Voluntary Human Extinction: Over the Top or Right On?
Sat, 2008-05-31 11:23 — kelsey
I recently joined facebook and was intrigued to come across a group discussing something called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Proponents of human extinction argue that healing the earth and brining nature back into balance will require the total annihilation of the human race and that those of us who are educated enough to be aware of the looming environmental crisis should stop having babies. Well, actually, proponents argue that everyone on earth should stop having babies, but let's face it, this is a First World movement. I'm interested to know what others think of this idea. The following was my contribution to the group discussion:
Overpopulation is indeed a problem, but I disagree that total annihilation of the human race, whether voluntary or not, is the way to go about solving it. In fact, extinction will only leave a hole in the ecosystem, replacing one imbalance with another.
I believe technology and development are the answer, not the problem. Look at the differing birth rates of rich, developed nations compared to poor and developing nations: average birth rates decline as education, healthcare, infrastructure are improved. As a nation develops and becomes economically stronger, people tend to have less children by choice. Birth rates also tend to decline as women gain more freedom in society because they are able to work, have access to education, have rights unto themselves and are not bound to some man that is their only livelihood and their rapist all in one... Sad, but true.
In most cases, I doubt the people of the world that are having ten and twelve children (though they can barely even feed themselves) really mean to have so many children. They probably didn't even want all those children, they just didn't know how not to have them--whether due to a lack of information about contraceptive options, access to termination services, or just a means to survive without the free labor provided by children. There are vast swaths of the world where people, sadly, have to have five children to ensure the survival of one into adulthood. If that one adult child gets killed in a roadside bomb, civil war, earthquake, or whatever, his aging and now childless parents have no one to care for them. Grown children, in many parts of the world, are the only social security elderly people have.
The answer is not for the smartest, most capable, and most progressive people on earth to swear off having children. These people need to do all they can to help further the economic, social, cultural, and human development of nations less fortunate than their own. Development of those parts of the earth where overpopulation is most threatening will, ultimately lead the people of those nations to voluntarily have less children. The key is, though, the voluntary aspect cannot be applied top-down; it has to grow up from the people themselves out of their heightened sense of security and their optimism about the future.
I realize it will be argued that economic growth means more consumption and more environmental degradation. But, I think it will only be a temporary condition while middle classes arise that will be educated about environmental degradation and economically stable enough to do something about it. I remain optimistic: twenty countries have already achieved zero or negative population growth.
- 876 reads
- kelsey's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network
Want to join this group?
To get started, you'll need to create an account - or, if you already have an account on this website, login.
User login
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 314 guests online.
Comments
June 3rd, 2008
Population growth
I think that your comments are correct about how birth rates decline as economic circumstances improve and women have more control over their lives. But what are the chances that economic conditions will improve enough in overpopulated countries so that this adjustment process will take place?
There are some poor countries such as Mongolia that have the natural resource base to raise their expanding population out of poverty and to achieve both population stability and prosperity in the way you envision.
However most overpopulated countries do not have the resource base to achieve prosperity for their existing population much less an expanding population. I have spent time in Pakistan and was impressed by its rich agricultural potential. Pakistan could provide a good life for 40 million but never for its current population of 165 million. I think Pakistan will never reach the point where most Pakistanis will be prosperous enough to make the choice to have fewer children. The same analysis applies to most poor and overpopulated countries.
We might hope that the population adjustment mechanism will be a voluntary and enlightened choice to have fewer children but this seems less likely than various natural and man-made disasters.
June 29th, 2008
population
It sounds a little worrisome for me to hear "overpopulated countries" because, if anything, we have an overpopulated world. Some of the densest, most overpopulated regions in the world include parts of Europe, the US (eg. New York) and Japan. Nevertheless, these parts of the world do have lower birth rates, to the point that they try to subsidise families to encourage having babies! (Spain, Australia for example) And yet they severely, and ever more worryingly limit immigration. (With ever more fascist xenophobic undertones). Ironically, these countries welcome "Skilled" migrants, those who have a profession, a good level of the language and plenty of capital to pay all their fees. So the first world takes the cream from third world countries of people who, usually through the public education system, have earned a profession such as medicine or dentistry or whatever. So, the third world is subsidising the first world with their skilled, trained workers.
How does this relate to population? I just think we should think globally when we talk population, and not perpetuate the myth of the teeming poor. One less north American is much better for the planet than one less African. Seriously. Much better. The comparative consumption is phenomanally huge and not to be scoffed at.
And when it comes to the crunch, we are all better off if others in the world can also be better off. Planetary resilience may help to prevent wars.
June 12th, 2008
Overpopulation and Women's rights
Birth rates decline when women have access to birth control and family planning. Birth rates decline when women have access to education. Educated women have fewer children and using their education, these women are often able to lift their families out of poverty or to at least lessen its impact.
I did not mean to imply that birth rates decline as economic circumstances improve. That may or may not be true. There is quite a bit of data on the fact that when women are educated and have access to birth control, they voluntarily have fewer children. Those of you who are parents know how expensive it is to raise a child. Clearly, having fewer children to feed, clothe, and provide for, allows more for opportunities to work and to improve one's finances.
Two billion people in our world of 6.7 billion people, live on $2.00/day or less. Half of all of the people on our planet are women. Most of them earn less than men do even if they are performing the same work.
Supporting and promoting women's rights is a humanitarian cause as well as a cause for Social Justice.
June 5th, 2008
Sadly, I think you're right.
At my most optimistic, I can persuade myself that there is hope for a smooth and gradual decline in population and/or living standards. In truth, I think you're right that many countries are already overpopulated to the point of being perpetually saddled with low standards of living and, without the natural resources or injection of capital to raise those standards, there is no end to the cycle of poverty. With that said, I don't think the solution is just to give foreign aid and keep poor and overpopulated nations dependent on handouts from wealthier nations. I do not see a graceful way out, in all honesty. As you say, various natural and man-made disasters are probably more likely population control mechanisms. I don't propose to know the answer. I just thought I'd put the Voluntary Human Extinction idea out there to see what others think of it. I, for one, think it misses the point.
June 21st, 2008
Population and Education
I made an analysis of the “ecological footprint” argument to show that reducing population is as necessary as reducing consumption if we want to save the planet. I am not surprised that this argument did not resonate with many people.
Arguing against consumption is a comfortable intellectual position that aligns itself with our values about equality, human rights and dignity and residual guilt about our own prosperity.
In contrast arguing for population reduction in poor countries raises all sorts of intellectual angst. Questions of racism, women’s rights, and conservative religious values have made it a taboo topic for a generation. Birth control and family planning programs have been largely eliminated from international development agendas. There is less of this “education” now than 20 years ago. Even in our own society level of education is strongly correlated with economic status so to think third world women will become educated while remaining poor is wishful thinking.
We are now at a point where human population is a threat to the survival of the human species and certainly many other species. Too bad there is no serious discussion possible. Perhaps that is because we have no good solutions.
June 27th, 2008
You wanna hear it said?
Yes, the number of people on the planet is too high and something must be done to eliminate large numbers of them. And, no, there are no good solutions. Who's going to be the first to stand up and fight for the eco-conscious First World's right to selectively control the population of the rest of the world? And, do we do it by eugenics or good, old-fashioned genocide? I say we withdraw all aid and let AIDS, famine and civil war take care of the existent population excess; we can start a selective breeding program with the remaining world population. Democracy and free will can be reserved for those of us who, through no kind act of our own, just happened to be born into advanced, educated societies.
Obviously, I'm being facetious. I'm only trying to point out the trouble one gets into when discussing who gets to live and how. Except in present-day China, people have never been faced with a social or environmental restriction on family size; it has been seen as a natural right and, for many, a financial necessity, to have as many children as one wanted. And, regardless of how you or I feel about capitalism, it is the dominant economic system in our society and it not only rewards consumption, but its reward is more consumption, so that there are countless individuals who are going to be hard-pressed to give up the creature comforts they have "earned," whether or not they deserve them and regardless of the outrageous ecological footprint they require. These individuals could easily argue that the world would have no trouble sustaining higher standards for all, if only there weren't so many in all. However, if everyone alive in the world today lived the debt-driven consumer lifestyle of the West, then we would surely have a problem.
It's the old Quality vs. Quantity debate. Given finite resources, a reduction in quantity (population) would presumably mean more to go around; a reduction in quality (standard of living) is essentially what we're talking about when we say that we need to reduce consumption. When we talk about quality of life, it's taken for granted that more money and more things, more products on the free market, necessarily make for a better standard of living. In fact, reducing one's consumption can mean reducing one's working hours and increasing the time one has for loved ones, hobbies, reading, entertainment, education, and community-building through participation and volunteerism.
We should, first, stop measuring quality of life with material success and, instead, adopt a method for measuring happiness in society. I'd venture to say that the happiest societies on earth live on far less than we do in most First World nations. I'm happy to sit back and let the Earth take care of herself. Don't take that to mean that I'm unconcerned for the state of the Earth; nothing could be further from the truth. I do what I can do from where I sit; I'd go crazy worrying how I, just little old me up here in Vancouver, BC, am going to right the imbalances and inequities in the world, restoring truth and justice in my wake. I'm no superhero and after all that ranting I still have no good answers.