Anybody for VHEM?

[gone-ot]

Saw an article about the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" that's been around since 1991...immediately thought of Frank Lee (wink,wink).

Sounds sorta "self-defeating" to me...sacrificing humanity for Mother Earth.

I always thought humanity "culling" was *THE* function of war.

[Frank Lee]

Heard of it. Don't see any connection with my thoughts, except the voluntary part of the reproduction regulation thing.

The path we're on- the overpopulation path- is unsustainable and could lead to our extinction and for sure leads to the extinctions of many other species.

That's not what I'm about.

Quality of life is #1. Not quantity. Too many or much of anything ruins quality of life.

Humanity seeks to outsmart Mother Nature and so far, has a pretty good record of bending the rules to it's favor. But M.N. seeks balance. The world is getting pretty far out of balance. Someday it's going to have to get back.

Zero population growth is a good start. If everyone had 0, 1, or 2 kids growth would slow and eventually slooooooowly decline- a good thing. P.S. Oh look! Everyone still gets the satisfaction of putting their gonads to work! The Duggars of the world would need to find a new hobby though.

Speaking of balance, some allegedly smart people think the answer is to colonize other planets. I guess that's easier and more plausible than expecting people to be in control of their gonads. So, would inter-planetary colonization be a feather in Humanity's cap as some/many think? I think leaving an entire planet a smoldering wreck in favor of a new one to exploit then destroy is more like a black eye.

P.S. What a timely headline story: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/2...time/21251535/ Bah! Species! Who needs 'em? We have "developing" to do, resources to exploit, and dollars to chase.

[user removed]

My family tree ends with me. 3 more males of the next generation from 4 brothers ain't bad.

regards
mech

[redpoint5]

Just the opposite will be the problem in 50 years or so. Developed nations have negative population growths, and it seems reasonable that globalization and technology will continue to improve standards of living everywhere.

When children are no longer needed as a means of welfare for the family, humanity will have to provide incentives to reproduce since kids are such an enormous liability.

The U.S. would have a negative population growth if it weren't for the extra citizens we pick up via immigration. Japan has a problem of a contracting population, and more importantly, shrinking working population.

Although nature has provided the reproductive drive needed for our species success, we have outwitted it by understanding how the process works, and how to extract enjoyment out of reproductive activities without the resulting offspring.

Overpopulation will never be the catastrophe Soylent Green imagines, and certainly won't be the accidental cause of extinction.

I'm all for intelligent population management involving proper incentives/disincentives to achieve a healthy reproduction rate. Any extreme view that advocates zero children or many children is clearly absurd.

[Frank Lee]

humanity will have to provide incentives to reproduce since kids are such an enormous liability.

Already are and have been for a long time. :/

The only "problem" will be propping up govt Ponzi schemes. Otherwise the planet will breathe a sigh of relief. There is more to life than the dollar.

Governments, bidnesses, churches, and humanity in general would be best served by working on sustainable bidness models instead of the inane growth model they've skated by on all these years.

[gone-ot]

"Steady as she goes, Cap'n..."

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Developed nations have negative population growths...

Not true. Really, the only developed countries with negative growth rates are Japan and some of the former Soviet Bloc countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...on_growth_rate

...and it seems reasonable that globalization and technology will continue to improve standards of living everywhere.

But in fact standards of living go down (by any non-slanted measure) in developed countries, as large fractions of the population are condemned to live in the human equivalents of battery chicken farms.

[gone-ot]

It's simple math: the same WEALTH distributed amongst more people = decline in living-standard.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Just the opposite will be the problem in 50 years or so. Developed nations have negative population growths, and it seems reasonable that globalization and technology will continue to improve standards of living everywhere.

Look at Europe. White people are likely to become a minority there in about 20 years. I'm not "racist" at all, but that's frightening...

[MobilOne]

Doesn't Germany have a declining or very small pop growth?