Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Page 8

FACT: Global overpopulation is the ROOT cause of Global distress (economic, environmental, disease, war,........).

No. You're confusing FACT with OPINION. Ignorance is the ROOT cause of global distress. The globe was distressed long before global overpopulation, in the way we experience it today, became a problem.

Humor depends upon the audience.

Quite true. One should take a laughsitive twice a day for regular-hilarity. Even the humor-less could benefit from that.

A VHEMT 'Volunteer' considers a similar statement valid (human extinction) as the ideal condition for Gaia.

I'm not a VHEMT volunteer -- but I do see humor in the notion that some humans see even ONE other human on the planet as "over-population", and that this kind of "over-population" (the existence of another human to annoy him) is the "root" cause of all human problems.

Humans are just as much a part of the natural order of things as anything else is. If we trash the planet -- well, that's part of the natural order of things as well. If we use our brains to co-exist with the environment in a mutually supportive way, that's part of the natural order of things as well. If humans become extinct, either by human error, or by human intention, or by cosmic circumstance (natural disaster), that, too, is part of the natural order of things.

Your statements are conjecture, some illogical, and most are simplistic theorizing.

And your characterization above is simply opinion. Duly noted.

It's obvious you haven't researched VHEMT, or read my previous posts.

Lol. I have nothing for or against VHEMT -- and any attempt to parse my comments as a judgment about VHEMT one way or the other is yet another example of the curious inclination of humans to see what they want to see, rather than what's actually in front of them.

TO: NicOfTime


'Quarrel not at all. No man resolved to make the most of himself, can spare time for personal contention. Still less can he afford to take all the consequences, including the vitiating of his temper, and the loss of self-control. Yield larger things to which you can show no more than equal right; and yield lesser ones, though clearly your own. Better give your path to a dog, than be bitten by him in contesting for the right. Even killing the dog would not cure the bite.'
- Abraham Lincoln


         'Time is the coin of life, be wise how you spend it, or others will spend it for you.'


You stand on one side of the fence, and I stand on the other – 'We agree, to disagree.'

We agree about some things, disagree about others.

What "fence" are you talking about?

ok then i'm going to bring fourty babies just for the laugh of it.
all my plan needs is a Staline, VHEMT needs millions and millions of ubbermans. well here it is...i'm the joker you are the dreamer 'round here.

From the VHEMT site:

quote:

---

We're the only species evolved enough to consciously go extinct for the good of all life, or which needs to. Success will be humanity's crowning achievement.

---

Humans are part of "all" life. Human extinction is not "good" for humans, where "good" is connected with human continuity. So the statement above "for the good of all life" simply isn't true.

Sheesh -- the notion of "good" only has meaning to entities capable of conceiving of the notion of "good" to begin with -- and what "good" actually means is defined by the same entities. If there are no entities around to conceive of and define the notion of "good", then on what grounds can we assert that it's "good" for humans to become extinct?

It's neither good nor bad -- it just is what is. Since we're living on borrowed time to begin with (by permission of local circumstance), and life is enjoyable enough to want to keep doing it for as long as we can, then why voluntarily cut things short? Why not make the most of it while we can, and let nature terminate us in due course when it gets good and ready to do so, as it will undoubtedly do at some point?

I didn't voluntarily come here. Why should I voluntarily leave?

sorry, but i already read all the website had to offer on the subject.

my statement was an observation on the flaws in the "method of teaching", NOT the content of the message.

i believe all "concepts" have a way of getting distorted in time.

if we are "clear" from the beginning, we avoid such cross roads.

so, my opinion was not to give one answer that could be mis-interpreted (as you've already seen in this topic) which might drift to ending all life on the planet, (might not seem probable, but think of all religions and the crossroads they hit, it is very probable) we are "responsible" to offer at least a complete clear solution to the problem.

even though.
i just know if i've broken a guy's arm, i wouldn't just decide to leave. I have an obligation due to my "brain" which was the origin of the problem to begin with, to think about consequence because i am able to.

So then, the whole point of this statement was on how it might be approached.

But i do agree with the existence of the problem, i do believe this is one side of the solution, but not all of it.

still, it's better than nothing..

While there are certainly some reasons to be optimistic about the future, mostly I'm pretty cynical about humans. Self-interest is a driving force behind our success as a species, as well as perhaps our most dangerous enemy. It appears to me that we're breeding folks faster than they can be educated, and that our collective IQ is already below the point necessary to avert some catastrophic, reactive consequence -- most likely through broken links in the ecological chain causing a domino effect of failures.

But, then, this is just evolution playing itself out as it always has. A species will only be successful as long as it remains reproductively compatible with its environment. Exceed the boundaries, and nature will relentlessly, but entirely indifferently, fight back.

No one said evolution would be pretty.

It's interesting that someone would go so far as to make a "movement" out of the notion of voluntary human extinction. Seems that the only people who would be attracted to this are those who don't really enjoy living.

Those of us who DO enjoy living can certainly see some benefit in drastic population reduction -- but would be more inclined to align with a movement entitled "Drastic Population Reduction" rather than one entitled "Voluntary Human Extinction".

That's kind of like saying, "Well, cars cause pollution, so the solution is to get rid of cars!" Seems to me that's a bit black/white -- if cars cause pollution, then perhaps a more balanced solution is to find ways to mitigate the pollution-causing factors, rather than just abolishing cars.

TO: Everyone


The member "NicOfTime" is proficient in using MISDIRECTION* to belittle the moral issue of
the innocent children.

         * Misdirection – a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on
            one thing in order to distract its attention from another.


Therefore, to completely understand this controversial Thread (topic) you must read
my previous posts:

April 19 – 20 – 23 – 25 – 27 – 29

May 4 – 5 – 14 – 20


MISDIRECTION is a common debate tactic. And, during a ruled debate a person is penalized for using this 'illegal' tactic.



POPULATION CLOCKS

http://www.yourecosource.com/blog/earth-clock/

http://math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

quote:

---

NicOfTime is proficient in using MISDIRECTION* to belittle the moral issue of the innocent children.

---

Lol -- where have I "belittled the moral issue of the innocent children"? Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth, creating strawmen -- which is dubious debate tactic itself. So you're using a dubious/illegal debate tactic to rail against what you perceive as a dubious/illegal debate tactic? I see.

Sheesh.

quote:

---

MISDIRECTION is a common debate tactic. And, during a ruled debate a person is penalized for using this 'illegal' tactic.

---

But strawmen don't get penalized, do they?

I also note, Wooly, that you studiously avoid addressing any of the points I raised, focusing instead on complaints about debate technique -- while simultaneously using questionable debate techniques yourself.

Perhaps you should re-read what I've said -- and quit reading things into my comments that aren't there. But, then, you'd have to confront the possibility that your interpretive competence might not be beyond reproach, wouldn't you?

Wooly -- I'm not even "debating" this stuff to begin with. If you look at your own OP:

quote:

---

Please share your opinions with me. Personally, I'm a VHEMT Volunteer, and agree with its statements. What about you?

---

...you simply asked for comments/opinions. I'm simply commenting, adhering to the spirit of your OP. Your request is entirely informal, hardly consistent with the relative rigidity one would expect from an invitation to a formal debate. That's called "ambushing" -- deliberately creating a false impression, then changing the rules on the fly, after the fact.

You're "debating" (or at least think you are, even though you're already arguing strawmen, a serious debate error in itself). I'm not debating -- I'm commenting, which is what you asked for.

Simply take my comments in the spirit in which they're intended, and leave it at that. If you wish to discuss my comments, then address them directly.

And, Wooly -- uh, show me exactly where I've "belittled the moral issue of the innocent children"?

If you're "debating" (if you want to call it that), then you're obligated to back up your claims -- and you're making a claim here with no back-up or support whatsoever, other than your opinion that you have interpreted my comments correctly, and you don't even bother to mention the comment that you're basing your claim on. And you are advising me on "proper" debate technique? Sheesh -- that's just shooting yourself in the foot, undermining your own credibility as a "knowledgable" debater, and further undermining your credibility as someone who can accurately interpret the comments of others.

Leaves me scratchin' my head on what you're actually on about here...

TO: NicOfTime / Everyone / Administrator


As of this post date I have sent a personal E-mail to member 'NicOfTime' requesting:

         SUBJECT: Negotiation for Resolution of May 20, 2009 Posts


My personal E-mail to member 'NicOfTime' is in accord with Captain Cynic Forum Rules:


http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/34938/stricter-guidelines-for-topical
-forums.htm

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/39297/captain-cynic-forum-rules.htma >

Wooly -- what needs to be "resolved"? You have promoted an idea you believe in, you asked for opinions/comments (not debate -- please refer to your own OP), I offered a variety of thoughts on the matter in the spirit in which those opinions/comments were invited, and we agree to disagree on one aspect or another of that.

I'm still asking what you mean by "one side of the fence or the other" -- a question you have chosen thus far to ignore.