Fifty years ago, I came to the conclusion that the planet would be better off without humans. We're causing the extinction of hundreds of thousands of other species. If there are no more people, I believe ecosystems will be renewed and there will be enough resources to meet demand. The idea was not as good as I thought.
I began to believe in the voluntary extermination of humanity at school. I was born after the war in a small town in Oregon, United States. There were so many students that the school couldn't afford them. So we were teaching in the church. In the fourth grade, we were moved to the district library. As we were teaching, people were getting books. Even in gymnasium the same story. The canteen was transformed into classrooms. There were not enough resources - and the same is true now that my generation is coming to an end.
After a brief stint in the military, I read Paul Ehrlich's book, "Population Bomb," arguing that overcrowding would cause food shortages and starvation around the world. Shortly afterwards I joined a movement called Zero Population Groove. Their slogan was "enjoy the two," but with a bit of math, I came to the conclusion that this choice would be time-consuming. We have 3.7 billion extra people on earth; we don't have to have two kids, we have to have zero kids.
When I turned 25, I wanted to show the world that I was serious. One hospital university made me a vasectomy with landing because I was a student's patient. The procedure was successful.
I started working as a substitute teacher, which left me plenty of free time to study the problem of overcrowding. I traveled around America in casual cars, like most of my generation in the 1970s. Everywhere I went, people would tell me that the city was much better before the newcomers moved. In the late '80s, I decided to live in Portland, Oregon and put a name to my concept: the Voluntary Extermination Movement of People. Our message is simple. We encourage one to stop making children the biosphere return to its former glory and all other species to live in peace.
In 1996, when we opened a web site, we became more popular. People from all over the world were writing to me, expressing their support. I was written by disagreeable people. "Kill yourself first," was the most common message. Okay, I can't have kids; your turn. My favorite conversations were with people who did not fully understand the concept and asked endless questions. I prefer to disagree with full conscience rather than to agree without much thought.
I don't know how many other people think like me, but I talk to hundreds of supporters every year. We have volunteers all over the world, from India to Mexico. In my relationships, I have made it clear that I cannot have children. Marriage has never seduced me. If only I had married one woman, I wouldn't have known dozens of other interesting women.
Today, ecological movements have not embraced the conundrum of overcrowding in the global warming crisis. Other organizations in the same field are working hard to be accepted by the masses, so they suggest one or no children, and say enjoy two. Two children are many: computer models suggest that even if families make one child, 5-10 billion people will be added by 2100.
Although the concept is the same, my motivation has changed. At first, I was an ecologist, I was more interested in the impact of humanity on the ecosphere than I was in humanity. Now I worry most about kids coming to life. Being born today is like selling seats on the deck of a sinking ship.
It is true that civilization will be undone in a childless society, but it is not right to bring them to life simply because they are beautiful. People worry that there will not be enough staff to support retirees, but economic systems are invented and can be adjusted. We do not have to give birth to slaves to maintain an imaginary system. If we are exterminated, other species will be able to recover. I will never be able to experience the day when the planet does not have the same people, but I know it will be a wonderful day.
