All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.~Arthur SchopenhauerHowever, ridicule and opposition don’t mean an idea is true, and a lot of untruths are accepted as self-evident. Voluntary human extinction endures enough stage one, and if Schopenhauer’s right, opposition is a sign of progress.
The truth that the continued existence of Homo sapiens can’t be justified is already accepted as self-evident by millions of people, but acceptance isn’t what makes it true.
Another oft-quoted aphorism about movements might appy:First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.Attributed to Gandhi
Everyone’s a winner at the end of the human race, so fighting and winning don’t really apply to VHEMT. There’s no They to fight: we’re all in this together.
Although most opposition to voluntary human extinction grows out of misunderstandings which can be cleared up with explanations, some folks actually understand the issues, but haven’t yet grasped the positive aspects, and persist in opposing it.
Opposition to human extinction.
When everyone in this group [VHEMT] decides to kill themselves, then they’ll have some credibility. Maybe they’re sticking around because they feel like they have to get the message out that the human race is e-e-e-e-e-evil and needs to commit racial suicide in order to save the planet. The dumbest thing about these loons is that by their standards, the first micro-organisms that started pumping O2 into atmosphere are FAR worse than mankind. They changed the environment of an entire planet that wasn’t hurting anyone, just to conform to their needs. Sounds kinda dumb, doesn’t it??? These loons seem to think that the human race is somehow separate from every other species on Earth. It’s a form of self-hatred that a lot of econuts like to wallow in. Their own guilt drives them to self-destruction.
Nature needs us.
First of all, there’s the asinine assumption that humans are Bad For The Environment™ and anything and everything we do is bad. They seem to think we’re somehow unnatural and that we’re bad for the planet. As if our cities aren’t simply the same thing as ant hills, bee hives, and beaver dams writ large, with a greater intelligence and mastery of our surroundings.
Our disappearance from the world would also be a massive disaster for nature, one it may not recover from for several thousand years. There’s entire regions that would be deserts without our influence, but are currently thriving habitats for wildlife and will continue to be so long as we’re around to maintain them. Other places would be swamps, or drowned under lakes and seas without us continually draining, damming, and maintaining them. Whole forests and plains would disappear without us around. And without humans, all of the byproducts of civilization would eventually make their way into nature as time, earthquakes, fires, floods, and more slowly tore our cities apart. Repair garages would release tons of oil, coolant, and other toxic chemicals into the environment and it would contaminate the ground water. Nuclear power plants would shut down with no one to control them, and eventually they would break open and release radioactive waste into the environment. Fires would burn plastics, rubber, chemical plants, radioactive materials, and more, releasing it all into the atmosphere as massive firestorms raged through cities, even entire states, with no humans to control and stop them. Chernobyl would be like child’s play compared to these disasters, and they would be happening all over the globe and occurring mere days to centuries after we all died out.
Plus, without humans providing vaccines and killing or quarantining infected animals, diseases like hoof-and-mouth, mad cow, rabies, etc. would rage uncontrolled through animal populations. Entire species would likely go extinct, and the animal population, while enjoying a temporary boom from the lack of human predation and nature reclaiming neighborhoods, would consistently remain lower than if we had stayed around. The temporary boom in population would be the death knell for many, since they would reproduce faster than their food supply could keep up. We see it in whitetail deer every time hunting is banned someplace in America. Then, rather than a smaller, healthy population, we have a massive population suffering from stress and malnutrition, making them more susceptible to disease, allowing the plagues to run rampant through their populations, potentially wiping them out entirely. And with the loss of one or more species that another species depends on for survival, the entire ecosystem could collapse in areas.
So humans dying out, especially rapidly, would be a bad thing for the environment. So long as we’re around, we keep areas inhabitable that otherwise wouldn’t be, and we keep disasters in check that would otherwise be mind-numbingly devastating.
Humans are better than the alternative.
If someone expressed the view that a particular ethnic or national group should die off, that person would be condemned, and rightly so. But for some reason, when it comes to the entire human race dying out (including every single ethnic and national group), it becomes much more acceptable. Seeing how humans on Earth are increasingly being asked to defend our own continued existence, it is no surprise that humans-in-space are continually criticized. But in the spirit of do-more-than-one-thing-at-the-same-time, we should be able to justify human beings both on Earth and in space. Human existence is not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative.
When environmentalists look beyond “going green” for the sake of continuing the human race, and do so for the sake of the planet itself, total human extinction can be the only end.
G i v e W e l l i s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t r a t e s c h a r i t i e s . T h e y’v e m e t p e o p l e w h o a r g u e t h a t c h a r i t i e s w o r k i n g o n r e d u c i n g t h e r i s k o f s u d d e n h u m a n e x t i n c t i o n m u s t b e t h e b e s t o n e s t o s u p p o r t , s i n c e t h e v a l u e o f s a v i n g t h e h u m a n r a c e i s s o h i g h t h a t a n y i m a g i n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y o f s u c c e s s w o u l d l e a d t o a h i g h e r e x p e c t e d v a l u e f o r t h e s e c h a r i t i e s t h a n f o r o t h e r s .
F o r e x a m p l e , s a y I h a v e a d o l l a r t o s p e n d o n c h a r i t y . O n e c h a r i t y s a y s t h a t w i t h t h i s d o l l a r t h e y c a n s a v e t h e l i f e o f o n e c h i l d i n S o m a l i a . A n o t h e r s a y s t h a t w i t h t h i s d o l l a r t h e y c a n i n c r e a s e b y . 0 0 0 0 0 1 % o u r c h a n c e o f s a v i n g 1 b i l l i o n p e o p l e f r o m t h e e f f e c t s o f a m a s s i v e a s t e r o i d c o l l i d i n g w i t h t h e E a r t h .