It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Mon1k3r

g146541

And the world is about 50 BILLION people short of overpopulation anyway.


I agree. Earth could easily handle more people, were the people better stewards of themselves and their environment. Also were energy production not so cumbersome, dirty, and inefficient.

If the people only knew that the biggest secret kept from them was the existence of technology allowing unlimited free energy production and transmission - the secret that is being kept by, and for those who feel only THEY deserve it.
edit on 6-1-2014 by Mon1k3r because: (no reason given)

That's the lie that most believe that we are carefree with our environment, but we aren't.
I did not spill trillions of gallons into the atmosphere, I did not expel untold bits of radiation into the world.
Corporations and governments do this, not you and I.
We would do just fine for our environment, I know where I live and respect Mother Earth.




posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Tindalos2013
reply to post by g146541
 


I was watching that film a few weeks ago, well the first 30 minutes. It was not as I expected it to be, I thought it would be a film of a more serious tone than it is.

I'm not sure which film you speak of but would like to know so I might watch it as well.
My facts and figures come from simple math and common sense.
Of course I did not include the Antarctic in my figures.
But the rest is solid math.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Carrying on from the theme I introduced above into some speculation, it could be all of us are looking at this issue entirely wrong(ly). While we will always have people who cry when a tree is cut down, yet admire their fine oak dining room table for how beautiful it is, the fact may be that Earth designed us, as humans, to work in her favor in ways we are too short-sighted to fathom. You'll have to put away your dreams of our race being salted here by space aliens to follow this through. Besides, DNA and the fossil record show otherwise, unless you adopt the Creationist creed that this is simply a test of our faith brought about by God. But for our purposes here, Earth created us, so if Earth=God, you can have it both ways.

Now then, we are certainly changing the face of the Earth, drawing upon what we claim are limited resources. (There is some serious debate about that, but let's let it slide for now.) But one thing we have come to realize is that Earth is not only a finite resource, it also has a finite life. It's middle-aged today, having gone though half its life-cycle at 4.5 billion years old or so. On the horizon the Sun will go nova on us, boil the oceans dry, leave us living things as crispy critters, and obliterate any notion that the Earth was ever here. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. We know it's going to happen. So while the narrow-minded focus of some of us is the pressure put on the eco-system of the snail darter and the Spotted Owl (a completely political act with no basis in science), we are actually facing complete extinction of everything.

It's not something all of us think about, and those who do laugh it off as not worthy of serious concern, but if you WERE the Earth, a sentient being, wouldn't you think about it? And if you thought about it, how would you solve this issue of having everything you had ever created be obliterated? What steps would you take?

First of all you would develop a sentient species that had enough brains to recognize the issue, then you'd get them technologically advanced enough to get the hell off the Earth and into another solar system. And what do you think they would be compelled to take with them as they scrambled out of the immediate neighborhood? My guess would be every scrap of DNA they could get their hands on, if not the actual goo, then the programs for every species and sub-species known to inhabit the Earth, not to mention some that are already extinct, but left some residue behind.

So humans will act as agents not to use up the Earth, but to save it, to save everything it has produced so that it can live again. We won't be able to save the dirt and the mountains and the oceans, lovely as they are, but we'll be able to save the essence and, like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, the Earth will live again.

So it's just fine if these poor depressed people take themselves out of the equation. After all, if we don't have their DNA we can't take it with us, but someone had better be thinking about these issues so that we can actually do something positive for the Earth rather than wring our hands lamenting the fact that we exist.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

g146541

Tindalos2013
reply to post by g146541
 


I was watching that film a few weeks ago, well the first 30 minutes. It was not as I expected it to be, I thought it would be a film of a more serious tone than it is.

I'm not sure which film you speak of but would like to know so I might watch it as well.
My facts and figures come from simple math and common sense.
Of course I did not include the Antarctic in my figures.
But the rest is solid math.


It was Idiocracy, the film you mentioned in an earlier post.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   

g146541
And the world is about 50 BILLION people short of overpopulation anyway.


You are aware that land size is not the only factor to keep in mind when considering how many humans our planet can sustain, right?

Fresh food supplies, drinkable water, habitable land, allocation of resources, allocation of support services and governance are among some of the key factors to consider before land size alone.

If you can propose a viable plan that takes into account all of the above and the planet can still sustain 50bn people, then I would support you. The reality is that we struggle to provide the above for the currently 7bn+ people on Earth at the moment.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Truth is we do not struggle, governments keep people down.
In N. America, food and water are pretty abundant, the same for S. America, Europe, Australia (the inhabited part), Asia partially for all we really know of (rumors Etc.), Antarctic...well not so much, but Africa has a real problem for a large part.
Why is Africa the stepchild??
A lot of little dictators and warlords with guns who steal from the people.
In short, if governments protected their people there would be no scarcity to mention.
You will be pleased to find that you could grow bananas @ the north pole!! Greenhouses and hydroponics are true miracles!
Land size is NO factor, when you can't build out build up!
This world could easily hold a lot more if tech was not suppressed and corporations and government (same thing) were not so greedy.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
That is interesting.

We dont have horrible problems to worry about and therefore have as many kids as possible, somone does need to take responsibility and point out this very obvious fact.

We are two legged a bacteria.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Tindalos2013
 


I was looking for such Anti-humans group, remnant of the Eugenics craze. My investigations pointed to their possible existence (obviously), but until now I didn't know its name.

Thanks! S&F for the precious info!


edit on 7-1-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


I 100% agree. I did the maths too.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Dark Ghost

g146541
And the world is about 50 BILLION people short of overpopulation anyway.


You are aware that land size is not the only factor to keep in mind when considering how many humans our planet can sustain, right?

Fresh food supplies, drinkable water, habitable land, allocation of resources, allocation of support services and governance are among some of the key factors to consider before land size alone.

If you can propose a viable plan that takes into account all of the above and the planet can still sustain 50bn people, then I would support you. The reality is that we struggle to provide the above for the currently 7bn+ people on Earth at the moment.


I have been thinking along the same considerations. Humanity in its variety of evolution's has created a fairly successful defense system, like most other creatures and that is the ability to invent a great many medicines with technological achievement to be able to reduce the risk of demise from most deadly diseases. That is what the core of any living creature is. It is genetically innate. Thus one of the many reasons for global population increase. And certainly as natures course is wont to be humanity will reach the final critical mass and burn out.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Tindalos2013
 


The reason why there is persistent struggle within Africa is because the population there has exceeded the land's carry capacity. Not all lands are created equal. Hence why there is almost always starvation and issues with disease. It certainly doesn't help that many of these issues are compounded by the activities of warlords. The populations won't eventually die off entirely though as the population actually has an increased birth rate due to the poor survival rate of children.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Or instead of takeing the easy way out we could put all our effort in to moveing out into the universe, you know that big infinate thing with trillions of galaxys.

Seeing as we already have the tec with nuclear propulsion to go 30% the speed of light and we have a whole solar system of resources its not a impossible thing to do.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

crazyewok
Or instead of takeing the easy way out we could put all our effort in to moveing out into the universe, you know that big infinate thing with trillions of galaxys.

Seeing as we already have the tec with nuclear propulsion to go 30% the speed of light and we have a whole solar system of resources its not a impossible thing to do.


That option is certainly a priority for future survival. But at the same time it is also a deadly option. And perhaps it will never happen. Everything in reality has its limits and this may be ours.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

swanne
reply to post by g146541
 


I 100% agree. I did the maths too.

To argue against math is to argue against logic, and that would make a person one of two things.
An idiot or a ....well ATS T$C does not allow me to write what I want.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Tindalos2013
But at the same time it is also a deadly option.


Deady?

Cant be more deadly than staying on one rock while our resources are consumed and our population increases. Or worse until a super volcano finaly goes off or a astroid hits.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


That's not entirely true. Africa (or at least Zimbabwe) used to be a net exporter of agricultural products before Mugabe got in power and decided to dismantle the farming industry. We can argue the need for land reform in his country, but the farms never went from white farmers to even the black farmhands who would have known what to do with them. Instead, they went to political cronies.

Here's what was lost:



The drop-off in agricultural production is staggering. Maize farming, which yielded more than 1.5 million tons annually before 2000, is this year expected to generate just 500,000 tons. Wheat production, which stood at 309,000 tons in 2000, will hover at 27,000 tons this year. Tobacco production, too, which at 265,000 tons accounted for nearly a third of the total foreign-currency earnings in 2000, has tumbled, to about 66,000 tons in 2003.


www.theatlantic.com... -a-country/302845/



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

crazyewok

Tindalos2013
But at the same time it is also a deadly option.


Deady?

Cant be more deadly than staying on one rock while our resources are consumed and our population increases. Or worse until a super volcano finaly goes off or a astroid hits.


I really do feel great sorrow for future human generations for they will curse us as their ancestors who decimated the natural order of things and corrupted the lands with poison.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Tindalos2013
 


Hense why we need to more out into the solar system.

Put our manfuctureing and most polutting industrys on mars or in orbit. The materials are all sitting out there.
edit on 7-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Tindalos2013
Those of you familiar with the Georgia Guildstones may find this interesting. There is a group calling themselves the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement who goal is to activly reduce the human population, not in any foul or malicious way but by simply making sure no more babies are given birth to so that the ecology of the Earth is not totally ravaged by the umpteen billions of human simply consuming all the resources so that future generations may enjoy at least some content of this amazing planet.


As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature’s “experiments” have done throughout the eons.

It’s going to take all of us going.


Their motto is a reverse of Star Trek's Vulcan pharase and states 'May we live long and die out.'

Have a glance at their FAQ website VHEMT

The question I ask is ?Should more of us choose to take up the mantle that VHEMT is offering. I myself have no plans to have children and decided to end my family 'bloodline' along time ago after my grandmother and then grandfather died and I am sure my sister wont be bearing a child so thats that.


I wonder how many of those people have done what they advise themselves. Usually people like that don't do it themselves because they consider themselves the "enlightened" ones.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Hating one self is not a product of genetics, it's a result of environment, and actions that cause the person to hate themselves.

Unfortunately, you will always have humans who are negative, hate themselves, or never wish to eat meat..... No matter how many of them die off.

The mind and physical self although developed together, do not necessarily lead the other through development. You follow ?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join