Although they acknowledge that it's unlikely their stated goal -- the total disappearance of humans through a universal voluntary choice not to reproduce -- will ever be reached, they believe that by promoting this idea and gradually converting more people to the option of not having children, they are making the world an incrementally better place.
To the extent that we can agree that overpopulation is a problem, and that profligate consumption of resources in the affluent West is an equally severe problem, then the modest portion of their mission -- significantly reducing the overall human birth rate -- seems acceptable, even laudable.
But let's consider the deeper, more radical proposal. Should humans make the collective voluntary decision to "phase ourselves out"? On balance, is the human presence on the planet doing more harm than good? Would the universe, or at least the Earth, be a happier place sans people?
It's an interesting question to ponder for several reasons:
- First, it demands that we take stock in ourselves, that we tally up an account of both the good and the bad influences we are having on the biosphere and the myriad other forms of life with which we share this watery rock. How are we doing? How can we do better? How serious are we about changing our ways?
- Second, it forces us to evaluate our values. Since humans are, as far as we know, the only strongly meta-cognitive creatures in the universe, and since we, as humans, naturally place a high value on cognition and especially on sapience, then would a world lacking those qualities truly be a better place? Can we assume that in our absence some other species might increase in intelligence until they meet or surpass our own current level of smarts? And if they did, would their stewardship for the planet necessarily be any more responsible than ours?
- Third, it challenges us to consider other alternatives to the status quo -- continual breeding, industrializing, and consuming -- and the choice of voluntary extinction.
What else might we do instead? Is there any hope that we might somehow actually become better residents of Earth and nicer neighbors to the millions of other species around us? Can we perhaps look toward a future where a healthy environment (however we define it) has been restored, where we live in equilibrium with our resources and within our ecosystem, and where we are making a net-positive impact, or at least no longer a net-negative one?
If that is indeed a possibility, it seems it will require the safe development and wise use of emerging technologies. It might even entail the gradual conversion of humans into something different, something improved, a step that transcends our naturally evolved state and transforms us into higher level beings.
Along the way, of course, it could be quite helpful if we worked hard at reducing our rate of resource consumption and improved sustainability. One component of that would be if more people had fewer children, and to that extent, I think the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is on the right track.
As for the more radical part of their mission, well, that should make for an interesting discussion on bloggingheads.tv.