Eco Group Calls For "Voluntary Human Extinction"

reply to post by PimpyMcgibbins


Earth will still have life without humans. It's just that whales, or some other species will be dominate, rather than humans.

I'm all for trying to branch out to other worlds. There's a lot that would require and would probably need the help from most of the world for developing means of food and better technology ... but, it's a lot better than dwindling our population below 500,000,000. If there were a planetary cataclysm, there's much less of a chance human beings will survive will such a low population. But, then again ... I guess that the point of the whole thread.

Aliens, god or evolution gave us as a people a chance to make a great world for everyone including all the wild animals and plant life but we screwed up in just about every way possible afecting not only ourselves but even more so the animal and plant life around us. So as intelligent beyings with an ounce of integrity we must admit we are just that: a parasite, incapable of getting along with with others from diferent tribes and constantly raping nature,failing to remove ourselves from this sphere would prove fatal for all living creatures on it. So like i mentioned before, we had our chance but failed so why not go with integrity and pass the torch to our closest relative:the chimps, if your're a darwinist or leave it to the aliens or god to repopulate it again hopefully with a less selfish and agressive population ?









[edit on 14-5-2008 by SL55T0T0]

reply to post by SL55T0T0


I wouldn't say WE screwed it up - but we did elect people to do it for is, and buy into the advertising propaganda that told us we had to have bigger and better every 5 minutes, whilst only having finite resources.

So, I suppose we did it vicariously - but some of us have been trying to live an environmentalyy friendly lifestyle for quite some time.

The problem is that many ridicule us for it, whilst bragging that their new W16 engine gets them up to 170mph, and their new flatscreen TV cost X amount etc etc

Many people have become conditioned, and it's the conditioning that we need to break/change before we can advance as a species.

reply to post by budski

Well, if the ice caps are melting - which is not a big mystery anymore - that also means that polar bears are having less and less natural habitat in which they live in. I have read somewhere, that in North Amerca they found a whtie bear with spots, which means polar bears have started to migrate to warmer climate. And IF polar bears are really not endangered, why this?

US lists polar bear as threatened

The United States has listed the polar bear as a threatened species, because its Arctic sea ice habitat is melting due to climate change.

US government scientists predict that two-thirds of the polar bear population of 25,000 could disappear by 2050.

reply to post by Souljah


I posted this on the previous page, but you must have missed it:

environmental lobbyists persuaded the Bush administration to recommend that the polar bear be listed as threatened due to global warming. In lieu of evidence, environmentalists offered mostly anecdotes that polar bears are at risk: isolated reports of a few polar bears drowning in Arctic waters normally containing sea ice as well as a few instances of cannibalism among polar bears. Then they posited first that human caused global warming will melt most of the ice at the North Pole within 50 years, and that without the ice, polar bears will be unable to hunt seals, their preferred prey.

Environmentalists presented only one study which shows that one population of polar bears in Canada's Western Hudson Bay had seen a decline of 21 percent following a loss of the average weight of female polar bears which led to reduced cub survival.

Fortunately, both for policy and the polar bears, the plight of this one population does not reflect the population trend as a whole. Indeed, since the 1970s -- all while the world was warming - polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 to as many as 25,000 today (higher than at anytime in the 20th century). And historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.

source

Seems to me that bush's office placing them on the endangered list (no-one else has, to my knowledge) is a sop to the environmentalists, with an election coming up, so his party can say they help the environment.

Afetr all, when did bush&co EVER do anything for the environment?

Originally posted by budski
we need some kind of population control,

This will sound odd, but here goes ...

I'm a bit of an advocate for voluntary euthenasia centers. If people wish to 'check out early', then I think they should be given that opportunity. There would be a strict investigation process to make sure no one was being made to commit suicide or that someone wanting to wasn't suffering from a cureable depression or something etc etc

But I kinda think it COULD work.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I've been a half-hearted advocate of voluntary euthanasia for years.

We have no problems ending a life before it starts (abortion, and an entirely different issue) and yet we keep people alive who want to die, and insist that they suffer.

For once, I think china has the right idea with their one child policy - although the problems it has led to and the enforcement of the law leave a lot to be desired.

Nobody has to die ASAP,all we need to do is stop getting people pregnant and our genes will take care of the rest...

[edit on 15-5-2008 by SL55T0T0]