1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.

3. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

4. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

5. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.

6. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

where's the proof?

where's the proof?

3. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living.

These two tenets are quite unsettling. Requiring a substantial decrease in human population, but let me guess those that believe this aren't volunteering to help the cause.

Cute, but a call for a smaller global population doesn't mean killing people off.

The vegan pudding.

Cute, but a call for a smaller global population doesn't mean killing people off.

What does it mean?

Number 4 is a big LOL, WUT?

i say number 4 is the most straight forward.

stop fucking with nature.

But we are part of nature. Dividing the planet into "human area" and "nonhuman area" makes a very a weak sense. And I thought the whole thing about being ecologically correct is that we will benefit from that.

so its not "LOL WUT" its "i dont agree."

LOL WUT would be a giant pear with a mouth but no eyes having a chipmunk take its picture on a giraffe farm