Voluntary Extinction

Koya · 2016-02-09 16:04:29

The idea is to stop populating because the view is that we are damaging our world and it is badly affecting ourselves and every plant and animal (above a few miles underwater).

Do you think we should go extinct within a generation which in the short term would definitely be beneficial or should we try to fix our mistakes which may be beneficial later on or get worse and irreversible?

Zumza · 2016-02-09 16:07:20

Did you saw "Kingsman: The Secret Service" movie?

Michele · 2016-02-09 16:08:31

No. I mean, no thanks.

Koya · 2016-02-09 16:09:49

Zumza wrote:

Did you saw "Kingsman: The Secret Service" movie?

Nope, what did they say about it?
____

Michele wrote:

No. I mean, no thanks.

You aren't dying, nobody is being killed - you just don't have kids.

Anak · 2016-02-09 19:22:50

I don't plan on having kids anyways but I'm not someone who can so that's kind of irrelevant.

I remember a book series (Time Riders) saying that at a certain year, in any timeline, all/most of humanity would be killed, returning the Earth back to nature, kind of like a rest. It's an interesting concept.
I don't think humanity is necessarily the problem, but rather our own poor decisions. This is our first time having an Earth, we're bound to make some devastating mistakes exerting our power.

There are definitely things we can do which will fix the damage we've caused. The idea to stop populating is extremely controversial, and will sit even worse with many people. I understand more having less kids rather than cutting off everything entirely though. I think the idea of voluntary extinction would make more sense about poverty than the environment. I.E. there are too many human beings on Earth for us to support them all.

tl;dr: not voluntary extinction, but less kids

N1KF · 2016-02-09 19:27:31

If people had less/no children then I would imagine adoption would become a lot more popular.

TaskManager · 2016-02-09 19:28:10

there is no need to make ourselves go extinct
we just dont make use of most of earth's area either because we lack brains or technology
and thats why everything suffers
for example:
lots and lots of solar powerplants can be built in sahara desert and territories like it, that would easily provide whole world with cheap, really really cheap and yet ecologically clean electricity
that wont save animals and nature but its an example of how humans could use earth's area/territory

Anak · 2016-02-09 19:31:28

maxi123 wrote:

there is no need to make ourselves go extinct
we just dont make use of most of earth's area either because we lack brains or technology
and thats why everything suffers
for example:
lots and lots of solar powerplants can be built in sahara desert and territories like it, that would easily provide whole world with cheap, really really cheap and yet ecologically clean electricity
that wont save animals and nature but its an example of how humans could use earth's area/territory

I'm not sure using the Earth's land is exactly ethical. Iceland's highlands are one of the longest untouched and most beautiful natural areas on Earth, and the UK government want to build dams and electrical power all around it to 'utilise empty space' as you say. It's more about returning the Earth back to nature than smogging it up again.

TaskManager · 2016-02-09 22:27:29

Anak wrote:

maxi123 wrote:
there is no need to make ourselves go extinct
we just dont make use of most of earth's area either because we lack brains or technology
and thats why everything suffers
for example:
lots and lots of solar powerplants can be built in sahara desert and territories like it, that would easily provide whole world with cheap, really really cheap and yet ecologically clean electricity
that wont save animals and nature but its an example of how humans could use earth's area/territory
I'm not sure using the Earth's land is exactly ethical. Iceland's highlands are one of the longest untouched and most beautiful natural areas on Earth, and the UK government want to build dams and electrical power all around it to 'utilise empty space' as you say. It's more about returning the Earth back to nature than smogging it up again.

im not saying we should ruin nature
in the example i specifically mentioned sahara because its dead useless land and yet has very big amount of sun energy
obviously beautiful natural areas should not be touched

Anak · 2016-02-09 23:07:59

maxi123 wrote:

Anak wrote:
maxi123 wrote:
there is no need to make ourselves go extinct
we just dont make use of most of earth's area either because we lack brains or technology
and thats why everything suffers
for example:
lots and lots of solar powerplants can be built in sahara desert and territories like it, that would easily provide whole world with cheap, really really cheap and yet ecologically clean electricity
that wont save animals and nature but its an example of how humans could use earth's area/territory
I'm not sure using the Earth's land is exactly ethical. Iceland's highlands are one of the longest untouched and most beautiful natural areas on Earth, and the UK government want to build dams and electrical power all around it to 'utilise empty space' as you say. It's more about returning the Earth back to nature than smogging it up again.
im not saying we should ruin nature
in the example i specifically mentioned sahara because its dead useless land and yet has very big amount of sun energy
obviously beautiful natural areas should not be touched

Imo the Sahara Desert is a beautiful natural area
Not saying never use nature again, I just think we need to live a big chunk of the Earth untouched. Taking small enough pockets of land for our own usage is fine, as long as it doesn't majorly interrupt anything (see: Great Barrier Reef)

hummerz5 · 2016-02-09 23:09:34

The beauty you see in the undisturbed hills of Iceland or wherever else is a construct of humans: if we weren't around, no one would consider it beautiful. No other animals look at something and think "omg let's pause and check the beauty"

That said, I argue that although voluntary extinction would be a swift and guaranteed motion to prevent our destruction of the Earth, the "destruction" as you put it isn't a problem. If humans aren't here to see it, does it really matter?

I guess I haven't really thought down this road... hmm.

But no, no one would go for your plan. They'd revolt.

Koya · 2016-02-10 00:07:36

hummerz5 wrote:

But no, no one would go for your plan. They'd revolt.

As the OP is written my opinion isn't present, I made the point and added the main arguments from either side; having my opinion clearly in the OP is wrong.
I do however think we should voluntarily go extinct

TaskManager · 2016-02-10 00:48:59

Anak wrote:

maxi123 wrote:
Anak wrote:
maxi123 wrote:
there is no need to make ourselves go extinct
we just dont make use of most of earth's area either because we lack brains or technology
and thats why everything suffers
for example:
lots and lots of solar powerplants can be built in sahara desert and territories like it, that would easily provide whole world with cheap, really really cheap and yet ecologically clean electricity
that wont save animals and nature but its an example of how humans could use earth's area/territory
I'm not sure using the Earth's land is exactly ethical. Iceland's highlands are one of the longest untouched and most beautiful natural areas on Earth, and the UK government want to build dams and electrical power all around it to 'utilise empty space' as you say. It's more about returning the Earth back to nature than smogging it up again.
im not saying we should ruin nature
in the example i specifically mentioned sahara because its dead useless land and yet has very big amount of sun energy
obviously beautiful natural areas should not be touched
Imo the Sahara Desert is a beautiful natural area
Not saying never use nature again, I just think we need to live a big chunk of the Earth untouched. Taking small enough pockets of land for our own usage is fine, as long as it doesn't majorly interrupt anything (see: Great Barrier Reef)

if human technology goes well im sure we can come up with a way to solve problems like this with land usage
also i dont consider piles of sand beautiful but ok

hummerz5 · 2016-02-10 00:56:29

maybe we should delve deeper:

Why do you think areas should be left "uninterrupted"? Why is the Great Barrier Reef important? Because it houses lots of fish? Therefore, are we upset at damaging the reef because fish die?

I'm really string these along because I'm not sure what angle you're pining for here.

Are we upset by the fish dying because the depletion of capital? (Dead fish, we can't eat!) or because they're pretty? or because they have feelings too? or because they base an entire ecosystem?

TaskManager · 2016-02-10 01:00:28

hummerz5 wrote:

maybe we should delve deeper:
Why do you think areas should be left "uninterrupted"? Why is the Great Barrier Reef important? Because it houses lots of fish? Therefore, are we upset at damaging the reef because fish die?
I'm really string these along because I'm not sure what angle you're pining for here.
Are we upset by the fish dying because the depletion of capital? (Dead fish, we can't eat!) or because they're pretty? or because they have feelings too? or because they base an entire ecosystem?

ever heard of "aesthetical purposes"
great barrier reef looks nice, thats simply put
we shouldnt destroy it not because it has fish but because its sort of a world wonder

Anak · 2016-02-10 01:01:16

Basically we've wrecked our planet enough and we can't wreck it more.
Yeah I guess we could just ruin it completely for our own gain and find another planet to live on but we're not that advanced yet, and what does that tell you about the human race? That we'd rather ruin something to get what we want rather than taking care of it in a sort of mutualistic relationship where everyone is benefit.
Basically it's not just in the interest of our own survival, but the survival of countless other species and ecosystems, which we can all benefit from in a network across the world.
Plus we'd feel bad

TaskManager · 2016-02-10 01:40:07

Anak wrote:

Yeah I guess we could just ruin it completely for our own gain and find another planet to live on but we're not that advanced yet, and what does that tell you about the human race? That we'd rather ruin something to get what we want rather than taking care of it in a sort of mutualistic relationship where everyone is benefit.

are you saying that to me?
because thats opposite from what i meant

hummerz5 · 2016-02-10 01:42:02

ever heard of "aesthetical purposes"
great barrier reef looks nice, thats simply put
we shouldnt destroy it not because it has fish but because its sort of a world wonder

Aha! Now you've invalidated your argument: eliminating humans means there is no one to behold how beautiful anything is. Life simply adapts and fights for ... life. Looking beautiful is simply what we've decided!

Anak wrote:

Basically we've wrecked our planet enough and we can't wreck it more.
Yeah I guess we could just ruin it completely for our own gain and find another planet to live on but we're not that advanced yet, and what does that tell you about the human race? That we'd rather ruin something to get what we want rather than taking care of it in a sort of mutualistic relationship where everyone is benefit.
Basically it's not just in the interest of our own survival, but the survival of countless other species and ecosystems, which we can all benefit from in a network across the world.
Plus we'd feel bad

I'm sure you don't mean that: we can always wreck our planet to another extreme.
no, we probably couldn't ruin this completely and then take off.. much of the low-income nations would die long ago, while the nations causing most of whatever's killing us are eking by. arguably there'd just be too many people. The rich would take off and then try to do something elsewhere, which we definitely don't have the resources to do in the near future.

But yes, we should strive for a "mutualistic" relationship, at least something that we could continue indefinitely. At the moment, global warming and all that, I mean, we have good industry, but we'll kill off every ecosystem (any source of food, I mean) then where will we be? (ofc, low-income nations are the worst hurt again, I'd imagine)

Arguing for species and ecosystems goes back to a system of values you expect me to share to understand your argument. If I don't care about those species, and you haven't argued their benefit to me, then the point's moot.
I can understand the need for food sources, but entire ecosystems, and specific species that are endangered, we could argue they are unnecessary and OK to lose.

In reality, my values might agree with yours, but they don't make a solid rational argument.

Anak · 2016-02-10 01:48:49

hummerz5 wrote:

Anak wrote:
Basically we've wrecked our planet enough and we can't wreck it more.
Yeah I guess we could just ruin it completely for our own gain and find another planet to live on but we're not that advanced yet, and what does that tell you about the human race? That we'd rather ruin something to get what we want rather than taking care of it in a sort of mutualistic relationship where everyone is benefit.
Basically it's not just in the interest of our own survival, but the survival of countless other species and ecosystems, which we can all benefit from in a network across the world.
Plus we'd feel bad
I'm sure you don't mean that: we can always wreck our planet to another extreme.
no, we probably couldn't ruin this completely and then take off.. much of the low-income nations would die long ago, while the nations causing most of whatever's killing us are eking by. arguably there'd just be too many people. The rich would take off and then try to do something elsewhere, which we definitely don't have the resources to do in the near future.
But yes, we should strive for a "mutualistic" relationship, at least something that we could continue indefinitely. At the moment, global warming and all that, I mean, we have good industry, but we'll kill off every ecosystem (any source of food, I mean) then where will we be? (ofc, low-income nations are the worst hurt again, I'd imagine)
Arguing for species and ecosystems goes back to a system of values you expect me to share to understand your argument. If I don't care about those species, and you haven't argued their benefit to me, then the point's moot.
I can understand the need for food sources, but entire ecosystems, and specific species that are endangered, we could argue they are unnecessary and OK to lose.
In reality, my values might agree with yours, but they don't make a solid rational argument.

Oops yeah that was a typo I meant we can

As an example of an important ecosystem, the Great Barrier Reef absorbs a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere, so there'd be even more pollutants in the air if it's gone (that's a global/near global effect I'm pretty sure)

hummerz5 · 2016-02-10 01:53:58

^reddit (great source) says 1300 years thereabouts, assuming all our oxygenators disappear. we'd have time to come up with a solution... #screwthegrandchildren!

Anak · 2016-02-10 02:02:56

Or if we fix things now we'll have an amazing Earth for that long, and even longer.

hummerz5

Creature · 2016-02-10 02:27:39

Thought Ebola and Zika were projects to stop overpopulation.

hummerz5 · 2016-02-10 02:43:41

mfw it's the low-income nations killing us all. must be revenge... or something

Awesomenessgood

mrjawapa · 2016-02-10 03:11:37

Creature wrote:

Thought Ebola and Zika were projects to stop overpopulation.

Is there proof on this?

hummerz5 wrote:

^reddit (great source) says 1300 years thereabouts, assuming all our oxygenators disappear. we'd have time to come up with a solution... #screwthegrandchildren!

Interesting. This is pretty relevant: http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/how-many … one-person

Extinction isn't going to do much. The Earth will still suffer from green-house (though probably at a slower rate), there is the possibility of another ice age looming, and a couple improbable things.

gkaby · 2016-02-10 03:16:14

iirc the reason why developing countries have higher population growth is because there is an improvement in health care while people are still having lots of children, which was previously necessary due to higher infant mortality rates.
there are a number of developed countries that have stable or decreasing populations im pretty sure, like japan.

i think its believed that the population growth of developing countries will eventually stabilize, and could then move to stable or decreasing populations.

though there might be a question of how quickly this takes place and whether the population could grow to be too large

edit: the lower population rates lead to other problems though like problems with social security but its probably better than the population growing too large

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-02-09 16:04:29

Voluntary Extinction

#2 2016-02-09 16:07:20

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#3 2016-02-09 16:08:31

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#4 2016-02-09 16:09:49, last edited by Koya (2016-02-09 16:10:29)

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#5 2016-02-09 19:22:50

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#6 2016-02-09 19:27:31

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#7 2016-02-09 19:28:10

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#8 2016-02-09 19:31:28

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#9 2016-02-09 22:27:29

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#10 2016-02-09 23:07:59

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#11 2016-02-09 23:09:34

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#12 2016-02-10 00:07:36

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#13 2016-02-10 00:48:59

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#14 2016-02-10 00:56:29

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#15 2016-02-10 01:00:28, last edited by TaskManager (2016-02-10 01:00:51)

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#16 2016-02-10 01:01:16

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#17 2016-02-10 01:40:07

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#18 2016-02-10 01:42:02

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#19 2016-02-10 01:48:49

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#20 2016-02-10 01:53:58

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#21 2016-02-10 02:02:56

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#22 2016-02-10 02:27:39

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#23 2016-02-10 02:43:41

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#24 2016-02-10 03:11:37

Re: Voluntary Extinction

#25 2016-02-10 03:16:14, last edited by gkaby (2016-02-10 03:17:37)

Re: Voluntary Extinction

Board footer