We did it. We reached the day of Eight Billion human beings, on the fifteenth of November, 2022. A milestone in history. Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, said that it “is an occasion to celebrate diversity and advancements while considering humanity’s shared responsibility for the planet.”
This remarkable growth is due to the gradual increase in human lifespan, which has been nourished by improvements in public health, nutrition, personal hygiene, and medicine, as well as high and persistent levels of fertility rate in some countries. Howbeit, the worldwide population growth rate is decreasing. It is estimated that to reach a population of nine billion, it will take us fifteen years (around 2037) whilst it took us only twelve years to go from seven to eight billion.
Population growth highlights the environmental impact of economic development, namely the enhanced greenhouse gas effect and its drastic impacts. So seemingly, as there are more people, more people would contribute to the cause of these issues, worsening them, and possibly one day leaving the Earth uninhabitable for humans.
American activist Les U. Knight made this connection. He became involved in the flourishing American environmental movement in the 70s and came to the conclusion that human extinction was the best solution to the problems facing the Earth’s biosphere and humanity. In 1991, he founded the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), which calls on all people to abstain from reproduction to subsequently cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. On their website, it states, “We’re the only species evolved enough to consciously go extinct for the good of all life, or which needs to.” The group takes this perspective primarily because they believe it would prevent environmental degradation. The group believes that in order to prevent a significant amount of human-caused suffering, we must decrease the human population. Furthermore, they often cite evidence of the severe harm of human overpopulation, as the extinction of non-human species and the scarcity of resources caused by humans.
Knight claims that humankind is incompatible with the biosphere, and its population is far greater than what planet Earth can handle. According to Knight, the vast majority of human societies have not lived sustainable lifestyles and suggests that they are far too anthropocentric to ever be environmentally friendly—even in their attempts to cultivate more sustainable lifestyles. Knight heavily supports the emphasis on extinction, as he proposes the belief that even if humans were to become more environmentally friendly they still have the potential and power to return to environmentally destructive lifestyles—therefore extinction is emphasized to reject that possibility.
Additionally, he argues human existence causes environmental damage, which will eventually bring about the extinction of humans (along with other organisms). Drawing his ideology from deep ecology, he regards species lower in the food chain to be more important than those higher up. He has stated “the plays of Shakespeare and the work of Einstein can’t hold a candle to a tiger.” exemplifying his belief that non-human organisms have a higher overall value than humans. This alludes to him (and VHEMT) taking an ecocentric standpoint, however, he has never proclaimed that. As aforementioned, Knight notes that human extinction is inevitable and caused by ourselves, and fosters the understanding that it would be optimal to become extinct soon to avoid the extinction of other organisms (which would have the potential for further evolution).
To many, VHEMT takes on quite an extreme standpoint in the conversation regarding humankind's solutions to problems facing the environment—and the reception of Knight’s ideology in mainstream media has been quite varied. Some resort to claiming that Knight is radical, for example, The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has stated that Knight has”[abandoned] deep ecology in favor of straightforward misanthropy”. Nonetheless, he is often characterized as “thoughtful, soft-spoken, articulate and quite serious,” and by Oliver Burkeman, a Guardian journalist, “rather sane and self-deprecating”.
Commentators have criticized the movement, arguing that we are capable of adopting sustainable lifestyles and reducing the population to sustainable levels. At the Guardian, Guy Damman praises the movement as it is “in many ways laudable”, but also points out that it is foolish to believe that humankind would voluntarily seek our extinction. Philosophers Steven Best and Douglas Kellner agree that VHEMT’s stance is extreme, however, they propose that the movement is formed in response to the extreme stance sound in “modern Humanism”. Corliss Lamont defines this as “a naturalistic philosophy which rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.”.
Knight admits the group is unlikely to succeed, but their attempt to achieve their goal is the only moral option available.
To this, we can understand many possibilities. Perhaps this proposal is misanthropist. Perhaps, and more likely, humankind is far too anthropocentric and stubborn to ever truly change for the better. This exposes the complexities of how our current situation and our possibilities are simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic, ethical and unethical.
But the reality is that even though population growth is slowing, our negative impact on the planet doesn’t seem to be improving. What fuels our unsustainable patterns of production and consumption—the primary cause of the problems facing the environment—is the increase in per capita incomes. Countries with the highest per capita consumption of material resources and emissions of greenhouse gases, are often not those with rapidly growing populations—which tend to be less economically developed countries. Rather, there is a trend for countries with higher per capita incomes to be those guilty of higher emissions. Therefore, it can be concluded that slowing population growth may mitigate further environmental damage, however, it won’t end it.
Therefore we must embrace a solution that changes our behaviors and lifestyles. There is the possibility that humankind takes it upon ourselves to voluntarily go extinct, to eliminate the source of the problem. Or we could make further progress towards the objectives of the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise, whilst achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Whatever it is, we need to become far more serious about making a change for the better.
Sources:
Comments