Michael:
I accept your apology/explanation and hope you can forgive me, I copied those I copied before, and your response is included below (almost) in it's entirety.While your initial reaction to VHEMT is one of the most frequent responses of people upon hearing of the movement, I'm a salesman and quite tuned into people and their body language, voice inflection etc. I must admit I missed any humor/sarcasm/facetiousness expressed in your response. That doesn't happen often, hence my reaction and expressed disappointment!
On another note:
You said: "The Earth could easily support 12 billion people at 'our level of life'".
2 Internal combustion engine cars in every garage? McDonalds on every corner in the world?
I can't accept that as true, but, very short time will tell.
The Earth can't support the 6.X billion we have now!
Yes, I understand your Libertarian bent, you mentioned it during your presentation. So, I can see how you could blame corrupt dictators for the mishandling of resources (Zimbabwe, a country my parents lived in for a time, being the current poster child for mismanagement by government), I'd submit governments aren't very much of the REAL problem at all.
Capitalism - Each Corporation maximizing their respective shareholder interests without regard to minimizing their environmental impacts (or coordinating with other corporations to minimize impacts) are far more of the problem.
Greed, not just by investors, but by consumers - the Third World saw Dallas, now they want to live like Dallas! Globalization of Western Civilization, our way of life is enviable and has been put forth as the way people ought to live...it is comfortable, I certainly enjoy it!
But, the environmental impacts of the way of life we're enjoying here are simply unsustainable.
If U.S. corporations weren't "persons" under the law that would go a hell of a long way to making things better. (No free speech rights, hence no lobbyists!)
If corporations had to guarantee that new chemicals and products they introduced were not harmful BEFORE letting them out into the world, that would help too.
However, while not many agree with me YET, I'm convinced...we've ALREADY broken the biosphere, the fix will come from Gaia herself, and we ought to minimize our numbers, hence voluntary human extinction.
When the evidence becomes even more clear, and the effects of our deprecations are more prevalent, within a decade or less, corporations and their boards may well get it into their charters to attempt to save the planet, since without customers they won't have much reason for being!
Being almost 54, I won't be around for the real deal at the end (I hope!), and, my kids (having none) can't blame me.
Happier everyday I'm child-free!
Again, my apologies for not "getting" your intent...I do write a powerful note though, eh?
Appreciate your response.
Frish
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Michael Shermer <mshermer@skeptic.com> wrote:
(A redacted expletive deleted), Michael, I was JOKING!!!! I don't think you should commit suicide. I must be the millionth person to say that to you in response to first hearing about the "voluntary extinction movement." Why would you send out such a message to everyone without asking me first?! Who in their right mind would SERIOUSLY suggest that someone commit suicide. Not me anyway.By the way, that aside, I do disagree with you on overpopulation. I think Julian Simon was right: more people means more brains, more ideas, more innovation, etc. I'm pro-people. The earth could easily support 12 billion people at our level of life, if all the corrupt dictators and governments would get out of the way and allow their people to flourish.Michael Shermer
