(no subject)

[rivka]

james_nicoll linked to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an organization whose platform calls for a voluntary end to all human reproduction, as the only possible means of saving the environment.

So okay, they're crackpots. Pessimistic, misanthropic, doom-relishing crackpots. There's something to shake your head at on every page. But what really got me was this little fantasy about how great it would be if the ability to reproduce suddenly vanished, worldwide:

Gradual extinction of the human race will result if zygotes of Homo sapiens never again begin cell division.

Abortion providers might be the first to notice -- happily going out of business in a few months. A worldwide panic might set in, but without reason. There would be no negative impact on the world nor on society as a whole.

Individuals' lives could change profoundly, but all for the good. Starving people would begin finding enough to eat and resources would become more plentiful. New housing would be unnecessary.

All human technology would be scaled back but could still advance. Nuclear power plants could begin to be safely decommissioned. Dams could be removed. Technology could focus on dealing with unsolved problems such as radioactive and other toxic wastes. Healing the wounds of past exploitations could become a priority, reversing the expanding deserts and shrinking forests.

Some of our influences, such as global warming, may be impossible to stop and reverse at this point, but we could ameliorate the effects somewhat.

Conditions for society would also improve as shortages are eliminated and our death rate drops to an unheard of low.

Domestic plants and animals could be phased out as farms and ranches are converted to ecosystems supporting wildlife and natural vegetation.

The last humans could enjoy their final sunsets peacefully, knowing they have returned the planet to as close to the garden of Eden as possible under the circumstances.

The last one out could turn off the lights.

The only conclusion I can come to, based on this section, is that the folks at VHEMT are a bunch of young, healthy idiots who sit at their computers all day and have never actually ventured out into society or even met another human being.

Although I suppose that there is the alternative hypothesis: that once humans stop reproducing, a race of invisible fairies will appear to provide the labor and services required to allow an aging population to "enjoy their final sunsets peacefully."

Comments

[redbird]

The childfree movement is "I don't want to have children, and that's a legitimate decision." That I don't want relatives, or strangers, to pressure me to have children doesn't mean I think other people shouldn't have them. Some of us just profoundly don't want children, and think it's too big a responsibility to put on the unwilling. Others have sound reason to think that trying to raise children would be harmful to them, the children, or both.

Alex is wonderful. My nephew is wonderful, and I'm proud of him. They're both being raised by parents who want to be parents.

I can do without the idiots who hate being around children and conveniently forget that they're ex-children themselves.

[kcobweb.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I mean nothing against people who have decided not to have children - that's a valid stance and I support it 100%. (Especially since having a child myself - parenting is *not* a job for someone who doesn't want it!) In my experience, many people who use the term "childfree" can be pretty disrespectful - downright rude - in the way they refer to parents or children, or even other people's decision-making processes. No offense meant to people who are willing to live and let live (i.e. "I don't want kids, but you can have them").

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Having experienced pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood, I am more convinced than ever that no one should do it unless they really, really want to. I applaud people who realize that they don't want to or shouldn't parent, and then don't.

Unfortunately, the reasonable element of the childfree movement tends to be drowned out by the other element.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

If you do a google search on "childfree movement," the majority of hits that come up are not written by childfree people (cf this blog post (http://imnotkidding.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/the-childfree-movement/)). This is not a way that childfree people tend to see themselves.

'Childfree' is not a "movement," it's a descriptive term for an individual choice. Some of the individuals who make that choice are crazy. Most are not. Of course you're only going to see the crazy people if you look at the people who see such a personal, individual choice as a "movement." How else could it be?

-J