The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:15 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2005 7:05 am 
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2005 2:05 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Bah.

It won't work. They'll just die out, and be outbred by the stupids.

It's happening the same way with the ZPG people. They're smart enough to realize that there's a population problem, but they're not helping by only having 2 kids, because the stupids are having 6 or 8.

There's two solutions to population pressure. Well, three, but I don't really like tyrrany. First, we can get into WWIII and nuke the bejeezus out of the planet, thus killing off 98% of human life (and all life, for that matter). Second, we can concentrate on space exploration and colonize other planets.

But stopping having kids just because there's too many people, that's just nonsense talk. Because the only way that'll solve /anything/ is if /everybody/ stops having kids. And that ain't gonna happen short of tyrrany. GLOBAL tyrrany.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2005 4:01 pm 
These guys got a mention in my book. Pretty much as an example of "Here's another really dumb idea that would never work."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2005 5:57 pm 
Ogredude wrote:
---snip--- Second, we can concentrate on space exploration and colonize other planets.---snip---


Unless either we get the ability to lift truly massive amounts of people off the planet we're never going to be able to lift enough to overcome the reproduction rate of our selfish genes.

Unless of course the pollution from the exhaust kills 1024 people for every one that moves offplanet. Hmm...disguise your "make more clouds" program as a Migration to Mars program. You get folks off planet, an ice age, and once the ice age really gets going you'll get tons more people who want to move.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2005 1:03 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
BBlalock wrote:
Unless either we get the ability to lift truly massive amounts of people off the planet we're never going to be able to lift enough to overcome the reproduction rate of our selfish genes.


Well we ain't going to achieve that by totally turning our backs on space exploration... Which seems to be what's happening currently, except for a few minor groups.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2005 3:30 am 
Even if it did work... what could possibly be the point? More cute little wabbits and nobody to ga "aww" at them?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2005 6:04 am 
This world will likely be going to hell in a few billion years anyway, why bother making it more pretty now? We need to exploit this little sphere for all its worth and spread through the cosmos like the virus we are! A virus doesn't survive the deterioration of its host by slowing down...it goes and finds a new host! It's not like we need to consider the good of the universe, in any case...practically all the theories lead to it imploding or suffering heat death in a few hundred billion years anyway, so why do we want to limit ourselves to just living and dieing on the earth, when any damage we do to the universe will be rendered irrelevant when it ceases to exist in its current state anyway?

On the same general theme but moving away from the attempt to reduce population, this is one of the reasons I think efforts like trying to place a restriction on water usage isn't too helpful : More and more people are entering the system, using water, making you reduce the allowed usage levels until there isn't enough to go around to irrigate land/use industrially/stave off a dehydrated death with. You can't solve this problem by rationing the available supply, you need to go and find more resources. I'm not against efficiency, though. That is useful because you get more out of your resources, so it's somewhat like finding more.

I dimly remember something from economics class about the growth of population being geometric whereas the growth of food(and perhaps other resources) is arithmetic, which if true doesn't bode well for the long term success of attempts to reduce resource usage by trying to reduce how much people use.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 25, 2005 12:17 pm 
This isn't as absurd as it sounds. Indeed, there's no need for an organization like this - it is already happening throughout the industrialized world, and has always happened to some extent whenever society reached a certain level of affluence. True, it will never reach the level of extinction, but we can expect populations to fall rather than continue rising, at least in the industrialized nations.

Why? Because at some point, children cease to be an economic advantage and become an economic burden. People didn't just have large families because they liked children - they had them because of high chldhood mortality rates, and because children were valuable labor on a farm or for a family business, and because they were the ones who would take care of you in your old age, and because large families carried status. Conversely, not having children was literally disrespectable.

Once you get to the point where people are afflent enough that they don't need to draft children into work at the age of ten, and don't need to have an extended family to care for seniors, the whole dynamic changes. People start to see children as costing money and effort, and they start having fewer and fewer children. Today in the US, it is a rare family that has more than two children. And a lot of people don't have children at all.

The Child Free movement is not driven by altruism, at least not in the sense that the VHE people mean it. Mostly, it's selfish - they literally don't want to take the hassle of raising children. Some (but hardly all) do not consider themselves competent to raise children adequately - something that wouldn't even occur to people in a traditional society, which by today's standards hardly 'raised' them at all. A small number are also concerned about perpetuating negative genetic traits, either real ones such as congenital diseases or perceived ones such as bad looks. Finally, many CF people are simply loners who don't want families because they don't want other people in their lives at all. As a CF myself, I would have to say all of those motives - unworthy though they may be - play at least as much a part in my decision as any desire to ease population burdens.

This has happened before. According to Suetonius (via Robert Graves), the Patrician classes were so diminished by the time of the early Roman Empire that Augustus Caesar decreed that all Patricians must marry within two years of their coming of age (which was held in the summer of their fifteenth year), and must have at least two children. He repeatedly called them into public assemblies where he would inviegle them to 'do their duty to their class' and denounce the 'foreign vices' of homosexuality and hiring prostititutes. Unfortunately for him, he was addressing the wrong crowd - it was the women who were refusing to have children. For a wealthy woman, there was no great incentive to have children - childbirth was painful and dangerous, and ruined one's health and good looks. Even with the help of nurses and nannies, raising children took time from one's social climbing, and everyone knew who much of a disappointment they always turn out to be. And it wasn't as if you got anything out of have children, you know... while it didn't affect the lower classes, who still needed to have children for economic reasons, the upper classes became a literal dying breed - though the vagaries of imperial succession soon took away the stability of the old families anyway.

For a more modern example, France has become an increasingly depopulated nation since the mid-19th century. This happened for a variety of reasons, not all of them economic, but much of it was simply that families didn't need as many children to sustain themselves.

According to the latest census statistics, population growth in the US since the 1970s has come primarily from immigration (which is a historical trend in the US anyway - from 1880 to 1920, more than half of the population were immigrants) and increased lifespans. While there was a small ripple of in birth rates during the late 1970s and early 1980s (the so-called 'baby boomerang'), it still was well below what would have been the normal birth rate of the past - despite having twice the population the country had prior to WWII. Even those who are having children are doing so later in life - whereas a century ago, it was common for someone to get married as young as 15, and being unmarried at 21 was considered disasterous for women, today it is scandalous to get married before 25. All this adds up to a sharp population drop off in the US over the next decade or so, possibly by as much as ten million or more.

The answer to population growth, like many other problems, is universal affluence - the time of the Malthusian, limited-resources mentality that has dominated the non-science of economics is over. When people start to realize that we live in a world that is vastly richer than they suppose, that we already have the technology to give every human being an affluent lifestyle without damaging the environment or wasting limited resources such as petroleum, then society will be transformed beyond anything we can now imagine.


Last edited by Schol-R-LEA on Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005 7:00 pm 
Animal wrote:
These guys got a mention in my book. Pretty much as an example of "Here's another really dumb idea that would never work."

Say, when is that book gonna be published anyway? I still would like to buy a copy.

Schol-R-LEA has a good point. Personally, I want to get married and have children. I don't want 8 or 9 kids, but 2 or 3 would be nice. I plan to graduate from college in the next few years before I do so that I can provide for a family, but I don't see anything wrong with having one. He's also right about the age thing. I'm 21, and don't think I'm ready to be married or a dad yet. There are times when I still feel like a teenager for chrissakes. When I hear of people my age or younger who are getting married, I think it's really weird, and sometimes wonder if they are the reason why the divorce rate in the States is so high.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:50 pm 
Maveric wrote:
Animal wrote:
These guys got a mention in my book. Pretty much as an example of "Here's another really dumb idea that would never work."

Say, when is that book gonna be published anyway? I still would like to buy a copy.


Well, that book was published in June 2001. See my web site.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:39 pm 
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
---snip--- The answer to population growth, like many other problems, is universal affluence - the time of the Malthusian, limited-resources mentality that has dominated the non-science of economics is over. When people start to realize that we live in a world that is vastly richer than they suppose, that we already have the technology to give every human being an affluent lifestyle without damaging the environment or wasting limited resources such as petroleum, then society will be transformed beyond anything we can now imagine.


except that the government wont let gasoline go because its lines their pockets. a life of affluence for everyone means that the richest 10% have to give up the majority of what thet have. in other words its never going to happen. you are right about the population drop off tho. its happening in canada too. the majority of population growth (which according to the lastest canadian census was only 1.2% a year) is from immigration. but on the other hand not all industrialized nations suffer from this population drop off. Japan had to enforce birth control laws because they were having population growth problems. Just because the western civilizations are having trouble maintaining its own population without the help of immigration doesnt mean all of them are.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:47 am 
actually, Japan has the population drop off problem, the goverment is saying everything just short of "Have babies, pretty pretty pretty please!! Before we only have old people left! PLllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssseeeeeee?"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:34 pm 
chiphead wrote:
except that the government wont let gasoline go because its lines their pockets. a life of affluence for everyone means that the richest 10% have to give up the majority of what thet have. in other words its never going to happen.


Nope, that's the Malthusian argument again. With current technology, there are enough resources available to give everyone on the planet a decent standard of living, and more resources become available as technology imporves, not fewer - for example, we can now make plastics from vegetable oil that are cheaper and more useful (and more easily tailored to a given need) than those based on petroleum (or at least they would be cheaper if the government weren't subsidizing the oil industry at 2 to 1; petroleum long since ceased to be competitive on it's own merits, price wise). Given what we now know about agriculture, the US maize industry could switch to organic techniques and still be able to feed and fuel the entire world population. And that's just a single crop.

The only thing the wealthy would have to give up is their power - and that, in the end, is exactly what they are clinging to so desperately. What's really holding things back, though, is inertia - many of the most effective techniques in engineering, agricuture and education aren't being used to any great dregee, solely because no one is willing to rebuild the existing infrastructure to accomodate them.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group