are actually not I don't see how you can know this. More justification is required. Saying something doesn't make it true. This sounds a lot like nihilism, so if so, why bother?
- meric 11y agoHumanity is not the first life form to transform the Earth's climate, causing tremendous damage to the biosphere[1], and we may or may not be the last. Just like any other species we will last as long as we can last, and go extinct when we can no longer maintain a hold on the universe. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
- simonh 11y agoFortunately extinction isn't the only possible outcome for a species. There's also evolution. Otherwise there would be no living things left on the planet.
- d_theorist 11y agoOr just surviving, without evolving.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoUnfortunately, as humans we care primarily about individuals who are alive, not about species in the abstract. Which means any outcome involving humans suffering and dying is an outcome we don't want.
- meric 11y agoSadly, the only possible outcomes without humans suffering and dying are outcomes without humans.
- leanthonyrn 11y agoLooks like we need to the millennium group: "As the 3rd millennium approached, the Group's internal differences began to manifest into two factions—the "Roosters", who believed in a religiously eschatological view of the end of the world, and the "Owls", who believed the world would end with a secular natural disaster. Attempting to instigate the end of the world artificially, the Rooster faction began to develop a lethal virus; in 1998 they released this virus in the Pacific Northwest, killing upwards of seventy people before the outbreak was contained. A year later, a vastly depleted Millennium Group staged one last attempt to trigger the apocalypse, resurrecting deceased members in order to create the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse; when this plot was foiled by the FBI, it was believed to have caused the dissolution of the Group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Group
- berntb 11y agoYou could note that the richer a society is, the less environmental problems. The real problems are countries industrializing now, like China. The richer we get the less environmental problems. But let's ignore that. Shouldn't they instead insist on male VHEMT members being mandatory sperm donors for all of humanity, in order to raise average benevolence of the human race...? Then in a few generations they could ask for (even) more drastic measures like mandatory sterilization. (Assuming of course that humanitarian attitudes are largely genetic and not mainly a cultural/psychological phenomena, except for outliers like psychopaths.) But I should probably shouldn't joke like this and not give them ideas.
- uhtred 11y agoWithout humans there would be no one (as far as we currently know) to appreciate and contemplate the beauty of the universe and planet earth. So it would all be pointless.
- it_learnses 11y agoOh? And what does contemplating and appreciating the beauty of universe and planet earth accomplish?
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIt's us who define the concept of 'accomplishing something'. The universe without humans is pointless, because it's us (that we know so far) who say what has a point at what hasn't.
- it_learnses 11y agoSounds tautological. Universe without humans is meaningless (in human terms) because we define what meaning is (in human terms).
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIt does, but then again we don't know of any other source of meaning than ourselves.
- iSnow 11y agoInterestingly, some Western societies and Japan are already below the balanced reproduction rate. Not set to die out as fast as possible, but certainly on a long-time trajectory to radically less people (migration not factored in). Maybe, given enough gadgets and holiday opportunities, and the hedonistic treadmill required to finance all this, H. Sapiens chooses to not reproduce but live well instead.
- Ygg2 11y agoThen someone eventually will see this and say we need more people for economy, but they aren't bumping uglies. So let's cut out the middle people. And then you'll have government mandated population quotas.
- d_theorist 11y ago"humans are responsible for every environmental catastrophe" My God; what incredible conceit. Compared with the billions of years of eruptions, earthquakes, extinctions, meteorite impacts, ice ages, droughts, floods, and just the relentless and deadly drive of all organisms on the planet to survive at the expense of their competitors, the effect of human beings on this planet is insignificant.
- vansteen 11y agoI guess what you're saying can be discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environmen...
- d_theorist 11y agoHumans have had an effect on the environment. On some scales, a big effect. But it's certainly wildly incorrect (and absurd) to say that all environmental damage is caused by humans. And I think it's also pretty unarguable that the vast majority of the damage (a concept that is I suppose anyway subjective) over the lifetime of the planet is not human-caused.
- pluma 11y agoFalse dichotomy. It's not "either it's all our fault or nothing is our fault". There's also the obvious middle-ground: we have an impact but other things have an impact too. We turn vast stretches of land upside down in search of coal. We drill deep holes into the ground and pollute the water in search of oil. We excavate mountains. We then burn that oil and coal producing vast amounts of noxious fumes. We selectively breed cattle, introduce foreign species to new ecosystems. We change the course of rivers, create new islands and water the deserts. It's absurd to think that we are the only thing affecting Earth's ecosystem and biosphere, but it's not any less naive to think we don't leave our mark.
- d_theorist 11y ago
- jsudhams 11y agoIt is kind of stupid in my opinion. like x5n1 said we are too small but we think we are making the difference who know the grass and dog might think the same... We still dont know most of the things like. What is inside earth , how water came, where are we now in universe, etc..etc... With out knowing all atleast most of the parameters it is foolish to think we are causing the damage. Who knows if there are invisible aliens doing or some unknown virus in deep sea doing it... we dont know. we have long way to go and i happy for humans to continue even if it is destroy entire earth livings things then who knows we might mutate and learn to live the way we should like (no corporation no jobs and abundent food and health care and entertainment)
- cousin_it 11y agoIf you care about animal suffering, human extinction is exactly the wrong way to solve the problem. Without humans, there will still be pain. Wasps will lay eggs in caterpillars until the Sun goes out. Intelligence is our only hope for abolishing suffering, not just for us but for all living creatures.
- monort 11y agoI was pondering the same idea, but to stop animal from suffering in nature you need to stop all food chains above plants. Right?
- mrfusion 11y agoMaybe just genetically engineer them to feel no fear or pain at the moment of being eaten?
- willholloway 11y agoImagine a nature reserve where predators were air-dropped cultured meat, and drones tracked predators and administered a non-lethal deterrent like a targeted acoustic weapon at a lion chasing a baby elephant. The herbivore population would be kept in equilibrium with future-contraceptives.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIt's a tricky thing, an abortion-level tricky thing actually. At the top of life's process you have humans, and human death is obviously Bad. At the bottom of life you have simple chemical reactions, which are obviously Quite Cool. The line will have to be drawn somewhere in between, but we need to figure out where. Personally, I expect it to be somewhere above plants and bugs and below kittens. But then, I'm a bit biased about bugs - I tend to think about them as either "those ugly annoying things" or "cool high-tech drones we'll hopefully program one day". And I'm definitely biased about kittens.
- simonh 11y agoSo what are you going to do, commit genocide against all the wasps? Not that I am necessarily against genocide in all cases. If every single HIV virus or anthrax bacterium was wiped off the face of the planet I would shed no tears, but you need to think through a position like yours. Are you in favour of whale eradication due to their predation of Krill?
- Perceptes 11y agoInteresting to see an article about this on HN. I consider myself an antinatalist. Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, and by extension, that it's immoral to have children. However, I think it's silly to try to promote it as a world view others should adopt. It's contrary to our most basic biological instincts. There is absolutely no chance for it to succeed as a movement. I also don't find the environment argument compelling. Our world has no inherent value other than the utility it provides for the creatures who live here. For me, antinatalism is just an issue of individual morality and not something to push as a political or social cause.
- abalashov 11y agoOut of interest, what is the individual moral argument--unrelated to environment or functional externalities like that--against procreation?
- Perceptes 11y agoEssentially that you're rolling the dice in a lot of ways when you have a child. They could be born with serious medical problems. Something terrible could happen to them through no fault of their own, like being in an accident or being the victim of a crime. Every human being will experience pain, sadness, and suffering in some way at some point in their lives. At the very least, they will have to face the foreknowledge of their own death, and the loss of family and friends that die before them. Creating a child forces a being to experience all these things that would otherwise never have had to. In an antinatalist world view, the possibility or even guarantee of good things happening to the child does not "balance out" or justify forcing them to experience negative things. I also don't want to have any part in contributing to humanity's self destruction and inflicting of suffering on other living things. We are not rational creatures. We largely do whatever we want, including hurting and killing each other, and make up all sorts of justifications for why it's okay. I'm no different in this regard, I just don't want to perpetuate that further. I'm a vegan, and there is no possible way to live a normal life as a person without having at least some negative effect on animal suffering by proxy. More than likely, the child would be much worse than the best possible case, and would eat meat, eggs, cheese, and use other non-food products made from animals. And beyond all of these reasons, there is just the fact that a person cannot consent to being born. If I had a child, they would be quite likely not to have such a pessimistic view of their own life, but there's no way to know that in advance. I would be making the choice for them because of what I wanted. I see having children as an extremely selfish and destructive act.
- Udo 11y agoThe entire point about being careful of our environmental impact is because we are destroying our own habitat. Sure, the advent of human civilization might be a mass extinction event, but the Earth had these before, and nature will go on. Nature is going to be fine. It's humanity who's potentially in trouble, not the planet. For us to die out voluntarily in order to preserve nature is completely backwards. The correct way of thinking about this is we're changing nature until it becomes hard or impossible for us to live here. So in a sense, our default path is already one of self-extinction. If we turn that around (and I'm cautiously optimistic we will), nobody needs to die out. It's not us XOR the planet. It's us AND the planet.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoHumans have a very strong cultural and genetic drive to ensure that their family survives and thrives. This drive is strong enough that sacrificing oneself for ones family is not surprising behaviour. This drive has been exploited for good and evil by tribes, nations, religions, social movements, football teams, et cetera. Extending this sense of "us" to include all humans seems to be the logical conclusion. However, many people extend this sense of "us" to include all cuddly animals, all animals, all multi-cellular organisms, any life, ... I think that's silly, but perhaps 100 years from now people will think my attitude is just as morally repugnant as my view of those who think black people are sub-human.
- sergiosgc 11y agoThe response to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement was written before the movement appeared. By no other than the great George Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovbF0D2wySI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovbF0D2wySI tldr; The Earth is fine; We are in trouble
- avz 11y agoLike all other animals, we don't generally pause to critically examine the merits of the instincts that drive our behavior. Unlike all other animals, we're actually capable of doing so! I applaud VHEMT for openly and critically considering one of our basic built-in drives. That said, I disagree with their conclusion. VHEMT is right that we are too intelligent and successful for a mere animal. I don't think this means we must die. I think it means we must become something more.
- prodmerc 11y agoYou could just drop the "stop breeding" part and we're still headed towards extinction. I guess this is a no-lose movement, how convenient :-)
- Chrossler 11y agoSeems like a really silly joke. Like one of those things that will get a reaction from normal people so it makes it fun to participate in and not fooled.