Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

http://www.vhemt.org/

What do you think? :)

I'd say it's an excelent cause :D , but it will never work and the creators will just end up unnecesarily rich, if even that.

i find it hard to take this seriously. could it be possible they just wanna fuck with people's heads? there are a few scarier orgs than les's....

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

...how about this conversation...

Les: How does the GLF differ from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

'While we support all voluntary efforts to make the humans extinct, we do not exclude the involuntary route'
Geophilus: While we support all voluntary efforts to make the humans extinct, we do not exclude the involuntary route. At the rate that the humans are killing the Earth - and for all we know she may have already passed the point of no return - a decision to not reproduce, by itself, even if adopted immediately by every new human - as a result, say, of a new Gaia-worshipping religious movement - would be just too damn slow.

Les: What involuntary methods do you have in mind?

Geophilus: We support, for example, involuntary sterilisation, but we would also welcome the escape of any new anti-human viruses - such as the airborne version of AIDS that might result from AIDS research on mice. (Science, 16 February, 1991, page 809.)

Les: What about wars?

Geophilus: In the war of the humans against the Earth - the only war we're concerned about - we take the side of the Earth, so we have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It's an inefficient way of making the humans extinct - every quarter of a million humans killed represents only one day's growth of the human population - but every little bit helps. Our only concern is that, in the process, the humans do a lot of collateral damage to non-human life, so we want them to confine themselves to hand-to-hand combat or, better yet, to the use of biological agents that kill only humans.

Les: In practice, wouldn't involuntary human extinction take the form of genocide?

Geophilus: Well, sure, it might. You know what those humans are like. But remember that the outcome might be the same if someone released a new virus without targeting a particular race - or even if a new virus popped up on its own - just because one race might be genetically more susceptible. Humans can be egalitarian, but nature isn't. And while it matters from the point of view of human ethics whether a particular result was intended, it does not matter to the Earth. The taboo against genocide helps protect the humans from one another, so it's a good thing for them, but as soon as you stop seeing things from a human point of view and adopt the viewpoint of the Earth - and it helps here to see humans as having become a hostile alien species - things look rather different. If you want the humans to die out, is it so awful if some of them die out before the rest? Of course, if I knew that someone had targeted a particular race, I'd be happier knowing that that race was my own, because that's the one that's doing the most damage. But if it weren't, I wouldn't be unhappy, just less happy. As far as the Earth is concerned, it would still be a good start.

Les: I can understand your position when viewing the planet from the Moon, but I have to disagree when I think about the death and suffering down here on the ground. Shouldn't all of us be allowed to live out our lives?

Geophilus: Why? It's self-indulgent for the breeders to insist on their 'right' to have kids, but it's also self-indulgent for the rest of us to insist on our 'right' to live our allotted threescore and ten.

Les: So, why don't you just commit suicide?


'The good I'm doing by promoting the idea of human extinction outweighs the harm I'm doing by staying alive.'
Geophilus: If I merely believed in human extinction, then, of course, you'd be right. But, in my judgement, the good I'm doing by promoting the idea of human extinction outweighs the harm I'm doing by staying alive.

Les: So you hope to live long before you die out. We do agree on some things. Thank you for sharing the GLF perspective with us.


Editorial comment
Information from an unsigned Statement of Purpose, in Snuff (Number 3), monitored for the Instiute by Roger Knights.

How serious a threat do Gaia Liberation Front represent? Their Statement of Purpose certainly includes some hair raising opinions: Human beings, they maintain, are a 'hostile alien species' programmed to kill the planet, their effect analogous to a cancer on the face of the planet. In discussing strategies for liberating the earth from their alien oppressor, involuntary sterilisation, the example of the Jonestown mass suicide and genetically engineered viruses are all mentioned approvingly.

All very alarming. The suspicion does arise, however, that we may be being wound up. The subtitle for their manifesto is "A Modest Proposal", a clear allusion to Swift's famous pamphlet which satirically proposed eating babies as a means of relieving Irish famine. Could the Gaia Liberation Front be conducting the same kind of devil's advocacy, exaggerating the Earth First rhetoric in order to expose its callous inanity?

This is certainly a possibility, although lunatics such as the Unabomber (and his frighteningly large fan club), whose published ravings share a similar outlook, clearly have a rather less ironic commitment to slaughter.


* what the fuck is so unnatural about a human? aint we composed of the same stuff as everything else?

* to all the gaia freaks; after achieving equilibrium with the planet and all is is simply pea- fuckin-chy, look out for the meteorite coming your way.

Well ofcourse It won't get any momentum because it's pretty mad.

But you must admit we are totaly fucking up the planet. You cannot deny that. What can be done about this?? Hope that some one comes up with a miracle solution one day? We will be likely extinct in a much more painfull way before that.

Maybe we don't need to go extinct, but it is clear that there should be less people! A whole lot less. The way were going at it right now we will strain the planets resources to the limit in the very near future. Why just a couple of weeks ago a new world temperature record was confirmed, directly linked to the green house effect.

For god's sakes it's totaly unneccesary to add to the overcrowded swindling masses. It would atleast be smart to limit yourself to one child per two people.

I don't want to get burned for this, I'm just saying that atleast you can do your part towards making the future brigther. Don't have 10 children, please!

So in this sense I support the cause 'do not reproduce' but not neccesarily 'let's go extinct'.
I for one am not going to reproduce, unless that wasn't clear.:rolleyes:

hmmmm, with the topic, i was sure this was a gay/lesbisan thing:rolleyes:

slightly off topic but...........


WINSTON-SALEM - North Carolina had one of the nation's most aggressive and longest-running eugenics programs, sterilizing 7,600 people -- including 2,000 children -- between 1929 and 1974.

Copies of secret state documents, examined and reported by the Winston-Salem Journal, revealed the extent of the influence exerted by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina.
Among the documents, the newspaper reported it found:

•_More than 2,000 people 18 and younger were sterilized in many questionable cases, including a 10-year-old who was castrated.

•_The program was racially balanced in the early years, but by the late 1960s more than 60 percent of those sterilized were black; 99 percent were women.

•_Doctors performed sterilizations without authorization, and the Eugenics Board backdated approval.

•_Major eugenics research at Wake Forest University was paid for by a patron who had a racial agenda that included a visit to a 1935 Nazi eugenics conference and extensive efforts to overturn key civil-rights legislation.

More than 30 states had sterilization programs, but North Carolina's expansion after 1945, when most other states had rejected the science, and its targeting of blacks made it different than most, experts say.
The program was run by the state Eugenics Board, a panel of five people who usually decided cases within a few minutes.

Supporters of the eugenics movement claimed sterilization could eliminate mental illness, genetic defects and social ills.
"They don't want to hear how I feel, or what's going on in my mind. You're pregnant -- you need to get sterilization," said Nial Cox Ramirez, recalling her sterilization in 1965 after having a child out of wedlock. "And they had the nerve to tell me, `That's what's best for you.' "

Since Schoen obtained her copies of the records 10 years ago, the N.C. Office of History and Archives has denied other requests, and the records are officially closed to the public.
"I think the problem is that there are cases where sterilization was the solution -- but sterilization authorized by the Eugenics Board is never the solution," Schoen said.

California led the nation with more than 20,000 sterilizations; Virginia was second with about 8,000, and North Carolina third.
North Carolina's eugenics law, allowed three reasons for sterilization: epilepsy, sickness and feeble-mindedness.
But the board almost routinely approved sterilizations for reasons from promiscuity to homosexuality.

N.C.'s eugenics record revealed (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/4704972.htm)

Easley apologizes to sterilization victims (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/4732467.htm)

brief history (http://www.trunkerton.fsnet.co.uk/Eugenics.htm)

eugenics watch (http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/index.html)

:D

As I said in the suicide thread, try it (provided you dont try to take me along for the ride)

Want to die? Feel free.

Problem is, they don't want to just convince a lot of people to follow their lead, they also mention involuntary extinction. I don't mind at all if they express their views of human damage (they're mostly right), or if they decide to sacrifice their lives to lower the population, but their first amendment rights end when they start talking about genocide.

I say that humans made the mess, they should clean it up, not leave when the party is over.