Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Extinctionism

Extinctionism is a fringe environmental philosophy asserting that the human species should voluntarily phase itself out of existence by ceasing reproduction, thereby halting anthropogenic degradation of Earth's biosphere and permitting natural ecosystems to regenerate without ongoing human interference.^[1] Primarily articulated through the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), it emphasizes peaceful, individual choices to forgo having children rather than any form of coercion or harm to existing populations, with the core rationale rooted in the observation that unchecked human population growth drives habitat destruction, species loss, and resource depletion beyond planetary carrying capacity.^[2] The movement's slogan, "May we live long and die out," encapsulates its non-violent ethos, framing extinction not as an abrupt catastrophe but as a multi-generational process allowing current humans to live fulfilling lives while future births are avoided to prioritize ecological restoration.^[1] Formulated by Les U. Knight in the early 1990s, VHEMT emerged amid growing awareness of overpopulation's environmental toll, drawing on precedents in conservation ethics that view humanity as incompatible with preserving wilderness on a global scale.^[2] Proponents argue from first principles that human expansion inherently conflicts with biodiversity, citing empirical evidence of deforestation, ocean acidification, and mass extinctions correlated with demographic pressures, though the philosophy lacks formal empirical validation of post-human recovery timelines or the feasibility of total non-procreation adoption.^[1] Critics contend that extinctionism undervalues human potential for technological adaptation and sustainable stewardship, potentially reflecting deeper misanthropic undertones despite explicit rejections of violence or eugenics, and it remains marginal with no measurable impact on global fertility rates or policy.^[2] Nonetheless, it highlights causal links between population dynamics and environmental strain, challenging mainstream sustainability narratives that assume perpetual human dominance can align with ecological limits, and persists as a thought experiment in debates over longtermism and species-level ethics.^[1]

Definition and Principles

Core Definition

Extinctionism refers to the advocacy for the voluntary extinction of the human species through the cessation of reproduction, framed as an ethical response to humanity's environmental impact. Proponents argue that human population growth and activities have caused irreversible damage to Earth's biosphere, including habitat destruction, species extinction, and climate alteration, rendering continued human existence incompatible with planetary restoration. By encouraging individuals to adopt a childfree lifestyle without coercion, extinctionism posits that successive generations of non-breeders would lead to the species' natural fade-out over 100–200 years, allowing ecosystems to rebound without ongoing anthropogenic interference.^[1]^[3] Central to this view is the premise that humans, as the primary drivers of the ongoing sixth mass extinction event—which has accelerated species loss at rates 100–1,000 times higher than natural background levels—represent a net detriment to global biodiversity. Advocates like Les U. Knight, who formalized the position in 1991, emphasize that voluntary non-procreation is a humane alternative to involuntary population declines via famine, war, or disease, which exacerbate suffering. The philosophy rejects pronatalist cultural norms and prioritizes intergenerational equity, asserting that sparing future humans from existence prevents the propagation of ecological harm and individual hardships inherent to birth.^[4]^[2]^[5] Unlike antinatalist philosophies that focus solely on averting human suffering irrespective of environmental factors, extinctionism integrates deep ecology principles, viewing humanity's dominion over nature as the root causal mechanism for biosphere degradation. It maintains that no technological or policy fixes can sustainably mitigate over seven billion humans' resource consumption, which exceeds Earth's biocapacity by approximately 1.5 planets annually as of recent ecological footprint assessments. Critics from mainstream environmentalism contend this stance undervalues human ingenuity in conservation, but proponents counter that empirical trends in deforestation—losing 420 million hectares since 1990—and ocean acidification underscore the futility of partial measures.^[6]^[7]

Philosophical Underpinnings

Extinctionism, particularly as articulated by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), is grounded in an environmental ethic that views human population expansion as the primary driver of planetary degradation, necessitating voluntary reproductive cessation to enable ecological recovery. Proponents maintain that Homo sapiens, through overbreeding and overconsumption, have precipitated widespread habitat destruction, species extinctions, and resource depletion, rendering continued human propagation incompatible with biosphere restoration. This perspective derives from empirical assessments of human impact, such as the correlation between population growth—reaching over 8 billion by November 2022—and accelerated biodiversity loss, positioning extinction as a compassionate allowance for non-human life to thrive without anthropogenic interference.^[1]^[8]^[3] A core philosophical pillar is the prioritization of the biosphere's intrinsic value over that of a single species, echoing principles akin to deep ecology, which asserts the independent worth of ecosystems and non-human entities irrespective of human utility. VHEMT founder Les U. Knight, who formulated this stance around 1970 after observing ecological collapse, argues that humans function as a "proliferative superorganism" akin to a cancer, whose unchecked replication inflicts irreversible harm, and that phasing out reproduction represents a moral duty to mitigate suffering for both present and potential future generations. This reasoning emphasizes causal realism in linking human numbers directly to environmental crises, without reliance on coercive measures, framing extinction not as nihilism but as an affirmative act for planetary health.^[2]^[5]^[9] Antinatalism provides another foundational strand, positing that procreation is ethically problematic because it imposes existence—and thus probable suffering—on unconsenting individuals in a world of finite resources and inherent risks. VHEMT integrates this by contending that refraining from breeding averts the creation of beings doomed to contribute to, and endure, ecological fallout, aligning with the view that non-existence precludes harm. Knight reinforces this by highlighting how human persistence perpetuates cycles of conflict over scarce resources, advocating instead for a gradual die-off that spares subsequent cohorts from such burdens while permitting current generations to live fulfilling lives. This synthesis underscores extinctionism's voluntary, non-violent ethos, distinguishing it from involuntary extinction scenarios driven by catastrophe.^[10]^[10]^[5] Extinctionism, as embodied by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), differs from antinatalism primarily in its motivations and scope. Antinatalism posits that procreation is morally wrong due to the inherent suffering imposed on new individuals, regardless of environmental context, as articulated by philosophers like David Benatar in Better Never to Have Been (2006).^[10] In contrast, VHEMT views antinatalism as one philosophical pathway supporting voluntary non-breeding but centers its rationale on ecological restoration: human extinction would allow the biosphere to recover from anthropogenic damage, such as habitat destruction and species loss occurring at rates of approximately 27,000 per day.^[8] VHEMT does not universally endorse antinatalist asymmetry arguments but prioritizes planetary biodiversity over abstract ethical calculus about human suffering.^[10] Unlike deep ecology, which advocates for the intrinsic value of all life forms and calls for reduced human interference to achieve ecological balance—often through sustainable practices and biocentric policies—extinctionism proposes complete human phase-out as the optimal solution.^[2] Deep ecology, pioneered by Arne Næss in the 1970s, seeks harmony between humans and nature via principles like self-realization in ecosystems and opposition to anthropocentrism, without endorsing species extinction.^[11] VHEMT, while influenced by deep ecological ideas of species equality, deems ongoing human presence incompatible with full biosphere recovery, rejecting interim measures like population stabilization in favor of total voluntary cessation of reproduction.^[10] Extinctionism is distinct from misanthropy, which entails generalized hatred, contempt, or distrust of humanity as inherently flawed or destructive.^[8] VHEMT explicitly rejects misanthropic despair, emphasizing human capacities for compassion, reason, and ethical choice as foundations for its voluntary approach; supporters view humans as an "exotic invader" species but affirm their potential for selfless acts toward other life forms.^[8] The movement's motto, "May we live long and die out," underscores a non-hostile stance: existing humans should enjoy full lifespans without breeding, countering perceptions of anti-human malice.^[2] In opposition to traditional population control efforts, which aim to curb growth through policies like family planning incentives or limits (e.g., China's one-child policy from 1979–2015, reducing births by an estimated 400 million), extinctionism seeks not stabilization at sustainable levels but total elimination via individual choice.^[2] VHEMT opposes coercive measures, distinguishing itself from eugenics or state-mandated reductions, and critiques partial controls as insufficient against cumulative environmental degradation, such as the ongoing sixth mass extinction driven by human expansion.^[8] Extinctionism also contrasts with promortalism or suicidal ideologies, which advocate accelerating death; VHEMT prohibits any promotion of harm to existing lives, focusing solely on preventing new births to enable natural die-off over generations, potentially spanning centuries.^[8] This voluntary, non-violent framework sets it apart from radical anti-civilization primitivism, which may endorse dismantling society but not necessarily species extinction.^[11]

Historical Development

Early Precursors

The philosophical roots of extinctionism trace back to 19th-century pessimism, particularly Arthur Schopenhauer's advocacy for denying the will to life as a means to escape perpetual suffering. In his 1819 work The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer argued that existence is characterized by inevitable pain, with procreation merely propagating this cycle, and suggested that the ethical response is ascetic renunciation, including celibacy, effectively allowing the human race to die out voluntarily.^[12] This view positioned non-reproduction not as mere personal choice but as a compassionate act to prevent further sentient beings from entering a world of net harm.^[13] Building on Schopenhauer's framework, Eduard von Hartmann explicitly endorsed voluntary human extinction in his 1869 Philosophy of the Unconscious. Hartmann contended that humanity's duty, as conscious agents, is to accelerate the end of suffering by ceasing reproduction, thereby guiding the cosmos toward a state of redeemed unconsciousness where the underlying will dissipates without renewal.^[12] He envisioned this gradual demographic decline—spanning generations—as a collective ethical imperative, distinguishing it from active euthanasia by emphasizing passive non-procreation to avoid introducing new victims to existence's inherent misery.^[13] Hartmann's position marked an early systematization of extinction as a redemptive strategy, influencing later antinatalist thought despite its radical implications. In the 20th century, Norwegian philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe extended these ideas through existential pessimism in his 1933 essay "The Last Messiah." Zapffe diagnosed human consciousness as a maladaptive evolutionary overdevelopment, rendering life a tragic paradox of awareness amid inevitable decay, and prescribed anti-natalism—abstaining from reproduction—as the primary defense mechanism to halt the creation of additional sufferers.^[14] He remained childless in line with this principle, framing non-procreation as a sublimated response to humanity's "sickness unto death," which implicitly supports species-level extinction to resolve the biological error of hyper-reflective sentience.^[15] Unlike prior thinkers, Zapffe integrated psychological mechanisms like isolation and distraction but prioritized infertility to prevent perpetuating the "tragedy of cognition."^[16] These precursors, grounded in metaphysical pessimism rather than modern environmentalism, prefigured extinctionism's core tenet of voluntary phase-out by linking reproduction to avoidable harm, though they lacked organized movements or biosphere-focused rationales that emerged later.^[13] Their arguments emphasized suffering's asymmetry—nonexistence harms none—providing a causal logic for demographic cessation without relying on empirical population data or ecological metrics.^[12]

Formation of VHEMT (1991)

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) emerged as an organized initiative in 1991 when Les U. Knight published the inaugural issue of the photocopied newsletter These Exit Times. This publication explicitly advocated for humans to voluntarily refrain from reproduction, positing that the gradual, painless extinction of the species would enable Earth's biosphere to recover from anthropogenic damage, including habitat destruction and biodiversity loss.^[17]^[18] The newsletter, copyrighted to Knight in 1991 and designed for unrestricted duplication, targeted environmentally conscious individuals and groups, emphasizing non-coercive, altruistic participation without formal membership requirements.^[19] Knight, an activist with prior involvement in radical environmental efforts such as Earth First!, formalized the movement by coining its name and acronym (pronounced "vehement"), framing it as a contemporary articulation of an ancient philosophical awareness of humanity's ecological footprint.^[2]^[20] While the official VHEMT site attributes the core worldview to independent realizations throughout human history—rejecting a singular founder—Knight's actions in 1991, including pseudonymously authoring and distributing the newsletter, catalyzed its public dissemination amid growing concerns over global population exceeding 5 billion and associated resource strains.^[2]^[7] Initial outreach leveraged networks in the environmental movement, positioning VHEMT as a logical extension of anti-natalist responses to observed planetary degradation rather than a novel invention.^[21]

Evolution Since the 1990s

Following its formal naming in 1991, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) initially propagated its message through printed newsletters and localized activism. The inaugural issue of These EXIT Times, the movement's newsletter, appeared in 1991 to articulate its rationale and recruit volunteers via appeals for non-reproduction to restore ecological balance.^[17] Early efforts included setting up informational booths, participating in radio talk shows, and submitting letters to editors, which helped extend awareness beyond the United States to a growing international network of adherents by the mid-1990s.^[22] A 1992 condensation of a New Age Journal article in Reader's Digest introduced VHEMT to approximately 100 million readers across 17 countries, marking one of its earliest instances of mass media exposure despite characterizations of the idea as "outrageous."^[22] The mid-1990s marked a pivotal shift toward digital outreach with the launch of the VHEMT website in 1996, which transitioned the newsletter's content online and enabled global accessibility.^[23] By 2010, the site had been translated into 11 languages, broadening its reach to non-English speakers and incorporating multimedia elements like animations critiquing reproduction.^[24] This online presence supplemented sporadic media coverage, including a 2005 Ripley's Believe It or Not! comic strip feature and interviews with founder Les U. Knight on outlets like NBC's Tucker Carlson show, where the movement's voluntary phasing out of humanity was debated in the context of environmental degradation.^[25]^[26] VHEMT maintained its non-organizational structure as a "disorganization," eschewing formal membership, dues, or hierarchy in favor of individual endorsements of its core slogan, "May we live long and die out."^[2] Into the 2000s and 2010s, VHEMT's evolution emphasized persistence amid limited growth, with advocacy adapting to internet forums and social media while facing dismissal as extreme. Coverage in outlets like CBC News in 2008 highlighted Knight's arguments linking human overpopulation to biosphere harm, yet the movement reported no centralized metrics for supporter numbers, relying instead on self-identified volunteers.^[4] A Facebook community reached nearly 9,000 members by 2019 but restricted new joins, reflecting a deliberate low-profile approach over aggressive recruitment.^[27] Principles remained unchanged, focusing on empirical observations of population-driven ecological pressures rather than evolving into political activism.^[2] By the 2020s, as global population surpassed 8 billion in 2022, Knight continued personal outreach through interviews, reiterating VHEMT's call for contraception and childfree living to avert further habitat loss and species decline.^[3] The website updated sections documenting human impacts, such as biodiversity erosion, with embedded interviews reinforcing the original 1991 thesis.^[1] Despite intermittent features in mainstream media like The Guardian in 2020, VHEMT has not expanded into formal organizations or alliances, sustaining influence primarily through Knight's longstanding role and the site's archival resources rather than mass adoption.^[5] This trajectory underscores a movement defined by ideological consistency over institutional development, with visibility tied to broader environmental discourses on overpopulation.^[23]

Key Figures and Organizations

Les U. Knight

Les U. Knight, born around 1947 in a small desert town in Oregon during the post-war baby boom, experienced early overcrowding in schools where classes overflowed into churches and libraries due to population pressures.^[5] This environment shaped his initial concerns about human numbers, which deepened after military service as a Vietnam-era veteran without combat deployment.^[28] At age 25, approximately 1972, he underwent a vasectomy at a medical school in exchange for serving as a student's first procedure, reflecting an early personal commitment to limiting reproduction.^[5] Knight worked as a substitute teacher, a role that afforded flexibility to research population dynamics, including hitchhiking across the United States in the 1970s.^[5] Influenced by Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, he joined Zero Population Growth before concluding around 1970 that voluntary human extinction offered the optimal path to planetary restoration, arguing that human absence would enable ecosystems to rebound with abundance for remaining life.^[5] In 1991, Knight coined the name "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" (VHEMT) for a pre-existing philosophy advocating non-coercive cessation of human procreation to phase out the species compassionately, and he began editing its newsletter These EXIT Times.^[28] He launched the VHEMT website in 1996 to disseminate these ideas globally.^[5] Residing in Portland, Oregon, as of 2022 at age 75, Knight maintains the movement is leaderless, with all supporters acting as equals, though he coordinates outreach such as booths at street fairs displaying the slogan "Thank you for not breeding."^[3] ^[9] ^[28] He promotes the motto "May we live long and die out," emphasizing voluntary non-breeding over any coercive or violent measures, and critiques humanity as "not a good species" for its environmental impact.^[3] ^[9]

Other Proponents

Chris Korda, an American artist and musician, founded the Church of Euthanasia in 1992 alongside Robert Kimberk, promoting human extinction as essential to planetary salvation through its four pillars: suicide, abortion, cannibalism (excluding murder), and sodomy (to prevent procreation). The group's slogan, "Save the Planet—Kill Yourself," underscores its advocacy for immediate population reduction to zero, distinguishing it from VHEMT's emphasis on gradual voluntary non-breeding by endorsing active self-termination as a moral imperative. While VHEMT explicitly rejects coercive or hastened death, the Church of Euthanasia positions extinction as an urgent ethical duty amid ecological collapse, with Korda citing overpopulation as the root of biodiversity loss and resource depletion.^[29] Antinatalist philosopher David Benatar has advanced arguments that, if universally applied, entail human extinction, though his focus is on averting suffering rather than environmental restoration. In his 2006 book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, Benatar posits an asymmetry where the absence of pleasure is not harmful but the presence of pain is, rendering procreation morally wrong since it risks imposing net suffering on non-consenting beings. He contends that continuing the species perpetuates avoidable harms without commensurate benefits, implying that ceasing reproduction would prevent future misery without depriving anyone of existence.^[30] Benatar's framework aligns with extinctionist logic by prioritizing non-existence to eliminate potential suffering, though he stops short of organizing for collective extinction.^[13] Philosophical pessimists such as Arthur Schopenhauer provided early intellectual support for extinctionist ideas by advocating denial of reproduction to end the cycle of suffering inherent in willing existence. In his 1819 work The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer described life's perpetual striving as unfulfillable desire leading to pain, recommending compassion through abstaining from procreation as the ultimate ethical act, which would phase out humanity and allow rest for the will to life.^[12] This view influenced later antinatalists but predates modern environmental motivations, framing extinction as liberation from biological compulsion rather than ecological necessity.^[13]

Organizational Structure of VHEMT

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) operates without a formal organizational structure, functioning instead as a decentralized philosophical movement rather than a registered entity or corporation.^[2]^[31] It lacks bylaws, a board of directors, or any hierarchical leadership beyond the informal influence of its founder, Les U. Knight, who maintains its primary online presence through the website vhemt.org and responds to public inquiries.^[28]^[3] This model emphasizes individual autonomy, with participants described as a loose network of volunteers who advance the concept through personal advocacy, without requiring affiliation or dues.^[32] Supporters self-identify as VHEMT volunteers and are granted broad latitude to promote the idea independently, including publishing newsletters, issuing media statements, or organizing events, without needing central approval.^[33] The movement produces occasional publications, such as the newsletter These EXIT Times, which began in 1991 to disseminate its philosophy, but these are not produced under a structured editorial body.^[17] Outreach occurs primarily via the official website, which hosts multilingual resources, graphics, and responses to common questions, alongside sporadic media interviews featuring Knight.^[1] No formal chapters, regional branches, or membership rolls exist, reflecting VHEMT's rejection of institutional frameworks in favor of grassroots, voluntary dissemination.^[2] This informal approach aligns with its anti-natalist ethos, avoiding the perpetuation of organizational entities that might demand ongoing human commitment.^[3]

Arguments For Extinctionism

Environmental Restoration Claims

Proponents of extinctionism, particularly within the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), assert that human population growth and associated activities are the root causes of widespread environmental degradation, including habitat destruction and accelerated species extinctions, and that voluntary human phase-out would enable the biosphere's full recovery.^[1] They claim that ceasing reproduction would halt further expansion of human impact, providing remaining ecosystems with the opportunity to regenerate without ongoing interference from resource extraction, pollution, and land conversion.^[8] Les U. Knight, VHEMT's founder, has stated that human absence would restore ecosystems by eliminating the primary agent of disruption, allowing biodiversity to rebound over time.^[5] A key element of these claims involves the reversal of current extinction rates, which VHEMT attributes to human overpopulation at approximately 27,000 species per year, potentially leading to the loss of 50% or more of Earth's estimated 10-100 million species if unchecked.^[8] Advocates argue that without humans, natural processes would prevent such a collapse, as evidenced by historical precedents like the diversification of life following the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago, suggesting the planet could rebuild a robust web of life over tens of millions of years post-humanity.^[8] They point to localized examples, such as the return of wildlife to the Chernobyl exclusion zone after human evacuation in 1986, where species proliferation demonstrates nature's capacity for rapid recovery in the absence of anthropogenic pressures.^[8] Knight further contends that each human consumes resources equivalent to about 24 acres of wildlife habitat, exacerbating deforestation and habitat loss, as seen in practices like clear-cutting in regions such as Chile.^[34] Under extinctionist reasoning, reducing human numbers to zero would not only ease immediate preservation efforts but ultimately free up vast areas for ecological restoration, ensuring sufficient resources for surviving species and averting a cascade of extinctions already in motion.^[5]^[34] This perspective frames Homo sapiens as fundamentally incompatible with the biosphere's long-term health, positioning voluntary non-breeding as a compassionate act that prioritizes planetary recovery over continued human propagation.^[34]

Reduction of Suffering

Proponents of extinctionism, particularly within the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), argue that voluntary human non-reproduction would prevent future instances of human suffering by averting the birth of individuals destined to experience inevitable hardships such as disease, starvation, and conflict exacerbated by overpopulation.^[2] Les U. Knight, VHEMT's founder, has stated that the high probability of a "massive die-off" due to resource depletion justifies refraining from procreation, as it would otherwise "sentence another of us to life" amid looming crises.^[2] This rationale draws on observations of current child mortality, with Knight citing approximately 40,000 daily deaths from preventable causes like malnutrition, asserting that non-conception would spare potential offspring such tragic existences.^[35] Extinctionism further posits that human cessation would drastically reduce animal suffering, which is predominantly human-induced through habitat destruction, overhunting, and industrial agriculture.^[2] VHEMT contends that phasing out humanity allows Earth's biosphere to recover, enabling "all remaining creatures... to live, die, evolve" without ongoing anthropogenic pressures that drive species extinctions and chronic pain in wildlife.^[2] Knight emphasizes that each human not brought into existence represents a "double success": the individual avoids personal suffering in deteriorating conditions, while their absence alleviates collective burdens that intensify global hardships.^[35] This perspective frames voluntary extinction as a humanitarian imperative over involuntary population collapse, prioritizing the cessation of breeding to end "needless suffering of humanity" and restore ecological balance, rather than endorsing active harm.^[2] Critics of mainstream demographic projections note that while global child mortality has declined from peaks exceeding 40,000 daily in the late 20th century to around 13,000 in recent UNICEF data as of 2023, extinctionists maintain that underlying vulnerabilities persist amid environmental degradation, rendering further population growth ethically untenable.

Resource and Population Pressures

Proponents of extinctionism assert that unchecked human population growth imposes unsustainable demands on Earth's finite resources, leading to depletion and systemic ecological collapse. The global population surpassed 8 billion individuals on November 15, 2022, a tenfold increase from the roughly 800 million people alive around 1750, which VHEMT attributes to intensified exploitation of water, soil, fisheries, and minerals.^[36] Les U. Knight, VHEMT's founder, maintains that "every problem that faces the planet can be traced back to humans and is exacerbated by the number of humans," resulting in widespread shortages and habitat encroachment that preclude biosphere recovery without intervention.^[4]^[2] Specific resource strains highlighted include the overexploitation of critical materials, with 69 of 89 essential metals and minerals deemed scarce or in decline as of assessments in the early 2010s, driven by population-fueled industrial expansion.^[36] Deforestation rates averaging 10 million hectares annually between 2015 and 2020 further illustrate this pressure, converting biodiverse forests into depleted land for human use and accelerating soil erosion and carbon release.^[36] VHEMT argues these dynamics exceed planetary carrying capacity, as evidenced by fossil fuel reserves entering irreversible decline amid quadrupled population growth over the past century, portending famines, epidemics, and societal disruptions absent population reduction.^[36] Advocates posit that voluntary cessation of reproduction would phase out these pressures by eliminating future consumers, enabling resource regeneration and averting a "massive die-off" from scarcity-induced crises.^[2] Knight envisions a post-human world where "ecosystems will be restored and there will be enough of everything," free from conflicts over dwindling supplies, allowing non-human species to thrive without human-induced biodiversity loss—such as the 60% decline in vertebrate populations since 1970 linked to habitat destruction.^[5]^[36] This approach, they claim, addresses root causes overlooked by partial measures like efficiency gains, which fail against exponential demographic expansion.^[36]

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Empirical Challenges to Environmental Catastrophism

Numerous predictions of environmental collapse made in the late 20th century, such as widespread famines by the 1980s due to overpopulation as forecasted by biologist Paul Ehrlich, failed to materialize as agricultural innovations like the Green Revolution boosted food production far beyond expectations.^[37] Similarly, alarms in the 1970s about global cooling and resource exhaustion around the first Earth Day in 1970, including claims of depleted oil reserves by the 1990s, proved unfounded as technological advancements expanded resource availability and averted shortages.^[38] These recurring inaccuracies highlight the limitations of extrapolating linear trends without accounting for human adaptability, casting doubt on absolutist narratives equating population growth with inevitable catastrophe. Global crop yields have risen dramatically since 1960 despite a near-doubling of the world population, with wheat yields increasing 225%, maize 196%, soybeans 153%, and rice 146%, driven by improved seed varieties, fertilizers, and farming techniques.^[39] Concurrently, death rates from air pollution have declined worldwide, particularly from indoor sources, as access to cleaner energy and pollution controls expanded, even as economic activity grew.^[40] These trends demonstrate that human expansion has not led to proportional degradation in essential environmental services like food security and breathable air, contrary to zero-sum catastrophist assumptions. Satellite observations from NASA indicate that Earth has experienced significant greening over the past four decades, with a 70% attribution to carbon dioxide fertilization enhancing photosynthesis and plant growth, resulting in a 10% vegetation increase between 2000 and 2020.^[41] This effect has been particularly pronounced in drylands and agricultural regions, countering claims of universal desertification and underscoring CO2's role as a plant nutrient rather than solely a pollutant.^[42] Deforestation rates have slowed globally, dropping from 17.6 million hectares per year in 1990–2000 to 10.9 million hectares in 2015–2025, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, with net forest loss declining due to reforestation efforts and sustainable management in regions like Europe and China.^[43] While tropical losses persist, primarily from agriculture and logging, the deceleration reflects policy interventions and market incentives, not inexorable collapse.^[44] Broader human welfare metrics further challenge catastrophist premises: global life expectancy has more than doubled to 71 years since 1900, and extreme poverty rates have fallen sharply even amid population growth to over 8 billion, enabled by technological progress that decouples economic expansion from environmental harm.^[45] Climate observations show warming aligned with but not exceeding historical variability in many models, without evidence of predicted exponential accelerations in events like hurricanes, suggesting resilience through adaptation rather than requiring drastic measures like voluntary extinction.^[46] These empirical patterns indicate that environmental pressures, while real, are amenable to mitigation via innovation, undermining the foundational urgency of extinctionist environmental arguments.

Value of Human Innovation and Progress

Critics of extinctionism contend that human innovation has empirically alleviated the resource and environmental pressures cited by proponents, transforming potential Malthusian crises into eras of abundance. The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, spearheaded by agricultural advancements like high-yield wheat varieties developed by Norman Borlaug, boosted global cereal production by nearly 30% per capita, preventing famines in regions such as India and averting hunger for hundreds of millions amid rapid population growth.^[47] This technological leap correlated with a sharp decline in the global extreme poverty rate, from levels exceeding 50% in the early 20th century to under 10% by the late 20th century, as increased food security and agricultural productivity underpinned economic expansion.^[48] Medical and public health innovations have similarly extended human lifespan and vitality, countering claims of inherent suffering in existence. Global life expectancy rose from about 31 years in 1900 to over 72 years by 2019, attributable to breakthroughs including vaccines against smallpox and polio, antibiotics, and improved sanitation systems that eradicated or controlled diseases responsible for mass mortality.^[49] Biomedical research alone accounted for roughly 35% of life expectancy gains in developed nations from 1990 to 2015, through pharmaceuticals targeting chronic conditions and infections.^[50] These advancements demonstrate causal links between human ingenuity and reduced suffering, rather than population reduction as a prerequisite for welfare. Ongoing technological trajectories further underscore progress's potential to address extinctionist concerns without species cessation. Declining costs of renewable energy—solar photovoltaic prices fell 89% from 2010 to 2022, enabling scaled deployment—facilitate decarbonization while sustaining economic activity and population needs.^[51] Innovations in resource efficiency, such as precision agriculture and materials science, have historically offset scarcity by improving yields and substitution, as seen in minerals like aluminum where technological refinement reduced extraction demands despite rising consumption.^[52] Empirical patterns show that as global population expanded from 1 billion in 1800 to 8 billion today, per capita resource use stabilized or declined in key areas due to efficiency gains, challenging narratives of inevitable collapse.^[53] Proponents of human-centric environmentalism argue this adaptive capacity positions innovation, not extinction, as the mechanism for long-term ecological balance and flourishing.^[53]

Ethical Flaws in Antinatalist Logic

Antinatalist logic, as underpinning extinctionist advocacy, posits an asymmetry wherein the absence of pain in non-existence is deemed preferable to the potential mix of pleasure and suffering in life, rendering procreation immoral. This argument, prominently articulated by philosopher David Benatar, falters on comparability grounds: no state can be good or bad for a non-existent entity, as there is no subject to experience harm or benefit from non-being, undermining claims that non-existence is inherently superior.^[54] The asymmetry also employs inconsistent evaluative standards—judging pains from the perspective of existence while evaluating absent pleasures from hypothetical non-existence—creating an invalid comparison that skews toward pessimism without empirical warrant.^[54] Critics further contend that antinatalism's consent-based objection to procreation is metaphysically incoherent, as unconceived individuals possess no interests or capacity for consent, akin to how parents routinely make binding decisions for born children in areas like education or medical care without ethical violation.^[55] This logic, if extended to extinctionism, implies a duty not to perpetuate humanity, yet ignores the non-identity problem: the specific individuals brought into existence would not otherwise exist to claim harm, and their lives often generate net goods, including relational joys and personal fulfillment reported by the majority in global surveys.^[56] Empirical data from the World Happiness Report indicate that, on average, self-reported life satisfaction exceeds neutral thresholds across populations, contradicting the presumption of universal net suffering.^[57] The ethical dubiousness intensifies in extinctionist applications, where antinatalism entails pro-mortalism: advocating phased human die-off to eliminate future suffering logically extends to hastening existing lives, yet proponents recoil from suicide or euthanasia, revealing inconsistency—valuing continuation for the living while denying it prospectively.^[54] ^[58] This position devalues human life's intrinsic worth, reducing persons to net burdens and dismissing capacities for mitigating suffering through innovation, such as medical advances that have halved global child mortality since 1990.^[55] Extinctionism thus promotes a moral nihilism, forsaking potential alleviation of pains via progress for absolute cessation, which insults existent dignity and overlooks that suffering is often conditional and reducible rather than ontologically inevitable.^[58] In formal terms, antinatalist reasoning risks a slippery slope to endorsing active depopulation measures, conflicting with deontological prohibitions on harming innocents, as the "philanthropic" goal of ending humanity equates to denying future generations any chance at autonomy or eudaimonia.^[54] Procreation, far from unethical, aligns with recognized human rights frameworks affirming reproductive liberty as foundational to flourishing societies.^[55] By privileging hypothetical harms over realized goods, the logic inverts ethical priorities, treating non-being as a neutral boon while pathologizing existence despite evidence of widespread affirmative valuations of life.^[56]

Practical and Demographic Implausibility

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) lacks formal membership structures or dues, relying instead on self-identified supporters who agree with its core premise of ceasing reproduction, yet verifiable evidence indicates its influence remains negligible, with historical mailing lists numbering under 400 subscribers as of the early 2000s and no documented growth to claimed "millions" of adherents.^[2] Achieving the universal voluntary non-procreation required for extinction would demand unprecedented global coordination across diverse cultures, religions, and socioeconomic incentives that prioritize family formation and population renewal, rendering coordinated implementation practically unfeasible absent coercive measures, which VHEMT explicitly rejects.^[2] Demographic momentum—arising from large cohorts of individuals currently in or entering reproductive ages—ensures continued population growth even amid declining fertility rates, with the United Nations projecting a global peak of 10.3 billion people in the mid-2080s before a gradual decline, but no trajectory toward zero due to stabilizing fertility above extinction thresholds and countervailing factors like policy incentives for births in low-fertility nations.^[59] Global total fertility stood at 2.3 children per woman in 2023, down from 4.9 in the 1950s but projected to approach replacement level (2.1) around 2050 without plummeting to zero, as observed trends in high-fertility regions like sub-Saharan Africa (4.1 in 2024) sustain growth via natural increase and migration offsets in aging societies.^[60]^[61] Sustained extinction would necessitate fertility rates of exactly zero indefinitely across all populations, an unstable equilibrium vulnerable to even minor deviations from biological reproductive drives, economic dependencies on younger workforces, and governmental pronatalist policies (e.g., subsidies in Hungary and South Korea), which have historically reversed or mitigated sharp declines without approaching voluntary halt.^[61] Critics note that VHEMT's advocacy overlooks these inertial forces, as partial adoption by fringe groups in developed nations fails to counteract momentum from developing regions, where over 90% of projected growth to 2050 originates, making demographic extinction implausible without exogenous catastrophes rather than voluntary choice.^[59]^[62]

Reception and Impact

Media and Public Discourse

Media coverage of extinctionism has been sporadic and typically frames it as a fringe philosophical stance, often linking it to the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), founded by Les U. Knight in 1991, which advocates phased-out human reproduction to allow ecological recovery.^[9] In a 2020 Guardian profile, Knight described his campaign as promoting "live long and die out" to minimize environmental harm, portraying the idea as a logical response to overpopulation rather than active euthanasia.^[5] Earlier coverage, such as a 2008 CBC report, highlighted VHEMT's environmental rationale but questioned its feasibility and appeal, noting minimal organized membership despite online interest.^[4] Antinatalist variants of extinctionism, emphasizing the prevention of future suffering, have garnered more recent attention, particularly through figures like philosopher David Benatar, whose work underpins arguments against procreation. A 2019 BBC article explored antinatalist communities online, depicting adherents as a small but vocal group who view birth as imposing unconsented harm, yet criticized the position for its potential to undermine societal continuity.^[63] In December 2024, Rolling Stone covered the documentary I Wish You Were Never Born, which profiles antinatalists advocating species-level extinction; the piece noted public backlash accusing proponents of nihilism, while defenders argued it aligns with ethical asymmetry in harm versus benefit.^[64] Public discourse often manifests in opinion pieces critiquing extinctionism's implications. A 2018 New York Times essay by Todd May pondered if human extinction would constitute a tragedy, conceding species value amid environmental damage but rejecting wholesale extinction as a solution, citing inherent human worth.^[65] Similarly, a 2020 *Conversation* analysis dismissed radical extinction advocacy—such as proposals to accelerate planetary destruction to end suffering—as ethically dubious and disconnected from empirical ecology, attributing it to pessimistic overreach rather than evidence-based policy.^[12] Coverage in outlets like The Guardian (2023) contrasted pro-extinction views with effective altruism's anti-extinction focus, portraying the former as a minority dissent amid broader existential risk debates.^[66] Overall, mainstream media treats extinctionism with skepticism, emphasizing its marginal status and potential for misanthropic undertones, while philosophical journals and podcasts provide deeper but less accessible engagement; for instance, a September 2024 CBC Ideas episode debated human extinction's desirability, featuring experts who highlighted demographic trends countering voluntary decline.^[67] Public reception remains polarized, with environmental advocates occasionally sympathizing with population reduction but rejecting full extinction, as evidenced by limited uptake beyond niche forums.^[7]

Influence on Broader Movements

Extinctionist ideas have notably intersected with antinatalism, a philosophical stance positing that procreation is morally wrong due to the imposition of potential suffering on new beings. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight, explicitly advocates voluntary non-reproduction to avert ecological collapse, framing human extinction as a compassionate act for nonhuman life and aligning antinatalist ethics with environmental imperatives.^[1] This synthesis has amplified antinatalist discourse in online communities, where VHEMT is frequently cited as an ecological extension of arguments against birth, such as those in David Benatar's 2006 work Better Never to Have Been, though Benatar emphasizes suffering asymmetry over planetary recovery.^[68] Within radical environmentalism, extinctionism has inspired subsets of climate activism focused on population reduction. The BirthStrike initiative, launched in April 2018 by UK activists Blythe Pepine and Andrew Howard, encourages pledges to abstain from parenthood amid fears of anthropogenic climate catastrophe, echoing VHEMT's call for phased extinction while citing studies like those estimating a single child's lifetime carbon footprint at 58.6 tonnes annually.^[69] Such efforts have gained visibility in discussions of overpopulation's role in biodiversity loss, influencing "doomer" narratives in environmental forums that prioritize depopulation over adaptation. However, these remain marginal, with broader movements like deep ecology critiquing anthropocentrism without endorsing extinction.^[27] Efilism, an extreme variant inverting "life" to prioritize suffering eradication—even through hypothetical universe-ending measures—has indirectly shaped debates in negative utilitarianism, a framework valuing the prevention of harm over utility maximization. While efilist advocates like Gary Mosher (Inmendham) operate on fringes, their critiques of existence have prompted responses within suffering-focused ethics, highlighting tensions with effective altruism's emphasis on preserving future human potential rather than accelerating its end.^[12] This philosophical ripple effect underscores extinctionism's role in challenging pro-natalist norms, though empirical adoption in policy or large-scale activism remains negligible, confined largely to intellectual and subcultural spheres.^[70]

Recent Assessments (Post-2020)

In the early 2020s, philosophical assessments of extinctionist positions—advocating voluntary human extinction to eliminate suffering—have largely framed them as extensions of antinatalism and pessimism, while questioning their feasibility and moral coherence. A 2023 analysis in Bioethics evaluated the claim that antinatalist-driven voluntary extinction could resolve all human-induced problems simultaneously, arguing that such a stance overlooks persistent ethical tensions in intergenerational duties and the non-identity problem, where future non-existence precludes any harm but also potential goods.^[71] This critique highlights how extinctionism assumes suffering's inescapability without sufficient empirical accounting for historical declines in global suffering metrics, such as poverty and disease rates. By 2024, discussions in academic journals like The Monist assessed the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), noting its founder's acknowledgment of practical failure amid rising global fertility challenges and demographic trends favoring population stabilization rather than collapse.^[72] Philosophers critiqued extinctionism's reliance on non-identity arguments, positing that while preventing existence avoids harm, it ignores causal pathways where human persistence enables technological mitigations of suffering, as evidenced by post-2020 advancements in biotechnology and AI-driven health improvements.^[72] In bioethics, 2025 contributions to the AMA Journal of Ethics introduced frameworks for evaluating extinction risks, including pro-extinctionist views that equate human cessation with net harm reduction, but countered them with "further-loss" perspectives emphasizing the moral imperative to sustain potential future welfare gains.^[73] These assessments integrate virtue ethics, advocating character-based commitments to innovation and preservation over resignation, amid empirical data showing no imminent involuntary extinction threats from assessed existential risks like pandemics or climate shifts.^[74] Overall, post-2020 scholarship treats extinctionism as a marginal ethical outlier, undermined by evidence of human adaptability and the absence of verifiable pathways to voluntary global adherence.

References

[1]
VHEMT
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. VHEMT. “May we live long and die out”. Phasing out the human species by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow ...About the movement · Biology and breeding · News about The Movement · Death
[2]
ABOUT THE MOVEMENT - VHEMT
Voluntary human extinction is simply a concept to be added to existing belief systems, not a complex code of behavior to live by. No committee of Movement ...
[3]
Earth Now Has 8 Billion Humans. This Man Wishes There Were None.
Jun 20, 2023 · Les Knight, the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement, has spent decades pushing one message: “May we live long and die out.”
[4]
VHEMT: The case against humans | CBC News
Sep 4, 2008 · The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement promotes the idea of living long and dying out as a species. What do humans do for the Earth's biosphere ...
[5]
Experience: I campaign for the extinction of the human race
Jan 10, 2020 · My journey to advocating for voluntary human extinction began at school. I was born in the post-war baby boom in a small desert town in Oregon, in the US.
[6]
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - DEBAT
Mar 5, 2023 · The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT, pronounced “vehement”) promotes a powerful philosophy: humans should refrain from breeding.
[7]
“May We Live Long and Die Out”. How a global ... - OneZero
Jul 10, 2018 · When an environmentally conscious friend texted me, “I'm interested in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which is a real thing,” followed ...
[8]
MISUNDERSTANDINGS - VHEMT
The VHEMT philosophy is really quite simple: we voluntarily stop reproducing, the human race dies out, and what's left of Earth's biosphere has a chance to ...
[9]
Portland Man Atop Voluntary Human Extinction Group Explains His ...
Nov 26, 2022 · Portland Man Atop Voluntary Human Extinction Group Explains His Philosophy. “Look what we did to this planet,” Les Knight tells The New York ...
[10]
PHILOSOPHY & RELIGION - VHEMT
The philosophy of antinatalism is one major route to voluntary human extinction. The idea is that we have no right to bring someone into existence where they ...
[11]
[PDF] Re-examination of Deep Ecology, VHEMT - PhilArchive
Thus, the primary objective of this essay is to undertake a comprehensive exploration of the core content and principles of Deep Ecology, the Voluntary Human.
[12]
Solve suffering by blowing up the universe? The dubious philosophy ...
Nov 17, 2020 · Hartmann thought that, as intelligent beings, we are obligated to find a way to eliminate suffering, permanently and universally.
[13]
Pessimism and Human Extinction | Blog of the APA
Nov 8, 2022 · Violence and harm have no place in his philosophy. Misanthropy (something also erroneously attributed to pessimists) is equally ruled out.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[14]
A Lesson from the Anti-Natalist Philosophy of P. W. Zapffe
Mar 27, 2021 · In the first part of this paper I present Zapffe's pessimism-based argument for anti-natalism, and contrast it with the arguments for anti- ...
[15]
Norwegian Pessimistic Anti-Natalism | Blog of the APA
Nov 22, 2022 · In this blog post, I examine the anti-natalist theory of the Norwegian existentialist philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe (1899–1990).
[16]
Revisiting Peter Wessel Zapffe and The Last Messiah (1933)
Nov 2, 2024 · Zapffe advocates for antinatalism—the idea that human reproduction perpetuates suffering. By choosing not to reproduce ("be infertile"), he ...
[17]
These EXIT Times, No. 1 | Environment & Society Portal
These EXIT Times is the authoritative voice of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT, pronounced "vehement"). The VHEMT slogan is "May we live long ...Missing: Extinctionism | Show results with:Extinctionism
[18]
The End of the World, The Future of the Earth: Bioplurality and the ...
Jan 2, 2020 · VHEMT launched in 1991 as a photocopied newsletter, “These Exit Times” (TET), which shifted online in 1996. On its website, VHEMT describes ...
[19]
[PDF] Issue number One - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
The values of the Voluntary Human. Extinction Movement (VHEMT) are embodied in its slogan. May. We. Live is a wish, not a command.Missing: core | Show results with:core
[20]
These EXIT Times, Special Earth First! Journal Edition
These EXIT Times is the “vehement voice” of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT, pronounced “vehement”). The VHEMT slogan is “May we live long and ...<|separator|>
[21]
NEW YORK - EXTINCTION IS THE KEY TO SURVIVAL - VICE
In the early 90s I put out a zine called These Exit Times. Only three issues were printed before I decided to move the operation over to the web. My entire ...
[22]
[PDF] These - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
The past is history-regardless of our heirs, it's the awareness we now share that unites us in The. Movement. Potential Volunteers who continue to breed are not.<|control11|><|separator|>
[23]
Want to join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? - Grist.org
Jul 19, 2010 · Knight launched the site and the movement in 1996, but he claims no ownership. Thousands of people from all around the world have adopted the ...
[24]
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement Facts for Kids
Oct 17, 2025 · VHEMT believes that people should stop having children by their own choice. The movement is against any government programs that would force ...Missing: distinctions | Show results with:distinctions
[25]
Media Mentions of VHEMT
On April 29th, 2005 Ripley's included VHEMT in their syndicated comic. Over the past couple of decades, a variety of media has reported on the Voluntary Human ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
[26]
Taking on the Human Extinction Movement - NBC News
Dec 5, 2005 · Carlson talks with founder of group working to eliminate people from earth.
[27]
The case for human extinction - Cherwell
Feb 21, 2019 · On balance, Les is almost the polar opposite of Diane: he values rather than denounces humans, takes a tolerant view towards non-antinatalists, ...
[28]
Les U. Knight - VHEMT
I'm a Vietnam era veteran, not a Vietnam veteran. I'm not the founder of VHEMT, I just gave it a name. I'm not the leader of VHEMT: we're ...Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
[29]
The World Without Us - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
... no misanthropic joy in anyone's war, illness, or suffering. A schoolteacher, he just keeps doing math problems that keep giving him the same answer. “No ...
[30]
What are the moral implications of humanity going extinct? - Aeon
Feb 20, 2023 · The best-known advocate of this position today is David Benatar, who argues in his book Better Never to Have Been (2006) that our collective ...
[31]
[PDF] rrliese EXIT - Environment & Society Portal
organization to fund. VHEMT is a movement, not a corporation. When the structure of a corporation is created to contain a philosophical movement ...
[32]
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Utexas
Sep 10, 2014 · Members are not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans.
[33]
[PDF] Issue number Four - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
World population growth through history. EXIT. 8. Modern 7. Age. Black Death-- The Plague. 6. 5. 2. 0. 2-5 million years. 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 ...
[34]
OBERLIN COLLEGE PRESENTATION - VHEMT
Feb 16, 2010 · The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT, is a simple concept: we all voluntarily stop breeding and eventually our species goes ...
[35]
Random Qs and As - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
By reducing biodiversity as we are doing, we are sawing off the limb we stand on. “If you truly care about helping to end suffering, then do something useful.<|separator|>
[36]
COLLAPSE - VHEMT
Although our excessive population density is the cause of pending collapse, it's often downplayed in favor of other factors: greed, capitalism, waste, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[37]
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Sep 18, 2019 · What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed ...
[38]
18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Were Made Around the Time of ...
Apr 21, 2022 · Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started.
[39]
Crop Yields - Our World in Data
Improvements in crop yields have been essential to feed a growing population while reducing the environmental impact of food production at the same time.
[40]
Air Pollution - Our World in Data
Death rates from air pollution are falling – mainly due to improvements in indoor pollution. In the visualization, we show global death rates from air pollution ...Indoor Air Pollution · Outdoor Air Pollution · Data review · Death rate from air
[41]
CO2 is making Earth greenerâ€”for now - NASA Science
Apr 26, 2016 · Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the ...
[42]
Global Green Up Slows Warming - NASA Earth Observatory
Feb 17, 2020 · Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants. There is an interesting consequence of this global ...
[43]
https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/global-deforestation-slows--but-forests-remain-under-pressure--fao-report-shows/en
[44]
Deforestation and Forest Loss - Our World in Data
The latest UN Forest Resources Assessment estimates that the net loss in forests has declined in the last three decades, from 78 million hectares in the 1990s ...Imported deforestation · Annual deforestation · Forests and Deforestation · Drivers
[45]
Life Expectancy - Our World in Data
Across the world, people are living longer. In 1900, the average life expectancy of a newborn was 32 years. By 2021 this had more than doubled to 71 years.Life expectancy: what does this · Twice as long · Than in other rich countries? · Riley
[46]
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections
Dec 4, 2019 · We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication.
[47]
[PDF] Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing?
Instead of widespread famine, cereal and calorie availability per person increased by nearly 30 percent, and wheat and rice became cheaper. Latin America ...
[48]
The Green Revolution did not increase poverty and hunger for millions
Oct 4, 2018 · The data clearly show that the share of world population living in extreme poverty fell sharply during the years of the Green Revolution.
[49]
These discoveries saved billions of lives - The World Economic Forum
Mar 28, 2018 · From 1900 to 2015, global life expectancy more than doubled, shooting well past the 70 year mark.
[50]
Study finds biopharmaceutical innovation is responsible for 35% of ...
Oct 21, 2020 · Study finds biopharmaceutical innovation is responsible for 35% of the increase in life expectancy from 1990 to 2015 | PhRMA.
[51]
Rapid progress of key clean energy technologies shows the new ...
Jul 12, 2023 · Investment in clean energy reached a record USD 1.6 trillion in 2022, an increase of almost 15% from 2021, demonstrating continued confidence in ...
[52]
Technology advancement: A factor in increasing resource use
This report analyzes how technology has helped to ease resource constraints, and uses case studies of aluminum, copper, potash, and sulfur minerals.Missing: solving | Show results with:solving<|separator|>
[53]
Against Environmental Anti-Humanism
Jun 1, 2021 · This article challenges the environmentalist view that human population and consumption are harmful to the planet and should be reduced or eliminated.
[54]
Benatar's Anti-Natalism: Philosophically Flawed, Morally Dubious
Aug 3, 2022 · In the first part of the paper, I discuss Benatar's asymmetry argument for the claim that it would have been better for each of us to have never lived at all.
[55]
Against Anti-Natalism - LarrySanger.org
Nov 11, 2019 · Anti-natalism is the view that that human beings should not have children, because it is unethical to do so. Different reasons can be offered ...
[56]
What Criticisms Are Directed Towards Anti-Natalism? - TheCollector
Nov 5, 2023 · Critics of anti-natalism, the view that procreation is morally wrong, argue that procreation is at least morally permissible.
[57]
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2022/
[58]
Antinatalism Is Contrafactual & Incoherent - Richard Carrier Blogs
Oct 10, 2022 · Antinatalism is the view that the human race should let itself go extinct; more particularly, it should do so because that outcome is “better”; and therefore ...
[59]
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Wikipedia
an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction in order to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind.History · Ideology · Reception · Citations
[60]
[PDF] World Population Prospects 2024: Summary of Results
In 48 countries and areas, representing 10 per cent of the world's population in 2024, the population size is projected to peak between 2025 and 2054. This ...
[61]
Fertility Rate - Our World in Data
Globally, the total fertility rate was 2.3 children per woman in 2023. This is much lower than in the past; in the 1950s, it was more than twice as high: 4.9.Why the total fertility rate... · The global decline of the... · Wanted fertility rate
[62]
Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental ...
Humanity's large demographic momentum means that there are no easy policy levers to change the size of the human population substantially over coming decades, ...
[63]
Existential Risks - Journal of Evolution and Technology
The hypothesis that we will one day become “illuminated” and commit collective suicide or stop reproducing, as supporters of VHEMT (The Voluntary Human ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[64]
Anti-natalists: The people who want you to stop having babies - BBC
Aug 12, 2019 · They believe humans shouldn't have children. Who are the anti-natalists - and how far are they willing to push their ideas?<|control11|><|separator|>
[65]
Some Want High Birth Rates. Others Would Rather See Humans Go ...
Dec 20, 2024 · Anti-natalism is the subject of 'I Wish You Were Never Born,' a documentary about people who think the human race should go extinct.
[66]
Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy? - The New York Times
Dec 17, 2018 · Our species possesses inherent value, but we are devastating the earth and causing unimaginable animal suffering.<|separator|>
[67]
'What if everybody decided not to have children?' The philosopher ...
Jul 22, 2023 · In Human Extinction, Torres quotes the philosopher Peter Singer, arguably the godfather of effective altruism, who has also been sympathetic to ...
[68]
Should we let humans go extinct? | The Current - YouTube
Sep 26, 2024 · ... extinction #philosophy Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news »»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos: http://bit.ly/1RreYWS Connect with CBC ...Missing: media | Show results with:media
[69]
How Anti-Humanism Is Gaining Ground
May 8, 2019 · These anti-natalists believe that a world without humans, or with significantly fewer of them, would eventually revert to a pollution-free ...
[70]
Would you give up having children to save the planet? Meet the ...
Jun 20, 2018 · The UK-based organisation Population Matters wouldn't call for human extinction – even in jest – but it does campaign against population growth ...
[71]
Philosophical Misanthropy | Issue 139 - Philosophy Now
A misanthrope is someone who hates, dislikes, or feels disgust at human beings and tries to avoid them.Missing: distinction | Show results with:distinction
[72]
Antinatalism—Solving everything everywhere all at once? - Bioethics
Oct 28, 2023 · Little attention has been paid to the notion that by adopting antinatalism through voluntary human extinction, all of humanity's problems could ...Missing: advocating | Show results with:advocating
[73]
Risk, Non-Identity, and Extinction | The Monist - Oxford Academic
Mar 15, 2024 · This point is conceded by Les Knight, the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, who is resigned to failure in view of the fact ...
[74]
How Might Health Care Think About the Ethics of Human Extinction?
Aug 1, 2025 · For such theorists, the resulting state of Being Extinct is morally irrelevant: unlike Going Extinct, Being Extinct cannot harm anyone, since no ...
[75]
Virtue Ethics and Postponing Human Extinction
The Australian philosopher Toby Ord and others advocate for “longtermism,” a view that prioritizes consideration of present actions' influences on humanity's ...