"VHEMT supports human extinction because it would prevent environmental degradation and man-made human suffering" -- I'm assuming that if all humans were extinct, then there would be no human suffering at all (unless this group also believes in an afterlife)
I took a stab at rephrasing here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Organization and promotion
"VHEMT promotes a more extreme ideology than Population Action International, a group that argues humanity should reduce—but not eliminate—its population to care for the Earth. However, the VHEMT platform is more moderate and serious than the Church of Euthanasia, which advocates population reduction by suicide and cannibalism." -- Wouldn't this be better in the ideology section?
Moved, although I missed my target the first time. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideology
"... extinction of other species, which are increasingly threatened by the rise of the human population." -- The extinctions are threatened?
Eh, that is tricky, rephrased it. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read that bit in the same sense as the phrase "to threaten violence", but I could see where confusion could arise. GRAPPLEX 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I knew what was meant... it's just there was possible confusion there.
"Other benefits of ceasing human reproduction that he cites include the abolition of abortion, war, and starvation." -- To me, we abolish an institution. Starvation doesn't quite fit here IMHO.
Changed "abolition" to "end", does that work? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
