RPGWW

<FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>www.vhemt.org/

An iffy topic, but an interesting one..

Do you believe that mankind should put a halt to (or, at least, a slow down) on the production of children in order to save the planet?</FONT><FORM method=post action="http://p068.ezboard.com/frpgww60462frm11.processVote?topicID=565.topic"><table border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 width="55%"><tbody><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="1"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Yes, absolutely. The Earth should be allowed to return to its earlier, pristine state.</FONT></td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="2"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Well, maybe. The concept sounds interesting.</FONT></td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="3"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Enh. We're all going to die eventually, anyhow, so what does it matter?</FONT></td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="4"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Not really. I'd rather retain my ability to have children.</FONT></td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="5"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Not at all. Humans are an integral part of the Earth.</FONT></td></tr></tbody></table><P><input type=submit value="Vote"></form>Show results</FONT>

China is already doing this. YOU LOSE.

*Whistles* <p>

---

There was a hole here once. Now it's gone.</p>

Yeah this is idiocy, whereas China's poicy makes sense.

I'm not going to sit down and let the human race die to return the Earth to its 'pristine condition'. <p><div style="text-align:center">

---

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagh'nagl fhtagn"-Call of Cthulhu</div></p>

Well, I'm charmed that this has gotten some reaction. :D <p>

---

There was a hole here once. Now it's gone.</p>

I smell a hoax.

Quote:

---

Weekly World News (2) tells the story of two escaped French chemists, Henri Mevel and Jean-Michael DuPont, who allegedly plan to poison every human on the planet to "save it from pollution and overpopulation." Interpol's Marc Jubert admits, "we don't know exactly what Mevel and DuPont are making but if we don't stop them in time the results will be devastating... They may be mad, but they aren't crazy."

---

From the page labeled Death: www.vhemt.org/death.htm

EDIT: Did some further checking, and I'm probably wrong about it being a hoax. Even so, though, I can't take any organization/movement/whatever seriously if it actually uses WWN as a source for facts. <p>

---

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin</p>Edited by: Idran1701 at: 9/16/03 2:31 am

It seems some people take protecting the planet a little too seriously. I believe the whole point of potecting the planet is to make it last longer for ourselves, rather then making it last longer just so it exsists.

It does show the arrogance of mankind though. "Hey we're going to completely upset the entire world so it'll never go back to its proper state". Bah, like we're able to do that. Anything we do can be fixed with 60 million years or so - which isn't that long at all.

Then again most people don't even know what its proper state is. Because it sure isn't with lots of trees and greenary everywhere, thats just a bi product of the gases getting to hot or mixing or whatever - I'm far to lazy to go get the book that explains all this at the moment. Nope, its "proper" state invovles being gasy all over the place, maybe tons of ice and desert... and certainly no life. Tree's are like the plauge of the planet, they completely upset the state gases are meant to be at.

As everyone enjoys talking about the Earth as a lifeform then think of it this way. The tree's come and change the natural state of the lifeform Earth with them changing the large quantity of Carbon Dioxide into oxygen. From its orginal self it gets changed into a "Blue Planet" so in its defence a new form of sentient life grows from these conditions (The mass increase of Oxygen found on the planet ). These life forms basically live off the tree infection, with the gases it provides and/or the neutirants with the hopes of completely whiping it out. Once the tree infection has been damaged enough the Earth can return to its natural state, which kills off the ifeforms - ready t come back again should the Earth catch this tree desiese again If you think like that, then we're only doing what we're meant to be doing.

In fact the proper proper state of Earth is to be back in the sun, as that was probably where it orginally came from, so if we really cared about the Earth we'd fling it back.

Of course this is all you if you believe what some of the scientists tell you *shrugs*

If your religious - commiting suicide is generally frowned upon anyway.

So basically I'm saying.. I love the Earth, I really do, but I like the idea of Humans surviving for as long as they can, and I really don't think we're ever going to smeg the Earth up enough to warrent our own destruction.


Oh and those guys are idiots.

Also didn't vote cause there was nothing I agreed to on the voting thing. No I don't believe mankind should die,but I don't thnik Mankind is intergral to the Earth either.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=choark>Choark</A]&nbsp; at: 9/16/03 5:12 am

at least they are keeping the stupid people from breeding. WE could use a more intelligent general populace. <p>---------------Celeste of Elvenhame --------------- </p>

Rather than waste breath and typing on something that is incredibly stupid, I'm just going to comment that my life and the lives of the people I care about are way more important than the "life" of a hunk of minerals and rocks.

I don't have any particular impetus to "destroy the Earth," but I don't feel like sacrificing human lives to save it.

And it's a pretty vain thought that we can kill the Earth anyway. We'll be gone long before the planet becomes completely uninhabitable, and things'll end up regrowing even in that case anyway. It's a cycle. <p>

---

<div style="text-align:center"></div>

</p>

"And it's a pretty vain thought that we can kill the Earth anyway."

I bet they think this post is about them.

-White Knight <p>

---

Behold! Sig figs!</p>

HTML Comments are not allowed


Edit: WHY; WHY GOD DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN TO ME!!!! AND ALWAYS WHEN I WRITE A REALLY LONG REPLY!!!! *goes off and cries*

My opinion: bunch of crap. Basically the only species in wich individuals kill themselves do so in order to preserve the species. Extinction is not a controllable parameter (usually) and as always the most efficient and adaptable models will succed. As such, anthropoids are one of those models and deserve not to be extinct. Before anyone starts arguing with such shallow arguments and start drifting off to Gaia and ohter crap, I usually steer clear, but such a big load is just too much to take.

Family planning on the other hand not only is Ok, but it is necessary. And on a last note humans will survive for much longer than most people give us credit for.

Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aldaglad>Aldaglad</A] at: 9/16/03 11:15 am

...You know, I did already comment above, but I do have to point out that they don't believe in mass suicide, merely an end to breeding. <p>

---

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin</p>

Idran is correct, they officially don't support any 'extremist' methods.

No, as far as suicide goes, look to the Church of Euthunasia. I will not link as this site would most likely offend SOMEONE here.

To stop breeding is commenting suicide for the race *shrugs*

But damnyou end for now I'm intrested in what exactly could be so bad you haven't linked it at all.

Millions of years ago, the earth went through a disastrous upheaval; as plants expanded their previously marine territory and began covering land, they soon began belching out vast quantities of lethal, corrosive gas; Oxygen. A gas so dangerous that it destroys almost any material, and incites explosive combustion at the drop of a hat. This pretty much anhiallated whatever ecosystem existed before, and scarred the face of the planet to this day. It is without any doubt the greatest ecological disaster to ever occur, dwarfing whatever event exterminated the dinosaurs. The planet adapted by completely transforming it's ecosystem. It's no doubt done this countless times over the last few thousand milennia. Our planet has defenitely "been there, done that," many MANY times.

The idea that mankind could ever have a serious impact on biological life as a whole is nothing but a laughable catering to pure egotism. Our nuclear bombs and industrial revolutions are truly fantastic accomplishments, but only in the context of our narrow viewpoint; we're nothing but chump change to the planet itself. Even if we removed the ozone completely, radiation is GOOD for life; it promotes growth and mutation. If we wiped ourselves out, another organism would just evolve to take our place as the dominant species.

You want a pristine environment, unsullied by life? Look at mars; that's pristine for you. <p>---
These powerful ships have a tremendous range of fire. Their cannons do enormous amounts of damage to other naval units.</p>

"Q: Does VHEMT favor abortion?

Only when someone is pregnant."

I swear, this site wins the "Unintentional Humor" award.

LOL!!! I didn't see that one!!!! I swear, I honestly think this guys are joking.... <p>---------------------
I HATE no html comments allowed. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!!!!!</p>

I see X has been reading/read Jurassic Park, as those are Mr Malcom's sentiments in response to Hammond's concern of the dinos getting loose and destroying the planet. And personally, I say either as a race, we do survive, or suddenly somethin big happens and boom that's it, afterlife time for everybody. <p>I BUKKAKE FOR JUSTICE!!!</p>

Well, they have a fairly lucid argument. From what I can tell, they support their assertions with the simple facts that humans are causing mass extinction (we are) and that our mere presence is horribly impactful on the ecosystem (it is). Going by their definition, I suppose that I'd fall into their VHEMT Supporter category. Since VHEMT seems to be getting panned by stupid knee-jerk responses, I feel that someone should play Devil's advocate and support their position to a degree.

First off, their Rapanui example. As analagous arguments go, this one's pretty solid. Rapanui is a very isolated island in which humans became the dominant species and acted selfishly in a non-conservationist way. They caused irreperable damage to their little island and turned their culture into a pale shadow of what it used to be. This is a mighty strong warning against excess use of resources caused by overpopulation and a non 'green' attitude.

True, while the main goal of those who become volunteer members of VEHMT is the ultimate extinction of the human species, the overall message I get from reading this site is that they would prefer to control breeding. You have to admit that when you have a finite amount of resources being surpassed by a continuously growing population there WILL be problems. They mention multiple times that 40,000 children die everyday from malnutrition, so it appears as though we have either surpassed that resource boundary, or our priorities are messed up. In either case, doing nothing is not a good way to solve this problem. Their suggestion to stop breeding is a sound suggestion. I agree, it is crude, but it's something.

This is not to say that their philosophy is without its flaws. Much like Jainism, their beliefs inhibit their ability to perpetuate their philosophy. Jainists will not kill ANY form of life, including plants, so therefore the only food which they can eat is fruits. What they end up doing then is starving themselves out. VEHMT on the other hand suggests that no one breed, meaning that their 'movement' has to technically be replenished with converts every generation. So while this movement will likely never die out, it will never become large enough to be seriously considered. Another underlying VEHMT theory with which I disagree is that by removing humanity you solve THE problem. No, that is not the case. By removing humanity, you solve A problem, but by doing so you raise another problem about causing the extinction of a species. They do support a very utilitarian sort of philosophy about making the least damaging decision, but they are still making a damaging decision. Also, you cannot be sure that the removal of humanity will actually cure anything. Sure, we will stop raping the land, but with proper social controls we could stop raping the land anyway. Their unwillingness to fully explore other alternatives to extinction shows a bias towards being reactionary.

If anything, their bias shows through incredibly vividly here. In here, they argue against the possibility humanity saving the earth (and thus all forms of life on the earth), and therefore being valuable enough to not deserve extinction. Their 'argument' tiptoes around the simple fact that 'Yes, we could save the earth.' Sure, we spend money on ways to keep a death grip on our fellow man, but that doesn't mean that if the earth were threatened that we couldn't do something to save it. All that means is that our priorities are messed up.

In response to some of the arguments posed against them here, jesus ... read the site before you rip into their philosophy. No, they don't support the killing or "sacrifice" of people. When they say return to a natural state, they mean RETURN TO AN ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED AND VIBRANT STATE. Not a state of lifeless rocks and harsh gasses. You people are smarter than this, you know what they mean. Quit pulling an easy to tear down argument out of your ass and then destructing it for the sake of your own ego. <p><div style="text-align:center"></div></p>

I find myself falling into Luj's side of the fence, as I believe many of the problems we have, socially, politically, and economically, are made worse by adding more people to the mix.

I don't think lowering the population expansion is going to solve the problems, but it will help keep them from getting worse, and thus make dealing with said troubles easier. <p>------------------
Greetings, large black person. Let us not forget to form a team up together and go into the country to inflict the pain of our karate feets on some ass of the giant lizard person.
</p>

my problem is with this ultimate goal of extintion, as though people exist and some do bad things, therefore we are evil. I for one do my best to conserve for the environment but I still rate the life of a human over the life of the the gnat-winged bat or whatever. Too bad there is no easy way to stop the destructive streak that is human nature. =/

I feel there should be some sort of middle ground.
<p>---------------Celeste of Elvenhame --------------- </p>

It surely is the mark of an evolved species when it can contemplate voluntary extinction for the greater good. That or it's a mark of mass insanity.

To think we have come so far as to contemplate these things then want to wipe it all out? Idiocy I say. <p><div style="text-align:center">

---

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagh'nagl fhtagn"-Call of Cthulhu</div></p>

OOOOOK. When I said that the only species that kill themselves do so to preserve the species, I didn't mean that this VHET guys support mass suicide and sacrifice. What I meant is that the ultimate goal of a species is to survive no matter the cost, It is its biological drive. Pretending to override the most basic and driving impulse in life is just stupid. On the other hand, what the should be supposting, instead of radical extinction is the preservation of our species trough the preservation of our enviroment.

Being pragmatic, It is very VERY clear that we have our priorities wrong. There shouldn't exist countries, for starters, but alas our own awareness is our own doom. Not only are more resources invested in weaponry that has the (quite obvious) ability to wipe out our own species (quite a suicidal attitude), but even farm animals are fed better than those 40.000 children that die of starvation. What's worse is that most of the time excedents from differents crops and such that have not been used are discarded instead of feeding it to those children, on account that the costs of transportation are to great. How sick is that?

As a specie, the one thing that allowed us to thrive will be the same thing that will see us die: our so called intelligence. <p>---------------------
I hate no html comments allowed. I HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT.
</p>

Right folks, you can stop voting now.

Or someone lock this topic. Seriously. <p>

---

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
- Frank Lloyd Wright

WE LOVES THE CHRISTMAS.</p>

<span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Uh.. huh. What was the point of that? <p>

---

The fear of blood tends to create fear for the flesh.
- Silent Hill</p>

I had the image. I felt a need to exercise it. They start to atrophy if you leave them in their cages too long.

*ups post count* <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

*eats salmon* <p>

---

When angry, count to ten; when very angry, swear.
-- Mark Twain</p>

>:|

>:| Stop posting in my topic.