ForumTouchy Subjects ► Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
I personally believe that humans have hurt this planet more than they have helped it, and a lot of other people think that is well, which is what founded the idea for the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" which does not involve murder, it is simply the process of not having children until we go extinct. I also personally think this isn't needed anyway because we are long overdue for many things that could cause catastrophic events and ultimately extinction of the human race.

The events that could cause human's extinction could be caused by the following:
Honeybee's die out
Nuclear Armageddon
Bio-terrorism (voluntarily creating a disease to wipe out humanity)
Overpopulation
Just pandemics/plagues in general
Nano-weapons
Climate Change
Artificial Intelligence surpassing human intelligence
Rising sea levels
Supervolcanoes (Yellowstone caldera, etc.)
Astroids
We could quite literally be in a simulation
Rogue black holes

With all of this said, would you support the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? Or should we let nature take its course, and if we die, we die?
  
Mmm I love me some rogue black holes
  
...I never said the time frame, it ranges from 1-1,00,000+ years. But that doesn't exempt it from possbility.
  
I think it's a bad idea, because the only people who would do it are environmentalists. So environmentalists die out, leaving all the people who don't care to carry on without anyone to challenge them. It's better for environmentalists to stay and do something more practical rather than just check out.
  
OP i dont think suicide genocide is the way to go
  
Yeah, these things would probably wipe us out, but some of these things are really far-fetched.
Aspen said:
Honeybee's die out
Nano-weapons
Asteroids
We could quite literally be in a simulation

1. There are other pollinators other than bees. Sure, they're important, but it's not like all pollination would end.
2. Nano-weapons are only from science-fiction, right?
3. Asteroids would have to be absolutely massive or in large quantities to do substantial damage.
4. A simulation? Please give me evidence that we are in a simulation for me to even consider it.

My point is, no, this is not a good idea.
  
e-bag said:
Yeah, these things would probably wipe us out, but some of these things are really far-fetched.
Aspen said:
Honeybee's die out
Nano-weapons
Asteroids
We could quite literally be in a simulation

1. There are other pollinators other than bees. Sure, they're important, but it's not like all pollination would end.
2. Nano-weapons are only from science-fiction, right?
3. Asteroids would have to be absolutely massive or in large quantities to do substantial damage.
4. A simulation? Please give me evidence that we are in a simulation for me to even consider it.

My point is, no, this is not a good idea.


1. Good point.
2. Nano-weapons are not entirely sci-fi, it is possible to advance technology enough to literally make a portable nuke, all you need to do is size down the mechanics needed to split an atom. Some places of the earth have in the past before, developed technology 20-50 years ahead of other places, and weren't aware even of how far ahead they were.
3. And the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was literally only 10-15 miles wide...
4. Simulations cannot be proven, the chances of us being in one are extremely high, but also extremely low at the same time, both sides cancel out each others evidence.

You also failed to counter-claim the other examples I provided, and these are all theoretical, yet possible.
  
I didn't counter claim the other ones, because those are actual threats, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that we can, just, not have children.
  
Countries with higher standards of living and education have lower birth rates.

Maybe if the first world stopped exploiting the third world so much and we had better economic equilibrium the problem would take care of itself and the birth rates would plummet organically.
  
Maybe if the first world stopped exploiting the third world so much and we had better economic equilibrium

I'm no economist, so don't quote me on this, but I remember learning that modern-day capitalism could not live without an exploitable lower class (third world country/prison labor/immigrants/etc) to do the menial and simple labor that most simple products need. Otherwise, commodities like clothing or food start to rise in value and the general standard of living for a majority goes down because they can't afford it or afford as much of it. So until general automation takes over more of the market, things are going to stay as they are.

Again, not an economist though, so don't quote me on that.
Aspen said:

2. Nano-weapons are not entirely sci-fi, it is possible to advance technology enough to literally make a portable nuke, all you need to do is size down the mechanics needed to split an atom. Some places of the earth have in the past before, developed technology 20-50 years ahead of other places, and weren't aware even of how far ahead they were.

No, no, no. I think you underestimate just how much power is needed to split an atom. Most of the heavy lifting isn't done by the electronics, but the physical radioactive rock we shove in there. Most of the electronics that make a nuke work is just electronics to either shoot a pellet of uranium into more uranium or explosives to compress plutonium into a highly-reactive ball. Everything else in that bulky bomb is just glowing boulders. Hydrogen bombs are the same, but there's a large ball of hydrogen in ADDITION to the giant radioactive rock.

If you want to make a tiny nuke, you need extremely radioactive materials. Materials that you need a particle accelerator to fabricate. Particle accelerators that are, by nature, massive, and people tend to notice if you're fabricating radioactive arms components. So micro-nukes are pretty hard to hide, in addition to the fact that even with the micro-nuke being small, it's going to be HEAVY AS FUCK because radioactive materials are, by definition, dense. So you'll still need a proportionally huge rocket to get it somewhere else. Also, the more radioactive the element is, the shorter the half-life. Meaning instead of 20 years to launch that nuke after it's made, you've got more like anywhere between 5 years to a few nano seconds.

So micro-nukes are possible, but definitely not going to go unnoticed.

Aspen said:

3. And the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was literally only 10-15 miles wide...

NASA and Roscosmos have already mapped almost every potentially catastrophic asteroid and non-catastrophic asteroid that could reasonably hit us within the next 50 years. This is unlikely in our lifetime.
  
Rogue black holes and scaled-down nukes are pretty much firmly in the realm of sci-fi. I'd also wager that AI exceeding human intelligence in the way you're meaning is pretty unlikely. Nuclear holocaust and climate change are deeply concerning issues that keep me up sometimes though: the US, China and Russia are not sane, rational countries.

Humans are a really resilient creature, often in these debates people forget that there's no specific way the earth is supposed to look or we're supposed to live. Climate change isn't going to wipe humans out, it'll make our current way of life unviable. It's less of a suicide and more like that person liquidating his assets so he can live it large short term: eventually we'll wind up in the species version of living in a homeless shelter.

I don't think humans should go extinct, I think we need to answer some questions about what future we want for ourselves, how to get there and what we need to do to get there, but we'll exist either way.
  
I don't really see the point in humans aiming to go voluntarily extinct. Why is that better than just reaching equilibrium with the environment?
  
i mean we've lived for this long, just saying
  
i like to think about it this way:

All the aspects of humanity goes from highs to lows and lows to highs. This happens over millions of years.

Right now we are at a low. As time goes on, and climate change happens, the highs and lows become more extreme. Sometime we will find equilibrium with the environment and a little while and be at a high for a few million years, and then we will go back down eventually. Just because we are at a low right now does not mean we need to commit suicide as a species
  
I don't agree with that because we have destroyed that equilibrium. The earth can correct what lives on the planet, but because we are creating stuff that the earth can't correct.
  
All the aspects of humanity goes from highs to lows and lows to highs. This happens over millions of years.


I don't think humanity has existed for millions of years though
  
ok maybe my timeframe is off i didnt study the evolution of humanity but my point still stands
  
I don't agree with that because we have destroyed that equilibrium. The earth can correct what lives on the planet, but because we are creating stuff that the earth can't correct.

Although this is true, we have recognized this, and are trying to fix it. We're using more renewable energy than ever before, and the amount is only going to increase. We're recycling more and more. We are inventing a whole new breed of electric vehicles that are much better for the environment (depending on where the electricity comes from, I guess) We are raising the price on carbon-based products, causing fossil fuels to become unprofitable to use. There will probably be more inventions to help slow or stop climate change. So, it may look grim, but not all is lost.
  
I agree i'm just saying that the earth will not correct what we have done like in the past
  
“With all of this said, would you support the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?” Fun idea to entertain but that’s about it.
“Or should we let nature take its course, and if we die, we die?” That’s how any species goes out.

Sorry but the whole thing is too pathetically depressive even for me.
  
I don't agree with that because we have destroyed that equilibrium. The earth can correct what lives on the planet, but because we are creating stuff that the earth can't correct.
Unless we somehow obliterate the earth itself, I don't think there's a lot humans could do to both wipe ourselves out and also permanently reduce the biodiversity of the planet. Once we're either gone or stop destabilizing the environment, evolution will do its thing, same as past mass extinctions.
  
Correct to what. Even in the course of western civilisation we've had warm periods, ice ages and everything in between. We've had extremely oxygen rich atmospheres, major extinction events and more. Earth isn't supposed to be anything, that's as much a human decision as anything else.
  
Chernobyl is doing just fine without us. Nature is actually thriving there, according to some National Geographic I saw.

Apparently its still toxic and dangerous to humans, but the planet is humming along just fine. Humans really are a threat to ourselves, but the Earth keeps turning and the sun keeps rising with or without us.
  
i think we should leave the job of human extinction to nature, such as humans getting die due to natural disasters. we should live while we can, and attempt to preserve nature while also preserving humanity.
  
I for one would rather we used feats of human engineering to prevent nature from wiping us out while also preventing feats of human greed from creating natural disasters.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Voluntary Human Extinction Movement