Voluntary Human Extinction?? By James Reed
There is apparently a voluntary human extinction movement, a fringe Greenie/Left one. The aim is not just to eliminate whites, as many Greenies and Commos want, but all humans, so full marks for anti-discrimination, if nothing else! Ok, dream on. Still, the movement is part of natural selection, since the very people who will not have children will spare the world from their socialist genes, improving the gene pool. So, with things like this, I say, stop arguing, just bring it on! Here is Les knight on the movement for the extinction of the human rsace:
“In 1996, when we got a website, things took off. People from all over the world emailed me, saying they had thought they were alone. I got hate mail, too. “You first,” is a common taunt. OK, I got snipped; you next. My favourite encounters are with people who thoroughly question the concept: I’ll take thoughtful disagreement over mindless agreement any day. I don’t know how many share my beliefs, but I speak to hundreds of advocates each year. We have active volunteers across the world, from India to Mexico. In my own relationships, I’ve always explained that pregnancy is impossible. Marriage never made sense to me anyway: I would have missed getting to know many wonderful women had I stuck with one. Today, Extinction Rebellion and the climate strike movement haven’t quite embraced the population’s contribution to the crisis. Other high-profile population awareness organisations are working hard to be acceptable, so suggest zero or one offspring, and still say stop at two. Two is too many: computer models suggest even one-child families would result in 5-10 billion people by 2100. Although the basic concept of the movement is the same, my motivations have evolved. I was a deep ecologist at first, caring more about our impact on the ecosphere than human needs. I’ve become more concerned about any new humans being brought into existence. Procreation today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship. It’s true that society would be greatly diminished without children, but it isn’t right to create them just because we like having them around. People worry that we won’t have enough workers to support pensioners, but economic systems are artificial and can be adjusted. We don’t need to breed more wage slaves to prop up an obsolete system. If we go extinct, other species will have a chance to recover. I’ll never see the day when there are no humans on the planet, but I can imagine what a magnificent world it would be – provided we go soon enough.
Look, as a reduction ad absurdum of this bs, how can he prevent the human extinction drive from not flowing on to an extinction of all life? All life is destructive of at least local environments, and itis a myth that other organisms live in harmony with the environment; indeed the history of life shows that most species go extinct and that the planet in the very long run is totally hostile to life: Peter Wards’ Medea hypothesis:
“Most of the mass extinctions in history, Ward says, were caused by microorganisms, not by asteroid or comet impacts. Here is how: When Earth warms to the point that it no longer has cold poles and warm tropics, as the result of geologically released greenhouse gases, the oceans stop mixing. Without mixing, only the uppermost layer of the ocean remains oxygenated, and anaerobic bacteria that produce poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas thrive. Before long, the level of hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere becomes lethal, simultaneously poisoning living creatures and shredding the ozone layer. "This is life killing itself off," Ward says.’
Thus, the world that the likes of Les Knight would put into place is one of simple killer microbes, not the Greenie wonderland that he hopes will follow human demise.