No more sex...ever?

[Quintessence]

Eliminating humans from the scene is not going to significantly reduce the cruelty of nature.

That's not the point, actually. It's more about letting the rest of nature flourish by reducing human overpopulation. And this would probably be good for human flourishing also. Similar to the Deep Ecology platform, only it puts a more extreme spin on it that I find amusing.

 

[dust1n]

Here's bit I just read...taking things a bit too far...I think....

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of mankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of man-made human suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are frequently cited by the group as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation. VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an activist who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity.

You should probably source unoriginal written material? Or is it original stuff? Anyway, the last conclusion made by Knight makes no sense. How can human extinction be the 'best' solution (or even a solution) to the problems of humanity? That makes no sense. That doesn't even solve the problem of humanity, it's hastening the process.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It is as if groups like this forget that humans are a part of nature.

Iunno, I don't know how someone can forget that, it's accurate even if they forgot that also. Ridding humans would rid a TON of suffering and natural damage.

Just because we're a part of nature, doesn't mean we're not damaging it. Such as, meteors when they collide on planets, they ruin nature.


But it does depend on a person who defines it as ruined. Some might consider artificial nature improving nature, others would think it is ruining it.

 

[Quintessence]

I think it's safe to say that a species that induces a sixth mass extinction is "ruining" things. Granted after we've ****** everything up there will be a new flowering of biodiversity several million years down the road, but... several million years down the road. And the idea of the human legacy being "species that was so 'smart' it ignorantly engineered a sixth mass extinction and did nothing to prevent it even after it realized what it was doing" is not very palatable to me.

But really, folks, go read the web site. It's from the horse's mouth and a fairer portrayal than this third party blurb of the OP.

 

[Koldo]

I think it's safe to say that a species that induces a sixth mass extinction is "ruining" things.

From your perspective, yes.

 

[Quintessence]

From your perspective, yes.

So you don't think that driving hundreds of thousands of species to extinction is "ruining" something? It's not irrevocably disrupting a status quo and shoving ecosystems into some other state? Really? :sarcastic

Sorry, but I find that very odd, if not impossible to understand. It's not even "my" perspective, this is basic ecology. The value judgements are non-science, granted, but disrupting ecosystems with mass extinction is definitely and inarguably "ruining" what was there before.

 

[Penumbra]

So you don't think that driving hundreds of thousands of species to extinction is "ruining" something? It's not irrevocably disrupting a status quo and shoving ecosystems into some other state? Really? :sarcastic

Sorry, but I find that very odd, if not impossible to understand. It's not even "my" perspective, this is basic ecology. The value judgements are non-science, granted, but disrupting ecosystems with mass extinction is definitely and inarguably "ruining" what was there before.

Nature produced humans, and humans wreck part of nature.

If this self-destructive behavior by nature ends up being unsustainable, it'll correct itself one way or another. Humans could eventually find that they can't support their numbers.

As per the last post, it's from your perspective because, who's to say that what existed prior to humans was objectively good?

 

[Koldo]

So you don't think that driving hundreds of thousands of species to extinction is "ruining" something? It's not irrevocably disrupting a status quo and shoving ecosystems into some other state? Really? :sarcastic

You are using the term ''ruining'' with a dubious meaning in this post. In your former post, however, it had clearly a negative meaning attached to it. Considering the latter case, humans are not ruining anything in the same manner that a frog eating a mosquito is not ruining anything.

The disruption, caused by humans, of ecosystems is part of nature because we are part of nature. Whether one chooses to consider this part of nature as undesirable is, in fact, a matter of perspective.

 

[Quintessence]

Fair enough. Morality is always a matter of perspective. That should go without saying.

I wonder if people would be so quick to naysay if the topic was genocide or murder, however.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Fair enough. Morality is always a matter of perspective. That should go without saying.

I wonder if people would be so quick to naysay if the topic was genocide or murder, however.

Nope. I've made many threads on this, all bad and good is a subject to perspective.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not in offense to America but...


When I think about it, humans are to animals as America is to countries.

Am I the only one who sees it that way?

 

[Quintessence]

Nope. I've made many threads on this, all bad and good is a subject to perspective.

Well, I had a feeling you would, but your typical person who is not a moral nihilist puts humans on a pedestal compared to all other life forms. Thus somehow we get the very awkward statement "genocide and murder is wrong" but somehow "making non-human species go extinct due to human activity is a-okay." It's easier to stick our fingers in our ears and sing "la la la!" (in other words, refuse to give the non-human world any moral standing) than take responsibility for the consequences of our actions on the non-human world.

As for your later analogy, I'm not sure I quite follow. Can you explain?

 

[Valjean]

... humans are not ruining anything in the same manner that a frog eating a mosquito is not ruining anything.

The disruption, caused by humans, of ecosystems is part of nature because we are part of nature. Whether one chooses to consider this part of nature as undesirable is, in fact, a matter of perspective.

Nature produced humans, and humans wreck part of nature.
If this self-destructive behavior by nature ends up being unsustainable, it'll correct itself one way or another. Humans could eventually find that they can't support their numbers.

Nature operates like a single, super-organism, with complex, interactive chemical cycles, circulation, recycling, detox, &c. A frog eating a mosquito is a more complex part of a resource distribution system than you may realize.

We are a part of Nature, it's true. But we've made ourselves a problem by ceasing to interact systemically with the whole in a stable, sustainable way. We've removed the checks and balances that make the biosphere work.

A cancer or disease bacterium is a part of Nature, too, but I would definitely consider it "undesirable" because, unchecked, it eventually destroys it's host organism.

 

[Viker]

Here's bit I just read...taking things a bit too far...I think....

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of mankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of man-made human suffering. The extinctions of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are frequently cited by the group as evidence of the harm caused by human overpopulation. VHEMT was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, an activist who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity.

I bet they love zombies and can't wait for the zombie apocalypse.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Extinctions have been happening since the first life form appeared out of the primordial ooze. And to the human species, our prime directive should be the continuation of our species.
Humans have a responsibility, as sentient beings with the ability to mold and shape their world, to minimize any destructive influence on the rest of nature.
Predators/grazers have caused their own extinction by overpopulating and over-hunting/over-grazing the very sustenance they depend on.

 

[Penumbra]

Nature operates like a single, super-organism, with complex, interactive chemical cycles, circulation, recycling, detox, &c. A frog eating a mosquito is a more complex part of a resource distribution system than you may realize.

We are a part of Nature, it's true. But we've made ourselves a problem by ceasing to interact systemically with the whole in a stable, sustainable way. We've removed the checks and balances that make the biosphere work.

A cancer or disease bacterium is a part of Nature, too, but I would definitely consider it "undesirable" because, unchecked, it eventually destroys it's host organism.

Up to this point, mass extinction events have had a larger impact on earth than humans. Ice ages, super volcanoes, asteroids, maybe gamma ray bursts, etc.

Humans as a whole are foolishly mistreating their host environment, which if left unchecked, may lead to population decreases and long-lasting damage to the host environment. Much of the behavior is a continuation of what nature made in this species to be successful in the first place, and now people can figure out a way to correct it, or not.

Still doesn't have anything to do with objective morality.

 

[SaintAugustine]

You should probably source unoriginal written material? Or is it original stuff? Anyway, the last conclusion made by Knight makes no sense. How can human extinction be the 'best' solution (or even a solution) to the problems of humanity? That makes no sense. That doesn't even solve the problem of humanity, it's hastening the process.

Dust..I think I found it on Wikipedia..just cruisng and I thought wow...

 

[Falvlun]

Up to this point, mass extinction events have had a larger impact on earth than humans. Ice ages, super volcanoes, asteroids, maybe gamma ray bursts, etc.

Humans as a whole are foolishly mistreating their host environment, which if left unchecked, may lead to population decreases and long-lasting damage to the host environment. Much of the behavior is a continuation of what nature made in this species to be successful in the first place, and now people can figure out a way to correct it, or not.

Still doesn't have anything to do with objective morality.

Do you believe that any morality is objective?

In general, the purpose of morality will be subjective, but once/if that is agreed upon, you can find actions which are objectively better to achieve that purpose than others.

If the purpose of morality is to reduce pain and suffering of entities capable of experiencing pain and suffering (for example), then I think we can see that our actions which unnecessarily and greedily destroy entire ecosystems would be immoral by objective standards.

 

[Falvlun]

As for the OP, even the part that was cited never said anything about abstaining from sex. It only said members should abstain from reproduction. Sex does not equal reproduction.

 

[Koldo]

Nature operates like a single, super-organism, with complex, interactive chemical cycles, circulation, recycling, detox, &c. A frog eating a mosquito is a more complex part of a resource distribution system than you may realize.

We are a part of Nature, it's true. But we've made ourselves a problem by ceasing to interact systemically with the whole in a stable, sustainable way. We've removed the checks and balances that make the biosphere work.

A cancer or disease bacterium is a part of Nature, too, but I would definitely consider it "undesirable" because, unchecked, it eventually destroys it's host organism.

This doesn't contradict what i said though. If you consider the existence of the host organism as something desirable it is only natural you would consider its destruction as undesirable.