Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
I read in an article somewhere about the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. In doing some further research, I found that this movement has been around for at least ten years (there’s a video of Tucker Carlson interviewing the head of this, from nine years ago). We already know that the Left is basically anti-human, believing that the human race is a stain on the planet, and that Earth would be better off with no people in it. Well, this group believes that all people should refrain from reproduction, so that the human population would gradually die out.
The man who started the group is an old-school environmentalist who was involved in the Zero Population Growth movement in the 1970s. He is called Les U. Knight (too funny-less you!), and his base is in Portland, Oregon. I guess this group is the logical conclusion of the ZPG movement. Interesting that he has refused to contribute to human extinction by extinguishing himself. He did, however, get a vasectomy at the age of 25.
Knight argues that the human population is far greater than the Earth can handle, and that the best thing for Earth’s biosphere is for humans to voluntarily cease reproducing.[18] He says that humans are “incompatible with the biosphere”[3] and that human existence is causing environmental damage which will eventually bring about the extinction of humans (as well as other organisms)
This is a horrible viewpoint that only an atheist could espouse. Fortunately, the movement has remained very small-maybe it will die out, itself. One can only hope.
Published in Environment
That’s just a debate technique hoping to catch the other side off guard. When I was on High School Debate in the late 1970s you’d run into that once or twice a year, where the affirmative team would come up with some completely off-the-wall proposal only tangentially related to the proposition. The idea is you catch the Negative team with no evidence to refute the proposal, so you win on points (unless the Negative team could successfully get you on topicality).
“Destined for extinction” is probably a better phase than “designed for”. “Designed” implies a goal. “Destined” just indicates an inevitable result.
A few decades ago I saw it phrased as “Just enough of us, too many of them”.
This goes back to the usually unstated presumptions. The question presupposed that the resolution would be argued by healthy minds and honest arguments. In this case, the presumption is that life is good and should be encouraged and supported. That they should have included this presumption as a given in the resolution itself, shows that Team B is composed of either the mentally unhealthy, or the stupid, or the dishonest.
Or, it shows what I’ve known for a long time, which is that “debate” as a sport is worthless.
Initially, it was that, but my understanding is that the VHE case became fairly common, and wise teams would have known to prepare against it.
All of which supports my position that “debate” as a sport is worthless.
Yeah, the “trick play” only works when the other side hasn’t seen it yet. Once word gets around, everybody has the defense for it.
While this particular movement may have had little impact, the primordial soup which spawned it is also responsible for much of the anti-human sentiment that has become one of the shibboleths of our society. Holding the biblical view that earth was placed under man’s dominion, and all that entails, is grounds for exclusion from many social circles.
Even without bringing the Bible into it, the facts on the ground are that the Earth needs stewardship and there are no better stewards on offer.
At least twenty; I read these guy’s website when I was in college.
I figure when you get to the conclusion that the entire human race would be better off dead then you should go back and rethink your premises. Conclusions like that ought to let you know you messed up your logic.