Is having a child- even one-destructive

[Zero]

We know we'll never see the day there are no human beings on the planet.

They are stupid, that quote alone proves it.

Why is that stupid? Do you expect mankind to end during your lifetime? And if it is over, and you can't see it, then you aren't seeing it anyways... I don't get why that quote is wrong.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's stupid because if there are no humans on the planet, how can she expect to see it?

[Zero]

She doesn't. That's exactly what the quote stated.

[Zero]

I'm pretty sure I MEANT to say he...

[UCBooties]

The real reason that quote is stupid is because the organization is admitting that their own goals are completely unatainable. So one must ask what they can hope to achieve. Well here it is, they can get all of the self-indulgant eco-apologists out of the gene pool, removing part of the voice that advocates responsible ecological behavior, and leave even more of the people who don't give a fuck breeding and consuming. No matter how you aproach their stated goal and philosophy it is completely untenneble.

[Darth Wong]

Do they recognize that by their logic, we should start killing off adults too? Once you adopt the logic that an animal's life is worth as much as a human's life, you are inexorably drawn toward the conclusion that a human being, simply by virtue of continuing to live and eat and consume other resources, will be responsible for countless animal deaths throughout the rest of his life. Better to kill all adults now. Starting with themselves.

[UCBooties]

But even that doesn't work! Because no matter what, from their philosophy, they have to start with themselves. So as soon as they are eliminated, the people who are left get to create the next generation and continue consuming, with even less ethical hand-wringing because they're raised as proud consumers! They're position just doesn't work, how the hell do you buy into that? I mean I understand the appeal of crazy philosophies, but this one just overrides soooo many core instincts and doesn't even add up on a cursury glance, how do you buy into that?

[Solauren]

Cause some chicks dig trying to get guys that say they won't breed, to breed?

[Morilore]

There is precisely one way to logically execute that philosophy: a crusade of complete human genocide. After all, if they make a point of killing others, they are "contributing" even if they leave themselves for last.

[Zero]

There is precisely one way to logically execute that philosophy: a crusade of complete human genocide. After all, if they make a point of killing others, they are "contributing" even if they leave themselves for last.

So following this philosophy, the most practical thing I could do would be probably to buy some kind of firearm, and kill as many people as I could before I was taken down by police?

[Morilore]

So following this philosophy, the most practical thing I could do would be probably to buy some kind of firearm, and kill as many people as I could before I was taken down by police?

If you were alone, probably. In a group, you're better off starting some psychotic religion.

[drachefly]

Okay, let's imagine for a moment that they managed to begin to succeed. Populations were diminishing.

Doesn't that in itself right there prove the central pillar of the whole movement factually wrong?
(refresher: the central pillar of the whole movement is that we cannot change our ways from expanding and pillaging and destroying other life).

So they either get to futilely pursue worsening the situation by eliminating everyone who cares (as pointed out above), or they get to successfully pursue a course which is based on an absolutely wrong principle.

Way to go.

[CoyoteNature]

Its not necessarily exponential growth you need to look at, but amount of resource consumption.

You need to look at both.

Many of the Third World populations actually consume less then the average Western population.


Silly article though, I'm environmental but there are limits, if people don't do anything, my outlook the population will self correct itself to extinction anyway.

The Earth has been through how many extinction events?, human beings are just one more, she's a tough old bird.

[lazerus]

I just looked at their website......


Coo-coo. Coo-coo.

It's their arrogance that's astounding though...

[Surlethe]

What possesses people to think of the ecosystem in terms of "good" and "bad"? The ecosystem is an amoral entity; the only "good" and "bad" in the ecosystem is in how it affects the human population, since morality is a purely human social construction. I don't see any way people can look at the environment and say, "Humanity's effect on the environment is bad; ergo, humans must go extinct." That's like saying global warming in of itself is objectively bad, when the only "bad" thing about global warming is its effect on the human race; or, it's like saying evolution is bad because it requires the death of millions of beings, and only the fittest survive. Humanity's impact on the environment is neither objectively good nor bad; it just is.

[Mrs Kendall]

Isn't the purpose of Earth to house people, and animals etc... so if we all died what would the poor earth do with it's time Gimme a break, these freaks need to kill themselves and see if the rest of us continue in their path.

[CoyoteNature]

I suspect its more of a ascetic thing, like the PETA people with animals, not really logical, or possibly religious, i.e. love of the things on the planet, or worship of said things.

Or they may just be a bunch of flakes.

[speaker-to-trolls]

What possesses people to think of the ecosystem in terms of "good" and "bad"? The ecosystem is an amoral entity; the only "good" and "bad" in the ecosystem is in how it affects the human population, since morality is a purely human social construction. I don't see any way people can look at the environment and say, "Humanity's effect on the environment is bad; ergo, humans must go extinct." That's like saying global warming in of itself is objectively bad, when the only "bad" thing about global warming is its effect on the human race; or, it's like saying evolution is bad because it requires the death of millions of beings, and only the fittest survive. Humanity's impact on the environment is neither objectively good nor bad; it just is.

My thoughts exactly, the biosphere has no value other than that which human beings attach to it, purely objectively it's just a bunch of unusual chemical patterns.

What I personally can't stand is the way people use 'nature' or 'the ecosystem' as a substitute for god. People like this think that we have some kind of obligation to 'nature', despite the fact that IT IS NOT A CONSCIOUS ENTITY AND EVERYTHING IT DOES (if such a term can be applied) IS A RESULT OF PHYSICAL LAWS, RANDOM CHEMICAL REACTIONS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS.

[Seggybop]

He's right that having an kid is horribly destructive to the environment. However, our existences are of much higher priority.

Why?

which part? Each additional human is destructive to the rest of the planet for the reasons he gives. But those things that we destroy to support ourselves don't have any more right to exist than we do, and us being us, we necessarily give ourselves a bit more importance than those other things.

[wolveraptor]

The underlying axiom that governs all rational human morality is that we have value. That's why we aren't supposed to murder, steal or harm in any way other people. Destroying that axiom by saying that the ecosystem is as important as us undermines all morality.

Really, that assumption is based upon pure self-preservation and the instinct to propagate the species. There's no reason for it beyond that.