Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 16/3/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] See also links

There are an awful lot of "see also" links in this article. I can't (at first glance) tell their connection to the article. Can anyone explain? -- Tetraminoe 11:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

7he homepage of the site covers these topics; do to the choice of voluntary genocide regarding religion and so on. There is no real need to keep most of them. Personally I think the enforcement regulation of China’s “one child” law would prove more useful rather than the voluntary relinquish of valuable genetic evolutionary growth. You have to have to have a reasonable level of uncorrupted mutation (function with out needing pills) and earn the right to breed. Plus artificial insemination would solve problems when one parent is unfit to breed. I think that would have a stronger impact toward the goal rather than the current voluntary system. MajinPalgen 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed them all except "childfree" although there might be other relevant ones that weren't on the list. -- Blorg 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstinence?

Can someone show mere where VHEMT recommends abstinence? Not breeding is different then not having sex, and I am sure the VHEMT people recognize and acknoledge this. Jdufresne 20:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, they don't recommend abstinence. --AnonBob
They don't seem to recommend it but they don't seem to deny it either. On the VHEMT homepage FAQ the question "Do we have to stop having sex?" is listed but the answer is fairly ambiguous and we are never given a "yes" or "no". - Xvall

On this page [1] is "We should "quit screwing around" when it comes to contraceptives, but we sure don't have to quit screwing to quit breeding as the headline might imply." No, VHEMT isn't for abstinence, or at least Les Knight isn't. And because I can't be fucked logging in, and because I am adding an external link, I have to put in some weird word ("ninthshife" I think and now "swungargue").

[edit] NPOV

I've added a NPOV tag to this page... mainly because of this sentance: "Indeed, this suggests that he promotes the sterilization of young children in his zeal to help the environment." ...but there are several more examples, including some minor issues with the way things are worded. --TeN 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The first word is "Voluntary". Forced sterilization wouldn't fit under this description, so I doubt very much that they are advocating this in any way. --AnonBob

[edit] "Organization"

I've noticed a lot of instances of the word "organization." Be careful with this word. VHEMT claims to be a movement and never claims to be an organization. I have corrected this in the article. For more of an explaination see the vhemt website. Jdufresne 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] npov issues in general

This article reads like a promo shot for the place. Remarks about posting at the website if you think you've a valid reason, reminding users to note the first word is voluntary, etc. That needs to be changed around a bit. --r. 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to correct this by rewording the article to refer only to the website with NPOV. Things get too confusing otherwise. It seems to me that there is definitely some level of organization to VHEMT ('it' makes presentations and is represented on television programs) but adherents contend otherwise. I also removed what seemed to be non-encyclopedic commentary and speculation. Icenine0 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep this article NPOV

Please feel free to add information to this article, but remember to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and keep things "encyclopedic." Commentary and direct suggestions to the reader are discouraged. Icenine0 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is VHEMT really just a website?

This article states that VHEMT is a website. From the opening sentence Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT ("vehement"), is a website that calls for the voluntary extinction of the human race. (Emphasis mine) Is this all VHEMT really is? I think this is selling VHEMT a bit short. Shouldn't we call it a "movement"? I would change it myself but some people seem to think this article is POV, so I'll run it by other people before making a change. Jdufresne 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion here earlier about calling VHEMT an organization, which it apparently isn't. People were calling it a concept, but, in that case, it was unwieldy to make comments about VHEMT the website, its owner, and any of its actions. Lastly, "movement" is usually either applied retroactively -- where a historian recognizes a broad-ranging trend -- or, presently, where a significant group of people organize (make an organization) for a common effort.
Whatever VHEMT is, it's definitely a website, so that's what I ended up sticking with as most appropriate. Icenine0 00:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

Wikipedia is the only way these individuals are known to the world. Seriously.

Not true, I found them through the Darwin Awards. Seriously.

I also found them through Wikipedia. Maybe we are advertising their site too much for free? --Taraborn 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I found them from a CNN article. [2] --Benjam47 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia. When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse.

[edit] I'm moving in ...

I've decided to take over the task of cleaning up this article and fix it up and stuff. That means I could be making large changes. If anyone objects, then now is the time to do so. But considering the lack of activity recently ...~AFA ʢűčķ¿Ю 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so there just hasn't been activity on this talk page ... But whatever. I'm going to be bold! ~AFA ʢűčķ¿Ю 13:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse.

[edit] This Sucks!

NPOV my foot! This article seems to me to be about as anti-human, misanthropic, and near nihilistic as one can get. One does not need to be some kind of religious conservative or fundie to like humans; I happen to think humans are the most important thing ever. You don't see no other species trying to become extinct "for the sake of the environment". That's just as mindlessly altruistic as commiting suicide for "God"; there really is no difference logically. To me, a true liberal is a truly selfish humanist; save voluntary extinction for the self-prostrating ascetic religio-conservative types! Shanoman 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article or the organization? If the first, please provide proper examples. If the latter, please do not post such material on talk pages. Richard001 06:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said, "Shanoman". These "people" are a huge threat to the Human Race. They should all be thrown in a prison in Antarctica to protect our species. It's a logical choice. Any other species would protect itself in the face of threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.164.227 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't a threat to anyone. The only way their scheme could would is if they got everyone on the entire planet to agree to it. The probability of this is mind-bogglingly low.--RLent (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is indeed fairly NPOV. Whether they're a "huge threat to the Human Race" (very dubious given their weak military posture) is irrelevant. Superm401 - Talk 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm with the first guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Shanoman, as a self-professed liberal humanist who explicitly states that he hates misanthropy and nihilism, I would suggest that you are perhaps not quite the right person to judge the encyclopedic neutrality of this article. As far as I see it, it is fairly NPOV: It just references facts about VHEMT, an existing movement, which are even sourced in the article. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Nowhere does the article itself express agreement with VHEMT's ideology or actions, nowhere does it state explicitly that the human race should die out or any such thing. Besides, it has been referenced several times that VHEMT is strictly opposed to ANY violent means to achieve their goal, it relies solely on voluntary abstinence from breeding - something that many career-minded and hedonistic people do, because they see children as a burden, a nuisance. Those people frequently are self-professed humanists...Meanwhile, VHEMT even distinguishes between those who support the idea of human VOLUNTARY extinction and those who think that that indeed would go slightly too far (I consider myself to belong to the latter group). So, my point is: just WHERE the heck is this article misanthropic, "near nihilistic" (as if that term were an insult) etc.? Can you please provide a source for your perception? Your approach, seemingly demonizing misanthropy, nihilism, perhaps even sound criticism of humanity, is far more POV than this article could ever be, I'm afraid.
Oh, and by the way, "I happen to think that..." is not a valid argument in encyclopedic debate, because, frankly, no one is interested in what a specific editor thinks. I might think, for example, that all of us in reality are not humans, but little worm-like creatures in a gigantic tank plugged into a kind of virtual reality system - which I do not, but even if I did, this would be of no concern to the encyclopedia. I would simply not be able to change the article Human to something describing a small, worm-like creature.
The point of my rant is: this is an encyclopedia, we have sources, the sources reference the content of the article. Where is your problem?
BTW, on a side note: Before you accuse me of being a child-hating misanthropic pig (not that I care): I absolutely love and adore children, more so than adults. However, this does not change anything about the fact that the Earth IS suffering from overpopulation and that the consequences will be extreme if nothing is done about that. Vargher (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] added Criticisms

They don't seem to adequetly address the issue that eventually a stellar or non terrestrial event will inevtitably erase all life on earth thus there struggle would seem basically futile. What is the point of saving something that is doomed to be destroyed ? On their site (http://www.vhemt.org/scififantasy.htm#comet) they state "CURRENT" endevors into threat evaluation. They do no adequetly predict what type of programs will be in place in 100 or 1000 years for asteroid avoidance or destruction. Nor do they attempt a prediction how radically different technology may be in the future. This indicates that their agenda may not be for the benifit of life , biodiversity , and earth but some other goal. The only potential salvation of earth from a destructive non-terestrial event would have to be technological. Making the statement that technology today is not adequet ignores the point that time passes and technology becomes better infact it might be worth taking into account expontial technological growth which they don't even cite. 68.11.47.71 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Rafe 08:00, 5 June 2007

Quite obviously VHEMT is directed for European so called white people. Read the VHEMT front page: Which languages are present there? They are Belarusian (Belarussian), Català (Catalan), Deutsch (German), English, Español (Spanish), Français (French), Italiano (Italian), Nederlands (Dutch), Norsk (Norwegian), Polski (Polish), Português (Portuguese), Romanian, Russian, Slovensky (Slovenian), Suomi (Finnish), Svenska (Swedish). I can tell you that they are all languages of white peoples. I see there on the VHEMT www-page a racist agenda against whites. "Would you white people please die off to extinction?" 195.148.75.83 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms should be sourced

This is a reply to the section above. While a 'Criticisms' section is fine in the article, the material in it should be backed up by reliable sources - i.e., don't just say 'some critics say...' (an example of Weasel words), say who says that, and give a link to prove it. I can think of all kinds of ways to criticise VHEMT, but I haven't added them, because I am not a reliable source.

If, as it turns out, it's very difficult to find sources for criticisms of VHEMT - that doesn't mean such criticisms don't exist. It simply means the movement/organisation/whatever is not currently notable or widely known enough to attract much public criticism. Terraxos 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)