Voluntary Human Extinction Movement & Terror Management Theory

[mr1001nights]

2 important topics: VHEMT & TMT are apparently missing from Freedomain radio's podcast series.

 

Perhaps interviewing Les Knight, would be the best way to learn about VHEMT, since he's the founder. I've been part of the FB group for a year now, and I find his case for VHEMT morally and intellectually unassailable. I got acquainted with VHEMT after reading and being struck by the following statement by Knight on a friend's FB post:

 

"If we use a balance scale like Blind Justice holds, place all the species going extinct on one side, and place us on the other—giving us about a 100,000 times more weight because we invented the scales—the scales will tip in favor of our extinction, even with our weighted advantage."

 

Here's a video of him appearing on Fox

 

 

As far as TMT goes, Jeff Greenberg or Sheldon Solomon are probably the guys to interview.

 

 

TMT has gathered quite a bit of evidence in the last 25 years. In evolutionary terms, it basically says that when homo sapiens got a bigger brain and gained greater self-awareness 200,000 years ago, we developed, as an unfortunate byproduct, a crippling anxiety about our own animal insignificance and finitude. To counter this, humans invented culture, as a way of gaining the illusion of being "individuals of value in a world of meaning" and gaining "symbolic immortality" by being part of something that lives on beyond one's death.

 

This provides us with self-esteem or what Ernest Becker (from whom the theory derives) called "heroism", which we generally acquire by living up to the arbitrary standards/prescriptions of the culture we happen to find ourselves in. Our self-esteem therefore has no real factual justification or empirical basis.

 

TMT studies provide evidence that our struggle to deny the finality of death co-opted and changed more primitive functions like morality.

 

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Terror_Management_Theory_%28TMT%29

 

It also provides explanations for our faith in notions like progress

 

https://www.academia.edu/925758/Things_will_get_better_The_anxiety-buffering_qualities_of_progressive_hope/

 

or even as a crucial factor in our desire to procreate

 

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicolas_Koranyi/publication/265092855_Mortality_Salience_and_the_Desire_for_Offspring/links/0deec532fefd24b0e8000000.pdf

 

 

[Donnadogsoth]

Antihumanist hypocrites never, I have noted, lead by example.

[mr1001nights]

 

 

Antihumanist hypocrites never, I have noted, lead by example.

 

Les Knight has lead by example: He got a vasectomy.

 

Of course, many people notice the strength of the case and so they reflexively say "kill yourself!" as a way of not dealing with its arguments.

 

It is too much to ask from anybody to kill themselves. But it is not too much to ask them to stop breeding.

 

How many other species is the human species worth? or more generally, how high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering should humans go before they lose the moral right to breed?

 

[Duart]

I hear VHEM are just the subgroup of MGTOW with long-term goals

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I think the antinatalist prescriptions of people like the OP and Les Knight are the ultimate expression of the terror management theory. They are unhappy and voluntary human extinction gives their lives meaning and helps them cope. In a world were all human achievement is meaningless and futile, ending such a state of affairs becomes the ONLY meaningful path to pursue. 

But the VHEMT don't want to end all life, only human life. So they want to end the only species that can even understand or care about the concept of species to save all the other species who will never understand, care or be unduly harmed by their extinction.

 

Their argument is based upon the false premise that a species value can be objectively measured. You can see this in that quote from Les Knight. It's so ridiculous to arbitrarily use the number of species as a measure as the concept of species is just a way humans differentiate between animal populations who have diverged and can no longer interbreed. No animal will ever care or be spared suffering by saving their species. Saving species is entirely a selfish human thing to do. It's a demonstrably human preference. 

 

I have talked to Mr1001nights before and he is irrational about this subject. When faced with an argument he can't logically rebut he will attempt to shame and emotionally manipulate. If you're reading this Mr10001nights I hope Mr Knight DOES debate Stef. I also hope you call in to the show and put these arguments to Stefan. 

[Tweak]

2 important topics: VHEMT & TMT are apparently missing from Freedomain radio's podcast series.

 

Perhaps interviewing Les Knight, would be the best way to learn about VHEMT, since he's the founder. I've been part of the FB group for a year now, and I find his case for VHEMT morally and intellectually unassailable. I got acquainted with VHEMT after reading and being struck by the following statement by Knight on a friend's FB post:

 

"If we use a balance scale like Blind Justice holds, place all the species going extinct on one side, and place us on the other—giving us about a 100,000 times more weight because we invented the scales—the scales will tip in favor of our extinction, even with our weighted advantage."

 

Here's a video of him appearing on Fox

 

 

As far as TMT goes, Jeff Greenberg or Sheldon Solomon are probably the guys to interview.

 

 

TMT has gathered quite a bit of evidence in the last 25 years. In evolutionary terms, it basically says that when homo sapiens got a bigger brain and gained greater self-awareness 200,000 years ago, we developed, as an unfortunate byproduct, a crippling anxiety about our own animal insignificance and finitude. To counter this, humans invented culture, as a way of gaining the illusion of being "individuals of value in a world of meaning" and gaining "symbolic immortality" by being part of something that lives on beyond one's death.

 

This provides us with self-esteem or what Ernest Becker (from whom the theory derives) called "heroism", which we generally acquire by living up to the arbitrary standards/prescriptions of the culture we happen to find ourselves in. Our self-esteem therefore has no real factual justification or empirical basis.

 

TMT studies provide evidence that our struggle to deny the finality of death co-opted and changed more primitive functions like morality.

 

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Terror_Management_Theory_%28TMT%29

 

It also provides explanations for our faith in notions like progress

 

https://www.academia.edu/925758/Things_will_get_better_The_anxiety-buffering_qualities_of_progressive_hope/

 

or even as a crucial factor in our desire to procreate

 

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicolas_Koranyi/publication/265092855_Mortality_Salience_and_the_Desire_for_Offspring/links/0deec532fefd24b0e8000000.pdf

 

 

 

To be honest with you I have not looked at this groups background and who the people are. My interpretation is that this is one of several anti human groups. Most of witch are backed by internationalists (the bad kind). They have again and again publicly stated their desire to depopulate the earth. They see "us" as cattle and that they do not need as many as we are to work for them once the "iron curtain" has fully come down. They want to depopulate the earth of people, remember that- people, not gods- as they see themselves. 

 

They very well know that the highest form of warfare is to not fight at all. They start groups of useful idiots to do the work for them. "They" themselves plan to stay.

 

The very fact that this person, the one in the first video, goes on and on about animals is just crazy. Pandas come on, they are, black, white and asian and communists- the very wet dream of a leftist. No but seriously. Would the world really be better for the animals if we were gone? We do a lot of good things for animals as humans. A lot of bad things too- but I think we are more likely in the long term to provide better living conditions for animals than themselves for the very fact that animals are stupid. Animals themselves are killers.

 

By the way, when some animals enter a new area it is common for one species to die out or relocate... 

[Ray H.]

More like Terror Mullet Theory! Amiright?

[mr1001nights]

I think the antinatalist prescriptions of people like the OP and Les Knight are the ultimate expression of the terror management theory. They are unhappy and voluntary human extinction gives their lives meaning and helps them cope. In a world were all human achievement is meaningless and futile, ending such a state of affairs becomes the ONLY meaningful path to pursue. 

But the VHEMT don't want to end all life, only human life. So they want to end the only species that can even understand or care about the concept of species to save all the other species who will never understand, care or be unduly harmed by their extinction.

 

Their argument is based upon the false premise that a species value can be objectively measured. You can see this in that quote from Les Knight. It's so ridiculous to arbitrarily use the number of species as a measure as the concept of species is just a way humans differentiate between animal populations who have diverged and can no longer interbreed. No animal will ever care or be spared suffering by saving their species. Saving species is entirely a selfish human thing to do. It's a demonstrably human preference. 

 

I have talked to Mr1001nights before and he is irrational about this subject. When faced with an argument he can't logically rebut he will attempt to shame and emotionally manipulate. If you're reading this Mr10001nights I hope Mr Knight DOES debate Stef. I also hope you call in to the show and put these arguments to Stefan. 

 

Actually, TMT says that most of our worldviews and activities in culture play a Terror Management function. Culture ITSELF is deemed to have been created to manage our fear of insignificance/finitude. So if VHEMT also plays that function it would not be anything unusual. However, a worldview does not necessarily became empirically false just because it plays that function. It just means that self-esteem is a strong motivator e.g. I can make a scientific or factual discovery which is evidence-based, or help an old lady cross the street and also feel proud about it (incorporate it into my self-esteem).

 

I do not presume to know what the precise value of a species is, but we do know that things like brain size, the ability to have sensations, the compatibility with the biosphere etc can be taken into account. Certainly, you value someone not killing you.  And most people believe we should put killers in jail. Which means that we assume that Homo sapiens life has a certain value. The jump to assuming that other species also have some value seems logical.

 

And if Homo Sapiens is the most destructive single species in the history of the planet (which it is), one can argue that 1) It already has destroyed more species than it itself is worth 2) The destruction of even more species is ongoing and the prospects are even more destructive. 3) We've gone too high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering to preserve our moral right to breed.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Actually, TMT says that most of our worldviews and activities in culture play a Terror Management function. Culture ITSELF is deemed to have been created to manage our fear of insignificance/finitude. So if VHEMT also plays that function it would not be anything unusual. However, a worldview does not necessarily became empirically false just because it plays that function. It just means that self-esteem is a strong motivator e.g. I can make a scientific or factual discovery which is evidence-based, or help an old lady cross the street and also feel proud about it (incorporate it into my self-esteem).

 

I do not presume to know what the precise value of a species is, but we do know that things like brain size, the ability to have sensations, the compatibility with the biosphere etc can be taken into account. Certainly, you value someone not killing you.  And most people believe we should put killers in jail. Which means that we assume that Homo sapiens life has a certain value. The jump to assuming that other species also have some value seems logical.

 

And if Homo Sapiens is the most destructive single species in the history of the planet (which it is), one can argue that 1) It already has destroyed more species than it itself is worth 2) The destruction of even more species is ongoing and the prospects are even more destructive. 3) We've gone too high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering to preserve our moral right to breed.

 

 

 

 

I've encountered the "ok kill yourself" phrase countless times, which is used not so much an argument as it is a knee-jerk response meant to not have to deal with the substance of the issue.

Obviously, it is too much to ask someone to kill themselves. But it is not too much to ask for them to stop breeding. Let's be serious.

I think the TMT is not great. I think human beings that developed the ability to play and create gained an evolutionary advantage and as a side-effect we were able to create all sorts of cultural things. You are right to say that it does not make any worldview empirically false just because it plays that function. Even if everything we do comes from this terror management it's irrelevant because it would be true whether we do good or evil. 

 

There is no value of a human species, precise or imprecise. All value is necessarily subjective. Any attempt to pass of one's subjective valuing as objective is nonsense. 

Personally I think it can be extremely sad when a species ends but what I value most in terms of animal well-being is that individual animals don't suffer unduly. I don't care that much about extinction because extinction doesn't necessarily cause any undue suffering (other than in humans). Species preservation is just a selfish human desire. You of course are free to value as you wish. You can value humans as just one other species or whatever you like. But don't forget that those feelings have no truth value.

 

I don't know if human beings ARE the most destructive species. I think that's kinda bigoted because human beings are very different and most of is have been living under evil people in an evil system. To go from the individuals most responsible for undue destruction to the species is a logically fallacious leap (Unless you are saying that we are all guilty of this destruction by virtue of being born human?). 

Humanity has not destroyed more species than it is worth because "worth" is subjective. To suggest that some individual somewhere (who is not particularly responsible for any destruction of these species) must not have a child because the species they belong to is X amount destructive is preposterous and morally wrong. You cannot hold an individual responsible for what the group they belong to does (or is claimed to do). 

There's no such thing as "our" moral right? That's insane collectivist nonsense. How can a species have a moral right? Only individual agents can act morally or have "moral rights".  Are you really asserting that individual humans have no moral right to breed because of something the collective group "humans are supposed to have done? 

Also "nature's background rate of killing"? Is there an objectively correct rate of killing? Did nature get it right? As far as I can see nature is unspeakably brutal. Is the fact that nature manages to keep species around a lot longer and torture and kill billions more of them supposed to make nature superior? 

I think the worst possible thing to do to animals is leave them in the hands of nature.

[luxfelix]

I think the worst possible thing to do to animals is leave them in the hands of nature.

 

To add to this point, there are many examples of human activity benefiting in the overall biodiversity and vibrancy of various ecosystems (and not just as a specific preservation effort). 

[mr1001nights]

I think the TMT is not great. I think human beings that developed the ability to play and create gained an evolutionary advantage and as a side-effect we were able to create all sorts of cultural things. You are right to say that it does not make any worldview empirically false just because it plays that function.

 

It's not about you or I think, but about the evidence. TMT has many studies to back it up. If we create culture - engage in its activities and worldviews-- mainly to gain self-esteem (earthly or even cosmic significance, symbolic immortality etc), then it would mean that most of our beliefs are false and most of our activities meaningless. As I said, this is not necessarily the case everytime, but it is most of the time. Examine human history for lies and self-deception.

 

 

 

There is no value of a human species, precise or imprecise. All value is necessarily subjective. Any attempt to pass of one's subjective valuing as objective is nonsense. 

 

I don't think you believe what you're saying. Do you see value in someone not killing you? Is the value of not blowing your head off just a subjective notion? Do you see value in someone not killing others? Why do we put killers in jail? We do assume human life has value.. And from there, it makes sense to assume that other life forms have value as well.

 

 

 

 I don't care that much about extinction because extinction doesn't necessarily cause any undue suffering (other than in humans).

 

 

Animals do often suffer as they are driven to extinction. And we also don't think that murder is ok if the person doesn't suffer. For example, if someone gets shot in the back of the head when they are not looking, they may not feel any suffering before they die. That doesn't mean that the action isn't morally reprehensible.

 

 

Also "nature's background rate of killing"? Is there an objectively correct rate of killing? Did nature get it right?

 

Certainly, if someone kills you, or your family, you don't think it should be nonchalantly accepted as an acceptable rate of killing. Otherwise you wouldn't want the killer to go to jail. But you would want him in jail. Wouldn't you?

And what if the killer killed not only them, but thousands more? Would it be morally permissible to kill him? Or is the value of the people he is killing just some "subjective" notion?

 

 

 

To suggest that some individual somewhere (who is not particularly responsible for any destruction of these species) must not have a child because the species they belong to is X amount destructive is preposterous and morally wrong. You cannot hold an individual responsible for what the group they belong to does (or is claimed to do). 

 

Humanity and its ecological destruction comes from individuals. You can measure the footprint of each new life on the planet. Acquaint yourself with the data. What is morally wrong is to ignore the breeder's individual responsibility for this destruction.

 

 

I think the worst possible thing to do to animals is leave them in the hands of nature.

 

Species experience a range of stimulae, including pleasure and joy, which we deprive them of by driving them to extinction.

[Jack]

I can't think of any rational system of measurement that gives non thinking species more value than humans. Economically, no species aside from humans has produced value, so humans are more valuable than all other species. Morally, no species beside humans are capable of being moral actors. Since other species are incapable of extending morality to others, they do not warrant having morality extended to them. Therefore there is no moral argument in favor of ending the human race for the sake of other species. 

 

Les Knight talked about the human race being destructive, but it's also the only species to ever create anything besides more of itself. He is comparing the negatives of humanity without ever considering the positives. Animals do not create art, trees do not build spaceships, no other species has created, or has the potential to create as much as humanity. We may very well be the only species to willing create another species (AI). 

 

This topic is another flavor of original sin which has been addressed and rebutted dozens of times on these forums, and by the FDR show. Advocating human extinction is intellectually and morally corrupt, as I discussed in the previous 2 paragraphs. That doesn't mean that you are personally a bad person, but you should examine why you're willing to spread and defend a movement dedicated to the extinction of your species. I guarantee it isn't' because you think other species hold more value than humans. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Knight: We are pro-children, but against conception.

 

Perhaps if I try hard enough, I can asexually reproduce like a single-celled organism. The sheer amount of energy my mind and body requires in an attempt to universalize this notion is making me ravenously hungry.

 

Excuse me while I chow down on three pounds of pork spare ribs, then flog myself pregnant.

 

Do it for Les!

[utopian]

I am a fan of this kind of thinking, but the problem is, anyone smart enough to consider why the theories are important are probably people who you don't want to die.

 

Consider this study;

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasafunded-study-warns-of-collapse-of-civilisation-in-coming-decades-9195668.html

 

NASA says we are destroying the planet's resources with overpopulation. We need to reduce the population, drastically and quickly. 

 

But what does that mean exactly? It means people need to die. A lot of them. And fast, before the effect on the planet is irreversible.  Because if we don't do it ourselves, it will be done to us later in a way that is not our choice. The world environment will become so deadly and exhausted of resources, we will not be able to support humanity anyway.

 

So now we have to ask ourselves a few important, and really tough questions.

 

Who should die? These people who are voluntarily going extinct are helpful, but they are a very small percentage of the population. I don't like the idea of them dying in the first place, if they are smart enough to consider why they should go extinct. Why not one of the many unintelligent, uneducated people? How about someone in the lower 40th percentile of intelligence? Hell, how about the entire bottom 40%? How about all the criminals as well. and since we need to save money and resources, how about letting all the severely mentally disabled, vegetative, and extremely elderly die off instead of racking up the extreme costs of caring for them when they can't even contribute to humanity?

 

Now take a step back, and consider all that. Consider actually doing that. Monstrous. Unhuman. Unthinkable. And yet, if we do not do it, we will cause all of humanity to go extinct, in the face of NASA's research and overpopulation. No one can pull that trigger. That is why humanity is doomed to extinction, unless large quantities of the population go voluntarily extinct. 

[mr1001nights]

t

[PGP]

Shouldn't the priority be working on a time machine to go back and save the dinosaurs? 

Maybe go back and prosecute Genghis Khan for crimes against humanity for all that evil procreation, or better still go back and cut Adams balls off? Take the ribs aswell, just to be sure. Sneaky Yahweh. 

[Hannibal]

How many other species is the human species worth? or more generally, how high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering should humans go before they lose the moral right to breed?

 

 

Sounds inherently contradictory coming from a nihilist.

I can't think of any rational system of measurement that gives non thinking species more value than humans. 

 

It'd be a contradiction.

Rationality is a uniquely human quality - or at least it doesn't pertain to 'non thinking species'.

So if you value rationality then you must value rational humans over unthinking animals. 

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

 

 

I've encountered the "ok kill yourself" phrase countless times, which is used not so much an argument as it is a knee-jerk response meant to not have to deal with the substance of the issue.

Obviously, it is too much to ask someone to kill themselves. But it is not too much to ask them to stop breeding. Let's be serious.

 

The meat of the issue is you're an antihumanist who would prefer the human species dead and buried, or, better still, never to have existed in the first place.  This really places you beneath contempt, as just another ISIS-class lunatic.

 

 

[mr1001nights]

Jack,
you say that "Since other species are incapable of extending morality to others, they do not warrant having morality extended to them."
But you forget the other, more important, side of the equation:

Since other species are equally incapable of extending immorality to others, the also do not warrant having immorality extended to them.

And being the single most destructive species in the history of the planet -- bringing to extinction 100s of 1000s of species like we've done seems very immoral. In fact, it makes the crimes of Hitler or Stalin (who killed a small % of only 1 species) seem almost invisible in comparison.
Now, I proposed using measures such as ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc to roughly determine the worth of a species.

Under these measures, the species we have brought to extinction--let alone the ones we continue to destroy or are futurely projected to destroy -- have already cumulatively exceeded the value of humanity.
However, you bring a different measure to the table. You mention

1) the human production of economic value
2) human art
3) human technology ("spaceships" "AI")

First lets establish that these things either have no value for other species, or they have an overall negative value (resulting in what is termed as the "Holocene extinction").

So we are left with the question of why it is that the value that only humans accrue through these activities is more significant than the negative value accrued by the species we bring to extinction.
I think you'll agree with me that it is because we have a great regard for our intelligence and its products -- the source of all of these things.

So for example, even if we ignored the fact that what we find aesthetically pleasing is not shared by many other species (especially narcissistically admiring ourselves over and over again in paintings, sculptures, human sounds & movements etc),  it's clear that nature and many of its species create objects, shapes, colors etc that we ourselves find to be of greater aesthetic value than any human art. And yet everytime we admire human art we do so at the same time as we shun (or gradually destroy) this greater aesthetic value of nature.
In other words, we choose to admire something of inferior aesthetic value mainly because it has been produced by human intelligence.

Similarly, other species and natural earthly processes produce more food, resources etc than any human economy has ever created, and yet we choose to grant ourselves more significance because our intelligence produced these things.

Our technology cannot even come close to replicating many of the abilities, senses and products of many creatures and insects, and yet we don't find these to be as significant because they weren't created by human intelligence.

Similarly, human culture features a multitude of games, arbitrary activities and goals that provide the individual with feelings of personal significance simply because human intelligence and social consensus by similarly minded creatures are involved. For example, someone could invent some meaningless game, like counting blades of grass. You could have competitions where individuals compete to count faster, using ingenious geometric counting procedures and strategies, group cooperation schemes etc.

And the winners could get medals, prizes, recognition and a feeling of accomplishment and self importance. They could devote most of their lives to the game.
In a society where the game was popular no one would ever even contemplate the possibility that spending one's life counting blades of grass is no more significant than a cow spending its life eating grass.
Similarly, we often value individuals more if they excel at similar games (football, basketball, golf, chess etc), or at the activities you mention (contributions to art, technology, economic production etc). In fact, humans tend to grant importance and meaning to their day to day actions (more than they do to the actions of other creatures) no matter how trivial and objectively meaningless and mediocre these actions may be.
 

Here's where Terror Management comes in.

 

As I said, when homo sapiens got a bigger brain and gained greater self-awareness 200,000 years ago, we developed, as an unfortunate byproduct, a crippling anxiety about our own animal insignificance and finitude. To counter this, humans invented culture, as a way of gaining the illusion of being "individuals of value in a world of meaning" and gaining "symbolic immortality" by being part of something that lives on beyond one's death.

This provides us with self-esteem or what Ernest Becker called "heroism", which we generally acquire by living up to the arbitrary standards/prescriptions of the culture we happen to find ourselves in. Our self-esteem therefore has no real factual justification or empirical basis.

Our intelligence is thus irrationally given a disproportionate amount of value precisely because of this fear.
In other words, the value of intelligence and human social consensus is mainly their ability to suppress your fear of finitude and insignificance through illusions that grant you self-esteem.
 

As I said, this fear-based judgement should be substituted by a more rational assessment of the value of a species, which seems to involve taking into consideration things like the ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc

 

p.s. Proffessionalteabagger, this response also addresses the issues you raised.

[PGP]

Interesting that you just constructed a game with rules that places animal "sensation" equivalent to human "sensation" with the conclusion that animals have suffered and died, therefore humans must die off willingly. You also lump us into a species with some collective guilt. That's an interesting game you have designed.

Secondly, our knowledge of ecosystem functioning and services and all that mumbo jumbo from the Agenda 21 is very limited. Yet, in order to manage it, we just have to give up our freedoms a little bit here and a little bit there and feel really bad about it. That's an interesting game also.

The development of knowledge to work with nature and therefore profit in perpetuity is absolutely vital to the future of the life-supporting functioning of the planet. How that is achieved is another matter. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Since other species are incapable of extending morality to others, they do not warrant having morality extended to them. 

It's bald assertions like that that make Mr1001nights look like the good guy and his position look like the rational one. If you want to make the claim that animals do not warrant having morality extended to them then you need argue it.  

[DaviesMa]

Why is a species a more significant moral measure than the number of individual animal deaths? To suggest this is to propose that genetic variety is good for its own sake, much as we say that multiculturalism is good because of 'diversity.' Unless I am mistaken there is no argument attached to this.

 

I realise that extinction ends the particular species but this is to argue on the basis of the good of the species rather than the good of the individual animals. As a species is just a collection of animals of similar genetic characteristics, this appears to be erroneous in the same way that nationalism is erroneous.

 

If we argue that humans kill more individual animals than any other species, this is because we are top of the food chain.

 

We can then we must then look at the morality of a lion, who kills many gazelles in his lifetime, or any other predator. Should we sterile all predators to ensure the maximum survival of herbivores? Should sterile all insectivores to ensure the maximum survival of insects?

 

The argument becomes absurd.

[mr1001nights]

DaviesMa, if you read the thread, you'll see that I said:

 

"We've gone too high above nature's background rate of killing and infliction of suffering to preserve our moral right to breed."

 

That would include the "individual animal deaths" you're referring to.

 

Without even delving into all the arguments about the value of biodiversity, the relevance of also mentioning "species" has partly to do with the fact that by the criteria I mentioned (ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc) "individual animal deaths" don't all have the same value.

 

The killing a Blue Whale, for example, entails more loss than the killing of an ant.

 

You say that "humans kill more individual animals than any other species... because we are top of the food chain," just like "a lion who kills many gazelles in his lifetime or any other predator".

 

But this is not true.

 

Lions eat the gazelles they kill.

 

We do not eat the 100s of 1000s of species we're bringing to extinction.

 

Lions and other predators are compatible with the biosphere.

 

We're not.

[luxfelix]

Can we both find compatibility with the biosphere and continue living?

 

(Aren't there examples of this possibility?)

[J. D. Stembal]

Can we both find compatibility with the biosphere and continue living?

 

(Aren't there examples of this possibility?)

 

Actually, there is. It's animal husbandry.

 

[mr1001nights]

Apparently some renown experts don't find evidence supporting Savory's claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory

 

But even assuming that Savory was 100% correct, it would be a far cry from "compatibility with the biosphere"

 

Remember that humans started causing the Holocene extinction in the Neolithic with fewer than 10 million people on the planet and no industrial infrastructure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

 

So any successful reforms in an industrialized planet with billions of people (currently 7.3 billion & growing) would at best only slightly slow a massive rate of extinction.

 

A more serious attempt at compatibility with the biosphere would entail humans reverting back to Paleolithic population/production levels i.e. pre Holocene extinction, when only about 5 million humans roamed the planet hunting and gathering -- not even practicing agriculture & domestication.

 

Unfortunately, VHEMT would be justified even if that option were possible, as the unacceptably horrifying possibility of returning to our current ecocidal situation would always be there -- just like it was in the past, when our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

And being the single most destructive species in the history of the planet -- bringing to extinction 100s of 1000s of species like we've done seems very immoral. In fact, it makes the crimes of Hitler or Stalin (who killed a small % of only 1 species) seem almost invisible in comparison.

Now, I proposed using measures such as ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc to roughly determine the worth of a species.

 

. . .

 

Under these measures, the species we have brought to extinction--let alone the ones we continue to destroy or are futurely projected to destroy -- have already cumulatively exceeded the value of humanity.As I said, this fear-based judgement should be substituted by a more rational assessment of the value of a species, which seems to involve taking into consideration things like the ability to feel sensations, sentience, brain size, compatibility with the biosphere etc

 

p.s. Proffessionalteabagger, this response also addresses the issues you raised.

Saying something "seems" immoral is not a good way to argue that it is immoral. That doesn't even reach the level of abductive reasoning. It is not immoral, as a species is not capable of immorality. Only individuals. Even if the human species was an agent that could act morally it's still not true that causing any other species to go extinct is immoral. The preservation of species is only a human value and does not exist without us.

Your proposed measures to determine the worth of a species are arbitrary. They are 100 percent your preference.  There is absolutely nothing true or valid about them. This is an attempt to perform alchemy and make what you happen to value transform into something objective. You cannot make your aesthetic preferences become correct anymore than you can turn lead into gold.

You go on putting forward a nihilistic view of human behavior and pushing the Terror management hypothesis (which you appear to accept as fact). Even if you're correct it makes no difference to the fact that you are wrong in your basic premises as I have explained. You need to make a valid rebuttal to my arguments and stop with the "it seems . . ." and "I feel . . ." stuff.

[J. D. Stembal]

Apparently some renown experts don't find evidence supporting Savory's claims http://en.wikipedia....ki/Allan_Savory

 

To whom are you referring? I can cite at least two experts who find Savory's research convincing. I enjoy his perspective because he is willing to admit his past mistakes, and offer insight from the mistakes. Additionally, he outlines how voluntarism is preferable to government interference in agriculture, and that public opinion within communities should guide policy and not the edicts of embedded institutions.

 

Here's another insightful presentation by Savory.

 

 

From the wiki page you offered as evidence on the Holocene:

 

There is no general agreement on whether to consider this as merely part of the Quaternary extinction event, or just a result of human-caused changes.

 

The beginning of the Holocene was also marked by the end of the last ice age.

 

The Quaternary extinction event brought down megafauna like the mammoth and the mastodon, but humans weren't their only natural predators. You are giving humans too much credit as the ultimate arbiters of evolution while we are running around with spears, hunting large game to survive. Why aren't you holding the sabre-tooth tiger responsible as well? What about proto-humans?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

Remember that humans started causing the Holocene extinction in the Neolithic with fewer than 10 million people on the planet and no industrial infrastructure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

What exactly is the problem with this supposed extinction? If you could show more suffering is caused to individual animals as a result of this extinction then you might have an argument. But isn't there less suffering as members of these extinct species will no longer be born into horror?

[DaviesMa]

But this is not true.

 

Lions eat the gazelles they kill.

 

We do not eat the 100s of 1000s of species we're bringing to extinction.

 

Lions and other predators are compatible with the biosphere.

 

We're not.

 

 

Killing animals is always to our benefit, whether it is to make way for farm land or habitation or for food. The indirect causes such as pollution are also to our benefit. Just because we don't consume them doesn't make it a seperate moral category.

[mr1001nights]

repeated post

[mr1001nights]

Shirgall,


you say that


"This is not a destruction of the biosphere, it is merely a modification of it".

-------------------------------------------------------------


Well, when the background rate of extinction is increased thousands of times, as we have done in what is termed the "Holocene extinction", the word "ecocide"and "destruction" of the biosphere seems appropriate.


>>>>
EndTheUsurpation,


You talk about the Quaternary to try to show that maybe it wasn't humans that killed the megafauna, but that is before the Holocene extinction in the neolithic (agricultural era) which is what I was referring to. No scholar disagrees that the ongoing Holocene extinction is caused by humanity.

-----------

DaviesMa,

You say that

"Killing animals is always to our benefit, whether it is to make way for farm land or habitation or for food. The indirect causes such as pollution are also to our benefit. Just because we don't consume them doesn't make it a seperate moral category."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think many people would disagree that killing animals for food belongs to the same moral category as killing them for sport or as a result of the various ideological goals and massive greed we see in civilization. Especially when this results in huge numbers of species going extinct. Many other creatures have been "top of the food chain" without erasing their compatibility with the environment and causing extinction events. Certainly, the current alarming rate of extinctions is not projected to benefit humanity.

>>>>>
ProfessionalTeabagger,


You say:


"it's still not true that causing any other species to go extinct is immoral...What exactly is the problem with this supposed extinction? If you could show more suffering is caused to individual animals as a result of this extinction then you might have an argument. But isn't there less suffering as members of these extinct species will no longer be born into horror?"

-----------------------------------------


Many species do experience a range of stimulae, including pleasure and joy, that make life worth living. And many do suffer as they are driven to extinction.
Certainly you wouldn't be asking the same question so nonchalantly if you, your family, or the human species was being driven to death and extinction. And I suspect that you would make a case to a judge as to why someone who killed your family, or large groups of humans -- or threatened to kill you -- acted immorally and deserves to be put in jail.


You also say:


"Saying something "seems" immoral is not a good way to argue that it is immoral."

----------------------------------------------------------------


I think minimizing the use of the verb "to be" helps have a more sane discussion. You may want to look at a type of English called E-prime to see what I'm talking about.
 

[shirgall]

Lions and other predators are compatible with the biosphere.

 

We're not.

 

This is citing facts not in evidence. "Incompatible" compared to lions? We coexist with species all over the planet, We manipulate our environment to the benefit of useful species and to the detriment to less useful species. The planet doesn't care. The house cats and otherwise-braindead labrador retrievers approve. The more icky bugs are having a bad millenium.

 

This is not a destruction of the biosphere, it is merely a modification of it. The world has not become a lifeless desert, nor is it likely to. In fact, increased CO2 is bringing plant food levels up, but is still quite a bit less than previous levels of lush plant growth.

[mr1001nights]

Shirgall said

 

"This is not a destruction of the biosphere, it is merely a modification of it".

 

Well, when the background rate of extinction is increased thousands of times, as we have done in what is termed the "Holocene extinction", the word "ecocide"and "destruction" of the biosphere seems appropriate.

 

 

EndTheUsurpation said

 

The Quaternary extinction event brought down megafauna like the mammoth and the mastodon, but humans weren't their only natural predators. You are giving humans too much credit as the ultimate arbiters of evolution while we are running around with spears, hunting large game to survive. Why aren't you holding the sabre-tooth tiger responsible as well? What about proto-humans?

 

 

You talk about the Quaternary to try to show that maybe it wasn't humans that killed the megafauna, but that is before the Holocene extinction in the neolithic (agricultural era) which is what I was referring to. No scholar disagrees that the ongoing Holocene extinction is caused by humanity.

 

DaviesMa said

 

"Killing animals is always to our benefit, whether it is to make way for farm land or habitation or for food. The indirect causes such as pollution are also to our benefit. Just because we don't consume them doesn't make it a seperate moral category."

 

I think many people would disagree that killing animals for food belongs to the same moral category as killing them for sport or as a result of the various ideological goals and massive greed we see in civilization. Especially when this results in huge numbers of species going extinct. Many other creatures have been "top of the food chain" without erasing their compatibility with the environment and causing extinction events. Certainly, the current alarming rate of extinctions is not projected to benefit humanity.

 

ProfessionalTeabagger said

 

"it's still not true that causing any other species to go extinct is immoral...What exactly is the problem with this supposed extinction? If you could show more suffering is caused to individual animals as a result of this extinction then you might have an argument. But isn't there less suffering as members of these extinct species will no longer be born into horror?"

 

 

Many species do experience a range of stimulae, including pleasure and joy, that make life worth living. And many do suffer as they are driven to extinction.

Certainly you wouldn't be asking the same question so nonchalantly if you, your family, or the human species was being driven to death and extinction. And I suspect that you would make a case to a judge as to why someone who killed your family, or large groups of humans -- or threatened to kill you -- acted immorally and deserves to be put in jail.

ProfessionalTeabagger said

 

"Saying something "seems" immoral is not a good way to argue that it is immoral."

 

I think minimizing the use of the verb "to be" helps have a more sane discussion. You may want to look at a type of English called E-prime to see what I'm talking about.

[Donnadogsoth]

This is citing facts not in evidence. "Incompatible" compared to lions? We coexist with species all over the planet, We manipulate our environment to the benefit of useful species and to the detriment to less useful species. The planet doesn't care. The house cats and otherwise-braindead labrador retrievers approve. The more icky bugs are having a bad millenium.

 

This is not a destruction of the biosphere, it is merely a modification of it. The world has not become a lifeless desert, nor is it likely to. In fact, increased CO2 is bringing plant food levels up, but is still quite a bit less than previous levels of lush plant growth.

shirgall, we agree on something!