The Forum > Philosophy & Religion > Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
I'm going to make an irrational guess and say that since the alternative contraception options have been introduced, pre-marital sex has gone up. And the number of atheists. And the number rising divorce rate (1 in 2). However, more on topic, the VHEM is not a bad thing. It's a peaceful way to achieve what they would like, while it may be a little unrealistic to think that people will go against their instincts as humans to populate the earth with children. |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/32981_834785092.jpeg)
As you may have gathered, an "irrational guess" will not satisfy me if you are making bold, important claims. Atheism and lack of family values are not clearly linked. The implication that atheists are naturally more promiscuous is not necessarily one you can make. Although atheists often have no moral quandary with premarital sex, the religious often do not follow their faith to the letter. Read: almost never. |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/35308_873329275.jpeg)
I'm making no links between atheism and divorce, they were just bundled nicely in one sentence. And whilst there may be an equal number of religious people and atheists having premarital sex, you have to agree that the assumption that people who do not fear (an) all-powerful God(s) are more likely to engage in sexual acts - is not entirely irrational. |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/37392_955736879.jpeg)
Gorgon the Wonder C0w said: Maybe if you're talking about Canada it would be something worth considering. Why? Does Canada have an unusually large increase in atheism? |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/27027_899508752.jpeg)
Gorgon the Wonder C0w said: How does this support your argument? If there are more atheists than ever before, there has to be a recoil. "According to Froese (2001), 54% of the French are atheist or agnostic. ..... atheism (such as Great Britain, France, and Scandinavia) have been experiencing a steady increase of atheism over the past century, …" |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/3242.jpg)
The point is if you are saying "there is more premarital sex because there are more atheists" you are essentially saying "there is more premarital sex because there are more people" because atheism per capita is going down. The link between worldwide atheism and premarital sex is therefore an invalid one, unless the arguer is speaking of a SPECIFIC nation which has had both a notable increase in atheists and premarital sex. This was a link which was not provided. ^^^ yes, apparently Canada has had an influx in atheists notably above most other nations in recent history. |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/36951_943545273.jpeg)
I don't see how destroying ourselves would be for the greater good? Can't we just look after the earth better? And even if we did die out and the earth improved there would be no one here to enjoy it. Animals can't really appreciate it and God created the Earth for humans to inhabit. Also if we just stopped repoduceing you'd eventualy get to the point where there was only one person left on earth, would you like to be that person? :S RainingOnYourParade said: Abortion is always an option, [Please don't double-post. Use the edit button.] |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/34197_955695967.png)
Animals could still enjoy the earth in their own way if we weren't here. But you're right. There would be many serious problems if we slowly died out since towards the end there eventually wouldn't be enough people to sustain those who are still living. Edit: Let's not make this another abortion thread. Stay on-topic, please. |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/8575_904947155.jpeg)
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/388.jpg)
Gorgon the Wonder C0w said: Overpopulation is not really a planetary concern. Ecological responsibility is important because we need our planet to be habitable for generations to come. The value of the rest of the planet is really more or less chained to its value to us and vice-versa. We are this planet's natural ecology and nothing we can do is "unnatural." We should no more sacrifice our species for the good of other species than we should sacrifice them so that we can build bigger houses. We have and can continue to coexist. It's not that hard to just be responsible. That's the direction we need to move. What he said. It would have taken me about twenty post of confusion to get that point across. |
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/8826_818039467.jpeg)
![[avatar]](/uploads/avatars/32384_822890212.jpeg)
Why do you say humans are the strongest species? We don't outnumber many other species, we have less survivability than many other species, and unlike many other species we have trouble maintaining an ecosystem which supports us. Also, despite that fact that there are numerous pending global changes which threaten to minimize or remove humanity, there are many species which are not facing these problems regardless of these changes. |
Dominance is a subjective trait. It could be argued that either is more dominant. Grass has greater biomass on earth, is more ecologically important, has existed longer, and will likely exist longer. But humans are more complex, more capable of shaping their environment, more intelligent, etc. |
Haha. The answer is humans, though you are funny for suggesting it is wrong for no reason. We are at the top of the food chain and have the most impact on our environment. We have the ability to kill most other organisms, including bacteria (bubonic plague is basically extinct). We as a species should only care about things that benefit us. Everything else is meaningless, EFF PANDAS. |
The Forum > Philosophy & Religion > Voluntary Human Extinction Movement