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.

I really have a problem with these types including the CO2 fed green imbeciles.
I mean at what point do these loons recognise we humans are as much a part of this rock as any other thing here, at what point do these loons stop trying to reverse evolution? I mean for F's sake!

I'm all for looking after the environment for our own benefit and that of the planets other species, but not at the extent that we need to kill off humans as a virus on the planet. And not that we should all give up our current standard of living so a few can feel good about themselves.

These people have a serious mental illness, one which seems to be growing by the day as can be witnessed by the increased number of loons on this site and not to mention within our bureaucratic ranks :(

Why are we even pandering to these loons? We should all just tell em to go top themselves, seriously, they're making life for us normal people frustratingly painful :(

How about instead of gov' sponsored drug rooms we have gov' sponsored topping rooms? I'd vote for that!

Enjoy your short time on this rock people and let the next generation worry about their own problems. None of the ones before us worried about us!

Have a laugh :)

George Carlin - Saving the Planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

There are extremes in any position. This is one good example of the ludicrous, almost as bad as the previous Pope touring through Africa encouraging the poorest of people to abandon contraception.

It is not a reason to stop thinking about population sustainability and I have faith that human beings are by nature pro-human rather than anti-human, otherwise there would be a nil care factor about the environment on which we so depend.

This site was probably designed by an unfettered growth supporter as a type of reverse psychology against environmentalists. Nothing like bringing out the big guns when your own positions is on a tenuous footing.

Baygon,
This is philosophy and I'm exploring a contrapuntal posture. Having had a good look at the position of the VHEMT crowd, I don't take it lightly. But I'm so used to reading anti-humanist rhetoric that I'm wary of its easy passage (there's nothing like a bit of constipation for thinking things over properly).
The fact that refusing to breed is the one "thing we all can do" speaks volumes about the fully catered existence we endure, and the sense of hopelessness many people feel (A book to read is "Pessimism of the Intellect" by Duncan Thompson). I find it heartening that there is always a way to lodge a protest, and that so many people refuse to conform, even when there's no positive option.

If the "birth rate is not really the trigger" and the death rates are, hasn't VHMET got it topsy-turvy? For me, neither form of attrition is the solution--though I see no point in eking out one's existence beyond the natural use-by date. I already have an arthritic hip and don't want to contemplate how that would feel at 80. Longevity is overrated.

By "potential," above, I was referring to "essence," which doesn't have to be a metaphysic. Our essence is our potential and we should measure ourselves against that. Of course no one knows what our potential is, as it is thwarted and discredited in the current dispensation.
Personally, I've never cared tuppence about death; if I'm told tomorrow I've got a week to live I shall relish the insights this might provide me.
But I do care about the kind of world we live in. Humanity is unique in being able to harness and tame a hostile environment to accommodate it, it just hasn't learned (yet) how to do it sustainably.
Let's not forget that nature is just as ruthless and indifferent as we've been hitherto.
I think the VHEMT is a worthy enterprise in its foundational polemic, but it should expand its horizon beyond self-immolation, stop evading responsibility, and use that considerable will to find and enact workable solutions for the whole biosphere.

There is no inherent value in humans.
There is no inherent value in humanity itself.
There is no inherent value in the outcome of our actions.
There is no inherent value even in Gaia herself, or of this cosmos for that matter.

Our body is but a tool.
Humanity is but a tool.
Our actions are but a tool.
The earth is but a tool.
The world is but a tool.
One day it will all be gone.

However,

Our life as humans is a valueless opportunity:
We get to choose,
We get to experience,
We get to relate with each other,
We get to grow,
We get to forgive,
We get to realize our true nature,
And that is all that matters!

GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA

Go, go, go beyond, transcend it all, hail the enlightened!

[Deleted for abuse and poster barred from forum.]

@BAYGON

FAMILY SIZE.
You can self limit family size to 3 children/couple without even increasing the population. 2.1 is the replacement level alone.

If most couples have 3 children, then this fixed the losses from those who have none, and those who die unexpectedly.

IMMIGRATION.
I will rejoice greatly when those who advocate lower birth rates for us, will ALSO make the same hue and cry to STOP IMMIGRATION.

CYNICISM.

Unfortunately those who advocate 'small families/less children' ALSO promote mass migration of foreigners into Western Democracies.
This fits perfectly with the
-Dilute national/ethnic/religious identity.
-Prepare the way for world socialism.
scenario.

So..BAYGON.. should we interpret your 'human extinction' call as an equal call for ZERO IMMIGRATION ?

@algoreisrich with respect to migration read my piece in OLO

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10544

you will note that I am calling for zero migration but not for the

narrow bigoted reasons that you foreshadow.

People can come to identical conclusions for radically different reasons

- migration as encouraged in the west is merely a tool to keep wages

down - if anyone is interested in looking at that argument in detail

have a look at the piece Richard Dennis wrote for the Australia Institute.

I have from a young age considered that humans as a species are full of their own self importance. For some reason nature gave us some extra abilities over other animals which we seem to have decided makes us as good as a god.
I doubt that we are heading for extinction from our own hand, it would take a massive natural event to do that but i would think that at some stage there will be a major population crisis as you can not just let the population continue to grow uncontrolled and expect to be able to feed them, control them (as in maintain civil discipline) and keep abreast of evolving disease.
There is great logic to controlling the population, without upsetting many we control the population of live stock that we graze based on the carrying capacity of the land. We even cull out native animals when they over populate areas to keep the ecological balance. Why is it then that we are incapable of applying the same rational understanding to humanity.
Al has a point about immigration in this country though as baygon puts it "People can come to identical conclusions for radically different reasons." Australia has a natural zed pop growth so why do we fight it by massive immigration. Surely there are ways to generate incredible wealth and a highly productive and well educated community without having to massively increase population so jerry harvey can sell them all tv's.
On the link, it has some interesting things to say and some rubbish. I will reserve judgement till i have time to truly appraise it.

It is difficult to see beyond humanity's self-serving attitude towards the planet that sustains it. For the most part we're like child left alone in a lolly shop. We give ourselves special dispensation in many areas because we see ourselves as somehow separate from the laws that dictate sustainable life on this earth.
I can't see us ever "not breeding" as a species - the whole biological and social construct of our existence is geared towards such an outcome.
I like Squeers' notion that perhaps there is hope for such an intelligent and adaptive species to somehow evolve the wisdom to see our potential as bound within the fortunes of our planet, that we are not separate entities here for a joy ride to unsustainable extinction.

Posted by Big Frog, Wednesday, 3 November 2010 10:10:43 PM:

"[Deleted for abuse and poster barred from forum.]"

I wonder whether this constitutes any sort of record for brevity of presence upon OLO? See: http://bit.ly/bTgTE7




Now you have blood on your hands, BAYGON.

It rather reminds me of the scene from the film 'Catch 22' in which the bloke having fun swimming that stood up on the pontoon got cut in half by the propeller of the low-flying Piper Cub in which others were also having fun. High farce, but such happens. That's rest and recreation for you, a necessary concommitant of war.

In your defence, I must observe that you did offer good counsel to would-be posters to this thread, in your opening post, thus:

"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."

There is, given that counsel (which constituted all but the totality of your opening post) no way that the posting of this topic could be claimed to have been unduly provocative, but, like moths to a candle, seeing what they thought to be the light, some still came and got burned.

I commend your magnanimity in providing a case in point as an answer to the current topic 'Politics and Perception- do we see what we want to see ?' (a thread I have not so far read). Punt and contra-punt. Co-belligerency rather than alliance in the provision of mutual support as between Forum users: the way to go. AlGOREisRICH indeed receiving such support.

It was very wicked of you to post more than once in this thread, BAYGON! Wicked. Wicked. Wicked.

But then again, someone has to populate the OLO index pages with topics, and those also serve who only stand and bait.

I must confess disappointment in Pericles' seeming non-participation in the discussion.

HI there Baygon

you said:

//you will note that I am calling for zero migration but not for the
narrow bigoted reasons that you foreshadow.//

I note your tolerant and inclusive attitude to interpersonal discussion :) but I won't call you names..

My reasons for being against Immigration are neither bigoted nor narrow.

I absolutely believe in Australia having a healthy community which is free from conflicting ideologies. If you cannot recognize potential and real conflict in ideas/cultures/creeds...then there are plenty of numbers which can provide help with that problem. Just dial.

There is nothing whatsover 'bigoted' about declaring a particular creed 'creed non grata' when it specifically calls curses down on named other religions. Neither when such a creed specifically calls on it's followers to fight non them into humiliating subjection.

If you don't see this, let me know..and I'll start a thread on 'Understanding the English language' and we can work from the ground up.

I welcome any race or creed which has

a)Compatible culture
b)Numbers are managed with due regard to our political, social and cultural cohesian and stability.

This neccessarily involves a degree of rational discrimination which is a healthy thing.

@algoreisrich
"I absolutely believe in Australia having a healthy community which is free from conflicting ideologies."

I would regard that position as an oxymoron - take a timeslice through any period of history, take any community and you will find more often than not conflicting ideologies.

Western thought is much influenced by the doctrine of 19th century nationalism. This essentially grew out European Politics which stressed the importance of uniformity and homogeneity in the body politic. (For a good discussion on this read Kedourie or Toynbee)

Kedourie states: that this is a uniquely European feature "In this respect Islam, with the protection it vouchsafes to non- Muslims [this tolerance of diversity] is equally true of the lands of Hinduims and Buddhism. In none of these areas before the coming of European Influence was a homogenous population considered a religious or political ideal."

Indeed your assumption that conflicting world views inevitably lead to conflict is a particularly European insight - our history is full of instances where we gave people the choice to conform or be killed (just look at the Religious wars)This belief is so ingrained in us that we have difficulty in imagining a world where diversity is tolerated. cont

cont..
So when I stated that I felt you were foreshadowing a bigoted response I was talking in the non-pejorative sense. To assume that diversity is a problem and that homogeneity is indeed possible simply runs counter to the real world.

I agree with you that our toleration should not extend to those who would deny our rights to practise our beliefs.

The problem arises when you take a particular fundamentalist offshoot of a major religion and take the view that all believers of that religion share those views.

The key element to ensure that a culturally diverse society is successful is that there is a set of core values that trump whatever comprehensive theories of the good people may choose to hold that is sufficient protection to ensure that we have a stable cohesive society.

As far as population is concerned my view is that there are more than enough people in Australia - to exclude people on the basis of their beliefs is simply to distort that simple reality.

Apologies for my tardy arrival, Forrest Gumpp.

>>I must confess disappointment in Pericles' seeming non-participation in the discussion.<<

I occasionally find the company of so many intellectual giants quite intimidating.

But it is nice to be missed. Gives me a warm, slightly damp feeling.

To be honest, I'm still trying to work out what everyone is talking about.

I did try to make sense of the VHEMT web site. I even checked out its Russian version, but that didn't help much. So I accepted Google's invitation to translate it back into English, just on the off-chance it might become clearer.

The re-translation comes out as "The movement of fighters for the voluntary extinction of mankind as a species"

Hmmm. Where did those fighters suddenly appear from? Far more... threatening.

Those Russians. Much like the Irish, spoiling for a fight.

Trying the same exercise with Hebrew gives me "Voluntary movement of humanity to perish".

Very biblical, that "perish".

Now Belarusian. "Movement for the arbitrary extinction of mankind"

Now it's "arbitrary". Interesting.

In fact, the entire site is more fun after the double-translation into and out of Belarusian. Give it a try.

Sorry, what was the question again?

ah the joys of translation - eg out of sight, out of mind becomes invisible idiot

al; since when does 2.1 = 3?

living on a planet with a constantly increasing human population which is continually depleting the planet's limited resources means that the sustainable human population must decrease faster than the resources which sustain us are depleted

to quote Dr. A Bartlett; " A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a sustainable society"

" If sustainability is to be achieved, the necessary leadership and resources must be supplied by people who are not starving"

Pericles I'm glad you struggled to find the actual point the site was trying to make- because quite frankly, so am I.

I'm convinced the entire thing was done in a series of emotional rants by the author with no clear concepts in mind, nothing more, nothing less.

I always enjoy Pericles' (notice no "s" after the apostrophe. There's a disturbing trend these days to bestow this negative distinction on any commoner!) withering wit, though he frequently (no doubt wisely) sits on the fence..
Forrest Gumpp too, often seems infatuated with process, though when he does take the plunge he becomes a passionate advocate..
So, no partisan comments, fellas?

Despite my comments above, and my six kids, I do fully support the Vehement movement (indeed, at fifty I'm half disposed to take the pledge..), though I see its philosophy as part of a secular idealism stemming from Kant that omits to acknowledge its metaphysics; a kind of "unromantic pantheism" (not a bad handle for scientific naturalism, actually..).
This neo-(anti)Kantian cum Humean mindset (still a metaphysic) is best enjoyed by its high priests: the professional scientists who are richly rewarded for casting their dead-pan instrumental gaze on the "phenomena" of life in search of useful and/or curious applications. Yet that very same professional detachment from phenomena (among whose treasures miscellaneous monstrosities are conceived) has become a popular, even cultish pastime among swathes of the lay-community, who have compliantly dispensed with old-fashioned notions of the mystery of life.
Modern humanity has penetrated the veil; all is meaningless, a chasing of the wind..

Pericles asks:

"Sorry, what was the question again?"

Not wanting to be in any way intimidating, Pericles, but I question whether there was ever any question of there being a question in BAYGON's opening post. Rather, I took it to be an invitation to those interested in the subject of population growth to explore some of the finer points of interpersonal communication, to read into the site what they would, to look, as it were, into a mirror of their own views, and, reflecting upon what they could see, share their enlightenment with the rest of the Forum.

I, for one, found the site to contain some hidden gems, like this beautiful piece of understatement found in the 'Responses to VHEMT from website visitors, with replies from Les: Misunderstandings; Volume I':

"At any rate, although there may be some satire
in what I've posted at the website, the purpose
of The Movement as a whole is not to satirize the left...."




I do so like understatement.




I also particularly like the way the Finder of the Movement signs off:

"For a better world,
Les U. Knight"

Gives the game away a bit, though, doesn't he? Definitely somebody with time, as opposed to blood, on their hands, don't you think?

It nevertheless seems appropriate to thank BAYGON for this topic (and especially the link supplied), and it is a measure of its quality as a topic that other posters are posting upon it, at least latterly, on the 'The coming liquid fuel crisis' thread, here: http://bit.ly/abM5mp . It would of course never do to post a link to this topic in that discussion, for that might be construed as diverting the discussion to the General Discussions area of the Forum, which is against the Forum rules.

It was interesting to see, too, an occasion upon which it was definitely better to be a little frog in a big pond, than a Big Frog in this little pond. Ribbet. Ribbet.

Behold! The word limit is nigh upon us. Must not waste words! Ribbet. Ribbet.

The following are from the opening lines of Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival":
"A few years ago, one of the great figures of contemporary biology, Ernst Mayr, published some reflections on the likelihood of success in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.He considered the prospect very low. His reasoning had to do with the adaptive value of what we call "higher intelligence", meaning the particular human form of higher intellectual organisation. Mayr estimated the number of species since the origin of life at about fifty billion, only one of which "achieved the kind of intelligence to establish a civilisation." It did so very recently, perhaps 100,000 years ago.....Mayr speculated that the human form of intellectual organisation may not be favoured by selection. The history of life on earth, he wrote, refutes the claim that "it is better to be smart than to be stupid," at least judging by biological success: beetles and bacteria, for example, are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival. He also made the rather somber observation that "the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years."
We are entering a period of human history that may provide an answer to the question of whether it is better to be smart than stupid. The most hopeful prospect is that the question will "not" be answered: if it receives a definite answer, that answer can only be that humans were a kind of "biological error," using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and, in the process, much else.
The species has surely developed the capacity to do just that, and a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might well conclude that humans have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically in the past few hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustains life, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with a cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well.