population: real problem, or capitalist plot?

On Tue, 30 May 2000, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:

> Apocalyptic predictions of hominid hoards pressing the gates of
> civilization is a hallmark of reactionary thinking. There is no evidence
> that 6, 10, or 50 billion people would negatively impact the environment.
> It depends on how societies are organized, not the number individuals who
> compose them. I have not dismissed the population control thesis out of
> hand. I have dismissed it because (a) it is false and (b) it is
> reactionary.
> 
> Since population is irrelevant to the question of resource depletion and
> environmental destruction, the desire to eliminate future generations must
> be based on other concerns. 


Here we have some bombast typical of Andy.

"Population is irrelevant to the question of resource depletion."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can a rational discussion take place with this sort of absence of
simple logic?

Whether you take a shallow ecological stance, advocating saving the
environment because humans depend on it, or a deep ecological stance that
values the non-human in its own right (which is my position by the way),
ignoring the problem of overpopulation (AS PART OF THE WHOLE as I started
this thread with the I=PCT formulation), and, once again, trying to use
the rhetorical strategy of calling those who raise the issue of being
"pro-capitalist reactionaries," is a far worse problem, and will 
contribute to making matters far worse, than any sensible approach that at
least recognizes the problem of the immense strain that humans are
currently placing on the global ecosystem.

Clearly some people are reading too much Marx, or too much economics, and
not enough biology.  Or perhaps you like the idea of living on a planet
full of people and cockroaches, with all other species extinct.  Not me.
Check out the book "The Arrogance of Humanism."

RH