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.

[RespuestasVeganas.Org]

If humans become extinct then no one will fight against predation, therefore, not advocating the extinction of humans. I sympathize with VHEMT with respect to drastically reduce the human population to ensure sustainable welfare.

[Bonn1997]

Thanks for the reply. What do you  mean by fighting against predation? Do you have something like the Hedonistic Imperative in mind? I definitely realize that the theoretical possibility exists that humans can create higher well-being by removing predation. However, I'm skeptical that humans actually can ever alter nature in a way that increases well-being beyond the level it would be at if we were absent from the planet. Also the possible damage from attempting and failing to do so would be enormous, and it may be the case that the safest route is just to let nature work without any human interference. Either way, I am shocked by the extent to which animal rights writers have ignored the topic of VHE. I'll note finally that if you think humans ought to try to find a way to end predation, it's not clear a decrease in human population is desirable. Perhaps the more people in existence, the more likely it is that one of them will play a key role in promoting and/or implementing the end of predation.

[Bonn1997]

Just to add: I posted this thread in hopes of getting answers to two questions: (a) Do you support VHE and (b) why or why not? Below, I'll list paths that I think a logical, nonspeciesist ethic could take, although I am curious if there are other paths I'm leaving out. I see the following as potentially logically defensible paths:

1) Voluntary human extinction

2) Altering nature (e.g., ending predation, genetic engineering) in order to increase valued outcomes (life, happiness, etc.)

3) Arguing that the morality of any action is entirely independent of the consequences of the action (and thus all negative effects of our actions are irrelevant). Instead, intentions or obedience to rules or something else might be valued. Even here, though, it is unclear why the rules that are to be obeyed or the intentions of the actor ought to ignore the consequences of the actions.

[Tim Gier]

Human beings cause harm in the world to other animals. Non-human beings, as well as the strictly physical forces of nature, cause harm to other animals too. Why should we assume that eliminating only one source of the of all the various harms caused to other animals would leave other animals in any better position than some other alternative? I think we should not. Additionally, many of the harms human beings cause are of a kind that can be mitigated if not eliminated (we don't have to eat other animals and we don't have to destroy their habitats at the rate we currently do). So, while VHE would solve some of the problems that other animals face, it would not solve all of them, and it isn't necessary in order to alleviate a good many of them. On balance, VHE seems like an unwarranted position.

While I do not doubt the sincerity of good people such as David Pearce, I remain highly suspect at the kinds of technological solutions that promise to eliminate suffering or bring out some kind of hedonistic equilibrium. I also find the very notion problematic conceptually. For example, what constitutes suffering in a world where creatures are adapted to live in heated sulfur jets at extreme pressures on the ocean floor?  What, in addition to the capacity to suffer, would self-aware beings have to give up in this world -- would people who love the experience of the adrenaline rush they get from free-falling out of an airplane lose that capacity as well? Would any conscious creature know how to avoid danger, or work to overcome the physical hardships that occur naturally if they did not experience pain and suffering? I don't know, but I think that a life without pain and suffering would be radically different from that which we know, and I doubt that we can even conceive of what it would be like. 

However, that does not mean that there is nothing we can do to alleviate suffering in other ways and it certainly doesn't mean that we ought not to continue to explore new ideas and technologies that might be one day able to achieve that which seems unattainable. At the very least, I think when we can intercede on behalf of other animals who would surely suffer and die if we did not act, and if by acting we could be reasonably sure that no greater harms would be caused, then we should act to save other animals from suffering or death. We do so now when it comes to other human beings and it seems only a matter of justice that we should for non-human beings as well.

I believe that what matters is not adherence to some set of rules, or some imaginary objective truth that exists outside of conscious minds. What matters are the lived experiences of conscious beings and we ought to act in ways that acknowledge, respect and protect those experiences and the beings who have them.

[Bonn1997]

Human beings cause harm in the world to other animals. Non-human beings, as well as the strictly physical forces of nature, cause harm to other animals too. Why should we assume that eliminating only one source of the of all the various harms caused to other animals would leave other animals in any better position than some other alternative?

Unless you're arguing that we humans also produce good outcomes for animals - and good outcomes that are strong enough to off-set the harms we cause - then wouldn't eliminating one source of harms have to leave animals in a better position? 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.

Additionally, many of the harms human beings cause are of a kind that can be mitigated if not eliminated (we don't have to eat other animals and we don't have to destroy their habitats at the rate we currently do).

My response here depends on what you mean by "many." I would agree that many of the harms that those in the animal protection community traditionally emphasize can easily be eliminated. I suspect, especially if you count our harms to insects, that this is a microscopically small amount of the total harms humans cause though.

[Kezia Jauron]

I'm a VHEMT member - or rather, a volunteer. There is a good chart here

http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#reasons

That I find applies to just about any argument against voluntary non-breeding, on a micro and macro level. ("But humans could save the world someday!" This assumes we are a uniquely superior species, which, we aren't.)

By the way we did an informal survey and 46 or 47% of volunteers are vegan or vegetarian. It's pretty good company to be in. 

 

[Tim Gier]

I don't accept the premise that humans have been uniquely or especially harmful to other animals in terms of extinction rates considered throughout earth's history. That's not to say that human beings haven't been and continue to be destructive, but just that were humans not here, other animals would still suffer greatly and be killed by the billions and species would still go extinct. There is no Eden to which the world can return.

[Bonn1997]

Is it fair to say that you reject the premise that humans have a net negative impact on nonhuman animals? I'm not saying all suffering would end without humans but we can still evaluate whether there would be less suffering without us. We don't have a way to precisely calculate our impact on the well-being of other animals but it seems much easier to generate a list of harmful than of positive effects of humans on the rest of sentient life. I'm not convinced that means we always will have a net negative impact but I'm skeptical of claims to the contrary.

I'm not writing all of this just to be argumentative. I've enjoyed reading a lot of your work and am at a point where I want to learn more and allow my own views to evolve.

[Kezia Jauron]

Conservation scientists disagree. We're currently in the sixth mass extinction of species, and this one is absolutely tied to human causes such as habitat destruction and climate change. The rate of new species evolution is not keeping pace, for a net loss of biodiversity. Half of all plant and animal species could be gone within a few decades (i.e., our lifetimes). Frankly we're probably past the point of no return on this one, and past the point of dickering over who or what is causing it. We know who - it's us.

A brilliant film on the subject is Call of Life - http://calloflife.org

[Bonn1997]

I'm surprised the number isn't higher actually.

[Kezia Jauron]

Bonn - I, and a few others who are vocal, are working on it. But it certainly beats the 5-10% estimate of the general population.

We do have a greater percentage of misanthropic subsistence hunters than the general population. You cannot forget, pure misanthropes are attracted to voluntary non-breeding. Not liking children, or humans of any age, is a perfectly valid reason not to make more of them.

[Lucas Hayes]

Hi Bonn, thanks for the discussion topic.

 

I agree with much of what Tim has said but would like to add my own thoughts.

 

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 need to go for now. Perhaps I'll post more later on.

 

Here's a link that provides an alternative perspective to that of VHEM: http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt