I once heard, from some forgotten, hidden source, that this Earth could easily support 10 billion people.

The Malthusian gloom and doom we often hear is a reaction to man's overpopulation, man's ravaging of "Mother Earth." But if one looks at it not in terms of population or resources, but instead in terms of efficiency of use of those resources, the picture is not so gloomy after all.

Starvation is more of a product of inefficient distribution of food than chronic failure of crops or soil. The "Third World" is a vastly fertile place, and yes, weather can be a factor. But more of a factor in the Third World is the inefficient use of natural resources and the inefficient distribution. (By "inefficient" I also mean "corrupt," as too often, distribution of needed food is a political weapon, held in the hands of a corrupt few, and used to control the citizenry.)

Modern, efficient farming methods and a few less Marxist dictatorships controlling how the food gets distributed would raise most of the Third World - and consequently the rest of the world - out of the Malthusian "pits of despair."

But I wholeheartedly support VHEMT's efforts to unselfishly rid the world of the truly undeserving. I applaud them in their efforts, and I wish them well. I hear starvation's a euphoric way to go, and I wholeheartedly support that method for their membership at large.

VHEMT's arguement is flawed but for one reason: we are, and have been, part of the ecosystem of this planet for some time. It is not neccessarily a good thing that one species go down, but extinctions have occurred naturally in the past, and will probably occur for natural reasons in the future. No guarantee that this stops simply because we go under. Furthermore: it is said that because of our effects on the earth, we've prevented, or at least delayed an ice age, an event that surely caused extinctions en-masse when it occurred. I could go on, but I won't. It's naive to think that simply making us go away will make everything hunky-dory. Instead, perhaps we could possibly do something else more productive: preserve the genetic code of rare and dissappearing species. Perhaps invent a way for us to completely leave the earth for the stars, essentially creating the whole world as a natural reserve park. Won't happen if we leave now or go extinct though.

It isn't a joke. I came across these guys back in January. I was reading a copy of Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto and noticed that the refering URL was printed at the bottom. It identified something called Envirolink, which turned out to be a link farm for environmental sites. The subpage that ultimately led to the manifesto was "coe", which I discovered later refered to the Church of Euthanasia (this church has 4 pillars: Suicide, Abortion, Cannibalism and Sodomy).

Though when I got to Envirolink I discovered that the CoE page had been withdrawn, I discovered three environmentalist death cults (groups promoting the radical reduction or wholesale elimination of this planet's human population) which were still reachable.

The last of these was VHEMT. But there is a twist for Canadians. Envirolink offers the reader other links that might be of interest from each organizations page. From the VHEMT page, they suggest that people might be interested in the David Suzuki Foundation.

David Suzuki? That teddy-bear-like sandal-wearing huggy green guy? Of interest to people promoting our extinction?

He seemed like such a nice guy.

If you are interested in the journey I took through environmental death cults, I documented it here. It's some scary stuff.

The whole eviromentalism movement confuses me. With volcanos going off all over the world and for many years, the earth should be uninhabitable. One eruption spouts more toxins then we could even dream up. I know we need to have cheks on plants and refineries etc.; becasue some companies only care about money not people, even though, if they kill the people they don't get any more money. I don't see it as an urgent threat.

Depopulation movements seem to be a popular fad among elitists at the moment. Academia seems especially prone to embrace it.

Most groups only call for cutting the population down to 500,000 or so. This is the first I've seen actually advocating the eradication of the species. Usually they just call for the death of everyone but the "enlightened stewards of the environment."

Anthony Surace,

This does seem a bit of a departure; but also, as noted, a logical conclusion...and an absurd one. The world only has such worth as humans assign to it...if we're all gone, then it is quite worthless...but a bit of biological activity with no appreciation or point.