population issue: ecocentric or reactionary?

Andrew: you ask that we define overpopulation. That is, of course,
problematic since it requires some premises we might not agree on. But
let's think of it this way, and I confess from the start that this is
partly an aesthetic choice (although I don't distinguish aesthetics and
ethics as sharply as some--especially in the area of environmentalism),
what kind of world do we want to live in? Do we want a world with no wild
animals besides cockroaches(There is certainly a connection between species
extinction and pop.) ? Do we want a world where most people are crowded
into a small area? Do we want a highly polluted world--and, yes, there is a
connection between pollution and pop: visit India or Mexico and take a
whiff. It is true that we (first-worlders) pollute more and use more
resources, but the main hope for places like India (according to pro-growth
people) is to modernize, and then they will pollute as much as we do as
well as use resources as much as we do. So if they do manage to overcome
the obstacle
of overpop, they will simply trade one problem for another or even several.

So what is your scenario? A world that holds ever more people? Is every
extra person so valuable that entire species may be sacrificed for the sake
of unchecked human pop growth? Is there a religious view behind this?
"Every sperm is sacred"--as in Monty Python? Why only human sperm?

Given that this is a list devoted to world-systems, shouldn't the "system"
of pop growth be part of our analysis? It certainly is in China and India.
They don't see a concern for pop growth as reactionary. In fact, isn't the
pro-population increase position generally supported by conservatives in
the West who believe in unlimited growth and unlimited resources?

You also have not addressed the anthropocentrism you have been accused of.
Why should we favor humans so much over other species? Isn't ecocentrism
the next logical step for a person concerned that all interests be
addressed? The left has traditionally made the effort to consider "unheard
voices"  (even that phrase is too anthro--some things that merit
consideration have no voice or even minds, and the term "interests" doesn't
really cover it either--but that is another long argument). Given how quick
you are to call a position reactionary, it behooves you to address the
anthropocentrism issue.

Randy Groves