The Church of Euthanasia
Last week's sermon provoked a host of questions, and I'll try to answer some
of them today. Before we get started, though, let me clarify some minor points:
1. When I said that death was beautiful in the same way that Bauhaus was
beautiful, I meant the ARCHITECTURE, not the band! It hadn't even crossed my
mind that anyone would miss this. I'm not saying that you did miss it, but the
possibility exists. Actually I couldn't care less about the band. I meant the
type of buildings that abound in the movie "Koyaanisquatsi," for example.
2. I said eternal DEATH, not eternal life. There's a big difference! The
triumph of the Spectacle is eternal death. There certainly is a spirit
world, as even a casual acquaintance with Native people will reveal, and the
object of the Spectacle is to isolate you from its influence, thereby depriving
you of all hope and cutting you off from the source of your own being. To deny
the Spirit in the face of so much evidence is to CHOOSE death wilfully. This is
the fate of all Vermin.
Now, regarding the infinitely valuable trees, who capture energy from the sun,
crack rocks with their roots, and help create soils, our friend Pete writes:
I'm afraid this is just another form of entropy that most humans choose
not to see because it is so slow. The supply of rocks is not infinite. Neither
is the "electromagnetic" energy from the sun. The primary effect of humans on
this planet is that they accelerate environmental entropy, but an absence of
humans does not halt that entropy. Life in general is just a momentary upswing
in the graph of cosmic progress, which leads ever-downward toward chaos.
In Schroedinger's Cat, Robert Anton Wilson hypothesizes that what we
"unscientifically" call life is in fact really negative entropy or the
tendency of the universe towards order. Obviously positive entropy is death, the
religion and ultimate goal of the Spectacle. The interesting question is
whether, by promoting death, the Church of Euthanasia is in fact serving the
Spectacle. Our critics certainly think so, and label us "agents of fear."
Wilson, like Alvin Toffler, Newt Gingrich, and other proponents of "new"
technology, believes that human evolution thus far can be divided into two
stages, the "Hunter/Gatherer" stage and the "Agricultural/Industrial" stage, and
that only a "third stage" resulting from a synthesis of the first two can save
humanity from destroying itself. The new technologists have nothing but contempt
for the "eco-fascist" Luddites who are supposedly advocating a return to the
"primitive savagery" of the first stage. The implicit assumption in all of the
"new-technology" utopias is that humans have the right to adapt the
biosphere to the ever-changing demands of their individual egos. Once this has
been established, the argument is merely over how best to alter existing
technology so that the exploitation of the biosphere can continue in a long-term,
What our critics fail to understand is that the Church is not merely opposed
to technology. This would hardly be news. The Church is opposed to the
primordial "will to manipulate" that gives rise to technology. In short, from
the Church's point of view, the tools-wielding primates are an evolutionary loose
cannon, an accident waiting to happen, and either the primates must voluntarily
return to their rightful role within the organic food chain of the biosphere, or
the experiment must be forcibly terminated. Because we would rather see the
experiment terminated than see even one more acre of trees cut down in the name
of any form of human-defined "progress", we are called "agents of fear."
Obviously our philosophy forces individual humans into two categories: those
who are willing and capable of returning to their rightful role as the "eyes of
the world," and those who are not. As we have repeatedly pointed out, the
remaining Native Americans tribes are fine examples of humans who have both the
will and the capability to make this transition, largely because they foresaw it
hundreds of years ago, and have been preparing for it ever since. The vast
multitudes who are unwilling and incapable, including myself and the majority of
the followers of this church, are Useless Vermin, and must be eliminated so that
the Earth can heal herself.
The Church is of course opposed to needless suffering, and it is for this
reason and no other that the Church continues to advocate legalized euthanasia
for all humans who freely choose it. The most incapable and unwilling individual
may also be deeply sensitive, thoughtful, virtuous, and deserving of a quick and
painless death. Our message is one of profound hope for the few who have the
faith and humility to rejoin the natural order, and one of sympathy and firm
justice for those who do not. We are angels of mercy, not agents of fear.
Our friend Pete continues:
Aside from this objection, it becomes more and more clear to me every day
that mass sterilization is the only answer to our environmental problems.
Perhaps that makes me more radical than the Church, which advocates voluntary
measures only. But I'm ready to hop in a B-52 with a payload of
genetically-tailored-virus smart-bombs, enough to sterilize 99% of the world's
population in one trans-globe flight. Someone need only invent the hardware,
train me, and present me with the opportunity. Maybe in 10 years it will be
I'm sympathetic, though unofficially of course. If you are interested in
persuing this, I suggest you send an SASE to Les U. Knight at VHEMT (the
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) in Oregon for more information, particularly
on the GLF (Gaia Liberation Front) and a group of scientists including French
chemists Jean-Michael DuPont and Henri Mevel who are developing a powerful toxin
that will completely eliminate the human species without disturbing the other
inhabitants of the biosphere.
For your reference, I include some information on the GLF from page 12 of
VHEMT's newsletter These Exit Times #2. NOTE that the Church of
Euthanasia does NOT in any way endorse the GLF or its methods.
Headquartered in Toronto, The Gaia Liberation Front is one of the
many grassroots movements which have grown out of the belief that all life on
planet Earth is more important than the survival of the human race.
The GLF states in communique #1, dated Earth Day 1990: "Our mission is the
total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the
extinction of the Humans as a species.
Membership requirements are similar to VHEMT's: "The GLF is a concept, not an
organization. You're a member of the GLF if you join us in our work."
Although more radical than VHEMT, the GLF is cautious enough to include a
legal disclaimer: "We don't advocate anything illegal, because it's illegal to
advocate anything illegal and we don't want to get busted. Our members choose
their own methods."
The GLF takes a dim view of Homo sapiens. "The Humans evolved on the
Earth, but are no longer of the Earth. Having become alienated from the
Earth, they must be regarded as an alien species.
"The evidence is overwhelming that the Humans are programmed to kill the
Earth. This programming is not only cultural, but probably also genetic since
the major technologies Humans use for this purpose, from agriculture and
metallurgy to writing and mathematics, have all been invented independently more
"In any case, every Human now carries the seeds of terracide. If any
Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take
GLF Spokesorganism Geophilus shares insights with Les U. Knight:
Les: How does the GLF differ from the Voluntary Human Extinction
G: While we support all voluntary efforts to make the Humans extinct,
we do not exclude the involuntary route. At the rate that the Humans
are killing the earth--and for all we know she may have already passed the point
of no return--a decision to not reproduce, by itself, even if adopted immediately
by every Human--as a result, say, of a new Gaia-worshipping religious
movement--would be just too damn slow.
Les: What involuntary methods do you have in mind?
G: We support, for example, involuntary sterilization, but we would
also welcome the escape of any new anti-Human viruses--such as the airborne
version of AIDS that might result from AIDS research on mice. [Science
16 February 1992 p. 809]
Les: What about wars?
G: In the war of the Humans against the Earth--the only war we're
concerned about--we take the side of the Earth, so we have no problem in
principle with the Humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It's
an inefficient way of making the Humans extinct--every quarter of a million
Humans killed represents only one day's growth of the Human population--but every
little bit helps. Our only concern is that, in the process, the Humans do a lot
of collateral damage to non-Human life, so we want them to confine themselves to
hand-to-hand combat or, better yet, to the use of biological agents that kill
Les: In practice, wouldn't involuntary human extinction take the form
G: Well, sure, it might. You know what those Humans are like. But
remember that the outcome might be the same if someone released a new virus
without targeting a particular race--or even if a new virus popped up
on its own--just because one race might be genetically more susceptible. Humans
can be egalitarian, but nature isn't. And while it matters from the point of
view of Human ethics whether a particular result was intended, it doesn't matter
to the Earth. The taboo against genocide helps to protect the Humans from one
another, so it's a good thing for them, but as soon as you stop seeing
things from a Human point of view and adopt the viewpoint of the Earth--and it
helps here to see Humans as having become a hostile alien species--things look
rather different. If you want Humans to die out, is it so awful if some of them
die out before the rest? Of course, if I knew that someone had targeted
a particular race, I'd be happier knowing that that race was my own, because
that's the one that's doing the most damage. But if it weren't, I wouldn't be
unhappy, just less happy. As far is Earth is concerned, it
would still be a good start.
Les: I can understand your position when viewing the planet from the
Moon, but I have to disagree when I think about the death and suffering down here
on the ground. Shouldn't all of us be allowed to live out our lives?
G: Why? It's self-indulgent for the breeders to insist on their
"right" to have kids, but it's also self-indulgent for the rest of us to insist
on our "right" to live out our allotted threescore and ten.
Les: So, why don't you just commit suicide?
G: If I merely believed in Human extinction, then of course,
you'd be right. But, in my judgement, the good I'm doing by promoting
the idea of Human extinction outweighs the harm I'm doing by staying alive.
Les: So you hope to live long before you die out. We do agree on some
things. Thank you for sharing the GLF perspective with T.E.T. readers.
To reach VHEMT, write:
These Exit Times
Portland OR 97286-0646
The GLF can be contacted at:
P.O.Box 127 Station P
Toronto ON M5S 2S7