Hi, Frish. It's good talking to you, too. I find your opinions interesting and I'm glad to see that you don't want humanity to go extinct. Can't say that for sure about the rest of the VHEMT'ers, though, so some of what follows is addressed to them as well.
Hal, First, I knew you had more to say than your sarcastic pokes. Thanks for taking the challenge!
The motivations of each VOLUNTEER are a NON-ISSUE (from my perspective) as it is an individual's free and voluntary choice to not procreate. PERIOD. If some WANT humanity to not exist, or if some simply don't want kids, or if some HATE kids, the outcome is the same, VOLUNTEERS don't have kids…the behavior is what we're about, Motivations? Not so much! Thanks again for being childfree by the way.
First, a couple of points:
1. So what if technology of any sort is disruptive?
***Well, first, technologies are all "disruptive" to one degree or another, that is their purpose, to take the place of alternative ways (or to create a way) to get something (whatever it is) done…My concern is that any technology strong enough or ubiquitous enough or "disruptive to our current trends" enough may be successful on a certain level, and will also result in unintended consequences, that will also be ubiquitous and strong, and, in ways unforeseen and uncontrolled.
Who says that nature must be preserved exactly as it is? Nature is constantly disrupting itself with comet strikes, increases and decreases in solar radiation etc. Change is built into the very nature of creation. Change will always occur and it will always have consequences.
***Very true, can't argue with this in the slightest…except perhaps for the rate of changes we're asking Nature to cope with as climate chaos continues…the changes we'll see will occur 1000's of times more rapidly than what is Usual for change in Nature…Nature will survive our extinction too, if it happens 100 years or 1,000,000 years from now, that's the nature of Nature…
***In reality, Nature CANNOT "be maintained as it is" I both agree, and point out that we don't even know what NATURE is "supposed" to be, if we hadn't been doing all the stuff we've been doing…so getting "back" to some condition is IMPOSSIBLE. At this point, going forward, we'll HAVE TO CONTROL NATURE, in order to keep all aspects of Nature within the range of human viability…
It is irrational and unrealistic in the extreme to be opposed to change in itself.
***Glad to hear we're both realistic and rational!
If technology causes unintended consequences, so be it. That's like saying that because taking a medicine may have side effects then it's better to suffer and die from a disease.
One needs to balance the costs and benefits and if one cannot possibly know all the costs, so what?
***Hmmm, you must be a gambler…but you are rolling dice with the continued existence of humankind…at least you agree with me that we don't know enough to CONTROL Nature (yet).
The alternative is to do nothing, which may, depending on the situation result in certain suffering or destruction.
***I tried to point out "somethings" we COULD do…some don't require any technology at all (going vegan for example requires no new tech, neither does changing the way we account for the costs of petroleum, etc. etc. etc.)
Better dealing with some uncertainty than an untenable certainty.
*** My software firm had a motto: "A bad plan is better than no plan, you can manage a bad plan"…(www.cliffsidesoftware.com, we tried to save the planet but the planet doesn't want saving!) (more on Cliffside below, you may enjoy the first customer "testimonial" something I ghost wrote for my very first client "Honey, I blew up the Data Center!"…) I believe we agree Hal, currently we have NO PLAN and are continuing our traditional and more modern ways to disrupt things…
In reality, I believe you oppose what I would call conscious change, that is, change entered into deliberately to benefit a species.
***A little unclear as to your meaning…every technology we've ever created was a conscious (or unconscious) mechanism of change…you suggest I would not support changes that specifically benefit humans? Okay, you can believe that about me, but it would be untrue!
I have yet to see anyone in VHEMT provide a solid philosophical or logical basis for this position.
You were right to say to your Fundie friend that VHEMT is not a religion, but it's far more than a simple choice as you would have it, as if you were choosing between Coke and Pepsi.
***I drink water exclusively, but, why do you say that? Perfect BINARY choice, I will have kids, I won't have kids…I decided (as did you!) NOT. Very very simple (for me anyway!)
VHEMT is suffused with moral and ethical positions.
***I'll say again, and appreciate your confusion, IT IS A VOLUNTARY DECISION AND IS IDENTIFIED BY BEHAVIOR NOT BELIEF…
On what are they based? You and most other VHEMT'ers are atheists, so you can't base VHEMT on some sort of "nature is sacred" principle or that humans are creatures beholden to a Higher Power with no right to do as they please with the planet. So what is it?
***Whatever an individual cares for it to be Hal…I'm a VOLUNTEER and enjoy suggesting that others VOLUNTEER too, that's just me. I'll bet you that most VOLUNTEERS (those that know about VHEMT, Les and I have discussed this, it is highly doubtful anyone decided to not have kids based on a visit to the website, we all had the idea of VOLUNTEERING well before finding VHEMT…) are happy lurking on the forum, and couldn't care in the least if anyone else VOLUNTEERS, they are happy (or really really pissed off, it matters not!) just knowing that others made the same decision, for their own VOLUNTARY reasons…
The best I can tell is that VHEMT seems to be based on the idea that all species are equal, no quality of a species such as intelligence makes that species worth more than any other, all have a right to be here and that what benefits most species is ethically correct, so if one species such as humanity acts in such a way as to disrupt the lives of other species or even causes species' extinction, then those acts are immoral.
***You are putting way too much "structure" on VHEMT, it's just an individual's decision, doesn't need anything rational to support it! I disagree, personally, that human's killing off other creatures is the main MORAL question…the moral question for me is having the fewest possible number of humans around at the end…I'm a Specieist too Hal…I want to minimize HUMAN suffering, the plants have to fend for themselves…I happen to be a BRIGHT but have no qualms about hugging a BELIEVER VOLUNTEER and I'm sure that there are plenty!
On what principle or philosophy is this based? Why are all species equal? If they are, how far do you take that? Is the smallpox virus, as a species, equal to humanity, so that humanity's destruction of smallpox is immoral? If not, why not?
***Great questions, But not VHEMT related actually. VOLUNTARY…unconstrained by any particular thought!
My opinion about the value of humanity is based somewhat on an acceptance of certain principles of Eastern philosophy which I know you do not accept, so, since that discussion would be beyond VHEMT, I'd rather not go into that now.
***Not sure what I wouldn't accept about them but anything they have to say about VHEMT is immaterial, it is an individual's choice, end of story!
Suffice it to say that I believe VHEMT's position that intelligence or no other particular quality that a species has makes it worthy of survival at other species' expense has no more solid basis of logical or philosophical support than my position does).
***As I said, I take no stand on other species, I'm morally motivated/obligated to not have humans suffer, but that's just one VOLUNTEER…other's will certainly have different motivations…Personally, I think PETA is all wet, but would rather not go into that now!
2. My own point of view is that humanity is here through a process of natural evolution which has given it, as it has all other species, the ability to survive. In our case, that ability is based on our developed brains, which provides compensation for humans' deficiencies in bodily strength, speed, and acuity of senses. Those brains enabled humans to develop technologies which changed their environment to better suit them in the struggle for existence. If these changes disrupted the lives of other species, so what?
*** OH HO, here's where you just might learn something Hal…For example, we need trace amounts of "selenium" or other heavy metals to live. They serve some chemical purpose or other. What if the biological entity (perhaps a bacterium) that fixes Selenium into whatever is digestible is made extinct by our activities…Don't think LARGE like elephants and whales, think about what we're doing to protozoa and microbiology without any knowledge on our parts…the web of life is all about INTERCONNECTED NESS, just because you don't eat squirrels (people do after all) doesn't mean you don't need squirrels!)
Who says any species has a "right" to exist forever in an unchanged environment?
***No one I know said that, who did? Oh, a rhetorical question, sorry…(LOL)
Should we condemn humanity for killing off mastodons or destroying trees to create grazing lands for buffaloes? Why? What "rights" do mastodons and trees have? And who gave them out? Was humanity wrong to use their brains to develop weapons to protect themselves against predators who now had to go hungry and possible die off because they didn't have such easy access to food? Every species has been given the ability to survive and I cannot see any logical basis for condemning a species because it was especially good at using what nature gave them.
***Okay, consider the following…200,000 years ago proto-humans lived in groups and already had control of fire, had stone tools, etc. etc. etc. Hunting Gathering groups in modern times approximate their way of life…Basically, they arrive (perhaps seasonally, following migrating animals, etc.) at a location, camp out, kill and eat whatever they can get in a three day walk from that area…when they no longer find the locale has sufficient resources, they simply moved along…Hal, there are 6+Billion of us now…but our way of life hasn't changed…we're still spoiling the nest but now there is no where else to roam…since we've become invader species in every single viable environment in the entire WORLD…therefore some futurists like to remind me that we'll have to move off planet eventually…LOL Let's spread out and pollute the universe eh?
I don't have a problem with humanity being an "invasive" species. Invasive to whom? That word "invasive" is morally loaded, like we're talking about Hitler invading Poland. That invasion was against international law, an artificial, human-created structure set up to protect humans from themselves. What are you basing your condemnation of "invasion" upon? It's one thing to question the wisdom of how far one can "invade" an environment to change it. Indeed, one can go too far and destroy the environment and oneself as well. It's a question of degree and application of intelligence. It's quite another thing to condemn the principle of changing and "invading" any sort of environment to any degree whatsoever as if each species has some sort of lawful, guaranteed right to be in one and only one place in all perpetuity, safe from all disruption but also forbidden to move anywhere else. Who says so? Who provided these rights? By what authority?
***Right, NO ONE IS IN CHARGE, couldn't agree more…Yes, "invader species" is a lightning rod term, and that's perfectly correct for our situation…How long would you last without HUMAN CULTURE? NO FIRE, NO CLOTHES, NO SOCIAL STRUCTURE, NO LANGUAGE? NO TOOLS? We are not capable of surviving ON OUR OWN, we're insulated from NATURE to a huge degree.
3.You ask if I think there is a problem. Of course I do. I agree with VHEMT that there are too many of us. I agree that heedless technological development, human shortsightedness and greed and the imperatives of certain economic systems have caused grievous damage to this planet's environment and have caused the unnecessary extinctions of species (yes, some species' extinctions ARE necessary, such as certain viruses). I agree that our planet is in peril and behavioral changes are necessary if we are to avert disaster.
***good, you have your head pulled out of that dark place so many choose to dwell…
4. You ask if there are any trends upon which I can base my optimism.
***Excellent, the suspense is killing me!
Well, this conversation is an example of why I'm optimistic. Fifty years ago, anyone talking about human-caused environmental damage leading to possible ecological disasters and the need to change human behavior to avert them would have been regarded, at best, as a idealistic head-in-the-clouds crank or, at worst, a dangerous Communist subversive.
***Yes indeed. Probably more a kook than Communist for sure!
***I have just one example of someone who did foresee the mess we were heading in, and actually did A LOT to attempt to head it off…My own father was an early info-systems technology evangelist (and wrote the IBM S/360 announcement letter, (1963) that made HUGE and UNPLANNED commitments for IBM's first real computer, probably the most disruptive technology EVER introduced…that leads directly to the PC for example (which used the 360 instruction set as the basis for DOS…). His vision literally changed the world in which we live, AND HE DID IT FOR PRECISELY THE REASONS YOU SUGGEST WERE CONSIDERED SUBVERSIVE, AND WITH INTENT…He felt (I am sorry to refer to him in the past tense, he is alive, but his mind is gone…) technology, spread as far and fast as possible was the ONLY WAY HUMANS WOULD SURVIVE what he foresaw as the disaster we face today…he also was a huge science fiction fan, and had every Astounding Science Fiction and Analog ever published…and that probably helped him get perspective, as his view was rather a lonely one…
Now the shoe is on the other foot, Now it is those who deny global warming and the dangers of uninhibited population growth and technological development who are regarded as the cranks or at, worst, the bought and paid for shills of vested interests or the spokespersons for obscurantist religious cults. I think it means a great deal that Al Gore received the Nobel Prize for "An Inconvenient Truth." That is symbolic of change occurring in human consciousness. Is it too little, too late? I don't know for sure, but I do have faith that humanity will change.
***I loved that paragraph, agree that winds of change are blowing and that's truly a sign of hope. I bristle (for perhaps obvious reasons) at the word FAITH – a belief without reason…The REASONS you suggest are a hopeful sign…
Most humans are not suicidal. Most humans do have sympathy for others.
***Morality is built into our genetics Hal, you are quite correct.
Even if one has a dim view of humanity, then consider that increasingly expensive fossil fuels will give economic incentive to people to develop cheaper, renewable environmentally safer energy sources.
***Yes, economics can definitely spur creativity…and currently known technologies get more affordable…I believe the expression has to do with Necessities, and Mothers of Invention (kudo's to the Late Frank Zappa, one of my heros!)
Frankly, it may require a severe disaster to really wake people up (the Stop Sign Syndrome, you don't put up a traffic signal at an intersection until an accident happens)
but I believe they will and I believe it won't be too late. To quote the Beatle: You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
***Again, I applaud your optimism. See www.cliffsidesoftware.com, my software firm, it was created to help disaster managers to cope (by having them create, train, test, improve, all plans for disaster!)
***Hal, as a synopsis, your impression or assumption is incorrect, that there is (or somehow needs to be) a philosophic basis to VHEMT. No need for that, it's just each of us deciding…nothing more. You'll need to argue with each of us if you dislike our decision!
Secondly, I believe you will agree that the INTERCONNECTEDNESS of the WEB OF LIFE is an important part of our continued future (or I hope you agree) so that profligate destruction of other species may well cause our demise (think bacteria, not polar bears)…
Our only true disagreement -- The stop sign has already been totally blown through, the photo ticket has been issued, the tires are flat and we're steaming at the side of the road…until the wrecker comes to pick up the pieces (your solution…whatever it turns out to be).
One other item you may need to consider, the future of the weather will be NOTHING LIKE WE'VE EVER EXPERIENCED in our entire evolutionary history! Think about what a couple of days of 300 mph winds would do to your neighborhood…I haven't heard anyone suggest this is going to happen soon, but I'll wager no one who knows a lot about the chaos we'll experience would write that off as impossible…
While I'll always promote VHEMT as an option, I'll also stick with a Beatles' tune…"Love Me Do!" as I…Live long and Die off!
From Hal who hopes this advances the conversation.
