Re: Overpopulation a Hoax

Fred Elbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 1 Dec 2003 17:03:57 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dez Akin) wrote:
> > I guess you missed the joke; ...Other species
> > have no rights nor should they when considering human development. If
> > they're important to you, you pay for them and don't force me to.
> 
> I guess you missed the point.  If other species are not important to
> you then you are free to live on your own in a concrete cell with no
> animal or grain products.  

Thats a fallacious argument. I never claimed living without other
plant or animal products was a goal, but rather many other species
existance in the wild is unnecissary for human prosperity. Saving many
of these 'last wildernesses' is an indulgence, and often a costly one.

> > I want humanity second
> > to no other altruistic notions of sustainable development with
> > considerations to other species or anything else that would impoverish
> > the future.
> 
> Quite a childish perspective, since depleting other species would
> indeed impoverish the future.

Giving that the ones that are useful we're allready using and the ones
we find cute will allways survive in zoos (where they have market
value) I don't see how trading development for park maintenance makes
us less poor.

> > > Sure - for humans.  I have yet to see how the economics effectively
> > > manages scarce resources for octopus or for an uncatalogued toad in
> > > the Brazilian rainforest.
> > 
> > Why should we care? If it matters enough to enough people then markets
> > will address that issue. It doesn't.
> 
> Precisely.  Markets are by design anthropocentric and fail to account
> for trivial externalities such as other species and supporting
> ecosystems.

Ah, this is a religeous argument. My worldview is the obligation of
humanity is to serve humans, whereas it seems that you are arguing
that we are obligated to maintaining the status quo, serving the needs
of other species rather than ourselves. We may as well serve the needs
of iron ore deposits.

And so it comes down to the vindication that we are not in any danger
from overpopulation, though some ecosystems may feel our heavy weight.
How will this affect human wellfare? Not at all.