The mainstream media have mixed opinions on Knight's idea. Gregory Dicum of San Francisco Chronicle thinks that the argument of human voluntary extinction movement has "undeniable logic", but he deeply doubts the possibility that Knight's ideal will finally come true, because many people are eager to have children and cannot be persuaded. Stephen Jarvis of the Independent has a similar view, pointing out that the voluntary extinction movement of human beings is facing a great challenge from human reproductive instinct. Guy Damon praised the goal of the movement on the Guardian website as "commendable in many ways", but he also thought it absurd to believe that human beings would voluntarily seek extinction. Abby O'Reilly, a freelance writer, wrote that the goal of human voluntary extinction will be difficult to achieve, because children are often regarded as success. For these arguments, Knight responded that human sexual desire is innate, but the desire for children is only the product of education.
The Catholic Archdiocese of new york criticized Knight's organization, saying that human existence is a sacred gift from heaven. Omrod claimed that Knight "abandoned deep ecology and chose a straightforward anti-human view". He pointed out that Knight's statement that the last extinct human beings will have rich resources borrowed the language of "post-modern consumer society", which is contrary to intuition. He thinks Knight's mistake lies in his failure to form a unified and clear ideology. The Economist thinks that Knight's view of voluntary extinction of human beings is desirable, because under Malthus' thought, resources are limited. However, the article further points out that it is not necessary to pursue the extinction of human beings to have sympathy for the earth. Sociologist Frank Freddy also regards the voluntary extinction movement as a Malthusian group and divides it into an environmental organization that recognizes the "worst side of mankind". Josie Appleton believes in Spiked magazine that this group is indifferent to human beings, not "anti-human".
Brian Bethune thought Knight's logic was "ridiculous and impeccable". He doubts Knight's statement that the last survivor of mankind will have a happy life, because it is hard to imagine a happy life without the will to survive. News studio Sheldon Richman believes that human beings have free will and can change their behavior. He pointed out that human beings have the ability to solve the problems facing the earth. Alan wesman, the author of A World Without Us, thinks that it is a better choice to limit each family to only one child.
Catherine Mishkovski of Salon.com. Com suggests that childless people should adopt the argument of voluntary extinction when facing their childless "exploratory problems". Carmen Dell'Aversano pointed out in the Journal of Critical Animal Research that the voluntary extinction movement of human beings tried to give up having children and regarded it as a symbol of human progress. She thinks this movement is a strange form of political opposition, because it never refuses to breed as an incentive form. She also thinks that the purpose of this movement is to make a new definition of "civil order", just as Lee edelman thinks queer theory should do. De La Forsano believes that human voluntary extinction movements meet Edel's expectations, because they represent the impulse to die, rather than clinging to the reproductive concept of the past.
Although Knight's organization has been included in a book called Weird Man: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief, Oliver berkman, a reporter from the Guardian, noticed that Knight seemed "quite rational and self-deprecating" in the telephone conversation. Alan wesman shared the same view, describing Knight as a "thoughtful, soft-spoken, articulate and very serious person". Philosophers Stephen Best and Douglas Cerna think that the position of human voluntary extinction movement is extreme, but they point out that it is also caused by the extreme position of "modern humanism".