Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:29, 16 May 2016

Revision as of 06:43, 16 May 2016

Line 58:

Knight sees abstinence from reproduction as an [[Altruism|altruistic]] choice<ref name=sfc/>&nbsp;– a way to prevent involuntary human suffering<ref name=newsci>{{cite news|url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221862.800-breeding-to-death.html|title=Breeding to Death|newspaper=New Scientist|date=May 15, 1999|page=19}} {{subscription needed}}</ref>&nbsp;– and cites the deaths of children from preventable causes as an example of needless suffering.<ref name=sfc/> Knight claims that non-reproduction would eventually allow humans to lead idyllic lifestyles in an environment comparable to the [[Garden of Eden]],<ref name=maclean/> and maintains that the last remaining humans would be proud of their accomplishment.{{sfn|Weisman|2010|p=312}} Other benefits of ceasing human reproduction that he cites include the end of abortion, war, and starvation.<ref name=maclean>{{cite news|last=Bethune|first=Brian|title=Please refrain from procreating|url=http://www.macleans.ca/science/environment/article.jsp?content=20070806_108079_108079|accessdate=January 7, 2012|newspaper=Maclean's|date=August 6, 2007}}</ref> Knight argues that "procreation today is de facto child abuse".{{sfn|Ormrod|2011|p=158}} He maintains that the standard of human life will worsen if resources are consumed by a growing population rather than spent solving existing issues.{{sfn|Ormrod|2011|p=158}} He speculates that if people ceased to reproduce, they would use their energy for other pursuits,<ref name=ti/> and suggests adoption and foster care as outlets for people who desire children.<ref name=sfc/>

VHEMT rejects government-mandated [[human population control]] programs in favor of voluntary population reduction,<ref name=te/> supporting only the use of [[birth control]] and willpower to prevent pregnancies.<ref name=ti/> Knight states that coercive tactics are unlikely to permanently lower the human population, citing the fact that humanity has survived catastrophic wars, famines, and viruses.{{sfn|Weisman|2010|p=310}} Though their newsletter's name recalls the suicide manual ''[[Final Exit]]'',<ref name=cbc>{{cite news|last=Savory|first=Eve|title=VHEMT: The case against humans|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2008/09/03/f-savory-vhemt.html|accessdate=January 7, 2012|newspaper=CBC News|date=September 4, 2008}}</ref> the idea of mass suicide is rejected,<ref name=og>{{cite news|last=Buarque|first=Daniel|title=Cada pessoa nova é um fardo para o planeta, diz movimento da extinção |trans_title=Every new person is a burden on the planet, says an extinction movement |url=http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2011/10/cada-pessoa-nova-e-um-fardo-para-o-planeta-diz-movimento-da-extincao.html|language=Portuguese|accessdate=January 7, 2012|newspaper=Organizações GloboG1|date=October 31, 2011}}</ref> and they have adopted the slogan "May we live long and die out".<ref name=sfc/> A 1995 survey of VHEMT members found that a majority of them felt a strong moral obligation to protect the earth, distrusted the ability of political processes to prevent harm to the environment, and were willing to surrender some of their rights for their cause. VHEMT members who strongly believed that "Civilization [is] headed for collapse" were most likely to embrace these views.{{sfn|Ellis|1998|p=267}} However, VHEMT does not take any overt political stances.{{sfn|Ormrod|2011|p=143}}

VHEMT promotes a more extreme ideology than [[Population Action International]], a group that argues humanity should reduce—but not eliminate—its population to care for the Earth. However, the VHEMT platform is more moderate and serious than the [[Church of Euthanasia]], which advocates population reduction by suicide and cannibalism.<ref name=fox/><ref name=maclean/> The 1995 survey found that 36% considered themselves members of [[Earth First!]] or had donated to the group in the previous five years.{{sfn|Ellis|1998|p=382–3}}