This person makes sense...
The Most Neglected Animal Rights Issue
By a VHEMT Supporter
So what is this issue we need to examine? It's human overpopulation. That stated, I realize why some people might feel uncomfortable discussing this issue.
Some readers might already have three or more children, and the mention of human overpopulation might make them extremely defensive. They might feel unfairly judged, or worse, feel this issue as an attack on their children. I can understand these concerns, which is why I want to make one thing clear from the outset: population control is not about blaming people. Their children were born in the past when most people had no knowledge of population growth and its impact on animals. People with children should not feel threatened. In fact, I don't see why someone with twelve children couldn't be a population control activist - I don't let the fact that I ate meat, eggs, and dairy products for the first fourteen years of my life keep me from promoting veganism now. So if they are not procreating now, what's the difference?
Another reason some people are unwilling to discuss human overpopulation is because of another issue that is inevitably brought up: abortion. Pro-lifers become uncomfortably nervous with this issue because it sounds to them like a license to kill. However, that is not the case. There are many solutions which do not involve abortion, and we should never promote abortion as part of the solution. Any population control campaign that advocates abortion will spend its time debating the ethics of abortion instead of preventing pregnancies. We need to keep people focused on the problem at hand and not get side-tracked by other issues.
The Problem in Human Terms
So what is the problem with human over-population? Well, from a human perspective, the more people we have, the more we exacerbate the conditions of war, famine, nuclear waste, deforestation, urban crowding, pollution, poverty and all other social ills.
How are these problems related to human overpopulation? Take war for example. People are driven to war when they lack the resources or land to provide for themselves. If the United States' population was low enough that it could be sustained by the oil produced within its own boarders, we might have never been involved in the Gulf War. But the United States population is not decreasing, it is increasing by 3 million people every year - 1 million of which is from immigration, and 2 million of which are from births - meaning that we will desire even more resources, and be involved in more wars. If every country had a fraction of their current population, many territorial and ethnic disputes would simply not exist.
We can also see how population affects poverty. Far from being the cornucopia we once thought it was, the Earth has limited resources. As it is burdened with more people, its ability to provide for their needs and wants decreases. Did you know that of the 5.8 billion people on earth today, over one billion of them live in absolute poverty and misery? This means that more people live in poverty today, than used to live on the entire planet less than 200 years ago. The fact that we can't adequately provide basic necessities for nearly one fifth of our species should alert us to the realities of the human overpopulation problem.
The Problem for Animals
Unfortunately the problem of human overpopulation does not stop at humanity's boarder, it also plays havoc on animals and the environment. On a basic level, the more people there are, the more people there will be to eat meat, wear fur, go to circuses and rodeos, hunt and demand animal research. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to figure that if America's population was half its current size, the number of animals slaughtered for food would also be halved. If this were the case, more than 3 billion animals per year would be spared the horrors of factory farming and the slaughterhouse.
Does this mean human overpopulation would not be a problem if everyone became a vegan animal liberationist? Sadly, no. Because just as humans war with each other over land and "resources," we war with the animals over them too. Yet the animals don't have a fighting chance against our weapons, technology, and ravenous ability to consume. If we want some "natural resources," we will take them. The fact that billions of animals will be killed or displaced is inconsequential. "Natural Resource" is just another way of saying the spoils we have plundered from the animals' homes. All that humanity has, we have stolen from the animals. Lush forests, vast prairies, and raging rivers have made way for our lumber, cropland, and dams. There is no humane way to clear cut a forest, or construct a paved road across country, or to obtain the metal needed to make an airplane. All of these things necessitate evicting animals from their homes, destroying their communities, and directly or indirectly killing them. While humans - vegan or not - consume, the human population will continue to be a problem.
Just as the United States - which represents less than 5% of the world's total population - consumes 30% of the world's resources, the human population which is only one species among millions, consumes the majority of the world's resources. If we believe that animal's interests deserve equal consideration, then we must take action now to promote a more equal distribution of resources. Decreasing our consumption is important, but most people are unwilling to give up their cars, homes, books, schools, supermarkets, and other things we take for granted. So if we ever want to see substantial improvements in maintaining animal habitat, it is imperative we decrease our human population.
Every new human brought into the world is a vote for humans and a death wish for animals. This is easy to see if you have ever worked to protect wildlife. When you talk to people who think that goose poop warrants a death sentence for geese, or nibbled gardens means deer should be killed, the need for human population control becomes obvious. Everywhere humans and animal interact, there is a river of animal blood. The more humans there are, the more blood their will be.
And what will happen if we don't take measures to decrease the human population? Will we finally liberate animals from the vivisection labs, factory farms, fur farms, circuses, rodeos and zoos, only to place them in a world of asphalt, glass, and concrete? Will the best we have to offer the animals be the lifeless husk of our once lush world?
And what will we do for the baby turtles who die of suffocation as their homes are paved over? Or the snake crushed by the weight of the bulldozer making room for a new condominium? Or the panther who lost her life in the fire that destroyed her jungle home so humans could use the land to plant crops. We can protest this destruction and maybe delay the inevitable, or we can go to the root of the problem and start fighting human overpopulation now.
Taking Action
So what can we do about it? For starters, we must stop breeding. Some people might think it's fine for couples to have one or two children to help create a population "balance." I disagree. Population balance is not a goal, it's a start. We need a drastic decrease in human population if we ever hope to create a just and equitable world for animals. And the only humane way to decrease human population is to not add to it. It is imperative that those of us who are conscientious and responsible set a good example by not procreating from this moment forward.
Now some people might argue that one's decision to have children is a personal decision. This is true. Procreation is a personal decision. But eating meat, wearing fur, and hunting are all "personal decisions." The fact that our decisions are personal, does not erase the truth that our decisions have moral consequences. When bringing more humans into the world dramatically impacts the animals in a negative way, we - as the animals' voices - cannot be silent.
We need to recognize that human overpopulation is just as much an animal liberation issue as is our campaigns against vivisection. Educating others about this problem is essential. Animal groups should produce literature or publish articles in their newsletters on human overpopulation.
As part of this education, we need to help change long-standing values that promote procreation. Newly-weds should not be harassed about when they expect their first child. Sterility should not be treated as a disease that needs a cure. Women should never be made to feel that they have to give birth to be important.
Instead, we need to support couples and individuals who choose to live child-free. We also need to make operations like vasectomies and tubal ligation more available to young adults. Too often, doctors will refuse to give these operations if the person has not yet had a child. We also need to support legislation that will help family planning projects and humane population control measures in our own country and abroad. People who desire to be parents should be educated on the human overpopulation problem and informed of the thousands of needy children who are waiting to be adopted into loving homes.
One of the benefits of working on this issue is that it is an excellent way to forge alliances between other human rights and environmental organizations that are already taking action to curb human population. This is a perfect issue for all three movements to champion together.
Last Words
Whenever I discuss this issue, I fear I have done an inadequate job. The far-reaching implications of human overpopulation are so enormous that I cannot do it justice. That is why I am asking you to spend the next few days analyzing how human overpopulation affects the problems in the world that concern you. These problems could be anything from traffic jams, oil spills, or hunting to the AIDS epidemic, species extinction, or nuclear power. Look at these issues. Consider how human overpopulation impacts them. Imagine what would happen to these problems if our population was halved. Examine all of the ways human overpopulation exacerbates your problems and those of the animals.
And while you are doing this, examine your personal feelings on the issue. You have a decision to make, are you going to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Why or why not? Do you think it is natural for people to have children? Do you think breeding is one way to ensure that veganism and animal rights will be passed to the next generation? Have you always wanted to have children because you know you will be one of the best parents a child could have? If you have questions such as these, I ask you to assume my identity and guess what my response to them might be. In other words, really work at seeing both sides of the issue.
Finally, after you have taken a few days to digest and evaluate this information in relation to your life, please write down your insights, experiences and concerns about this issue and send them to No Compromise. We will print your comments and hopefully establish a dialogue that will help us determine what we, as a collective movement, are willing to do for this issue. Together, we will ensure that animals are given the justice they deserve.
For more information contact:
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)
PO Box 86646
Portland, OR 97206-6270
e-mail: [email protected]
web: http://www.vhemt.org/
(an excellent website!!) ↓
|
|
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 16th, 2007 4:38 AM |
I read the whole post, to me it does make sense. I can understand what the author of this article is saying.
Randi
Why should Petfinder kill her self, because she posted information that has to do with human over population? I found it an interesting piece, nothing that one should be afended by! ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 16th, 2007 5:35 AM |
| I found it offensive because she posted it in Due Date. Everyone did. What I said was just copied and pasted. ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 16th, 2007 9:44 AM |
| Hi Petmaster, I get some of your points with the animal issue. And you are right with regard to that. Not even a meat eater can dispute that, because it's fact. I am Vegetarian, and, if my son chooses to, I would be delighted if he chose to follow my example one day. MOSTLY because I believe that eating meat is not only cruel to animals, but it is also extremely unhealthy, especially red meat. I'm healthier than anyone I know, and I've been veggie since I was a young child. I'm not an advocate for telling people what to eat, even with my strong beliefs. You aren't going to achieve what you're attempting to achieve by telling meat eaters that having as many kids as they choose to have is wrong. The reaction you received from these other posters should verify that. Just try to encourage your own children onto the healthier diet, and let meat eaters do as they choose, even if it pains you. I have come to realise that although the meat free diet is on the increase, not everyone has that fantastic sense of conscience for animals that I feel I'm blessed to have. Just be glad that you have it. Don't force it onto others. I tried that years ago, and it doesn't work, even when you do point out the benefits to the human race. ↑ |
| Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: May 16th, 2007 1:59 PM |
Well I absolutely love chomping away on steaks and cutlets!
AND I love breeding too!
*LOL*
What would be a proper method of dealing with overpopulation would be to practise cannabalism!
Once people get to a certain age they should be eaten by other people! This would satisfy people's craving for meat AND reduce the human population!
How 'bout that then???
*LOL* ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 16th, 2007 2:16 PM |
Randi
I did go to due date and read all the replies to Petmasters post. I don't think that this poster deserves the feed back she has received from the ladies there. Regardless of where she posts this information there is truth to it weather one wants to see it or not. It doesn't mean that every one has to do it, all they have to do is read it or not its their choice . I found it quite interesting my self!
Briseis
I don't see this as an attempt to tell meat eaters that having as many children that they want is wrong. I see it as another article that one wants to share, in hopes that it will help others to understand there is a true human over population with possible solutions. I don't fell this is in any way offensive and I personally don't view it as being forced on any one either. Some will read it and miss understand its meaning others will read it and see some truth to it, weather they want to admit it or not!
I do agree with you that a vegan/vegetarian eating is a more healthy diet . I to wish more people would choose that way of life, my self included! How ever you are write! it cant be forced on others, they have to choose it on their own. Thats not to say by people advertising such information on topics like this one is forcing it on them. Education is education regardless of its content or where it is advertised or whether it is liked or not. I for one enjoyed the article and am glad Petmaster posted it, I always enjoy a good non debatable piece! Yes some will argue the piece but it can not be debated, the truth is not debatable! ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 16th, 2007 2:19 PM |
| Atomic I don't like human meat, its not tender enough! Lol!! ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 16th, 2007 3:39 PM |
Lindalu, Petmaster went in there and said that the only way to stop this is to discontinue breeding. Why would they post this in a pregnancy forum? Thats what pisses me of. I agree with some of the issues, but I believe there should be sterilization of many people in the 3rd world countries and then at home, the drug addicts and people like that who abuse the right to have children and brign unwanted life into this world. NOT the women who are married and support their own families.
This sounds a lot like M ↑ |
| Name: Petmaster | Date: May 16th, 2007 4:49 PM |
| Why do you people always assume people are someone else? I don't even know who M is... this is the only name I've ever used.. ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 16th, 2007 7:28 PM |
Randi
Petmaster is not M, she has posted here in the pets before. ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 16th, 2007 7:52 PM |
| I agree that there is gross overpopulation of the human species. Definitely! But I'm not a human being who harms animals, and neither will my son be hopefully! The problem regarding the animal issues isn't that there are too many humans. It's that there are too many meat eaters ... ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 16th, 2007 9:03 PM |
| I just read that website and it is SCARY! Telling people not to breed is EXACTLY what they are telling us to do. Shocking ... ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 16th, 2007 9:38 PM |
Brises
Many of them type of web sights are scary to see/read. I think the human overpopulation thing is true, or thats how I see it any way! I see deer in my back yard because they have no other place to go. Much of the land around me has been cleared to build houses and all the factories are being refurbished in to apartments because there is not enough housing to house the numbers of people to day. I don't think it is a terrible thing to ask that we try to keep the world population down. I had one child, and she was a oopsie child! Don't get me wrong, I have her and would not change that for the world but I would never have another! Not with the way the world is today, there is simply to much going on to turn a shoulder! I don't tell others what they should do or how many children they should have but I do think having multiple children is not necessary today. Please don't miss understand me! I am not against humanity, I am against all the wrong that has and is going on due to the overpopulation of humanity. But ....any way what is is and it would take a lot of work to make it change, thats if a change can be made! ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 16th, 2007 9:46 PM |
| I totally get the point. And the site makes point on how overpopulation is destroying our planet. But telling people not to have kids? That they should abort wanted pregnancies? That's just nuts. Why? Because it's not really the people in civilised society who are overpopulating our world. It is people in underdeveloped countries who breed consistently, knowing they have AIDS, knowing they have no way of feeding or housing their children. I know they are living in poverty, and I feel for them, I really do. But they breed consistently. In civilised society we have access to contraception and abortion. It seems the higher up the class scale, the less children are being created per family. I'm considering only having my son, and having no more children, much to my fiancé's dismay, not because of overpopulation, but because I feel one child is enough for me. The reason civilised countries like the UK and the US are being overpopulated at the moment is not because we're having more children! It's because we are letting in millions upon millions of immigrants every day, both legal and illegal! Ironically most of these immigrants are from uncivilised societies. ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 16th, 2007 9:50 PM |
| My point is, there is little point in telling people from civilised society to have less children, as on average per family we're only having about 2 kids, and that's not a lot. And why should we do that when we are being bombarded with immigrants from uncivilised society who breed consistently? Should we really have less children to make more room for the children from uncivilised society who will in turn produce many children because they aren't educated or wealthy enough to understand the detrimental affects it has? ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 17th, 2007 2:50 AM |
| That is true, the government does let plenty of foreigners in to this country.However this topic does not only include our country it is also includes others, overpopulation is a world wide epidemic not just here in our own country. This is a issue that many will not care to see or understand! I do thank you Briseis, for your reasonable conversation. It is always a pleasure being able to discuss ones views and thoughts in a mature calm manner. ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 17th, 2007 2:58 AM |
| People even 50 years ago were having 14, 15 kids. We should put euthanize old people who are senile and living in homes, terminally ill people and all the useless drug addicts who are a burden on society. The problem isn't having babies, the problem is that we are allowing these people, who would have otherwise died, to live. ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 17th, 2007 3:43 AM |
| I hate to say it Randi but the useless drug addicts you say should be put to death could be one of your children one day. They came from the same place our own children came from. Do you think their mothers knew prior to having them they would grow up being drug addicts, abuse them selfs like they do? Drud addicts where once cute lovable babies at one time to! ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 17th, 2007 4:10 AM |
| Maybe one of my children... or my mother. I have to deal with my mother and I wish she was dead. I love her, but she is not a contributing member of society and with her irresponsible actions she is putting more people in danger than just herself and she is costing taxpayers money. People like that should not be given the chance to have children and I do believe that if we are going to start pruning our population for the purpose of balancing our planet, then I do believe that is a good place to start. They themselves are suffering... they are in the same boat as the old people and the terminally ill. They are not living a full, comfortable life and there is nothing we can do to change that. ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 17th, 2007 4:50 AM |
| On another note! Randi hows your dog doing with the excitable peeing? ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 17th, 2007 4:54 AM |
She has been a little better since I have been letting her in the bathroom with me when I bathe my son at night. I make that time hers. She did growl at me when I poured water on his head and she kind of cocked her head. She was nervous and very protective of him... he is only 5 months old and she ignores him the rest of the time haha, but she has been peeing less. She is just such a jealous dog and I think she just wants attention and time to herself so bad. The bath time seems to help.
I couldn't get her to come in the other door. She is usually not allowed in that part of the house haha ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 17th, 2007 9:19 AM |
| Randi makes an excellent point actually ... People are living longer and longer. I learned in my European Studies degree, when we were discussing 'The Greying of Europe' that in civilised society, there are actually more people over 50 than there are under! We keep elderly people who are senile alive, spend billions on healthcare, housing, nursing etc for these people, some of whom barely realise who they are. Disease, no matter how awful it was, was a way of keeping our numbers at bay. Look at the Black Death. It wiped out billions in weeks. And what with medication, drugs, cures for illness, research becoming more advanced we are able to overcome this, and live longer. My fiancé's grandmother is 98! So is the problem overbreeding in uncivilised society? And overnurturing in civilised society? And combined, is that what is destroying our world? If this is the case, doesn't it just stand to reason that the problem with overpopulation is only going to get worse regardless of whether civilised society has less children or not? Are we so successful as a species that we are in turn becoming detrimental to ourselves? And also, do I watch too much 'Sex and the City'? ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 17th, 2007 9:33 AM |
| When my dog was ill with heart disease, he battled with it, with medication, treatment etc for years. And I almost bankrupt myself paying for it all. When he eventually went into heart failure, my vet said to me 'It's come to the stage where we now look at the quality of life, not the length of it'. Still, I gave him more medication, and in his last weeks, he was on 8 heart tablets a day. I had to get up at 3am every morning to give him one of them. But I could still walk him, and play with him, and he was a happy boy. But in his last 2 weeks, his lungs began to fill up with fluid, again I tried to battle it with medication. And this time the medication wasn't working any more, it was just about keeping him alive, and my vet said 'no more walks. put him in a cage. don't get him excited or he'll die'. I didn't put him in a cage, but I didn't take him for walks, and I didn't play with him. I just hugged him, and forced food and medication down his throat, and he'd look at me so sadly and miserably. And still I just couldn't bear to lose him, and still I kept him alive. When he went into the final stages of heart failure, I took him to the vets where they battled to save his life. And even hours before my lovely boy slipped away from me, I knew that whether he won the battle this time or not, that the kindest thing to do would be to put him to sleep, because the quality of his life had now gone, and I couldn't bear to see him so unhappy. It was either I suffered or he suffered, and it should never be him. I decided I would probably put him to sleep. But he passed away on his own anyway. Only minutes after I made that decision, my vet told him 'Bono has just passed away." It was almost as though he knew. So if I can make the decision that when the quality of my dog's life has gone, to euthanise him for his own good, even though I didn't have to, then why shouldn't we be able to do that with humans? Is it really cruel to euthanise someone? Or is it more cruel to keep them alive? ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 17th, 2007 5:34 PM |
| Stupid ass human laws is why we cant do that. Human laws! The elderly are not why the population is so huge, sure they played their roll in helping it get this way. The reason for the population is due to the child rearing ages, the people who continue to reproduce with out a thought of what it may be doing to the world. I don't see how bumping of the elderly and ill will change any thing when there will still be others having children. So we should all be able to have as many kids as we want and when they get elderly or ill then we can bump them of? Nah... I don't think that would be a viable solution to over population. After all they are elderly they will die soon any way! ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 17th, 2007 5:57 PM |
No, but with the big baby boom in the 60's and all of the older people living longer, they are a huge part of the overpopulation problem. Don't forget that, not too long ago, humans weren't living much beyond 50 or 60. Now hearing of someone in their late 90's is fairly common. Alzheimers runs in my family. I have a great, great aunt that is 92, in a home and has no idea who the hell she is. Why keep her around? She doesn't know us and needs to be sedated because she wakes up every morning in a panic not knowing where she is. There are 14 others in similar situations in her SECURE UNIT. She is not allowed to leave without supervision. She doesn't know anybody, so she never gets out of that unit. That is just in the town I grew up in, how many more are like that. IMO medicine in that area has become to advanced.
As for the having children thing, I believe that you should have to pass a test to have children. There are way too many people who have children just because they have the parts required to make one. I think that there should be mandatory injections given in school at 12 years of age to all girls. This should continue until they are 18. WAY too many teenagers wanting babies right now!!! It is so strange to me. They are the ones who pump out 3 by the time they are 17 and can't support them, they get taken away and they go have more. STERILIZE ↑ |
| Name: nckeeptryin | Date: May 17th, 2007 6:03 PM |
| theres randi puttin in her two cents that dont no one want to here i told you toget a life go play with your dogs that you no so much about ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 17th, 2007 7:55 PM |
| We wouldn't bump off elderly people. God no! However, I think there comes a point when we should apply a DNR on their bedposts. We BATTLE to keep them alive, when nature declares that their time is up ... I think that when it comes to elderly people whose quality of life has gone, that we should not keep them alive. It may even be seen as cruel to. We aren't having that many kids these days as adults, and that wouldn't be a reason to 'bump off' elderly people. However, equally why should we have less kids to accomodate senile old people? Because that's all it would be doing ... But Randi's right. A major problem in society is kids having kids ... and the taxpayer having to pay for them! ↑ |
| Name: briseis | Date: May 17th, 2007 8:04 PM |
| What do you propose the solution be to couples with infertility? Do you agree with IVF? Or any other fertility treatment? Or do you think that we should go by the laws of nature only? ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 18th, 2007 3:07 AM |
Hahaha ok nckeeptryin, whatever.
Lindalu, do you believe in this concept strongly enough to discourage your daughter from having children? Would you give up your chance at a grandchild in an attempt to balance our planet? ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 18th, 2007 3:37 AM |
Randi
My only child is a daughter who does not want to birth children of her own. She will adopt when she is ready for children! Her feeling is there are so many unwanted children that are already here. I do 100% support her decision, and will love any child she adopts just as it was her own. So yes... I Would give up my chance at a grandchild in an attempt to balance our planet. You see I can be a grand mother with out my daughter actually birthing the child. ↑ |
| Name: Randi | Date: May 18th, 2007 4:41 AM |
| I wasn't being a bitch Lindalu. I was just wondering. I just have a hard time swallowing all of this. It goes against everything I was raised to believe. I grew up in a very christian household and this is way beyond me. I agree with the over population, but there are other ways to deal with it than no longer breeding. People are actually having less kids than in previous years. The problem is that we are keeping people alive who would normally have died. What this VHEMT is proposing is that we, as a human race, allow ourselves to become extinct. How is that going to help with the balance of our planet? ↑ |
| Name: lindalu | Date: May 18th, 2007 4:36 PM |
| Randi I know you wasn't being a bitch, lol!!! I didn't take it that way. You just asked me a question is all. I know there are extremists out there that would say wipe all human kind out to balance the world but thats not my beliefs. I feel that if there wasn't so many people many of the problems we are having today would not exist. I don't tell others what they should do, or how many children they should have. I know plenty of people who have many children. I do feel bad when I see all the children that are being brought in to a cruel world, in to a uncaring world! I know one day my child will suffer because of my ignorance and stupidity, I was not responsible and got pregnant! I just don't understand why today any one would want to bring a child in to a world that is going so bad. Randi you said you are trying to understand, just as I try to understand most others thoughts as to having children today. Believe me this is not some thing that I live for, I don't run around telling people they should not have children but when a topic such as this one arises I will voice my thoughts and feelings about it. ↑ |
|
|
