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>