Thursday, November 17, 2005

Is having a child -- even one -- environmentally destructive? (article)

"We can't be breeding right now," says Les Knight. "It's obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can't be justified today."
Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth.
"As long as there's one breeding couple," he says cheerfully, "we're in danger of being right back here again. Wherever humans live, not much else lives. It isn't that we're evil and want to kill everything -- it's just how we live."
Knight's position might sound extreme at first blush, but there's an undeniable logic to it: Human activities -- from development to travel, from farming to just turning on the lights at night -- are damaging the biosphere. More people means more damage. So if fewer people means less destruction, wouldn't no people at all be the best solution for the planet?

This sounds like a good plan. The environmentalist wackos can stop breeding to leave the normal humans to live. Unfortunately if people actually start thinking this way, which wouldn't surprise me... they need things to hate, they will start being terrorists.

Is so hard for people to be normal? Maybe it is in San Francisco.


Braveharte said...

How ridiculous... While I do think that it is a mistake to have the population as a whole have more than 2 children (the current rate needed to maintain populations) because the increase in population will only lead to a collapse of all resources, driving ourselves to extinction is idiotic. What would that really solve? First, think of all the domestic animals that would die (dogs ain't going to cut it out there with the wolves). Also, don't you think evolution would just replace us with an equally intelligent and destructive species. Genes are selfish... not just human genes either... if an animal can completely exploit its surroundings it most certainly will. Why? Because those that exploit their surrounding survive better? Does that mean that humans should exploit their surroundings? No, if we continue to exploit them, there will be nothing left (we have the blessing of foresight). Okay my rant is done. :)

Big Red Lance said...

Calm Down, Braveharte. The world has managed to do a wonderful job of accomodating the ever-growing population so far.

And exploiting their surroundings is the very reason humans have made it this far to begin with.

Braveharte said...

Oh yeah Lance that's great logic... we haven't exploded the world yet so why worry about it now? I was saying just that humans (and all animals) exploit their resources, but the problem is that most animals have a check on their exploitation by being eaten by predators or destroyed by disease. Since we are preventing the check on exploitation ("controlling" most diseases), it is likely that it will mean we will deplete the resources entirely if we continue at our present rate. Now in order to not become an evolutionary by-product like the neanderthals, we need to use these giant brains and actually stop destroying everything.