Could someone help these people find their minds? I believe they have lost them.

http://www.vhemt.org/

Somehow these guys remind me of those cheesy evil cults you find in 3rd rate RPG's. I wonder why...

They're right we humans r noobs lol!

The host of the radio show I was listening to had the leader on the air. What an insane guy.

He can die out. I'm going to continue my awesome bloodline.

Sure, the world probably would be better without us, but what fun is that?

Not really surprising. I mean, the ultimate Environmentalist argument is that "the Earth outweighs Humanity."

What better way to preach that then to suggest humanity kill itself off for dirt and plants?

I read an article about them. I'm kind of ambivalent.

The world could use alot less people imo, but I don't want humanity to go extinct entirely.

We all cannot deny it. The world would be a behemoth of better life if humanity died out. The ecosystem, though it would take a huge blow from our disappearance, would flourish in the long run. Cities would eventually be filled with fauna, providing even more choices of habitat for other species. But you know what? I think, with sentient life, comes the right to be a selfish mother ****er. The will to live can drive humanity very far, and with how fast our technology is progressing, we have plenty of time to find that one in a trillion chanced planet that is suitable for colonization. We might eventually destroy this planet, but opposable thumbs = doing what we damn well please.

if we become extinct, whats to stop monkeys from ruling the earth?

http://www.vhemt.org/colorvisualize.jpg

Nice i'm down with that, i shall start in my community, everyone should do the same!!
No more humans!
No more humans!
No more humans!

if we become extinct, whats to stop monkeys from ruling the earth?

Gorillas

-Message too short.

Gorillas

-Message too short.

gorillas are monkeys dumbass lol....

humans are apart of the ecosystem, so you would be cutting out part of it.

but Gorillas are a stronger form of Monkeys.
So technically, DUMBASSSSSSSdurrdyudrudrudurdurudrudddurrrr
im just kidding.
Jungle animals would be my best bet

Humans are pigs.

oh they are going to get hacked big time

gorillas are monkeys dumbass lol....

humans are apart of the ecosystem, so you would be cutting out part of it.

But... Gorillas aren't monkeys.

You see, this is why this won't work:
Even if you did convince people to all commit suicide, it'd take probably 30 years + (assuming you don't just nuke countries in which case you'd wipe out all life all together). In that case as this would be an archetype of survival of the fittest, the human race itself would soon evolve at a very rapid pace to the point at which it is impossible for us today. Then what do you do? Well... You crossbreed. Anyways, assuming the former is true, I'm all for it.

Obviously not serious.

The Cradle Will Fall

A species in its infancy--a living idiosyncrasy,
This 'naked ape' believes itself divine.
Assured of its supremacy--it dreams of immortality,
The first words that it speaks--"This world is mine."
But the time has come for us to realise,
That the animal instincts we deeply despise--
Are far more civilised than humanity.
Mankind has lived to curse the day it climbed down from the trees,
But still we keep our heads held high whilst crawling on our knees.
I hope I never live to see the 'perfect' world you crave,
Where ambition is the burden we shall carry to our graves.
We think that we are so superior--for in God's image we were made,
All other life we deem inferior--there to exploit, kill or enslave
No amount of remonstration could ever show a mind so small
that it is not 'the be and end all.'
Into the future we race driven on by our greed,
Like rats in a maze we will never be free.
Science is the 'new-religion'--scaples slash dissecting truth and reason,
Behind locked doors where no-one sees.
Down evolution's one way street mankind pursues his dream,
Of a race conceived in test tubes with the same designer genes,
But like a child who tries to run before it learns to crawl--
he'll go crying to his 'Mother' when he sees the cradle fall.
I am human--I was made to be the ultimate machine,
With the power at my fingertips to realise my dream.
Homo-sapiens--the 'master-race,' Nature's pride and joy,
Taking all the world will give me--what it won't I shall destroy.
In our hearts we yearn to be immortal--conquer all sickness and disease,
Create a world where even death's not fatal--then we can shape our destinies.
A populace of plastic people live genetically pre-programmed lives--and no-one
laughs and no-one cries.
Blinded by science the masses are duped and deceived,
By the faces that smile from their colour T.V.s.
They'll steal your dreams--remove them surgically (but leave you scars so deep
and lasting),
God is dead man has surpassed him.
Like children in our playground--we contrive such foolish games,
But fail to see the consequence of suicidal aims.
No matter how we bend the rules there's no way we can win,
Not even pleading Ignorance will vindicate our sins.
I am human--I was made to be the ultimate machine,
With the power at my fingertips to realise my dream.
Homo-sapiens--the 'master-race,' Nature's pride and joy,
Taking all the world will give me--what it won't I shall destroy.
Mankind a babe-in-arms,
Believes he's come of age--
And reaches for the stars,
With one foot in the grave.
I am human--I was made to be the ultimate machine,
I am human--I have the power to realise my dream.
I am human--an automaton--a mindless 'technoslave,'
I am human--I am servant to the monsters I have made.


Pretty much my opinion on the matter, voiced by the great Martin Walkyier better than I probably ever could.

Damn how much "interwebs" have these guys smoked?


Alot...thats how much.

Could someone help these people find their minds? I believe they have lost them.

http://www.vhemt.org/

I agree with them.

These people are like those sick ****s from the tv shows that try to kill everyone because they think the world is corrupted. Maby the wetbacks can stop having so many babys huh? Or maby people can stop haveing sex with every girl they see and just jank off

How do I sign up? -.-

How do I sign up? -.-

Commit suicide, it's easy.

Commit suicide, it's easy.

Guess that's the easiest way. Darn... lol

I'd much rather join the church of satan, it would be more fun to live and make life hell for people than to kill yourself and hope that your 1 suicide helped save the planet (not likely)

1 suicide can help save our mother earth!~~

Join now!

yes yes and yes...one suicide is the equivalent of saving 100 trees! so why bother why with green peace when a pill of rat poison can do the job

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the responses this thread has gotten, being filled mostly with teenagers.

But let me ask this question, before this dies.

What is more important? The earth; which will do nothing but exist for all eternity; or your life, and the lives of humanity, who use the resources of earth - resources that, without humans (or subsequent intelligent species), would go to waste - to make their lives happier?

Maybe I'm biased, but mankind always comes before the earth, in my book.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the responses this thread has gotten, being filled mostly with teenagers.

But let me ask this question, before this dies.

What is more important? The earth; which will do nothing but exist for all eternity; or your life, and the lives of humanity, who use the resources of earth - resources that, without humans (or subsequent intelligent species), would go to waste - to make their lives happier?

Maybe I'm biased, but mankind always comes before the earth, in my book.
yes our lives are more important, so we use fossil fuel which dooms humanity with global warming

yes we make our lives happier by using fossil fuel which dooms humanity with global warming

Global Warming is something the earth does, and has done since the dawn of time. There isn't even any concrete evidence out there to show that the little we humans are doing (Or could do) is making any significant difference on the cycles of heat and cold that the earth goes through naturally.

Here's the thing,if these people actualy were serious,they wouldn't be using every other human commodity and kill themselfs already.

Also,to shut them up,just them breathing is polluting the world.Also,global warming's is overreacted.Please,super volcanos polluted the world before with so much more intensity.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the responses this thread has gotten, being filled mostly with teenagers.

But let me ask this question, before this dies.

What is more important? The earth; which will do nothing but exist for all eternity; or your life, and the lives of humanity, who use the resources of earth - resources that, without humans (or subsequent intelligent species), would go to waste - to make their lives happier?

Maybe I'm biased, but mankind always comes before the earth, in my book.

Lets start with a statement, an opinion that I have come up with:
"Anarchy only makes sense, if you are unable to extrapolate facts and anticipate results, but are limited to the view of a simple individual."

I basically found this argument while thinking about communists and how the reality didn't live up to their unreal expectations.

Now to comment on your post Marine, with having that in the back of my mind:
i think that you greatly miss the point when you argument "humanity" against "the environment". It's as foolish as weighting "individual" against "society", at least from my point of view; I think opposing to you, history is more leaning towards my explanation of things.
Rules are there to protect us, usually in those places where they are necessary, because some stronger force or hazardous results directly request for them. We are limited by environmental boundaries, that we are generally unable to erase, fighting them or seeing us as an opposing force is not understanding the place we stand at.

@Climate change: Where do you think that millions of tones of carbon go?

This is unfittingly brief, I will come back and rephrase my point, it isn't coming out well, but I need to go shopping now...

@ Marineking and Darc

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence that humanity is having an effect on the rate of global warming.

The difference between humanity and super volcanoes and an other thing in the world is that humanity has access to tools, and the ability to manipulate the environment in ways that no other species ever has before.

You say that if humanity was gone, resources would go to waste? I disagree. Other species would simply expand and multiply to fill the gap, in terms of food and use of trees and water. Sure, gas, oil and metals wouldn't be used anymore, but these resources are finite, or at least take so long to be produced that for all intents and purposes they are finite. It's not like without us you'd suddenly end up with massive amounts of these things spilling over the land, exploding out of overstuffed mines and ocean pits. And of course, imo the world would be a better place if those resources weren't being used anyway.

The world existed fine without us for billions of years, it could do fine without us again.

I found it quite interesting, this splitting up the argument in a discussion of good/bad behaviour. I do not think that it's doing the responsibility justice that grown ups carry, about their decisions and opinions.
There is no such thing as a parent or teacher and no one is going to give you grades or a rating.

Seeing something in a spectrum of good/bad here is from my point to broad a generalisation and a luxury, that we take. The problem with the luxury is, that we aren't aware if we are able to afford it.

To make the best effort to be able to sustain social and individual process, it's not good or bad, but inevitable to apply economic guidelines to all actions.
That narrows the path of good and bad down quite a bit.
The world is a complex interacting system of dependencies and the biological component which we as organisms are a part of either is intact or destroyed to a degree, that it will effect us strongly and negatively, up to essentially.
With this argument I conclude, that having naturally bred cattle, or even avoiding extreme and cruel animal experiments is beneficial or might be a necessity for the sustainment of humanity and each individual of it.

Once you have a chain of arguments of reason, the stomach feeling classification of good/bad is obsolete; It is for that reason never satisfying from the start, but as I said above about the points, that have been brought up.

Now on topic of those whatever they are people:
They are prolonging an interesting standpoint actually, but their answers are to simple, you can not solve one problem if you forget the necessities that other problems include, because that would mean that the set goals will be missed in any case.
It's interesting that they bring attention to world hunger and overpopulation, but the ignore or misunderstand key facts of those problems like the influence of demographics on micro and macro societies and the geographical spread of the impact of their agenda, the manifestations of the problem and future equally significant developments.
All of those make that concept they are following look pointless up to idiocy.

@ Shadowsworn

So, what? Because the earth would exist without us, our using it is somehow evil? Well, I respectfully disagree. Humanity survives by exploiting the earth and it's resources. It's a simple fact. From eating food to keep your body alive, to fashioning clothes out of plants and animal skins to protect yourself from the envoronment, all the way to drilling oil out of the earth to improve our standard of living.

I am not against reducing our use of fossil fuels, if given a reasonable alternative. But thats not what environmentalists (True environmentalists) advocate. What they want is exactly what this movement wants; humanity off of the face of the earth. Why? Because "nature" is somehow "sacred," and our using it - in any way - is somehow an abomination. If going against this ideology makes me evil, then I'll be damned if I want to be good.

@ Ronin

What is foolish about arguing for humanity against nature? A humans basic faculty for survival is his mind. He uses his mind to fashion nature to his advantage, so that he may survive where other species might die out. Where a wolf has it's claws, a man has his mind. Arguing that fighting for his survival makes man somehow evil is completely beyond reason, in my view. What do humans exist for, if not to live their lives? As servants to "the world?" Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, so please, before I go further, I think I'll wait until you clarify your position, and what you feel is wrong with mine. EDIT: Wait a minute, seems you already have... (Reading...)

(In response to your new post)

To begin with, I do not use the terms "good/bad" as stomach feelings or anything that has to do with emotion. From the way I see it, it's about survival. If something is good for the sake of a man's survival, then it's good. If not, then it's bad. (But this wording is far too simple an explanation, really. For now, I'll just say that I see "good and bad" as different things then you seem to.)

Now, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you point (against me) is. I can really find nothing in your post that goes against my beliefs, or my statements. If I am missing something, please clarify.

@ Global Warming

I'm not denying that fossil fuels hurt the atmosphere. I'm not blind. I'm just not sure whether the amount that we contribute has any real difference when you take the earths natural cycles in mind. I'm not an expert, but from what I've been able to gather, the present isn't even as hot as the earth has ever been in the past.

(In response to your new post)

To begin with, I do not use the terms "good/bad" as stomach feelings or anything that has to do with emotion. From the way I see it, it's about survival. If something is good for the sake of a man's survival, then it's good. If not, then it's bad. (But this wording is far too simple an explanation, really. For now, I'll just say that I see "good and bad" as different things then you seem to.)

Now, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you point (against me) is. I can really find nothing in your post that goes against my beliefs, or my statements. If I am missing something, please clarify.

@ Global Warming

I'm not denying that fossil fuels hurt the atmosphere. I'm not blind. I'm just not sure whether the amount that we contribute has any real difference when you take the earths natural cycles in mind. I'm not an expert, but from what I've been able to gather, the present isn't even as hot as the earth has ever been in the past.

If you say, that it's human vs. environment, the first I would come up with is
- general regulation of all rivers
- genetically improved and standardised food
- destruction of all untouched ecosystems, for the sake of industrial production of agricultural products of all shapes
- animal experiments
- unregulated marked of fresh water
- unregulated pollution

All of this gives me instant headaches, for hundreds of reasons. To put it in psychological terms: One can't be happy or successful, if he doesn't understand the inevitability's of his environment; The environment is not an enemy, it's inevitable.
Even if you mean to include all those resentments I have against certain not so environmental concepts, with your own colouring and weighting, I am always ticked of if such isn't included from the start, because I find that kind of argumentation misleading; I like to stick to actions and results, that's what it is about, as i said general statements of good/bad are opening the room for going on the broadest derails, whilst the discussion often lacks any relevance.

About the global warming: There is no scientific global climate model, that can describe the world's climatic situation without taking human caused pollution into account. It used to be much warmer millions of years ago, but that was a world of insects and cold blooded reptiles, with a much different shaped looking landmass.
If you can't grow any crops, the comparison with the past is futile. Also, the reason why it could soon be problematic to produce any kind of food, lies in that difference, that can only be explained with global warming, a difference, that is already present. It's likely to continue growing in significance and the question is only "when".
Arrhenius found out that the climatic effect that atmosphere has adds 33 Kelvin to the temperature of 255 K that we would experience without it.
A significant amount amounts to the influence of greenhouse gas; that amount is going to be increased by 6-4 K within less than 100 years, when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will most likely be double as high as naturally.
That means that you will have the temperature difference between a now and the climax of the ice ages, but into the opposite direction; I see that as a situation worth a worry.

I am sorry, to be unable to really share my sources, they are combined a number of scripts for different lectures from my university courses, as well as a book by Professors of the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, which are all in German.

Really, I do not see it as human vs environment. That humans must "fight" the environment - or that the environment must fight humans, is truly an environmentalist idea (From the way I see it).

I am not against finding greener, healthier ways of production. If hydrogen engines ever get as big as some seem to think they will, then I will be among the first to switch (For a number of reasons). What I am against is the idea that advancement of any kind should be railed against simply because of the "natural order" of things, or because the earth is "inherently beautiful," and mankind's presence ruins it. Such an idea is absurd, in my book. What meaning do resources have, if they are not put to use? All animals understand this - and all animals use the earth in one way or another. Why is it that, when humans do the same, they are somehow destroying the natural order?

So in a nutshell, I suppose my argument is that, instead of trying to destroy technology and the advancements we have made up to this point, we should try to refine them, and find cleaner, better ways.

The solution is not to simply "end humanity" for the sake of the earth. Such a notion is complete rubbish, no matter which way I look at it.

As for Global Warming... well, to be honest, I really don't know enough to present a decent argument, at this point. Any attempts I try to make as to refute what you say will likely just come off as childish and stupid, so I'll just concede to you on this point.

The green movement has 2 sides to it, the make it up, the green alternative idealistic one and the one that comes from the higher educated and the intellectual community.

Idealism already includes unrealistic in it's word-sense. This aspect also makes the green party not vote-able in my country, from my personal point of view. (There are just so many agendas that I just can't agree with)

I personally value nature, the environment and I so far am in favour of it's preservation, that I often value it higher than plain simple "progress" of humanity. If we can't combine progress and taking care for the environment, we should refrain from such a progress for our own sake.
Going against this can have unpredictable results; It's leaving an important aspect out, often knowingly, and for usually opportunistic and personally egoistic reasons.

People have the trend of being romantic and unreasonable, there have been cases, I know of, for example, where the building of a solar plant on a not agricultural usable meadow (it had a steep slope) has been stopped by the abutting owners, because it would be "ugly".

It's an interesting thing; I picked the University I study at to one part, because the town is filled with parks and gardens and trees and you can see green everywhere.
It's a pleasant thing, one, that i would probably buy with a small cutback on technology and prefer over a big industrial mess.

Alright, as I have conceded, I cannot argue against you by means of whether or not environmentalism is good for humanity (i.e., we'll eventually all die without it). Instead, if you don't mind, I'll take another approach to it.

You say you value nature, and it's preservation. Well, why? What makes it valuable? What makes a tree more valuable then the house that is built with it? Indeed, what makes a forest more valuable then the paper that could be made with it?

Value is a human connotation. It is the human ability to reason, to consciously look at something and give it value, for a specific reason. A house is more valuable then a tree, a man might think, because it allows himself and his family shelter from the cold and rain, and thus survival and comfort. Paper is more valuable then a forest, a man might argue, because the words printed on paper can be used to educate, to discuss, and improve ones knowledge and mind.

But what makes nature (That is, not including human nature) intrinsically valuable? What reason is there that a part of nature is valuable, beyond what use man can put it towards?

Value isn't a quality that is given by to the use or labour needed or any abstract characteristic an item has. Value is given to an item by the request for it.

Let me explain why: Economically, you will first set a goal for any of your ventures; The goal is the thing you want to reach, at best with the smallest efforts and with the greatest satisfaction of your goals. This goal might be monetary, this goals might be satisfying needs, this goal might be to accomplish the venture, without reason or in absence of a struggle to determine that reason; Easily the reason might be foolish, selfish, emotional or being self deceptive but coming out of an urge to fulfil a need, that is present without a rational cause being instantly present.
Those goals are there and even though they do not evaluate an item by it's use, or any other measurable character, they still create a request for it.

Leaving that aside, what general common values does nature have:
- It's a resource; resources gain value he more scarce they get. (The area, the wood; As an item, that is directly required to create something)
- It's a good of luxury
- It's got a value of potential entertainment and pleasure
- It's all global and local interferences in longer and shorter times, that we used to describe nature as rationally worthy of preserving apply as well. (Those are the ones generally ruled, and protected by law)

it's not unreasonable for people to want it, or to try to protect it, it's only unreasonable in some of it's manifestations, where it either fails to apply a value to all parts of it without discriminating, or to reasonably weight it's preservation in it's current state against the benefit of using it in a certain way. This is apparent when it goes so far to being harmful, either to the cause itself, or other causes of similar importance.

I agree with your last post. Basically, your saying that an item of nature has value because it is needed/wanted by humans. i.e., it's value has been denoted upon it by human demand. Without humans, what value does it have? That is my question. Environmentalists argue that "nature" is intrinsically valuable as an end in-and-of itself, and that human interference (in any way) is a desecration. This is what I am against.

And these thread became another one of those debate thread. Wonder why MK have to be so serious here, as well as ronin. Yeah, I know debates are healthy but the link(about VHEMT) doesn't have to be taken seriously (or do you?). No pun intended here guys, and i kinda like how you guys talk. Just wish I could debate as good as you two lol

Lol, this site reminds me of that time when I was quite happily swimming around with the dolphins when one suddenly decided to grab my foot with her genital slit. Dolphins have very muscular vaginal orifices, and can use these muscles to manipulate objects and carry them. I stayed still for a while, to see if she was just playing, but she continued to masturbate against my foot, and in the light of the torch I sometimes carry, I could see that her slit had become very pink and had swelled as well. She was aroused!

So, I started to back-paddle with my hands towards a small beached area, partially submerged in the water. A couple of times she pulled me forward into the deeper water, but eventually I got my self to the shallows. I dislodged my foot (Being careful not to pull too hard), and took her gently by a pectoral fin and rubbed her belly just to aclimatize her, I guess. She immediately rolled belly up and started doing pelvic thrusts against the palm of my hand. It was unmistakebly erotic, and by now I was fully aroused.

I stripped off my shorts, and gently pulled her into the shallows until she was lying on her side, her belly facing towards me, half submerged in the water. I nestled myself belly to belly against her, and pressed my member against her genital slit. She immediately arched her body against mine, and took me inside her body, initiating a quick series of muscular contractions with her vaginal muscles. I wrapped my left arm around her body and just held her close while she manipulated me inside her body, until I climaxed barely 2 minutes later. Surprisingly, her body also shuddered against mine, and we spent the next 5 or so minutes just lying together in the shallows, holding each other, enjoying our company and revelling in the fact that we had shared something special together, something very few people can claim to have done.

I do not brag about this though. It is not something you can brag about, since it not only is demeaning to the act, but it destroys the purpose of the act as well; to express affection, and trust. I only consent to those dolphins who ask. As a result, I have mated only three times. Each time was memorable and special, because each time it was something we both wanted to share with each other. Sex, for me, is just another, albeit powerful, expression of affection and trust. I wouldn't engage any other animal, though; it is not my attraction. But there is little I wouldn't do for a dolphin.

LOL humans will face extinction one day but why rush it. These people are nuts.

Lol, this site reminds me of that time when I was quite happily swimming around with the dolphins when one suddenly decided to grab my foot with her genital slit. Dolphins have very muscular vaginal orifices, and can use these muscles to manipulate objects and carry them. I stayed still for a while, to see if she was just playing, but she continued to masturbate against my foot, and in the light of the torch I sometimes carry, I could see that her slit had become very pink and had swelled as well. She was aroused!

So, I started to back-paddle with my hands towards a small beached area, partially submerged in the water. A couple of times she pulled me forward into the deeper water, but eventually I got my self to the shallows. I dislodged my foot (Being careful not to pull too hard), and took her gently by a pectoral fin and rubbed her belly just to aclimatize her, I guess. She immediately rolled belly up and started doing pelvic thrusts against the palm of my hand. It was unmistakebly erotic, and by now I was fully aroused.

I stripped off my shorts, and gently pulled her into the shallows until she was lying on her side, her belly facing towards me, half submerged in the water. I nestled myself belly to belly against her, and pressed my member against her genital slit. She immediately arched her body against mine, and took me inside her body, initiating a quick series of muscular contractions with her vaginal muscles. I wrapped my left arm around her body and just held her close while she manipulated me inside her body, until I climaxed barely 2 minutes later. Surprisingly, her body also shuddered against mine, and we spent the next 5 or so minutes just lying together in the shallows, holding each other, enjoying our company and revelling in the fact that we had shared something special together, something very few people can claim to have done.

I do not brag about this though. It is not something you can brag about, since it not only is demeaning to the act, but it destroys the purpose of the act as well; to express affection, and trust. I only consent to those dolphins who ask. As a result, I have mated only three times. Each time was memorable and special, because each time it was something we both wanted to share with each other. Sex, for me, is just another, albeit powerful, expression of affection and trust. I wouldn't engage any other animal, though; it is not my attraction. But there is little I wouldn't do for a dolphin.

Dude... errr.... that's scarier than touching.

It's not our fault. Blame the technology and medicines. Oh geeze, without technology, we wouldn't have saws to cut down those trees. Without cars, we wouldn't provide so much Carbon monoxide (or whatever it is). Without medicine, people wouldn't live long enough to reproduce faster than death.

Tell them to go protest something else other than making people commit suicide -,-

Nichon - thats just weird!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nuts? not per sé. They do kind of have a point by saying it's the pacifist way out, by not unnaturally exterminating people (through man made armory and soforth).

on the other hand, it's a bit simplisticly explained that if mankind stops breeding, the world will return to normal. In a deeper sense, i don't see the point of that. In the end, it can be due to the undying love for the planet that these people are willing to voluntarely stop breeding in order to the save the planet of course.

If you Can believe todays scientists, it is already too late to save the planet anyway, as it's going downwards from now on. Stopping universal breeding will "delay" the degradation of the planet, but not stop it.
Mankind doesn't have to die out in order to maintain natural balance or prevent the world from dying out. The same postponing effect from a universal breed halt can also be accomplished by heavy investments in alternative power sources, in fact, it will likely have a more positive result then a breed halt alltogether.

Besides, that has to be the most misinterpreted reality by now. Not entire mankind is responsible for the condition of the planet. When you think of it, there is always one "elite" making the descisions for millions. That particular elite is responsible for the consequences. Normal people don't go building power plants, don't establish coal factories and soforth. The command is given by higherhand. If that "elite" was never to allow the construction of nuclear plants, coal mining operations, oil wells & pumps, the "normal people" would never have been able to use them. This is of course a pure imagenative scenario, but it demonstrates the effect of a few people's descision for the sake of billions and a planet alltogether.

If you ask me, VHEMT will eventually die out due to lack of members. With the thought that our beloved planet earth won't survive in any possible scenario, i reckon it's only human nature to simply go on as they are doing now

It's not our fault. Blame the technology and medicines. Oh geeze, without technology, we wouldn't have saws to cut down those trees. Without cars, we wouldn't provide so much Carbon monoxide (or whatever it is). Without medicine, people wouldn't live long enough to reproduce faster than death.

Tell them to go protest something else other than making people commit suicide -,-

you haven't read it all, have you not? They explicitely say that they wish to accomplish their results through VOLUNTARY means. Which doesn't involve suicide, (mass) murder or whatsoever. In fact, "death" alltogether is not part of their "ideology".

besides, if there never were cars, the monoxide levels would have been drastically lower, how can you deny that anyway? the same for equipment to efficiently deforest areas. If that equipment wasn't available, people wouldn't even think of deforestment and, imo, would simply try to "blend in with nature"

With the thought that our beloved planet earth won't survive in any possible scenario

I wonder where people pick up stuff like that; Mind sharing where you got that from?

Also about the elites: Don't make me laugh; Do you include everyone who drives a car or has one single product at home, which contains plastic as elite?
Ever asked yourself who pays that power plants? You do, moron.

great... another cult filled with douches...
if they want to die so badly, il be glad to help them *takes out the 50.call rifle*

Also about the elites: Don't make me laugh; Do you include everyone who drives a car or has one single product at home, which contains plastic as elite?
Ever asked yourself who pays that power plants? You do, moron.


I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

i'm grateful that you Do understand what i'm saying. Therefore, i'm not going to bother explaining it to the guy again