Those who are concerned about population growth might like to visit this website http://www.vhemt.org home of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Before rushing in to comment and hit me about the head with a soggy lettuce leaf have a look at the 'about' page on their website. If nothing else it describes some protocols about dealing with people with whom you disagree - protocols that could be adopted by users of the forum.

I find myself in vehement agreement with BAYGON.

The link given in BAYGON's post is to an excellent text-based site entirely free of advertising and distracting graphics.

Just to clarify a little, the 'about' page referred to is not found from the typical 'about' button frequently encountered at the top of a main page, but the clickable text link consisting of the words 'ABOUT THE MOVEMENT' found just below the mostly blue language options links displaying at the bottom of your screen as the page first displays. You need to scroll just a little to bring the 'ABOUT THE MOVEMENT' internal link into view.

I wonder, too, whether the protocols to which BAYGON refers as being in the linked document are the famed 'Protocols of Scion' of which so many seem to have heard, but few have evidently seen for themselves.

All in all some of the best acronymic prose I have seen in quite some time. I found myself in complete agreement, too, with the oregonal Finder of the movement, Les U. Knight. A highly recommended site for sore eyes.

And its all happening if you look carefully!

You know, when the majority of the people who support population stability would most likely endorse encouraging and de-stigmatizing contraceptives and abortions, and better sex-ed classes;
-It is so refreshing to have some people link to a total retard site like the "human extinction movement" to give morons like Cheryl and Malcolm King the topic for their next sladerous rant- they could then link this page.

Well done.

At first glance VHEMT does indeed look like the perfect existential solution to the human (and Gaia's) condition. But have we really thought through the implications? Are we ready to ditch all notions of social positivism? That is that humanity is worth preserving for itself. It's easy to dismiss such notions as hubris from where we stand amid the high-decadence of late-capitalist materialism. One can readily embrace Michel Foucault's aphorism that humanity has all the permanence of a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea. And in our secular age many of us are persuaded that there is no purpose or trajectory to life. Yet Gaia bred us, and human biology has a history of gathering complexity, including sentience. Who knows to what we may attain in time or what our potential may be.
Of course reigning in our population is vital, but I'm not sure employing nihilism as the method is the way to go. Nature has given humanity the brain-power to take control of its own destiny, if it will; to learn to live sustainably and ethically, and thence to go on evolving and growing in wisdom.
Voluntary extinction is a despairing naturalism, a 'dark green' reactionism that insults Gaia in its efforts to save her. Allowing her to do what? Enjoy a kind of censored, pointless flourescence? Which she will do just as readily after our demise. What if we "potentially" are how she transcends herself? Invents meaning in the universe? Perhaps scatters seed? We are so convinced of our 'absurd' philosophy that we presume, reductio ad absurdum, Gaia and the universe are similarly benighted!
It could be argued that VHEMT is a conservative quietism, devoted to a scheme that is patently futile as well as defeatist in its attitude to the prospect of meaningful change.
By all means take the pledge not to have kids, but supplement that sacrifice by considering that humanity might still reform itself---and work towards that goal as well.

I have six kids but that has nothing to do with my counter argument.

I think they lack ambition.

If they were really trying they'd top themselves as well to speed up the process.

I volunteer to keep their web site running for them in their death.

@squeers

" human biology has a history of gathering complexity, including sentience. Who knows to what we may attain in time or what our potential may be.
Of course reigning in our population is vital, but I'm not sure employing nihilism as the method is the way to go. Nature has given humanity the brain-power to take control of its own destiny, if it will; to learn to live sustainably and ethically, and thence to go on evolving and growing in wisdom."

No problems with that proposition and the idea is not presented as an excuse for giving up but rather that the one thing we all can do is refuse to breed.
We also need to take on board that the birth rate is not really the trigger to massive population growth it is decline in death rates that are the real problem:

http://www.postcarbon.org/Reader/PCReader-Ryerson-Population.pdf

Presumably we would rather not see a return to the sort death rates that kept populations in check so the only solution is reduce birth rates to less than zero.

A second order solution is to develop lifestyles that enable us to support the level of population we currently enjoy.