Voluntary Human Extinction Movement & Terror Management Theory

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

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.

It's not your grammar I'm talking about but your failure to prove what you're saying and instead saying it "seems" rather than "it is". You have to demonstrate something is immoral. Telling us it "seems" immoral to you is just your opinion. What you're doing which is spreading a false morality in support of a plan of action that will never happen and will only make things worse seems immoral to me. But until I prove it it's just my opinion and I doubt you give two hoots about my opinion.

I know animals experience pleasure. So what? Is the pleasure worth the suffering? Please tell me which moment of joy in an animal's life makes up for the millions of years of unspeakable suffering of all the animals within the species? I am pretty certain that on average animals within a species suffer no less in being "driven" to extinction than continuing to exist. Mostly every animal dies in some wretched painful manner. What difference does it make if there happens to be no more of that particular species? How does the animal suffer any more? It doesn't. It's entirely your sentimental preference for species preservation. 

You bring me and/or my family into your examples. But you are talking about species, not individuals or family. You don't get to conflate those as if they are in the same category. Also it doesn't matter that I ask the question "nonchalantly". What has HOW I ask the question got to do with the question? Are you going to answer it or not? 

 

BTW I would also make a case to a judge that someone who deliberately hurt animals should be in jail. Pro-species is not the same as Pro-animal. I am pro-animal first and I don't let my solely human valuing of species interfere with my caring for the well-being of the actual animals.

[Jack]

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.

Extending morality is an action who's alternative is inaction, not the opposite action. For example, if I do not eat, that doesn't mean I am throwing up. 

 

The argument that other species are incapable of "extending immorality" (hereafter called evil) and should not have evil inflicted on them can also be applied to rocks. A rock is not capable of being evil, and therefore does not deserve to be crushed (a destructive act that would be evil if inflicted on a moral actor) and melted down for gold, treating non moral actors or inanimate objects as moral actors quickly becomes absurd as your every step and breath becomes a transgression. 

 

Neither animals or rocks are capable of making decisions or choices on a moral basis. They also won't gain that ability unless they become a new species. This caveat is important so that future moral actors (such as babies) are still treated morally. At this point, there is no reason to suspect that animals will suddenly start making moral choices. 

 

I believe I've made a strong moral argument in my previous post and addressed the crux of the original poster's rebuttal. But there is one very important thing to consider, even if humanity wipes itself out, animal species will still continue to wipe each other out until the sun burns out and all life on earth dies. Only humanity has a chance of outliving the sun, and only through humanity can any piece of earth's ecosystem live on. The scale isn't weighing today's species and humanity, it's weighing the inevitable death of the planet and the preservation of known life. 

 

I suspect the original poster came here in bad faith in order to troll the forums. I won't be engaging in this thread anymore and only wrote this reply for the benefit of other people who happen by the topic. I'll still respond to personal messages and wish everyone the best!

 

Keep on pondering!

[mr1001nights]

The argument that other species are incapable of "extending immorality" (hereafter called evil) and should not have evil inflicted on them can also be applied to rocks. A rock is not capable of being evil, and therefore does not deserve to be crushed (a destructive act that would be evil if inflicted on a moral actor) and melted down for gold, treating non moral actors or inanimate objects as moral actors quickly becomes absurd as your every step and breath becomes a transgression. 

 

Neither animals or rocks are capable of making decisions or choices on a moral basis. They also won't gain that ability unless they become a new species. This caveat is important so that future moral actors (such as babies) are still treated morally. At this point, there is no reason to suspect that animals will suddenly start making moral choices. 

 

Comparing the ecocide of millions of species with crushing rocks or other inanimate objects isn't appropriate. Rocks don't suffer or experience joy and stimulae like animals do.

 

 

even if humanity wipes itself out, animal species will still continue to wipe each other out until the sun burns out and all life on earth dies.

 

Your statement seems to imply that our killing of animals and species is comparable to what happens in nature anyway. This is not true. Humans have increased the background rate of extinction thousands of times, as well as the background rate of killing and infliction of suffering.

 

 

Only humanity has a chance of outliving the sun, and only through humanity can any piece of earth's ecosystem live on. The scale isn't weighing today's species and humanity, it's weighing the inevitable death of the planet and the preservation of known life. 

 

 

You seem to be saying that millions of species who would have otherwise experienced life for many years, must all die in order to give 1 species (humanity) a microscopically slim (I dare say zero) chance of "outliving the sun". Doesn't seem very moral or reasonable.

 

A somewhat less extreme version of this argument is that humans need to be around to stop a meteor.

However, the average life span of a species according to Ernst Mayr is about 100,000 years. This includes Homo Sapiens.

 

Large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago.

 

So the probability that our lifespan will coincide with a collision is extremely unlikely. Also, 2 years ago the following conversation took place between a congressman and the principal investigator for NASA's EPOXY mission:

 

REP. STEWART: ... are we technologically capable of launching something that could intercept [an asteroid]? ... DR. A'HEARN: No. If we had spacecraft plans on the books already, that would take a year ... I mean a typical small mission ... takes four years from approval to start to launch ...

 

If we cared about life on the planet we'd realize that we are the equivalent of a large meteor and so we would remove ourselves from the equation by not breeding.

 

That seems like the strongest "moral argument" anyone can make.

[J. D. Stembal]

Rocks don't suffer or experience joy and stimulae like animals do.

 

How did you determine this? Have you discussed the topic with any rocks or animals? How about plants?

 

 

Humans have increased the background rate of extinction thousands of times, as well as the background rate of killing and infliction of suffering.

 

Can you offer us any evidence of this assertion? There were five major mass extinctions before humans. Entire classes of plants and animals perished during these events. Some consider the Quaternary extinctions (the megafauna) to be the beginning of the sixth mass extinction. How are you certain the extinctions occurring now aren't a continuation of this global trend in evolution? Why are humans automatically the guilty party, and why humans collectively as a species?

 

I can assure you that I had no part in any living being's extinction. Exclusively, I co-exist in symbiosis with extant life forms.

 

You did not address any of the points I made against your thesis in my last reply. Thank you for your consideration in advance!

 

That seems like the strongest "moral argument" anyone can make.

 

It seems that way because you are ignoring evidence that contradicts the theory of human voluntary extinction.

 

By the way, logically, you cannot make a universal moral argument that all rational actors must voluntarily extinct themselves. If anything, it falls under aesthetically preferable behavior. If you do not wish to exist, by all means, voluntarily cease to exist. However, you can't make that decision for anyone else aside from you because it violates the non-aggression principle.

[mr1001nights]

 

Can you offer us any evidence of this assertion? [that Humans have increased the background rate of extinction thousands of times]. There were five major mass extinctions before humans. Entire classes of plants and animals perished during these events. Some consider the Quaternary extinctions (the megafauna) to be the beginning of the sixth mass extinction. How are you certain the extinctions occurring now aren't a continuation of this global trend in evolution? Why are humans automatically the guilty party, and why humans collectively as a species?

 

 

Here's some scientific evidence.

http://time.com/3035872/sixth-great-extinction/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/392

 

 

I can assure you that I had no part in any living being's extinction. Exclusively, I co-exist in symbiosis with extant life forms.

 

 

We can try to calculate your footprint, if you so desire.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Your statement seems to imply that our killing of animals and species is comparable to what happens in nature anyway. This is not true. Humans have increased the background rate of extinction thousands of times, as well as the background rate of killing and infliction of suffering.

 

 

 

You seem to be saying that millions of species who would have otherwise experienced life for many years, must all die in order to give 1 species (humanity) a microscopically slim (I dare say zero) chance of "outliving the sun". Doesn't seem very moral or reasonable.

 

A somewhat less extreme version of this argument is that humans need to be around to stop a meteor.

However, the average life span of a species according to Ernst Mayr is about 100,000 years. This includes Homo Sapiens.

 

Large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago.

 

So the probability that our lifespan will coincide with a collision is extremely unlikely. Also, 2 years ago the following conversation took place between a congressman and the principal investigator for NASA's EPOXY mission:

 

REP. STEWART: ... are we technologically capable of launching something that could intercept [an asteroid]? ... DR. A'HEARN: No. If we had spacecraft plans on the books already, that would take a year ... I mean a typical small mission ... takes four years from approval to start to launch ...

 

If we cared about life on the planet we'd realize that we are the equivalent of a large meteor and so we would remove ourselves from the equation by not breeding.

 

That seems like the strongest "moral argument" anyone can make.

Where's your evidence that humans have increased the "background rate" of killing and suffering? When was this measured? 

Ernest Mayr is wrong. We are a unique species so he can't make that comparison. Just because a large meteor strike happens on average every so many millions of years doesn't mean one can't happen tomorrow. The 20 million years figure is an average. It is not predictive. Human beings can overcome things that other species are helpless against so we may very well be around for several meteor strikes and worse. Without us all life is doomed. 

If everyone was so dedicated to preserving other species that they all voluntarily decided to stop breading then we wouldn't need to stop breeding because everyone would be dedicated to helping animals. 

 

Environmental footprints are bullshit. What's your footprint? There's no way to calculate such future effects. 

Here's some scientific evidence.

http://time.com/3035872/sixth-great-extinction/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/392

 

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore refutes these claims. 

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/03/04/greenpeace-cofounder-slams-species-extinction-scare-study-as-proof-of-how-peerreview-process-has-become-corrupted-ndash-study-greatly-underestimate-the-rate-new-species-can-evolve/

[mr1001nights]

 

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore refutes these claims. 

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/03/04/greenpeace-cofounder-slams-species-extinction-scare-study-as-proof-of-how-peerreview-process-has-become-corrupted-ndash-study-greatly-underestimate-the-rate-new-species-can-evolve/

 

That's just an interview in which Moore makes statements, but doesn't present any studies of his own. Why don't you post some studies like I did?

 

Do you notice how the burden of proof decreases enormously when you want to win an argument?

 

Also, according to the wikipedia links, Moore is not the "founder" of Greenpeace, but rather someone who was "a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986" and is now a "frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups".

 

According to Greenpeace, he is "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry."

 

The evidence all indicates that we have increased the background rate of extinction enormously. And yes, many species do suffer as they are driven to extinction.

 

 

 

Just because a large meteor strike happens on average every so many millions of years doesn't mean one can't happen tomorrow.

 

 

 

It means that based on what we know and available evidence, the chances are extremely slim. To act rationally, you cannot plan your life assuming you will win the lottery.

 

Without us all life is doomed. 

 

Once again, no evidence at all of that. But quite the opposite:

 

Evidence indicates that we're the single most destructive species in the history of the planet. It takes quite an Orwellian effort to not only deny that, but to assert the exact opposite.

 

 

Environmental footprints are bullshit. What's your footprint? There's no way to calculate such future effects. 

 

Sure there is. Here's one way to measure it http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/

[J. D. Stembal]

Here's some scientific evidence.

http://time.com/3035872/sixth-great-extinction/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/392

 

Mr. 1001 Nights,

 

I'm glad to see you have evolved from linking Wikipedia articles to major popular science publications, but what do these articles prove?

 

How could the mammoth been driven to extinction by modern deforestation? These are two unrelated events separated by thousands of years. You can't draw correlation, let alone causation. The mammoth is a grass-eater, and therefore did not live in the jungle or the forest. It's the same story with the saber-toothed tiger which hunted mammoths in the open plains. We also hunted the mammoth.

 

Why aren't humans extinct as well? Could it be that we were better adapted to survive after the last ice age? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of each species to ensure its own survival?

 

 

We can try to calculate your footprint, if you so desire.

 

I'm a size twelve.

[mr1001nights]

Mr. 1001 Nights,

 

How could the mammoth been driven to extinction by modern deforestation? These are two unrelated events separated by thousands of years. You can't draw correlation, let alone causation. The mammoth is a grass-eater, and therefore did not live in the jungle or the forest. It's the same story with the saber-toothed tiger which hunted mammoths in the open plains. We also hunted the mammoth.

 

Why aren't humans extinct as well? Could it be that we were better adapted to survive after the last ice age? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of each species to ensure its own survival?

 

 

I never drew any correlation between the Mammoth and anything else. I never even mentioned the Mammoth. You attributions are thus a red herring. The Mammoth's extinction happened before the Holocene extinction in the neolithic (agricultural era) which is what I was referring to. No serious scholar disagrees that the ongoing Holocene extinction is caused by humanity.

 

I agree that one can take an immoral position and try to "ensure the survival" of the most destructive species in the history of the planet (Homo Sapiens) at the expense of millions of other species.

 

But one can also take a moral position and come to the conclusion articulated by Les Knight that

 

"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."

[Soren]

Why do you care about the nr of species? Why is it important to you?

[PGP]

If humans have been and indeed continue to be as destructive as you say, and hence immoral according to your standard of protecting other species, then how do you reasonably expect humans to voluntarily extinct? If voluntary extinction is "Plan A", then what is your "Plan B"? If "Plan A" is infinitesimally probable with the current human stock, then, considering we are immoral, how do you proposeto change this immoral position/state? Do you believe it possible to engineer people to this end, or to use persuasion? 

[mr1001nights]

If humans have been and indeed continue to be as destructive as you say, and hence immoral according to your standard of protecting other species, then how do you reasonably expect humans to voluntarily extinct? If voluntary extinction is "Plan A", then what is your "Plan B"? If "Plan A" is infinitesimally probable with the current human stock, then, considering we are immoral, how do you proposeto change this immoral position/state? Do you believe it possible to engineer people to this end, or to use persuasion? 

 

I don't believe humans will ever decide to go extinct. I'm just articulating what I think are the unassailable moral and intellectual arguments for why they should.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

That's just an interview in which Moore makes statements, but doesn't present any studies of his own. Why don't you post some studies like I did?

Studies of what? You are the one making the claim that species are going extinct at thousands of times the rate that they should be (based on some yet to be revealed objective measure of how fast species should go extinct). Patrick Moore is pointing how these studies are unreliable. 

 

 

 

Do you notice how the burden of proof decreases enormously when you want to win an argument?

What burden of proof do I have? I have already argued that even if you are correct about the species rate of extinction it doesn't make your argument about voluntary human extinction valid. Didn't you notice me argue that a rapid rate of extinction may be a good thing? 

 

Moore was a founder of Greenpeace and fought with them for years. That's demonstrable. He's not a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry (why would this even be relevant?). The people who interpreted the data on the studies you cite are also paid and have a great financial interest in stiring up environmental alarm. We should be skeptical of them too, right?

 

 

 

The evidence all indicates that we have increased the background rate of extinction enormously. And yes, many species do suffer as they are driven to extinction.

Now it's "enormously". That could mean twice as much or thousands of times as much. This is the slippery nonsense that leftist environmentalists always peddle. 

There's no evidence that species suffer more as a result of going extinct. If there is then produce it. An individual animal might suffer whereas it would not have if its species wasn't going extinct but the opposite could also be true. The fact is that species preservation is a solely human concern and you are projecting your selfish desire for species preservation on to animals. 

 

 

 

It means that based on what we know and available evidence, the chances are extremely slim. To act rationally, you cannot plan your life assuming you will win the lottery.

No it doesn't mean that. I already gave you an argument. Human beings can last longer potentially than any other species. The 100 thousand year number is not valid because it's based on observations of species who do not have our unique traits. It's possible that it may be likely humans will face an asteroid strike in the future, not to mention the inevitable expansion of the sun. We will be those other species only hope (not that they'll care or benefit overall because species preservation is an entirely human preference).

 

 

Once again, no evidence at all of that. But quite the opposite:

 

Evidence indicates that we're the single most destructive species in the history of the planet. It takes quite an Orwellian effort to not only deny that, but to assert the exact opposite.

Without human help every species on earth will go extinct. Are they going to get on spaceships when the sun fries the planet? In fact humans can now preserve samples of all species as so as none ever go extinct. In the near future we may actually end extinction.

 

The human species does not act as a single agent so your assertion that WE are the most destructive species is fallacious. You are part of the human species yet you are engaged in a course of action you believe has the opposite effect of destruction. How do you explain that? Are you an exception? Can you do things other human's can't?  I think it's you who are dealing in Orwellian double-think because you refute your self.

 

 

 

Sure there is. Here's one way to measure it http://footprintnetw...ge/calculators/

Yeah I've seen lots of these crackpot sites. Again, what's your footprint? To tell that you need to know the future effects of your actions. But you can't know that. What if you are successful and you convince millions and end up reducing environmental damage in by 30 percent? Your footprint would be massively positive right? Yet those websites will tell you how much damage you are doing. Those websites are horseshit designed to guilt-trip people who can't think.  

I agree that one can take an immoral position and try to "ensure the survival" of the most destructive species in the history of the planet (Homo Sapiens) at the expense of millions of other species.

 

But one can also take a moral position and come to the conclusion articulated by Les Knight that

 

"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."

You keep saying moral and immoral but are failing to provide any actual moral argument. You are just stating your preference and trying to persuade with appeals to guilt. Morality cannot be applied to a species. A species is not an agent. You need a moral agent in order to apply morality. 

 

I've already explained why that quote from Les Knight is nonsense. The scales do not favor our extinction because Les made that up in his head.  We are not collectively guilty of being human and the concept of a species only has relevance to humans. 

[PGP]

I don't believe humans will ever decide to go extinct. I'm just articulating what I think are the unassailable moral and intellectual arguments for why they should.

So, you are just playing a game?

I suppose we are guilty of being alive. In respect of your argument, if humans do not voluntarily extinct, what other measures should be taken in your view? Perhaps a middle-ground compromise? What would that entail?

It would be a relief not to have to extinct, if only an alternative was constructed to relieve us of this guilt. People would feel better at any rate.

[mr1001nights]

Patrick Moore is pointing how these studies are unreliable.

 

 

Not sure if this Moore guy can, without studies of his own, refute the consensus of thousands of scientists. Videos such as these don't really give him much credibility...

 

 

The people who interpreted the data on the studies you cite are also paid and have a great financial interest in stiring up environmental alarm.

 

 

Corporations like the ones Moore speaks for have as a primary duty to maximize profit for stockholders. That's not the case for most institutions of scientific research. You'd have to take each one of those scientists that make up the scientific consensus, and show me how they have biases and interests that even come close to Moore's. They present serious studies and get paid to conduct scientific research, not to come up with a particular result. With Moore and the industries he speaks for it's easy to see the bias--especially when they don't even present alternative studies.

 

There's no evidence that species suffer more as a result of going extinct. If there is then produce it.

 

 

 

Anytime you deprive sentient organisms of things like food and habitat, or when you poison and degrade the places where they eat, drink and breathe etc it is safe to assume that the animal does not feel better than when those things haven't happened.

We can try it with you for a few weeks and see if you suffer.

 

Human beings can last longer potentially than any other species. The 100 thousand year number is not valid because it's based on observations of species who do not have our unique traits.

 

 

The prospects for humanity don't look good. It's not unreasonable to consider as a very real possibility that our lifestyle will lead us to extinction in less than a thousand years.  It's much safer to bet on organisms like cockroaches and ants, which have already been here for over 100 million years and will likely be here for millions more, long after we're gone.

 

 it may be likely humans will face an asteroid strike in the future, not to mention the inevitable expansion of the sun. We will be those other species only hope

 

once again, the expansion of the sun is projected to happen so far into the future (billions of years) that to assume we will still be around is not reasonable. As for the meteors, as I said, large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. So our chances of being around when it happens are also not likely.

Even if it happened next year, we couldn't stop it anyway. Just read my post where I talk about what NASA says about this.

 

Without human help every species on earth will go extinct. Are they going to get on spaceships when the sun fries the planet? In fact humans can now preserve samples of all species as so as none ever go extinct. In the near future we may actually end extinction.

 

 

You're basically saying "let a million species die for my pie in the sky". In other words, you're justifying humans causing innumerable species to go extinct now and in the near future--depriving them of their life experience on this planet-- on the grounds that billions of years from now, when "the sun fries the planet" we 1) will still be around 2) will be able to take all those species "samples" in spaceships to a suitable environment somewhere else many light years away. Of course, even if we entertained this impossible lunacy, we don't have any samples for 99.999% of the species we are driving to extinction and don't have even the prospects of getting these samples from species which die before we even knew almost anything about them. Of course, these species went extinct mostly because we deprived them of their habitat, so even if we got the samples, their absence of a habitat would render the samples useless. The whole idea is so outlandish that it's not worth discussing. You're grasping at straws here because you don't want to accept the simple facts that 1) this planet is all we have and that we're destroying its biosphere. 2) our worth is less than those of the species we have already destroyed and are projected to destroy.

 

The human species does not act as a single agent so your assertion that WE are the most destructive species is fallacious.

 

 

 

You overrate individuality. Humans live in and contribute to collective cultural systems that destroy the environment.  Studies of even the least productive and least consumeristic of individuals in these systems yield a considerable footprint size. Furthermore, even these individuals tend to depend on the greater productivity/consumerism of the individuals that keep the system going.

 

You are part of the human species yet you are engaged in a course of action you believe has the opposite effect of destruction. How do you explain that? Are you an exception? Can you do things other human's can't?  I think it's you who are dealing in Orwellian double-think because you refute your self.

 

Even though I live in a small room on a salary of under $25 grand/year and have never had a car; as a citizen of a major city, my footprint is unacceptable and it would be even if i was homeless or a Buddhist monk. I fully accept this, as well as the footprint prospects of my potential progeny. That's why I've decided to not have children. There's nothing self-refuting about this. It is simply accepting that we are born into a crowded 7.3 billion person world that domesticates you into a certain kind of life, and if you want to minimize your destruction of the environment, the best action is to not have children. As I said, suicide is too much toi ask from anybody.

 

Those websites are horseshit designed to guilt-trip people who can't think.

 

We are not collectively guilty of being human

 

 

Not sure if guilt is the right attitude to finding out that we're driving so many species to extinction. But pride certainly isn't.

Available evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens has an unacceptable destructive potential. I think we have the potential to realize what we are, even if it's hard to swallow.

[mr1001nights]

Corporations like the ones Moore speaks for have as a primary duty to maximize profit for stockholders. That's not the case for most institutions of scientific research. You'd have to take each one of those scientists that make up the scientific consensus, and show me how they have biases and interests that even come close to Moore's. They present serious studies and get paid to conduct scientific research, not to come up with a particular result. With Moore and the industries he speaks for it's easy to see the bias--especially when they don't even present alternative studies.
 

Anytime you deprive sentient organisms of things like food and habitat, or when you poison and degrade the places where they eat, drink and breathe etc it is safe to assume that the animal does not feel better than when those things haven't happened.

 

We can try it with you for a few weeks and see if you suffer.

 

The prospects for humanity don't look good. It's not unreasonable to consider as a very real possibility that our lifestyle will lead us to extinction in less than a thousand years.  It's much safer to bet on organisms like cockroaches and ants, which have already been here for over 100 million years and will likely be here for millions more, long after we're gone.

 

The expansion of the sun is projected to happen so far into the future (billions of years) that to assume we will still be around is not reasonable. As for the meteors, as I said, large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. So our chances of being around when it happens are also not likely.

Even if it happened next year, we couldn't stop it anyway. Just read my post where I talk about what NASA says about this.

 

You're justifying humans causing innumerable species to go extinct now and in the near future--depriving them of their life experience on this planet-- on the grounds that billions of years from now, when "the sun fries the planet" we 1) will still be around 2) will be able to take all those species "samples" in spaceships to a suitable environment somewhere else many light years away. Of course, even if we entertained this impossible lunacy, we don't have any samples for 99.999% of the species we are driving to extinction and don't have even the prospects of getting these samples from species which die before we even knew almost anything about them. Of course, these species went extinct mostly because we deprived them of their habitat, so even if we got the samples, their absence of a habitat would render the samples useless. The whole idea is so outlandish that it's not worth discussing. You're grasping at straws here because you don't want to accept the simple facts that 1) this planet is all we have and that we're destroying its biosphere. 2) our worth is less than those of the species we have already destroyed and are projected to destroy.
 

Humans live in and contribute to collective cultural systems that destroy the environment.  Studies of even the least productive and least consumeristic of individuals in these systems yield a considerable footprint size. Furthermore, even these individuals tend to depend on the greater productivity/consumerism of the individuals that keep the system going.
 

We are born into a crowded 7.3 billion person world that domesticates you into a certain kind of life, and if you want to minimize your destruction of the environment, the best action is to not have children. As I said, suicide is too much to ask from anybody. Not sure if guilt is the right attitude to finding out that we're driving so many species to extinction. But pride certainly isn't.

Available evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens has an unacceptable destructive potential. I think we have the potential to realize what we are, even if it's hard to swallow.


 

 

[J. D. Stembal]

 

 

I never drew any correlation between the Mammoth and anything else. I never even mentioned the Mammoth. You attributions are thus a red herring.

 

One of the articles you linked mentioned mammoths and saber-toothed tigers.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/392
 

During the Pleistocene epoch, only tens of thousands of years ago, our planet supported large, spectacular animals. Mammoths, terror birds, giant tortoises, and saber-toothed cats, as well as many less familiar species such as giant ground sloths (some of which reached 7 meters in height) and glyptodonts (which resembled car-sized armadillos), roamed freely. Since then, however, the number and diversity of animal species on Earth have consistently and steadily declined.

 

And here as well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction:

 

The Holocene extinction includes the disappearance of large mammals known as megafauna, starting between 9,000 and 13,000 years ago, the end of the last Ice Age. This may have been due to the extinction of the mammoths whose habits had maintained grasslands which became birch forests without them.

 

 

The Mammoth's extinction happened before the Holocene extinction in the neolithic (agricultural era) which is what I was referring to. No serious scholar disagrees that the ongoing Holocene extinction is caused by humanity.

 

The Science article you quoted suggests otherwise.

 

Although some debate persists, most of the evidence suggests that humans were responsible for extinction of this Pleistocene fauna, and we continue to drive animal extinctions today through the destruction of wild lands, consumption of animals as a resource or a luxury, and persecution of species we see as threats or competitors.

 

Carbon dating puts the last species of mammoth dying out around 4,500 years ago. Agriculture developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago.

 

A mammoth is any species of the extinct genus Mammuthus, proboscideans commonly equipped with long, curved tusks and, in northern species, a covering of long hair. They lived from the Pliocene epoch (from around 5 million years ago) into the Holocene at about 4,500 years ago[/quote]

 

 

I agree that one can take an immoral position and try to "ensure the survival" of the most destructive species in the history of the planet (Homo Sapiens) at the expense of millions of other species.

 

But one can also take a moral position and come to the conclusion articulated by Les Knight that
 

"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."

 

You (and Les) have yet to prove that survival is a moral action that you can universalize. It is typically preferable to live rather than to die, barring a debilitating illness as a possible exception. I explained my reason behind why extinction cannot be moral concept at the end of reply #36 - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43866-voluntary-human-extinction-movement-terror-management-theory/page-2#entry401086

 

As yet, you have offered no evidence indicating that voluntary human extinction is necessary and no logical proof to universalize extinction.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Isn't this an argument from effect? What is the underlying theory which you are basing this conclusion on, mr1001nights? Is it utilitarianism?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Not sure if this Moore guy can, without studies of his own, refute the consensus of thousands of scientists. Videos such as these don't really give him much credibility...

If he's able to point out that a scientist who makes these claims can't even name one of the species that went extinct then that's reason for skepticism. I am very skeptical that there IS a consensus on the degree of extinctions caused directly by humans and I'm pretty positive there's no consensus that humans must go extinct to solve it. 

 

 

 

Corporations like the ones Moore speaks for have as a primary duty to maximize profit for stockholders. That's not the case for most institutions of scientific research. You'd have to take each one of those scientists that make up the scientific consensus, and show me how they have biases and interests that even come close to Moore's. They present serious studies and get paid to conduct scientific research, not to come up with a particular result. With Moore and the industries he speaks for it's easy to see the bias--especially when they don't even present alternative studies.

It IS the that institutions of scientific research have to please their "stockholders". Their stockholders just take a different form. They are invested in stiring up environmental alarm. As we can see from the global warming alarm it's possible to generate billions in revenue from grants and bring certain fields of research to prominence. You can't exempt scientists from having the same self-interest that you believe the corporations have without giving a valid reason. 

 

 

Anytime you deprive sentient organisms of things like food and habitat, or when you poison and degrade the places where they eat, drink and breathe etc it is safe to assume that the animal does not feel better than when those things haven't happened.

We can try it with you for a few weeks and see if you suffer.

On average the animals suffer and die to the same degree whether we HAPPEN to have infringed on their environment or not. Animals infringe and kill each OTHER all the time. Microorganisms (which are just as much of a species as any other) kill and torment countless trillions. The fact that the animals MAY happen to be going extinct is irrelevant. It would incidental to the actual suffering. Do you see?

There's no evidence that on average animals within a species suffer more as a result of extinction than they normally do. I know it SEEMS that way (because extinction feels like a bad thing because you are a human and you care about it) but it's not.

If anything extinction prevents suffering within a species. And your "How would feel if animals said that to YOU/" thing doesn't work. Because, from my vantage point as a human,  if i was an animal I would appreciate not existing and think humans a blessing. 

 

 

The prospects for humanity don't look good. It's not unreasonable to consider as a very real possibility that our lifestyle will lead us to extinction in less than a thousand years.  It's much safer to bet on organisms like cockroaches and ants, which have already been here for over 100 million years and will likely be here for millions more, long after we're gone.

 

Thanks for your opinion. I don't have a clue how long humans will last. Maybe two minutes or 2 billion years. Who knows? 

The point was that you were wrong because humans CAN potentially last longer than any other species and the hundred thousand year number was wrong because it's based on a faulty variable. Get it?

 

 

once again, the expansion of the sun is projected to happen so far into the future (billions of years) that to assume we will still be around is not reasonable. As for the meteors, as I said, large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every twenty million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago. So our chances of being around when it happens are also not likely.

Even if it happened next year, we couldn't stop it anyway. Just read my post where I talk about what NASA says about this.

 How do you know it's not reasonable that we will be around? How could you know that?  How do you know we won't have evolved far beyond what we are and easily be able to prevent earth's destruction. Maybe we'll end all suffering through paradise engineering. Maybe we'll plunge earth into an eternal hell. You don't know so stop making claims about things you can't possibly know.

 

I just GAVE you an argument for why your asteroid strike claim is wrong.  The 20 million years thing is an average. An average. It doesn't literally mean there's a strike every 20 million years. That's why I said it could happen in a year or millions of years. Do you understand? 

 

 

 

You're basically saying "let a million species die for my pie in the sky". In other words, you're justifying humans causing innumerable species to go extinct now and in the near future--depriving them of their life experience on this planet-- on the grounds that billions of years from now, when "the sun fries the planet" we 1) will still be around 2) will be able to take all those species "samples" in spaceships to a suitable environment somewhere else many light years away. Of course, even if we entertained this impossible lunacy, we don't have any samples for 99.999% of the species we are driving to extinction and don't have even the prospects of getting these samples from species which die before we even knew almost anything about them. Of course, these species went extinct mostly because we deprived them of their habitat, so even if we got the samples, their absence of a habitat would render the samples useless. The whole idea is so outlandish that it's not worth discussing. You're grasping at straws here because you don't want to accept the simple facts that 1) this planet is all we have and that we're destroying its biosphere.

Oh we're playing the "You're basically saying . . ."  game? Okay. So YOU are basically saying we should kill ourselves in order that an abstract concept called "species" can contain a greater number and that animals can suffer just as much and go on suffering for billions more years and in greater numbers because you have sad feelings in your tummy and hate your parents for giving birth to you and want to project that unto the world? Really? How can you be so cruel? Have you no shame? 

If the above sounds like bullshit, remember I'm only interpreting "what you're basically saying . . ". 

 

We're not destroying the biosphere. What a silly superstition. We are not going anywhere and the only way the biosphere will be destroyed is if nature does it. The only thing that can prevent its ultimate destruction is humanity. If we followed your deranged, anti-rational plan trillions of times more animals will suffer pointlessly in a futile existence and the biosphere will be destroyed anyway. All so's YOU can feel a bit better now. 

 

 

 

 our worth is less than those of the species we have already destroyed and are projected to destroy.

This superstition has been refuted. I made a valid argument against this. You have as yet not shown how I'm wrong. You either rebut or you accept the argument. That's how debate works. You don't just go on repeating your claim. That's just spewing dogma. 

Our worth is not less than those species we supposedly destroyed or are supposedly going to destroy. Do you understand the difference between your opinion and reality? I gave you an argument for why this notion of objective worth is fallacious. Again you have to rebut the arguments being made , not just repeat your claims.

 

 

 

You overrate individuality. Humans live in and contribute to collective cultural systems that destroy the environment.  Studies of even the least productive and least consumeristic of individuals in these systems yield a considerable footprint size. Furthermore, even these individuals tend to depend on the greater productivity/consumerism of the individuals that keep the system going.

It's not about how I RATE individuality. It is a fact that humans do not act as a single agent. The footprint thing is horseshit as I explained. You might as well say Bats leave a considerable footprint or viruses have a considerable footprint. There is no footprint because the criteria are subjective. It's anti-human propaganda. You can just change the criteria according to your values. How ridiculous. The annoying thing is that you peddle this as if it's objective and people (who are often primed with stories of humans original sin and ruining paradise, etc) uncritically buy it. It's religion. 

 

 

 

Even though I live in a small room on a salary of under $25 grand/year and have never had a car; as a citizen of a major city, my footprint is unacceptable and it would be even if i was homeless or a Buddhist monk. I fully accept this, as well as the footprint prospects of my potential progeny. That's why I've decided to not have children. There's nothing self-refuting about this. It is simply accepting that we are born into a crowded 7.3 billion person world that domesticates you into a certain kind of life, 

 

 I'll try again. You are part of the human species yet you are engaged in a course of action you believe has the opposite effect of destruction. You you say we are the most destructive species and you include all of us. That's a contradiction. That's why you are self-refuting. 

 

It is simply accepting that we are born into a crowded 7.3 billion person world that domesticates you into a certain kind of life, and if you want to minimize your destruction of the environment, the best action is to not have children. As I said, suicide is too much toi ask from anybody.

 

The world is not over-crowded. It mostly empty and humans are endlessly adaptable. The best action is not to avoid having a child. For example your parents had YOU and you are by your own admission are trying to reduce destruction; which could mean your birth actually lessened destruction. So your assertion that not having kids is the best way to minimize destruction is false.

 

Why is suicide too much ask? Suicide is the logical conclusion of your position. What about the small amount of people who may think your proposed course is too much to ask?  Is this another argument were in order to accept it we have to treat your entirely subjective preferences and values as if they are objective? Is it because YOU think suicide is too much to ask, therefore it IS too much to ask? 

What has something being too much to ask got to do with it anyway? If that is the logical conclusion of the argument and suicide is the correct moral course then that's the way the mop flops. But you can't advocate the actual conclusion of the argument because if you do then the contradiction would be obvious.

 

Not sure if guilt is the right attitude to finding out that we're driving so many species to extinction. But pride certainly isn't.

Available evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens has an unacceptable destructive potential. I think we have the potential to realize what we are, even if it's hard to swallow.

 

Available evidence does not indicate that. The word "unacceptable" is a subjective one but you are referring to objective evidence. This is your problem. You mistake your feelings and values for the world. You are mistaking what "we are" for what you think you are.

[mr1001nights]

Carbon dating puts the last species of mammoth dying out around 4,500 years ago. Agriculture developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago.

 

Where did you get the 15,000 year number???. You're like 5000 years off. It's more like between 10,000-5,000 years ago.

 

This is what wikipedia says about the Neolithic and Agriculture:

 

The Neolithic ⁱ/ˌniːɵˈlɪθɪk/^[1] Era, or Period, from νέος (néos, "new") and λίθος (líthos, "stone"), or New Stone Age, was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 10,200 BC, according to the ASPRO chronology, in some parts of the Middle East, and later in other parts of the world^[2] and ending between 4,500 and 2,000 BC.

 

 

 

As far as the Mammoth goes, by the time agriculture got going, it was gone except in a few small remote places.

 

The woolly mammoth (M. primigenius) was the last species of the genus. Most populations of the woolly mammoth in North America and Eurasia, as well as all the Columbian mammoths (M. columbi) in North America, died out around the time of the last glacial retreat, as part of a mass extinction of megafauna in northern Eurasia and the Americas. Until recently, the last woolly mammoths were generally assumed to have vanished from Europe and southern Siberia about 12,000 years ago, but new findings show some were still present there about 10,000 years ago. Slightly later, the woolly mammoths also disappeared from continental northern Siberia.^[20] A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 3750 BC,^[2][21][22] and the small^[23] mammoths of Wrangel Island survived until 1650 BC.^[24][25] Recent research of sediments in Alaska indicates mammoths survived on the American mainland until 10,000 years ago.^[26]

 

 

In other words, as we get deeper into civilization and population growth, we see a clearer correlation with species extinctions. The uncertainties surrounding the Mammoth's extinction cannot be extrapolated to the modern period, especially not to our current highly destructive industrialized society with 7.3 billion humans.

 

You (and Les) have yet to prove that survival is a moral action that you can universalize.

 

Is someone killing you performing an immoral action, in your view? And how is that action different from the killing of other species?

 

As yet, you have offered no evidence indicating that voluntary human extinction is necessary and no logical proof to universalize extinction.

 

 

Sure we have. It's necessary for the survival of millions of species who have collectively more worth than humanity.

 

 

Isn't this an argument from effect? What is the underlying theory which you are basing this conclusion on, mr1001nights? Is it utilitarianism?

What is the underlying theory behind the arguments you would put forth if someone were to put a gun to your temple and you were trying to convince them not to pull the trigger? How are those different from the arguments one can put forth to defend the lives of other species?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Sure we have. It's necessary for the survival of millions of species who have collectively more worth than humanity.

 

Again there's no such thing as "collectively more worth". I am guessing that you're going to repeat this claim over and over so we'll have to rebut it over and over. I can just as easily say one human has more worth than all other species who ever existed and it would be just as valid. I can say one person has more worth than a billion people or a billion people has more worth than one and it's just as valid. Worth is subjective. Do you understand? You are not some objective arbiter of worth. Those other species (AGAIN, an entirely human abstract concept/ biological with no meaning whatsoever to any of the animals and of no benefit to them) do not have more worth. Stop saying this silly thing.

[J. D. Stembal]

Where did you get the 15,000 year number???. You're like 5000 years off. It's more like between 10,000-5,000 years ago.

 

As far as the Mammoth goes, by the time agriculture got going, it was gone except in a few small remote places.

 

In other words, as we get deeper into civilization and population growth, we see a clearer correlation with species extinctions. The uncertainties surrounding the Mammoth's extinction cannot be extrapolated to the modern period, especially not to our current highly destructive industrialized society with 7.3 billion humans.

 

Is someone killing you performing an immoral action, in your view? And how is that action different from the killing of other species?

 

I'll answer in reverse order.

 

Yes, killing another person is immoral. Killing a non-human has no moral component because non-humans cannot be moral actors. It cannot be universalized.

 

 

It took us until about 1800 A.D. to hit the first billion people worldwide. The Quaternary extinction has been going on for tens of thousands of years back when humans were a handful of scattered tribes. Explain to me how we extincted the mammoth. How do you know it wasn't the sabre-toothed tigers that did it?

 

I'll concede that the mammoth held out in remote niches, but what does that prove? It was still around when humans developed agriculture. Where is the evidence that we caused its extinction?

 

Agriculture developed at different times on different continents due to the receding of the polar ice caps, and warming of the global climate. The first example of agriculture comes from about 15,000 years ago in either Africa or Asia. I forget where I read that, but I can find the citation if it's that crucial to the discussion.

[mr1001nights]

Again there's no such thing as "collectively more worth". I am guessing that you're going to repeat this claim over and over so we'll have to rebut it over and over. I can just as easily say one human has more worth than all other species who ever existed and it would be just as valid. I can say one person has more worth than a billion people or a billion people has more worth than one and it's just as valid. Worth is subjective. Do you understand? You are not some objective arbiter of worth. Those other species (AGAIN, an entirely human abstract concept/ biological with no meaning whatsoever to any of the animals and of no benefit to them) do not have more worth. Stop saying this silly thing.

 

Most people would agree that "a billion people have more worth than one". Almost no one would see it the other way around and choose to save the life of one person at the expense of a billion people.

Thus our sense of justice almost universally agrees on this point. If you think that the decision of these humans to choose to save a billion people over one is "subjective", I'm sorry, but that's as objective and clear as human reality gets.  You'd have to explain the implications (as far as our beliefs and actions goes) of the word "subjective" as you use it. Otherwise it has no meaning.

 

The first example of agriculture comes from about 15,000 years ago in either Africa or Asia. I forget where I read that, but I can find the citation if it's that crucial to the discussion.

 

 

 

Please do. Show me evidence. Also, your phrase was "agriculture developed between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago". You seem to not want to admit that you're about 5,000 years off (that it developed more like between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago) because the error is of such magnitude, that it casts doubt on everything else you say about these issues. Basically, such serious blunders show that you might be trying to refute highly researched scholars and a scientific consensus on the tremendous number of extinctions that we have caused by spending a few minutes hastily surfing wikipedia articles on the issue.

 

I'll concede that the mammoth held out in remote niches, but what does that prove? It was still around when humans developed agriculture. Where is the evidence that we caused its extinction?

 

The fact that the last species of Mammoth held out only in remote niches proves that by the time agriculture started, the Mammoth was already almost gone, and that, furthermore, the areas of initial agricultural development do not coincide with those remote niches. Hence we can safely say, to repeat myself in the last post, that:

 

"The uncertainties surrounding the Mammoth's extinction cannot be extrapolated to the modern period, especially not to our current highly destructive industrialized society with 7.3 billion humans...as we get deeper into civilization and population growth, we see a clearer correlation with species extinctions."

 

killing another person is immoral. Killing a non-human has no moral component because non-humans cannot be moral actors. It cannot be universalized.

 

 

 

So if you torture and kill someone's dog, you don't think that's an immoral action?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"What is the underlying theory behind the arguments you would put forth if someone were to put a gun to your temple and you were trying to convince them not to pull the trigger? How are those different from the arguments one can put forth to defend the lives of other species?"

 

I am trying to understand your perspective since you started this thread and since it is your moral stance that humans should voluntarily exterminate themselves. I am trying to understand how you came to that conclusion, and if it is an argument from effect, such as:

 

humans going extinct means more bio-diversity, so therefore humans should go extinct. 

 

or

 

humans kill more species than any other species, and if humans were extinct less species would go extinct total, so therefore humans should go extinct

 

or

 

humans cause the most suffering among living things, and there would be less suffering if humans were extinct, so therefore humans should go extinct

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

 

I am trying to understand if your argument is something like this, and I am trying to understand according to what standard you think your argument is to be judged by. If you could try to answer my question without a loaded question in your response, I think this would help me understand your position better and I would appreciate it. I was not trying to lead you anywhere with my questions, just better understand your position. Thank you

[ChildrenOfTheSun]

The notion of "nature's background rate of killing" is complete nonsense.  This is something that you need to read about in system's theory that shows if your assumption is based upon the currently observed rate of killing, then you are leaving out the fact that 6 mass extinction events preceded anything taking place today.  Also, you have to look to the future wherein all life on earth will be eliminated when the sun expands into a gas giant.  Humans do not need to self-extinct.  Look at it like this, the system of measurement you need to take into account is not the 200,000 years, it is the life of the universe itself.

[st434u]

Wait are you the same mr1001nights that used to get into endless debates on youtube while promoting communism?

 

I guess that would make sense, since communism is just another type of anti human ideology like this one you're mentioning here.

 

You'll be glad to know that most of the people in power around the world already agree with you on both.

[Alan C.]

Yes, he's that mr1001nights. He was an object of ridicule in the Mises forums and has advocated violence and sabotage. People started referring to him as mr1001bolsheviks.

[st434u]

Right. Thanks Alan.

 

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I had watched the first video several years ago, and thought the host asked a great question right away, if only a little blunt: "How unhappy was your childhood?"

[WasatchMan]

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

 

At a BBQ last week I actually ran into this in a real conversation with people that turned out to be antihumanists.

 

The topic of the environment had come up and a group of them started in with the usual about how gross  humans are and how we are just ruining everything, and one of them said something to the effect of "It would probably be better if humans just stopped existing" and then added "well after we are gone of course." I just had to laugh. Such utter selfishness veiled in the dialogue of being unselfish.

 

I brought up the argument that the only reason there is any value for the environment remaining the way it is is because humans value it, and that the earth has been around for millions years, killing off 99.9% of all species to ever exist oscillating between ice ages, showing that mother nature doesn't particular value the environment remaining static.  When I got the answer that they are not talking about value, I realized these were broken people (unfortunately successful middle aged broken people) and left the conversation. 

[J. D. Stembal]

They were likely aliens only posing as humans.

 

The concept of human extermination is so antithetical to personal self-esteem that this sentiment can only come from a place of deep pain and the active resentment of the self. From where does it come?

 

My former housemate told her seven year old son that driving cars kills polar bears while driving him home from daycare in her car. Apparently, he had seen or heard something about anthropogenic global warming in school and his mom confirmed it for him as fact. For the rest of the evening, he was very upset and she couldn't understand why his reaction was so severe. She subsequently bought him a plush polar bear to make it up to him that she had to kill polar bears with her car so that she could feed him.

 

She will not be in contention for the Mother of the Year award any time soon.

[fractional slacker]

I have read a little over half of this thread. And I will confess to having pro-human bias. 
The inherent problem with VHEM, and it's spokesperson, has already been pointed out. Preaching a value, but not living it, or this case deceasing from it, is a contradiction. People don't listen to what someone says, they pay attention to what they do. Espousing and championing the death of humans would require one to commit suicide to show they practice what they preach. That is not what these folks are about to do. They want others, by means of guilt (AKA slave morality), to voluntary not pro create and ultimately end their own lives. John Malthus and the misanthropic movement lives on.
“No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”
― George S. Patton Jr.