Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Logical Conclusions: Rooting For Human Extinction

We've all heard the "environmental litany." We're running out of natural resources. The air and water are getting dirtier. People are getting sicker and starving at greater and greater rates because there isn't enough food to go around except for the wealthy fat countries. The forests are disappearing. The human population is exploding out of control and destroying the planet.

All of that is verifiably false. But people not only don't want to believe you when you tell them that, they actually tend to get angry when you try. Or to assume that you're nuts.

But it's all quite true.

The sad part is the natural outgrowth of the "doom & gloom litany" thinking is these people: the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

The sad part is, while they are happy to use humor, they are actually quite serious: they believe the world would be a better place if the human race simply died out.

I'd call that the ultimate in self-hatred, wouldn't you? So sad, because it's so unnecessary.

The world would be a much better place if more people would have children. In free countries, more people are assets, not liabilities. And no, that's not an ideological statement, not a "feel good" statement. It's just the truth.

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
John Dibble (mail):
*sigh* Just another form of idiot to have to live with. Fortunately this kind of idiot will not breed to spread their idiocy. ;)
3.28.2005 10:17am
Inv A. DeSoda (mail) (www):
Maybe the Voluntary Natural Selection movement would be a more appropriate name.
3.28.2005 10:27am
Scott Kirwin (mail) (www):
Send these guys Nikes and blue jump suits. They can be the first to go Extinct.
3.28.2005 10:28am
Dishman (mail):
I've encountered these people before.

Curiously, the person who exposed me to them had already had children and did not regret having them.
3.28.2005 11:01am
Mike Nargizian (mail):
Populations in developed countries are dissappearing... The US is growing due to immigration.
The populations of underdeveloped countries is exploding. India's population is rapdily growing as well without immigration.
The real problems are that many experts, not enviro wackos believe that oil prices will only be increasing and the times of $1+ gas in the future will look like a history lesson.
India's and China's oil needs are on an exponential curve upwards and most oil experts believe that we are at our peak of oil discovery/production right now.
3.28.2005 11:46am
Kacie Landrum (mail) (www):
I once got into an argument with a liberal friend of mine about why I'm seriously dubious about the claims of proponents of global warning. Eventually I noticed that something was kind of odd about the unspoken assumptions he made in his argument, so I asked him point-blank, "Given the choice between saving a human life or saving the life of a whale, which would you choose?"

He replied that the whale would win. Let the humans die; the environment is more important.

He was deadly serious.
3.28.2005 11:51am
Masked Menace (mail):
As John Dibble and Inv A. DeSoda said, do we really *want* *these* people breeding?

BK
3.28.2005 12:36pm
Dishman (mail):
MM, I can only offer anecdotal evidence. In the case I know of, it did not breed true.
3.28.2005 12:46pm
Matthew B. (mail) (www):
I heard about these nimrods a couple years ago. You'd think that it would be obvious that their movement is its own evolutionary cul de sac, but they don't seem to have figured that part out yet. Sadly, the problem will take care of itself in about 20-30 years.
3.28.2005 12:46pm
M. Scott Eiland (mail):
I remember these guys--my response to them was direct:

"You first--we'll follow you in a while. Honest."
3.28.2005 4:03pm
Dean Esmay:
Population in underdeveloped countries isn't "exploding."

However, it is certainly true that the more developed a country gets, the lower its birth rate tends to be. Since very nation with democracy, rule of law, and a basically free market becomes steadily more developed (not to mention more environmentally healthy once they pass a certain basic threshhold in per capita income), if we want a better ecosystem we should be pushing for the spread of democracy and free markets.

As for oil prices: gosh, I haven't seen $1 gas in two decades at least. At the moment, gas prices, if adjusted for inflation, are not even close to record highs. Still, as worldwide demand for oil goes up, the price of oil will slowly go up too... which will simply create economic pressures for greater fuel efficiency and for alternative energy sources. So what's the big deal? (The question is rhetorical: there is no big deal.)
3.28.2005 4:35pm
Arnold Harris (mail):
"Les U Knight" reminds me more than a little of Ron L Hubbard, the science fiction writer who fantasized Scientology and made it blossom into a religious cult. Complete with high profile movie star devotees.

Ah, well. In a free society, what you see, all too frequently, is what you get.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
3.28.2005 5:00pm
Bill Hennessy (mail) (www):
The frightening thing is that most voluntary bad ideas fail to attract adequate recruits and eventually become mandatory.
3.28.2005 5:37pm
Robert B.:
It is true that some types of pollution have declined - apparently you couldn't see the sun most days in Glasgow circa 1870. Having said that, there appear to be some types of environmental degradation that are not (easily) reversible - heavy metal contamination in the ocean.

Malthusians have generally been wrong, although as Jared Diamond points out, the Easter Island population did eventually kill itself off.

The point is to use "the liberal tradition" to look at it with some degree of nuance.
3.28.2005 5:51pm
Jerry Kindall (www):
I haven't seen $1 gas in two decades at least.

I last saw $1 gas two, maybe three years ago.
3.28.2005 7:18pm
Dean Esmay:
Robert: not just some types of pollution but most types. There are some problems that remain. The solution is, of course, to address them with programs that make sense--and to set priorities where they'll do the most good.

Jerry: Really? Wow. Where?
3.28.2005 8:17pm
Dean Esmay:
(Just as a point of reference: in inflation-adjusted dollars, the average price-per-gallon for gas in the U.S. has hovered between $1.50 and $2.50 or so for about 50 years now.)
3.28.2005 8:18pm
Dean Esmay:
Bill: Good point about the "voluntary" part possibly being turned "mandatory" if enough of these people get taken seriously.

Hopefully, however, their unique brand of self-hatred won't take hold with enough people to make them all that influential.
3.28.2005 8:45pm
Rhianna (aka rmschoon) (mail) (www):
Dean, we've also had a deal with the Saudis for quite some time to get $1 less that the going price per barrel. Mind you the money we do spend on Saudi oil is used to try to kill us so I'm not sure the $1 save is that big a bonus.

You could get $1 gas in Austin, Texas upto about 3 years ago (last time I was through there). There was one over in SA by Brooks AFB too...Jesse James I think was the name of it...Right across the street from the State Mental School/Hospital.

I have never understood the anti-breeding folks. There is no way they're going to convince enough people NOT to have sex (and children) to ever really make an impact. Much as I respect the Quakers, they're philosophy is self defeating in that aspect, just as the 'extinction to humans' train of thought is. If humans are nothing more, we are Great Survival Mechanisms. The best way to survive is to reproduce...
3.29.2005 10:14am
Farmer Joe (mail) (www):
Dean -

When I lived outside of Atlanta a few years ago, you could easily find gas below $1. Lowest I ever saw was $0.79. This was probably 1998 or so.
3.29.2005 10:22am