posted
Working on getting more content as fast as I can. It's definitely a work in progress (like all wikis). Please don't feel shy about contributing. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you think that will make a difference? Just curious, as it looks like you're putting a lot of time into it.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dragon, it's one tool people could use if they do want our species to survive. Whether it makes a difference or not is entirely up to us, but I think we should give ourselves every chance, don't you? The sooner we start studying the subject, and pooling all our talents to make it happen, the better shot we have of making it. I see it as a pretty long shot, still. But our whole history reads like a series of near-misses, so maybe we'll get lucky.
In the meantime, no matter what happens in the end, it's a really fun project to work on.
I love this quote. It sums up how I feel about projects like averting human extinction. I apologize to those who have seen me post it before.
quote: Hope is a state of mind, not of the world . . . Either we have hope or we don't; it is a dimension of the soul, and it's not essentially dependent on some particular observation of the world or estimate of the situation.
Hope is not prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, and orientation of the heart; it transcends the world that is immediately experienced, and is anchored somewhere beyond its horizons . . .
Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed. The more unpropitious the situation in which we demonstrate hope, the deeper the hope is.
Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.
posted
I am human. I don't care if the human race survives or not. Nobody has proven to me that it should survive.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, there's a section on the wiki for the other side too. "Why the human species will and should go extinct." I really hope we choose to live, though.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In general, the purpose of societies is to promote peace and the general commonweal by providing laws, structure, and justice. Societies are supposed to protect the weak against the strong, and to help all humans achieve their maximum potential. Why, then, are there so many cases in which the strong run roughshod over the weak, with the tacit approval of everyone in power? Why do people exploit weaknesses in others instead of doing their best to strengthen them? When we tear each other down, we all lose. If we build each other up, we all win. Why is that principle so hard to carry out in our civilization today? Are we truly civilized until we put this ideal into practice? Until we cherish and provide for the weakest and most vulnerable, how can we call ourselves a free world?
posted
Scarcity of resources seem to me to be the largest problem humanity faces. Almost all other problems we have stem from the simple fact that there isn't enough of everything for everyone to have as much as they want.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raventhief, I think it's fine if some people want to choose not to have kids. The link isn't working, by the way. I think their server may be down or something. (Perhaps the webmaster died and didn't leave descendants.) I'm sure there will always be others who choose to have kids. The way evolution works is that there's radiation from a few lines into many branches. Then later most of the branches get lopped and again there is radiation from the few remaining. That works on every level from individuals through subspecies, species, genera, families, etc. It's a fractal bush (the way it's organized). I think people should have the number of children they want and not more.
MightyCow, you're right about scarcity of resources, and yet it's not a totally closed system. For one thing we have all of the universe to explore, and for another thing, we have the ability through technology to make resources out of things that previously were unusable. An example would be the difference between silicon in the form of sand and microprocessors. The only difference is in how it's organized, but one is much more valuable than the other.
That's why energy is fundamental, because it always takes energy to transform useless resources into useful ones.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Raventhief, I think it's fine if some people want to choose not to have kids. The link isn't working, by the way. I think their server may be down or something. (Perhaps the webmaster died and didn't leave descendants.)
It's your standard out-there (oxymoronic, I know) advocacy webpage, with a slight sense of humor enlivening the twisted "everything will be groovy when we all die" vibe.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While those are good points Tatiana, two of the most scarce resources are space and food, both of which are quite expensive and potentially destructive to increase beyond certain points. The system isn't completely closed, but in many practical ways, it may as well be.
People can expand into new areas, but that leaves fewer places to grow food. When we do open more areas to habitation, we want to fill them, creating more population pressure on the planet.
We do have the universe to explore, but considering the size and relative emptiness of it, and our current technological state, it makes much more sense to focus almost exclusively on earth.
I think, if the human race plans to exist in 300 years, we need to get a handle on population. Of course, the system will do that for us, if we don't do it ourselves. It's really a question of whether we make changes on our own terms, or let the planet dictate how things come about.
While things like trying to get more of the third world up to a higher standard of living or redistributing wealth may be honorable and moral goals, the sad truth is that they may be counterproductive in the goal of human survival.
Allowing more people to live longer lives is great for the individual, but disastrous to the population as a whole. Taking great wealth out of the hands of the few, and spreading it evenly to the many will make a huge difference in the standard of living for those who previously had so little, but it also prevents the currently wealthy from starting new business, completing expensive projects, and making the breakthroughs that we may need to survive.
I believe - and I know that this isn't a new idea - that we're quickly approaching a point of no return. We will soon face limits which we must make great leaps to overcome, or they will grind us to the ground.
If we're ready to make the changes when the time comes, survival is possible. If we're not, we'll be in for some tough times.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
MightyCow, people in developed countries currently have fewer children than replacement level, in other words our population in western industrialized nations would be decreasing if it weren't for immigration. The sustainable steady-state human population on planet earth may be only 2 billion or 1 billion. It may be less than we have now. But to reach that point, I believe everyone in the world will need to have good nutrition, clean water, etc. In other words, we need to eliminate poverty worldwide, then the population level will eventually decline to an optimum value. When people choose how many children they have, in an atmosphere where they have control over their choices, and the kids they do have can be healthy and survive to adulthood, they generally make wise choices.
Overpopulation is only a problem in places where people don't have access to food, medical care, education, etc. That's why it's smart to work to develop the whole world, rather than leave the developing world to work out their own problems.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana: I wonder if it's possible to eliminate poverty without massive changes to the way everything we know works. Do we have the resources available to eliminate poverty? Can the world currently produce enough food, resources and energy for everyone to live in a developed society? I don't know enough to say, but I would imagine that the answer is no.
I don't know if you've lived in a big city, but overpopulation is a problem in the developed world as well. It's not as serious a problem as it is in other places, but there are only so many places to put people, so many ways for them to move from one place to another.
Overcrowding leads to more disease, more accidents, more emotional pressure, a more difficult life, and a greater chance for untimely death. In the 1st world, the baseline levels of survival and life expectancy are much higher, so it's less obvious, but it still exists.
quote: In other words, we need to eliminate poverty worldwide, then the population level will eventually decline to an optimum value. When people choose how many children they have, in an atmosphere where they have control over their choices, and the kids they do have can be healthy and survive to adulthood, they generally make wise choices.
I'm not sure I buy into this. If you'd be willing to explain your thinking more, I would like to hear your reasoning behind these suggestions.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, if everyone in the developed world gave just 10% of their income to help others, we'd have enough to feed everyone everywhere. There are plenty of resources. The massive change doesn't have to be to the way everything we know works, it's just a matter of changing our hearts one heart at a time.
You might have seen the kiva thread where hatrack is doing microfinance for entrepreneurs in the developing world. That's one really good way to eliminate poverty, because each person's enterprise helps not just the borrower themselves, but their whole community. It brings jobs and economic activity to the poorest sections of cities. Once enough people in an area lift themselves out of poverty, it has a snowball effect on the whole neighborhood.
For our urban areas in developed countries, we again can solve the problems one heart, and one family at a time with education, substance abuse counseling, etc. They aren't intractible at all. We just have to care enough and be patient and keep working at it.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing I've been thinking about is taxes. Right now they're a huge drain on everyone's resources, but it doesn't have to be so in the long run. If you think back a few years before we elected Bush, we had budget surpluses. If we do this again, and gradually pay back the national debt, which there's no reason we couldn't do with sound financial behavior by our leaders, then we could begin to build up a big endowment fund to finance government, rather than having debts and taxes as we do now. Over time we could build it to the point where the government could basically run totally on the interest it collects on the national endowment fund, and taxes could be zero or even negative. In other words, every citizen of the country could eventually get a stipend from the government which would be financed by the interest on our capital which we would have joined together to save up over decades and generations. With good management, this fund could continue to increase over time with no limits. There's no reason why this can't work.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Looks like an interesting project. I'm working on a report with two classmates on how to build and live sustainably and ethically. If the people who are paying us to write it allow it, I'll try to put it online. I think it might be useful in bolstering the Sustainability chapter. On the other hand it will be pretty Australia-centric, so perhaps it won't help so much in providing generalised information.
I wonder though; the human race has gone through ice ages and warmings, has caused species which were major sources of food to become extinct, etc. and yet has adapted and survived. The premise of the website, that we are due for extinction 'this time round', seems to need some backing up. The fact that the earth is undergoing a mass extinction is accurate and a matter of scientific record, but I'm not so sure human extinction is a plausible outcome in the next few millennia, even if we spend them say, by manufacturing and employing weapons, rather than investing in green infrastructure.
This is just a nitpick about the introduction and perhaps the title. The subject matter you intend to cover is fascinating and valuable.
A question if I may; Is this project just something you decided to do in your free time? i.e. Have you taken up saving the species as a hobby?
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Raventhief, I think it's fine if some people want to choose not to have kids. The link isn't working, by the way. I think their server may be down or something. (Perhaps the webmaster died and didn't leave descendants.)
posted
Oh, and one more thing. I think you could use another section on avoiding all non-natural (caused by human excesses; for want of a better word) extinctions. No need to be discriminatory or chauvinistic. Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Raventhief, I think it's fine if some people want to choose not to have kids. The link isn't working, by the way. I think their server may be down or something. (Perhaps the webmaster died and didn't leave descendants.) I'm sure there will always be others who choose to have kids. The way evolution works is that there's radiation from a few lines into many branches. Then later most of the branches get lopped and again there is radiation from the few remaining. That works on every level from individuals through subspecies, species, genera, families, etc. It's a fractal bush (the way it's organized). I think people should have the number of children they want and not more.
Heh. I'll look into the link, thanks for the heads up. Basically the VHEMT is of the belief that humanity is bad for the planet, and since it is possible for people to consciously control their number of offspring (mostly) and frankly there's just too many of us for our currently available resources, then people should stop having babies. They (we) don't advocate suicide, neither personal or racially really (the title is mostly ironic) but we do advocate not having children. There are lists of logical counters to most of the reasons people advance for having children. Of course the reasons are pretty useless, because most of the time when people decide to have kids, it's an emotional decision, and emotional decisions are immune to logic. We're also a big advocate of adoption.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The plus side for the rest of us is this: believing that the survival of your species is a net negative is not a survival trait.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
the combined military budget of the entire world could just be easily used to help feed the world, considering a dollar a day is enough to feed a person in most countries.
The voluntary human extinction movement (by this I mean people who actively urge for the human race to not exist in 100 years) is absurd and disgusting to me on so many levels and simply continues to prove to my why Emos are a scourge on society.
IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I wonder about, is whether many areas of the world are ready for economic advancement, and inclusion into the developed countries of the world. Not in the sense that we as advanced countries should try to hold back developing nations, but the fact that their own social norms work against their chances of developing.
In particular, countries which treat women as second class citizens (or worse), countries with superstitious and incorrect views about science and medicine, countries which practice genocide or religious wars are all holding themselves back.
As we have seen in the past, giving economic aid to countries with military dictatorships only enriches the dictators, and leaves the rest of the country in poverty.
I believe that the most important step in survival of the human population is getting people on the same page. People who believe in universal human rights, who can move beyond tribal thinking, who believe that knowledge is valuable and ignorance is deadly, who are willing to be introspective and honest about their own beliefs and motivations - these traits are necessary for a population to continue to survive and prosper in the immediate future.
I believe that we need to get people to think in the right way, or all our other efforts will be doomed to failure. Where is the benefit in elevating a population to a higher standard of living, if they then use their newfound wealth and prosperity to subjugate their own population and make war on their neighbors?
We have enough of that in the currently developed countries already. We can't handle the competition yet Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripides, I think it would be awesome if you added information on your project to the wiki. It doesn't matter if it's Australia-centric. Maybe that will inspire other continents to do the same thing. And please feel free to add additional sections you think are needed. If you're human, it's your wiki. Put in whatever you think it needs.
I love the three legged vid. Humans are pretty bad for planet earth now but we don't have to be. I think part of getting through the crunch will be learning to leave our planet healthier than we found it (so to speak).
And I agree with you that economic aid to developing-world governments is problematic. That's why I favor forms of aid that go directly to the people as grass-roots efforts. Like microfinance, education loan funds, appropriate technology enterprises, and so on. We are definitely still learning how to effectively help, but there's a lot we do know, and many things are succeeding.
posted
As for changing hearts one at a time, people have thier own free agency, and any program that seeks to force change will fail (and be miserably oppressive while it's trying). Education and experience are the only answers I can see. We need to teach people (who are willing to learn) how to have strong families, good nutrition science, good first aid and medical knowledge, disease prevention, education for jobs, how to build small businesses, how to raise kids, how to resolve conflicts both locally and inside the family, how to husband their family resources to save and build a solid financial foundation, how to avoid substance abuse, how to manage anger, how to proactively change their communities for the better, and so on. This takes more than one generation, and it takes open hearts and minds, but it snowballs over time. All of us can benefit from such knowledge, and the students and teachers learn together. This sort of stuff, these basic lessons in succeeding at life, aren't taught in many families, and lots of people, particularly marginal or impoverished people, don't know it themselves, so they can't teach it to their kids. But it's extremely teachable.
You do it in a personal way, based on what people choose to do, by inviting them to learn, in small community groups. Then others who see the positive changes in people's lives from that, will be drawn to join. Eventually enough people in an area put these things into effect and the tenor of the entire neighborhood changes to one of community and trust and building things up. Instead of self-hatred and tearing things down.
posted
About overpopulation, I was under the impression - this was what I was taught in high school, I have no idea if it's true or not - that human population is expected to start to decrease on its own come 2050. Precisely because of demographic transitions and all that.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends a lot on women's education level worldwide, and access to birth control, confidence that the children they do have can live to adulthood, and so on. Check out that link that Morbo posted. It makes a whole lot of sense.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bible says something to the affect that man (mankind) should be 'fruitful and multiply' and should exert 'dominion over the earth'.
The Bible does not say 'be fruitless, excessive, and pointless'. 'Fruitful' implies restraint. It implies that we will be 'abundant' but also 'profitable'. It implies that our fruitfulness will be purposeful and implies that the purpose will be positive and beneficial.
'Dominion' implies control over the earth. The American Indians believed they were the stewards of the land, that God had given it to them as a gift, but they were responsible for its well being. Being in control of the earth does not mean ravaging and consuming it, it means maintaining it in a way that sustains it forever.
God said we would have eternal life if we obeyed a few simple rules. Greed, corruption, and destructive consumption are not in those rules. We must be stewards of the land, and act in way that assure it will sustain countless future generations indefinitely.
posted
breyerchic04 I'm using the inclusive "we", meaning all intelligent creatures on this planet, of whatever species, including the descendant species of humans. (It also includes, for instance, dolphins and warrior7s.)
BlueWizard, I agree, with the proviso that I'm really glad we don't always get what we deserve, either individually or collectively. (If we did, I'd be hurting. =))
I'd say that the biblical grant of dominion is literally true, in that we have the power to destroy. It's yet to be seen whether or not we know enough to learn how to preserve.
I disagree with those who feel that humans should therefore choose self-hatred or self-extinction. Instead, we should look honestly at our actions, repent where we need to, and vow to do better, and make a plan to do better, and then put it into practice. This is the same process as dealing with sins on an individual level, and the same intelligence teaches us how, and that it's necessary to our eternal lives.
Wow that analogy really fits well, doesn't it? It's completely true, too. That gave me chill bumps just now, that realization.
posted
As my jeesh, jatraqueros have naturally been treated to the work in progress. I only had the bare outline up before I linked you guys. Check back from time to time, even if you don't decide to edit the wiki yourself, and see how it's progressing. Zevlag (global chief of IT for the Averting Human Extinction Foundation ) helped me fix it last night so we can add pictures. For the first time, it looks to me like something real now.
So do check back from time to time, if you like, and watch the content grow, or better yet, come and help edit! I would love to see it sparkle with hatrack's wit and brilliance. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
