NationStates Jolt Archive

In an attempt to protect our planet from further dammage, the Holy Empire of Thunderbee proposes a new UN resolution, unique in its scope, and of the broadest reach.

It currently is on page 19 of the Proposals. Please do give it proper attention and thought before deciding wether to endorse it.

For you convenience, the proposal text is reproduced here:

Voluntary Human Extinction

The NationStates UN,

EMPHASIZES that inexorable horrors are caused by human activity, both to the human race and to the environment,

ACKNOWLEDGES that the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens,

RECOMMENDS an alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of the Earth's ecology,

RECOMMENDS phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed to allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health, while improving crowded conditions and resource shortages as we become less dense, so that all remaining creatures shall be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons,

REQUESTS all nations to discourage human reproduction and create incentive for voluntary families not to breed to allow Earth's biosphere to return to its former glory,

REQUESTS all nations to provide appropriate education to the children and encourage them to make a responsible choice with their fertility and achieve the awareness needed to reverse civilization's direction and begin restoring Earth's biosphere.

:rolleyes:

First, I think this may be deleted, as fiddling with population growth might be game mechanics.

Second, the environment doesn't have rights. Sapient beings (humans, elves, and the other such species in the UN) have rights, and other sentient beings (animals) have lesser rights, depending on their level of intelligence.

Therefore, protection of the environment only makes sense in the context of protecting the rights of future generations.

What's the point of there being a beautiful world if there are no sapient beings left to appreciate it? The universe is meaningless if not populated by minds.

Second, the environment doesn't have rights. Sapient beings (humans, elves, and the other such species in the UN) have rights, and other sentient beings (animals) have lesser rights, depending on their level of intelligence.
Pray tell, how is that so?
When a "Sapient being" is drowning alone in the middle of the ocean, where is his right to live? So-called "rights" are a construct of the mind and of the social body. It is no surprise that nobody but the inventor has any right.
Why should countless living organisms, animals & plants, have less rights than one single species (us)?


What's the point of there being a beautiful world if there are no sapient beings left to appreciate it? The universe is meaningless if not populated by minds.
I'd disagree with both points here.
The universe is. It doesn not need you to apreciate its being. Or do you believe that the falling tree makes no sound in the forest if no one is there to hear it?
As to the presence of sapient being, the point of leaving the environment try again is precisely that it might evolve a more successful species. And in your line of thought, might this new species not appreciate beauty more than we will ever do?

We have again and again proven that we are a failure as a species. We should give nature a chance to start over while there is enought left to start over.

When I say "rights" I mean in the sense of what our laws should allow and protect.

I'd disagree with both points here.
The universe is. It doesn not need you to apreciate its being. Or do you believe that the falling tree makes no sound in the forest if no one is there to hear it?

I don't believe that just because I'm not there, stuff doesn't happen, but my point is, why should we see it as a good thing that the tree falls or doesn't fall, if there are no sapient beings around to be affected in some way?

As to the presence of sapient being, the point of leaving the environment try again is precisely that it might evolve a more successful species. And in your line of thought, might this new species not appreciate beauty more than we will ever do?

We have again and again proven that we are a failure as a species. We should give nature a chance to start over while there is enought left to start over.

Too late. Having exhausted easily accessible sources of fossil fuels, we have quite possibly condemned any future civilisation to be stuck forever in the violence and oppression of pre-industrialised societies.

Plus, how can you condemn our species as a failure? What benchmark are you using? What criteria? For all we know, out of all the sapient species in the universe, we are among the most environmentally responsible! Given that possibility, is it not also quite possible that in fact any future species would be even more destructive than ours?

The universe does exisist, but what is the point in just leaving it as it is. Does a potter leave a lump of clay as it is? or does s/he mould it into a desired shape.

I agree that over population, and damage to the world by Humans is a bad thing, and that laws have to be put in place and enforced, but the alternative you have suggested is too extreme.

One way top look at it, is that Homos Sapiens have become the top of the food chain in many areas, removing that would upset the balance of the food chain, maybe doing more harm than good.

I've realised a better way to say one of the things I was trying to express. You are saying that removing sapient beings from existence would result in a world that you characterise as better. But without sapient beings there to judge "good" and "bad", we as legislators cannot assume that there is any universal criteria by which things are "good", "bad", "better" or "worse". The law should remain agnostic with regards to the existence of a standard of "good" or "bad" inherent to the universe, or else we are discriminating against one or other view without any justification (unless you can provide evidence for the existence of an absolute moral system which is inherent to the universe).

You have my endorsement
;)

VOLUNTARY HUMAN EXTINCTION?

I think not.

In an attempt to protect our planet from further dammage, the Holy Empire of Thunderbee proposes a new UN resolution, unique in its scope, and of the broadest reach.

It currently is on page 19 of the Proposals. Please do give it proper attention and thought before deciding wether to endorse it.

For you convenience, the proposal text is reproduced here:

Voluntary Human Extinction

The NationStates UN,

EMPHASIZES that inexorable horrors are caused by human activity, both to the human race and to the environment,

ACKNOWLEDGES that the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens,

RECOMMENDS an alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of the Earth's ecology,

RECOMMENDS phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed to allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health, while improving crowded conditions and resource shortages as we become less dense, so that all remaining creatures shall be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons,

REQUESTS all nations to discourage human reproduction and create incentive for voluntary families not to breed to allow Earth's biosphere to return to its former glory,

REQUESTS all nations to provide appropriate education to the children and encourage them to make a responsible choice with their fertility and achieve the awareness needed to reverse civilization's direction and begin restoring Earth's biosphere.
You go first.

My nation doesn't have any humans as citizens, so I'd have to flip a coin on this one.

I bow to Tessla on this one...

"The progressive development of man is vitally dependent on invention. It is the most important product of his creative brain. Its ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of the forces of nature to human needs."

I bow to Tessla on this one...

"The progressive development of man is vitally dependent on invention. It is the most important product of his creative brain. Its ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of the forces of nature to human needs."

:headbang:

How the heck did I end up agreeing with Anti Pharisaism AGAIN!

:headbang:


Welcome back, AP! :D

VOLUNTARY HUMAN EXTINCTION?

I think not.
What makes you believe that your genes are so worthy of being passed on?
What destruction/killing do you feel to be justified in this passing on?

I bow to Tessla on this one...

"The progressive development of man is vitally dependent on invention. It is the most important product of his creative brain. Its ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of the forces of nature to human needs."
So? What's your point?
It's precisely the selfish, unchecked pursuit of this purpose that is the problem. In its "admirable" pursuit of human dominion over everything, man is detroying the potential of the planet.
It is time to step down, and give another species a chance.

Illegal.