Is voluntary human extinction the strongest AR position?

[Bonn1997]

I came across this website (http://vhemt.org/) and have not been able to stop thinking about the message. Voluntary human extinction (VHE) may not be a pleasant thought but it’s not clear to me that it’s avoidable. I’m not taking a specific position on the issue yet but it amazes me – given the amount of damage to the nonhuman world that humans do – that animal protectionists have mostly ignored VHE. Some animal rights writers have in passing acknowledged that nonspeciesist utilitarianism leads to VHE (although they reject utilitarianism) because of the amount of damage humans do to sentient life on the planet. Although I support veganism, it’s doubtful that just being a vegan solves this problem as long as humans destroy insects, birds, and all sorts of animals every time they walk, drive, mow lawns, or destroy animals’ natural habitats by “developing” land. It is not clear to me that a deontological rights-based analysis avoids the conclusion either, though, unless it starts with arbitrary premises and/or entirely ignores the actual effects of our actions on the nonhuman world. So I am making this post in an attempt to raise a discussion of VHE without personally arguing for or against it until hearing people’s thoughts here.

[Bonn1997]

Thanks for the reply. We can definitely debate the magnitude of human destruction of the nonhuman environment but do you have any doubt though that the nonhuman world would be better off without humans? Imagine if every highway, every building, and every developed area were undeveloped land for animals to live freely in? Is it really hard to imagine that animal well-being would be higher in that kind of existence?  Also, keep in mind how microscopic a percentage of the total number of sentient individuals humans comprise. If sentient nonhumans would have higher well-being without humans, then that is basically the same as saying total well-being (human plus nonhuman) would be higher without humans.

[Kezia Jauron]

I reject the idea that the number of humans living is main cause of environmental degradation and species extinction (or of tens of thousands of children starving every day, as VHEM seems to claim). The main causes are militarism, unjust and exploitative economic and political systems, high consumption by "rich" nations, corporate processes, industrial agriculture, animal exploitation industries (from animal agriculture -56 billion nonhumans bred and killed every year using vastly more resources and causing vastly more environmental destruction than 7billion humans!- to tanneries to fish farms and fishing in general to beekeeping and on and on), etc. So placing the blame on human individuals for choosing to procreate only obscures the actual main causes of many of the problems humans and nonhumans face, particularly in regards to environmental destruction. 

I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. This sounds like the words of an insane person...is it ironic?

If you're saying "It's not humans, it's the systems we have created," then I agree. Its fairly simple - stop creating those pesky humans with all their pesky destructive systems. Again, it's voluntary. We've chosen not to contribute to those systems by not breeding. What's the argument, exactly?

[Bonn1997]

VHE has nothing to do with suicide.

[Lucas Hayes]

"This sounds like the words of an insane person"

 

Well, that certainly is a great way to have a discussion. Thank you for reminding me of how kind and articulate people online can be!

 

"What's the argument, exactly?"

 

I thought it was clear above, but hopefully I can put this in a way you'll understand.

Only a small minority of humans make the decisions that cause the vast majority of environmental destruction on this planet. Reading VHEM, or your comment above, one would think that a poor child born in a village in India, or a child born to working class parents in St. Louis, or the average person struggling to make ends meet, has the same destructive effect on the planet (including species extinction or the extermination of masses of nonhuman individuals) as the military industrial complex, corporations, or the small amount of millionaires and billionaires. That is simply nonsense. I linked to a website with many articles and essays that go into much more detail. Did you have time to read any of them before firing off your response?

 

As Ian Angus and Simon Butler put it in an article I linked to: "Ironically while populationist groups and authors focus attention on the 7 billion, protestors in the worldwide occupy movement have identified the real source of environmental destruction: Not the 7 billion but the 1%, the handful of millionaires and billionares who own, consume, control, and destroy more than all the rest of us put together. (Talk about irony)

 

In the United States, the richest 1% own an absolute majority of all stocks and corporate equity, giving them control of the corporations that are directly responsible for most environmental destruction.

 

A recent report prepared by the British consulting firm Trucost for the United Nations found that just 3,000 corporations cause $2.15 trillion in environmental damage every year".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74300416/Panic-Over-7-Billion-Letting-The...

 

Therefore focusing on the numbers of humans living as the problem is problematic as it obscures the true causes of environmental damage and species extinction and lets the real culprits off the hook.

[Bonn1997]

"Only a small minority of humans make the decisions that cause the vast majority of environmental destruction on this planet." 

Not really - every time you walk and kill an insect, drive a car, or do any of the things I've written about earlier in this thread, you are damaging the environment. Your statement above refers only to what mainstream thinkers would label as environmental destruction, which is likely a small proportion of the total environmental destruction that humans cause.

[Kezia Jauron]

Ah I gotcha. So it's just that the "wrong kind of people" are breeding. It's tempting to say "it's not us, it's them," but my complaint is that this disempowers us and tends to distract us from accepting any responsibility. It's also a bit short sighted.

It's true that an American child has the environmental impact of about 50 East Indian children. A one-percenter with a private jet probably has the environmental impact of several middle-class Americans. But the one percenter is making his or her money, therefore his or her impact, off of us - our real estate purchases and our petrochemical use and so on. Those corporations are being fueled by the sociopolitical behavior of humans.

Do these industries need to be as damaging as they are? Of course not. Meaningful alternatives should be available. But humans - too many of us - are still the root cause.

[Lucas Hayes]

As far as widespread destruction goes, you would be hard-pressed to dispute that the main causes of environmental damage and species extinction are as I, and Angus and Butler, say they are.

 

Above you say, "if you look at how much extinction we've caused (and this includes many animals dieing slow and painfully), how much we pollute, how much we kill just with our daily activities, it seems awfully hard to argue that our net impact is positive or even neutral".

 

My argument is that the vast majority of humans have not been the cause of mass extinction or the major pollutors, but rather a small minority of humans have been and currently are. If I am right, then your focus on human numbers (or humans in general) as The Problem is misguided.

 

I'm not denying that humans cannot live without harming other animals, particularly insects and other arthropods, to some degree, but I would argue that our everyday actions cause nowhere near the amount of harm caused by corporations and the military (and those are just two sources). And, as Tim rightly points out, many other animals cause harm to other animals. Should we eliminate them too?

Do you not recognize the many things humans can do to benefit other species and the "ecosystem", such as ending animal exploitation industries (the benefits of which cannot be understated), reclaiming degraded land, turning cities into garden cities, creating forest gardens, using veganic agriculture/permaculture techniques to produce food, using hemp instead of trees, and so much more? While we cannot eliminate harm, we can attempt to avoid exploitation in order to minimize harm.

[Lucas Hayes]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid you don't "got me". Please re-read my posts for clarification. I'll add briefly that humans are not given a wide array of choices by corporations, expecially not choices that are healthy or sustainable (for ourselves or for the planet) yet sometimes these are the only choices many humans have (some more limited than others). Therefore the "personal responsibilty" argument is, in my opinion, full of fail. Michelle Simon's book, Appetite for Profit goes into this more depth. It's an interesting read if you're interested.

"But humans - too many of us - are still the root cause." Of course, for all the reasons I've mentioned in this thread, I disagree.

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

[Bonn1997]

"I would argue that our everyday actions cause nowhere near the amount of harm caused by corporations and the military"

I would readily agree that we ordinary folk are less damaging than corporations or the military. But why are we ordinary folk being compared to the military or corporations? Why does being "less damaging than the military" equal justification for continued existence and reproduction in your mind?

"Do you not recognize the many things humans can do to benefit other species and the "ecosystem"

We can do many things to lessen the damage others and ourselves do but I have seen no convincing evidence that we as a species can ever have a net positive or even neutral impact. I have seen speculation that I believe merits attention (e.g., David Pearce's arguments), though.

"I'm not denying that humans cannot live without harming other animals, particularly insects and other arthropods"

It seems then that you agree with me but may have the speciesist belief that the few humans in the world are more important than the many insects and arthropods they destroy.

Finally, note that VHE is not inconsistent with producing positive change (veganism, less corporate pollution) during our generation.

[Lucas Hayes]

"But why are we ordinary folk being compared to the military or corporations?" Because on this thread you are blaming human numbers, not corporations or the military industrial complex or a small amount of rich individuals, for environmental destruction and species extinction. From what I've read VHE does the same.

When you say "less damaging than the military" that obscures the vastly greater amount of damage the military industrial complex does to the environment. To answer your question, I am in favor of reproductive rights/reproductive justice for women. Women can choose to procreate if they decide to without being shamed for their decision (such as with the insulting lists Kezia linked to). Perhaps we agree on this anyways? The decision to procreate requires no justification (especially to any man) in my view because, again, unlike you I don't find human numbers to be the cause of the problems you mention.

 

Once again, I'll have to point out that agree with Tim, this time in regards to David Pearce's arguments.

 

I certainly don't view humans as more important than the many insects and arthropods. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they value their life as much as I do and I try to live in a way that reflects that. I don't find this inconsistent with my position to reject much of what VHE puts forth. As I stated above, it is my goal to live in a way that avoids exploitation and thus minimizes harm. There's no reason to think that future generations of humans cannot do just that. I think it's interesting that Roger brought up the suicide threads because to me suicide is the only logical way to live consistenly with your position of causing no harm to other animals at all. Of course, you're still alive so you do not agree. Why?

[Bonn1997]

You will find answers to the questions you pose on the VHEMT website: http://vhemt.org/

[Lucas Hayes]

I'm asking you personally, as someone who clearly takes an anti-speciesist stance, why your continued existence (and presumably an interest in good health in order to live a long life) is more important than the many arthropods and insects you harm in your every day actions? The VHEM page mentions suicide but not necessarily from the anti-speciesist viewpoint you hold. Honestly, I find the answer given to be a total cop-out.

Please know that I do not, in any way, want you to commit suicide. What I'm trying to understand is why if my position is, according to you, informed by speciesist belief then why is your decision to stay alive, given the position you take, not also speciesist?

Again, I'll post the question: isn't suicide the only logical way to live consistenly with your position of causing no harm to other animals at all?