Asdf, On 29 Mar 2000 writes:

>You are a fucking physco<

I’m only human, Brother.

>Did you get dropped on your head when you were young?<

Maybe, I was pretty young at the time and don’t remember.

>Lets all stop having sex all together, there’s no disadvantages right?<

I feel left out—I didn’t get asked to have sex all together. Not that I’d participate, mind you. Sounds unsanitary, and I don’t even know most people.

>If you think that, who and everyone who believes this crazy idea should form a cult and kill yourselves . . . <

Now that sounds crazy. Who needs a cult just to kill themselves? Having sex all together seems more like a cult to me, but to each their own—with condoms aplenty, of course.

>to 1: Do your part in stopping the population overflow, <

In less than one second after my death, two more people will be added to the billions. This seems like trying to bail out a sinking boat without plugging the gaping hole in the bottom.

>and 2: Help make the gene pool a little better by riding it of idiots like yourself.<

Riding the gene pool of our genes only requires that we don’t replicate them. We don’t have to die, nor stop having sex, just stop breeding.

>If the world stopped having sex all together, what do you think would happen?<

That’s pretty hypothetical, but it would probably increase the amount of conflicts and even wars. As those horny guys in charge of militaries around the world got more sexually frustrated than they already are, they’d probably phony up more reasons to fight each other.

>First, there would be more single people, meaning more demand for houses and material for houses because marraige would be meaningless for many, as many people get married for prettry much sex. <

Ah, so that’s why they do it. And if two people aren’t married, they wouldn’t live in the same house, so I see where you’re going with this.

>So more trees would be cut down and slowly as the population decreases, there will be less and less people with skill to run, lets say, nuclear power plants, and then what?<

As the population decreases, we’ll need fewer houses and so, fewer trees would be cut down. We will need less electricity, and those nuclear power plants can be decommissioned as they reach the ends of their lifespans, rather than trying to fix them up. Homer J. Simpson will be out of a job, but by then he’ll be ready to retire.

>Its not up to you to decide when the population should and shouldn’t reproduce, <

No, it’s up to each couple. They just need the freedom to make that choice.

>in case you took remidial Biology, you probably didn’t learn about something called carrying capacity, meaning the envirmontment can only support so many of us before the population crashes. <

Quite true. Our technology has postponed the dieoff which all species experience after they go into overshoot of their environment’s carrying capacity. This will make the dieoff all the more horrific when it finally occurs. We could avoid this, or at least avoid sentencing someone to life only to die in it.

>Nature has a way of controlling populations, <

And we have ways of controlling Nature’s ways—to a point. If we allow Nature to control our population instead of taking some initiative ourselves, it’s like speeding down the road and saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll stop as soon as we hit the embankment.” We have brakes and brains, I think we should use them.

>. . . and still, God himself knows all that is happening on Earth and will decide when there are to many people.<

I think He has decided this and is instructing all His people to stop breeding. Millions of us all over the planet have heard the word and are sharing it with others. Unfortunately, there are evil forces which prevent many of His people from hearing the message. They continue to mindlessly create more of us, though God’s directive to be fruitful and multiply has been more than fulfilled. Now it’s time to move on to the next step in God’s plan: voluntary human extinction. Our bodies are Earthly ties.

>And ever thought that as the population climbs, so does the death rate?<

Exactly, so by not breeding, we are saving lives.

>PS. I am making a baby right now.<

See what I mean about mindless breeding? Many seem to give as much thought to creating a new human being as they do to sending emails.

Hello Chris,

Thank you for writing and sharing your views about diet, Earth, and death.

>eat a fuckin owl, <

No thanks, I eschew meat. Besides, fuckin owls are even more endangered than spotted owls. Ever seen one? I bet not.

>screw the earth<

Well, when puberty hit I considered screwing lots of things, but somehow the earth never jerked my chain, if you know what I mean. Sure, mud has its appeal, and to each their own, but I’ll have to say “No, thank you” to that suggestion.

>If you want to die so damn bad, why don’t you <

Your sentence was cut off and I can’t imagine what you were going to suggest. It doesn’t really matter though, because I don’t want to die so damn bad. I can’t imagine how you got that impression. We’ll all be dead soon enough, no need to rush things. The VHEMT plan will save lives, not end them early.

An interesting perspective was expressed on a discussion list:

>rhetorical question-why do I never see these groups [VHEMT] in impoverished areas, where overpopulation causes overcrowding, hunger, misery, and a general deflation in the value of life?

Instead these groups target groups who procreate the least, the young upwardly mobile highly literate intellegentsia. there is not a damn thing that can be done about over-population.

as always “nature” has a way of curbing it-usually in quite nasty ways. one could look at it this way, at least there will be less of these ultra-liberal tree-hugging de-nutted pinko wimps out there when the shit really hits the fan!

drivel like this makes me actually want to replicate my genes! <

Like many people today, this person is aware of a general deflation in the value of life, and of the impending excremental impact with the proverbial fan.

They understand that Nature has a way of curbing our excess in nasty ways, but their culturally-induced mental blind spot prevents them from seeing that there is indeed something that can be done about over-population.

Hello Patrick,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. I have a feeling that you may have misunderstood our purpose. Suicide is not a part of The Movement.

>You people are the sickest motherfuckers I have ever seen.<

I can’t disagree with your experience, but I’ve certainly seen sicker. Take the Pope, for example. He won’t allow people to stop breeding even when their children are starving to death. 40,000 children die of malnutrition on an average day. Now that’s sick. The VHEMT plan avoids this tragic and inhumane suffering.

>Kill yourselves if you want, but don’t ask me to kill myself or my offspring.<

We’ll all be dead soon enough, far too soon in many cases. We are not asking anyone to kill themselves, just to voluntarily refrain from further breeding.

>I thought I had run into every kind of idiot on the WEB, but your group is a new low.<

Yes, I know what you mean, You never know what strange ideas and unusual personalities you’ll find when connecting to Web sites. They say it takes all kinds of people to make the world go ’round. Looks like the world will be going around for a long time.

I hope this clears up your misconception about killing ourselves. Please feel free to write if you have any other concerns about voluntary human extinction which I might be able to clarify.

LATER:

>You are not only sick ... you are essentially misinformed.<

Perhaps, but enough about me.

>The Holy Father has nothing to do with people starving to death ... this is the result of rotten governments, largely, rather than overpopulation.<

This is certainly a factor. However, if someone isn’t born, they surely won’t starve. Millions of couples would like to stop breeding so that they can take care of the children they already have, but they are not allowed to. The Holy Father defends Humane vitae of 1968, which deprives people of the basic human right to decide how many off spring they create. This is encyclical rather than scriptural, so the responsibility is his.

>In fact, underpopulation is getting to a real crises as the people in Europe, who apparently agree with your stupid philosophy, are slow exterminating themselves by reproducing at less than the replacement rate. Some African leaders are worried that there not be enough people in Africa, as a result of disease, war, genocide, to run their economies.<

I have heard this from several sources. However, as long as unemployment is so wide-spread, it is apparent that there are too many people for the economic system rather than the other way around. In Europe, immigration could easily take care of any shortage of workers due to lower birth rates. Many don’t want that to happen, however, because their unemployment is so high.

>I assume you prefer bunnies to people ... I personally find people a lot more interesting and I would hate to see us disappear.<

People are far more interesting than bunnies. But when rabbits breed like bunnies, predators take care of the excess. We have no predators, and I’m not suggesting we bring some in. We have the intelligence to avoid excessive breeding, we just haven’t used it yet.

Each of us will disappear in time, but I know I’ll never see the day we all disappear.

>And of course VHEMT makes sacrifical gifts of money to feed the children the Pope is starving. Right.<

Rather than trying to feed the starving masses, which is a noble cause, I find it more efficient to try to prevent the starving masses from increasing. Contraceptives are cheaper and easier to produce than food. The desired result -preventing starvation- is still achieved.

LATER:

>I notice you didn’t answer my question about how much money VHEMT contributes to starving children.<

My answer was:

“Rather than trying to feed the starving masses, which is a noble cause, I find it more efficient to try to prevent the starving masses from increasing. Contraceptives are cheaper and easier to produce than food. The desired result -preventing starvation- is still achieved.”

Sorry I wasn’t more clear. What I meant was that spending money on contraceptives is my preferred method of preventing starvation. Others, such as yourself, are trying to feed those who are already here. Both of our efforts are needed.

>As a point of information, I have 10 great nieces and great nephews, another on the way, and the potential for several more. I am glad each and ever one of them came into the world. Several of them, particularly the oldest little girl, who has an IQ of about 150, are going to make significant contributions to the world.<

A few of the children who starved to death today were no doubt as smart. The question I ask:

“How can the intentional creation of one more of us be justified as long as so many existing children are in need?"

>I assume you all think abortion is a good thing .. after all, it is just “belated contraception.”

Your assumption is not correct. I think that if men took responsibility for their fertility -used condoms and got vasectomies- abortion would be very rare. THAT would be a good thing.

>We have aborted something like 35,000,000 children in the U.S. alone and hundreds of millions, world wide. Consider that the upper 1% of the American children would be 35,000 kids with very high IQs, who might well solve the problem of world hunger, disease, etc.,<

The same could be said for the African children who died of malnutrition. As long as potential saviors are dying in droves, there’s no need to make more of them.

>But they ended up in the dumpster because of people with your kind of mentality<

Actually, abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies, which could be prevented with contraception. Seems to me the mentality which causes abortions is one which denies couples the freedom to prevent pregnancy. This is not my mentality.

>Have you ever heard of God? <

I’ve heard of lots and lots of gods and they all sound fascinating. Can’t say I’m dying to meet any of them, though.

Nic on 20 Jan 2000 writes:,

>I’d like to personally thank you for voluntarily advancing the human race by keeping the stupid people from breeding. <

You’re welcome. It does mean more space for you. However, I hadn’t noticed that stupid people take up more space than smart people. Also, we aren’t keeping anyone from breeding, just suggesting that, in light of the fact that the intentional creation of one more of us by anyone anywhere can’t be justified at this time, they make a responsible choice.

>People like you have no place bringing more stupid people into the world. <

None of us have a place to bring people into, that’s why we’re moving into wildlife habitat.

>We as human’s are destroying mother Earth? Come on, get a clue. <

If you look around, you’ll get more than clues: more like hard evidence.

>Haven’t you ever heard of social Darwinism? <

Certainly, though that just applies to human society. It’s similar, in that one society destroys another and then uses social Darwinism as a justification. In the same way, our species eliminates other species and then claims:

>Survival of the fittest...<

Actually, that’s a principle for keeping each species strong and evolving to meet new situations. It doesn’t mean that one species is stronger and more fit to survive if it eliminates other species. Just the opposite. We are removing strands from the web of life and are placing more demands on it. I don’t think this qualifies as being more fit for survival.

>there’s a reason human’s have taken over the world and that’s because we’re by far the most intelligent species on Earth. <

The concept of taking over the world is a human one. A truly intelligent species doesn’t foul their nests and move on. They are responsible and aware.

>God put us here and said that we were to rule over this planet and make it our own and that’s what we’ve done. <

“Have dominion” doesn’t exactly mean to rule. Did God also tell us to destroy His creations? That’s exactly what we’ve done, and are doing.

>Goodness, I’ve NEVER in my life heard of anything as STUPID as voluntarily making the human race become extinct. <

How about involuntarily making the human race extinct? Wouldn’t that be more stupid? We’re working hard toward this goal, degrading our life support systems.

>Thank God that stupid people like you aren’t going to do anymore breeding.<

I don’t know if it’s appropriate to thank God for this, He didn’t have anything to do with my decision.

>Why don’t you just go off and live in a straw hut in the rain forest for the remainder of your life? <

That wouldn’t be good for the rain forest. Exotic invaders upset the balance of ecosystems.

>You’d be doing the planet a favor by freeing us of one more stupid person.<

It would? But I’d still exist. I don’t understand your dislike for stupid people. If you prick them do they not bleed? Is their exhaust not stinky? How are they any different from you and me?

Subject: Your [sic] sick!

Bob writes:

>Yes we have problems, yes we are a problem. But your desired goal is incomprehensible to me.

The goal of a planet with no Homo sapiens is incomprehensible to many of us, and I can understand that. VHEMT Supporters aren’t in favor of extinction, just us VHEMT Volunteers. If the extinction of one species --ours-- is so incomprehensible, why are we willing to drive so many non-human species to extinction without much of a thought?

>That mindset can only lead to suicide. You might as well go ahead and do it.

I realize promoting a phase-out of the human race seems suicidal at first glance. But, actually, I see it as just the opposite. The path we are presently taking seems suicidal to me: we pull strands out of the web of life and expect it to support us forever.

By refraining from further breeding, we are affirming life. We are preserving existing life and reducing the loss of biodiversity.

>I don’t see how you get out of bed each day. Why bother?

There is much to be done. True, the odds of success are slim, but I’m not willing to just give up and let humanity take its course. Someone has to tell the truth, even if it means being considered a wacko.

>What is the satisfaction of imagining the desired goal? You won’t be around to see it, nor will any other sentient race (Aliens? Whales? please don’t go there).

Neither you nor I will be around to see whatever it is that awaits the latter half of the next century. I think we have a moral obligation to consider the future that we won’t live in. Too many today seem to have the attitude that it’s alright to destroy ancient ecosystems because they won’t be around anyway. Sometimes I wonder if a sentient species exists on planet Earth today.

>You have thrown in the towel, my friend. Take a vacation, climb a mountain and stay there until you get the inspiration to come up with a better plan.

We could just give up and climb a mountain - filing an environmental impact statement before doing so, of course. A mountain top might be a good place to get an overview of Earth’s biosphere, since we can’t go to the moon. If one looks at Earth from space, adds up all the species going extinct, and finds the cause of those extinctions, the solution will be obvious. Homo sapiens has evolved into an exotic invader which should be humanely phased out through voluntary methods.

>Peace,

There will be peace on Earth after we war-makers are extinct. Yes, other animals have territorial battles, but nothing on the scale of humans’.

>Pro-Human

It may be hard to believe, but I’m pro-human also. I hope we can avoid the massive die off which all animal populations eventually experience after their numbers go into over shoot of their ecosystem’s carrying capacity. As long as 40,000 children die on an average day, I don’t see how the intentional creation of one more of us can be justified. Sentencing someone to life in a world with deteriorating conditions is not pro-human, in my opinion.

Scott writes:

>Have you ever considered some sort of professional, Psychological help?

Yes, we certainly could use some psychological help. I can’t for the life of me figure out why on Earth people would continue to reproduce when we aren’t taking care of the people who are already here. Though we become more dense each day, and our quality of life diminishes, many of us still increase the quantity of life. What are they thinking?

>You’re obviously insane - or lacking in any spiritual center....or both.<

Maybe I am insane—how would I know? Rather than trying to determine who is insane and who is not, I prefer to focus on behavior: some behavior definitely seems insane to me. Like creating a new human being when 40,000 children are dying of preventable causes on an average day. Considering this fact and the thousands of other species which are going extinct due to a loss of habitat, the intentional creation of one more of us by anyone anywhere seems insane to me.

As for a spiritual center, I know it’s around here someplace.

>Perhapse you follow the addage of “Live Fast, Die Young & leave a good-looking Corpse”<

No, I’m too old to die young. I think you might have misunderstood what the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is about. We are not promoting death, we are encouraging people to stop reproducing. Our motto, “May we live long and die out” says it all.

>Do you honestly believe that someone is going to fall for your double-talk & psycho-babble?<

Well, I have to admit that convincing six billion people to stop breeding is a rather daunting task. It hasn’t exactly caught on as I’d hoped. Most of the people who join The Movement had already come to the conclusion that Earth’s biosphere would be better off without Homo sapiens in it.

>Here’s hope that you follow through with your plans...in a more personal way.<

With a voluntary movement, the follow-through is pretty much all personal. Each of us has personally decided to not add another human to the billions already squatting on this ravaged planet—the moral equivalent of renting rooms in a burning building.

 Stratocaster writes:

>I agree! Some people shouldn’t breed.. especially complete idiots like you! <

Glad we agree on this. I don’t think complete idiots who aren’t like me should breed either. In fact, I can’t think of any one who should breed—idiots or geniuses.

>You and your stupid Gaia crap, you should do “Gaia” a favor and die. . . <

Patience, I’m working on it. Suicide by old age takes a little longer, and can be painful, but it gets the job done.

> . . . and go to hell. <

Thanks for the suggestion, but from what I hear it’s a place I wouldn’t be caught dead in.

>Just put the gun to your head and viola! <

But I don’t have a gun nor a viola. Anyway, wouldn’t I have to shoot the viola first?

>One less breeding human on planet Earth, and you’ll be helping your cause at the same time. <

There’s already one less breeding human on planet Earth—better to go out with a snip than a bang.

Increasing death will not help the cause of voluntary human extinction. In one second, a death is compensated by four births. Only 1.7 deaths per second gives us an increase of 2.4 per second.

>You seriously must have way too much free time on your hands man.<

It’s true that choosing to not breed gives a lot of free time. With that free time, I could find people on the internet I disagree with and tell them to go to hell, or I could contemplate unanswerable questions such as, “Why breed?”

How about you, Dear Reader? Do you have a contrary opinion about VHEMT that you would like to share?

Please go to the Yahoo! group “Why VHEMT?” and post your message. Other VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may reply with a variety of answers.

More exchanges with visitors to the VHEMT site:
Agreements
Misunderstandings
Random questions and answers