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]

I don't get why the VHEMT website's answer is not antispeciesist. It doesn't use the term "speciesism" but the message is that you can do more good for other species by spreading VHEMT ideology before you die rather than just dying without spreading the message first.  It's hard not to characterize that as antispecieisist - it's focus is on benefiting members of other species.

(It wouldn't let me reply under your most recent comment but my message here is a reply to that one.)

[Lucas Hayes]

I said that the VHEM answer is not necessarily anti-speciesist. It does not mention anything about humans not exploiting or oppressing nonhuman individuals while still alive, but I can see that one could extract an anti-speciesist message from the far-fetched end-point or goal of the movement. I suppose in the meantime many humans can oppress other individuals or species as long as we don't procreate (because that's the main problem according to VHEM). That's what I meant by not *necessarily* being anti-speciesist.

But again, VHEM takes the position that human numbers (or humans in general) are the primary cause of environmental destruction and species extinction and therefore the greatest harm to nonhuman individuals. I reject this for all the reasons I've mentioned here, but also because the misguided focus on human numbers as The Problem, regardless of stated philosophies of being non-coercive, has always led to oppressive policies and practices toward humans (read Ehrichs' and Holdren's* "Human Ecology" for an example of this misguided focus leading to the posing of terrifying "benevolent" solutions. In it they refer to involuntary sterilization through agents placed in the food and water supply as a non-coercive and non-discriminatory way of addressing The Problem. How progressive! They discuss other horrifying "benevolent" measures as well).

To get back to the point, it seems we will not agree on the issue of human numbers (or humans in general) not being the main cause of environmental destruction, nonhuman harm, and species extinction, so I'll just have to leave it there.

Thanks again for the discussion.

*John Holdren is now Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).

[Vivian O'Reilly]

Correct Bonn1997, VHEMT has no suicide cult elements or violence of any other kind attached to it. Rather it instead simply suggests that humans desist from making additions to the anthropocene onslaught. "Live long and die out" the motto.

As for Tim and Lucas' points from earlier:

"Overpopulation is defined by the animals that occupy the turf, behaving as they naturally behave, not by a hypothetical group that might be substituted for them" Ehrlich

[red dog]

Haven't researched VHE--but surely, demanding to know why another member hasn't committed suicide yet must violate some board guideline?

[Lucas Hayes]

Hi red dog,

Apparently I'm not alone in wondering about the question of suicide by those that adhere to VHEM philosophy. The VHEM website says that it could be "the most frequently asked question of all". And their site doesn't necessarily say that advocating or committing suicide is a bad idea in and of itself. Rather it states that "it’s hard enough just to get people to consider not breeding. Advocating suicide, by any method besides old age, would be a particularly hard sell. There’s no way we could convince enough people to kill themselves to make a difference, especially after we’re too dead to talk. Suicide doesn’t set an example others will follow". So convincing enough people to commit suicide "would make a difference" if it wasn't such a "hard sell". It seems as if they (at least those who wrote the content for the website) are putting the option out there, perhaps even encouraging it, but suggesting that advocating it just wouldn't go over well with others. I find this, and so many other things with VHEM, to be very troubling.

Anyhow, I do apologize to you, Bonn1997, if you found my questions to be out of line. I didn't intend for them to be, and I absolutely do not want you to commit suicide.

[red dog]

(Sigh) I know you don't want Bonn1997 to commit suicide. In the same way that "plants' rights activists" don't really want anyone to die of starvation to save the poor, helpless, victimized plants. VHEM's response sounds like the same kind of patient response we all wish we had ready to answer the inevitable plant question.

[Lucas Hayes]

You're really comparing my response to that of "plants rights activists" posing The Plant Question?

You said you hadn't looked into VHEM. Perhaps you could do so before comparing their position to a logical one like veganism and comparing those that ask valid questions to "plants rights activists". While you're at it, it may be beneficial to look into alternative viewpoints on human population, and whether human numbers are the primary cause of what VHEM says they are, such as those in the links I've provided.

Here are two recent books you might also find useful -http://vegan.fm/33a

Peace

[Kezia Jauron]

There's a bit more to it than this, and while I was trying to stay out of it, I don't want the position to be under-explained.

The point of the movement is voluntary non-breeding. Suicide, or mass murder for that matter, has nothing to do with voluntary non-breeding. From the site:

Shortening an existing person’s life by a few decades doesn’t avoid as many years of human impact as not creating a whole new life -- one with the potential for producing more of us.

And:

We have a responsibility to help the world as much as we’re able before we die. Leaving the work for others would be irresponsible. VHEMT is a cause to live for not to die for.