Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Reception

Reception

Knight states his group's ideology runs counter to contemporary society's natalism. He believes this pressure has stopped many people from supporting, or even discussing, population control. He admits that his group is unlikely to succeed, but contends that attempting to reduce the Earth's population is the only moral option.

Reception of Knight's idea in the mainstream media has been mixed. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, Gregory Dicum states that there is an "undeniable logic" to VHEMT's arguments, but he doubts whether Knight's ideas can succeed, arguing that many people desire to have children and cannot be dissuaded. Stephen Jarvis echoes this skepticism in The Independent, noting that VHEMT faces great difficulty owing to the human reproductive drive. At The Guardian's website, Guy Dammann applauds the movement's aim as "in many ways laudable", but argues that it is absurd to believe that humans will voluntarily seek extinction. Freelance writer Abby O'Reilly writes that since having children is frequently viewed as a measure of success, VHEMT's goal is difficult to attain. Knight contends in response to these arguments that though sexual desire is natural, human desire for children is a product of enculturation.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has criticized Knight's platform, arguing that the existence of humanity is divinely ordained. Ormrod claims that Knight "arguably abandons deep ecology in favour of straightforward misanthropy". He notes that Knight's claim that the last humans in an extinction scenario would have an abundance of resources promotes his cause based on "benefits accruing to humans". Ormrod sees this type of argument as counter-intuitive, arguing that it borrows the language of "late-modern consumer societies". He faults Knight for what he sees as a failure to develop a consistent and unambiguous ideology. The Economist characterizes Knight's claim that voluntary human extinction is advisable due to limited resources as "Malthusian bosh". The paper further states that compassion for the planet does not necessarily require the pursuit of human extinction. Sociologist Frank Furedi also deems VHEMT to be a Malthusian group, classifying them as a type of environmental organization that " the worst about the human species". Writing in Spiked, Josie Appleton argues that the group is indifferent to humanity, rather than "anti-human".

Brian Bethune writes in Maclean's that Knight's logic is "as absurd as it's unassailable". However, he doubts Knight's claim that the last survivors of the human race would have pleasant lives and suspects that a "collective loss of the will to live" would prevail. In response to Knight's platform, journalist Sheldon Richman argues that humans are "active agents" and can change their behavior. He contends that people are capable of solving the problems facing Earth. Alan Weisman, author of The World Without Us, suggests a limit of one child per family as a preferable alternative to abstinence from reproduction.

Katharine Mieszkowski of Salon.com recommends that childless people adopt VHEMT's arguments when facing "probing questions" about their childlessness. Writing in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Carmen Dell'Aversano notes that VHEMT seeks to renounce children as a symbol of perpetual human progress. She casts the movement as a form of "queer oppositional politics" because it rejects perpetual reproduction as a form of motivation. She argues that the movement seeks to come to a new definition of "civil order", as Lee Edelman suggested that queer theory should. Dell'Aversano believes that VHEMT fulfills Edelman's mandate because they embody the death drive rather than ideas that focus on the reproduction of the past.

Although Knight's organization has been featured in a book titled Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief, The Guardian journalist Oliver Burkeman notes that in a phone conversation Knight seems "rather sane and self-deprecating". Weisman echoes this sentiment, characterizing Knight as "thoughtful, soft-spoken, articulate, and quite serious". Philosophers Steven Best and Douglas Kellner view VHEMT's stance as extreme, but they note that the movement formed in response to extreme stances found in "modern humanism".