Re: population issue: ecocentric or reactionary?

On Tue, 30 May 2000 John_Groves@ferris.edu wrote:

>what kind of world do we want to live in? 

Certainly not in a world were human beings are treated as pests in need of
elimination.

>Do we want a world with no wild animals besides cockroaches (There is
>certainly a connection between species extinction and pop.)?

Is it numbers that are killing species? Or is it societal practices?

>Do we want a world where most people are crowded into a small area?

What small area are people crowded into? The earth? The earth is a big
place, John. I think we will be okay as far as space is concerned.

>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.

Is it the numbers that make India and Mexico "stink"? Or is it the brutal
conditions the numbers are forced to live in?

>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.

This is why we oppose oppressive global capitalism instead of supporting
oppressive population control.

>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?

My scenario is a world socialist society in which human rights are
observed and the dignity of every human being is recognized, where there
are no national borders, where people are free to come and go as they
please, and where production is based on need, not on greed, where people
live in harmony with nature, not where they are posed against nature and
either supported over nature or seen as an enemy of nature (we are, after
all, part of nature).

I do not agree that the numbers contribute to decline in the number of
species, therefore that question is irrelevant. Yes, every person is
valuable, but the value of not a single one of them needs to be weighed
against the value of any other species. 

Sperm is not sacred. I am an atheist, so there is no religious view behind
my position, although there are religious positions that share with mine
the basic concern for human beings. Basic human rights do not depend on a
religious conception of morality.

>Given that this is a list devoted to world-systems, shouldn't the "system"
>of pop growth be part of our analysis?

I have stated as clearly as I can the importance of population structure.
Demography is an essential part of world-systems analysis. But it does not
follow from this methodological concern that we are experiencing a
population crisis and that we need to start "thinning the herds."

>They don't see a concern for pop growth as reactionary.

The governments of the United States and Great Britain also don't see
concern for population growth as reactionary. The US and China don't see
prison labor as reactionary. None of these countries, all capitalist
patriarchies, see capitalism as exploitative. They all don't seem to have
problem with nuclear weapons, either. So what's your point? You are going
to judge whether a policy of population reduction is reactionary or not
based on what two belligerent capitalist states believe? Earlier we heard
about some people selling their internal organs. You don't suppose that we
should regard this as okay, do you?

>In fact, isn't the pro-population increase position generally supported
>by conservatives in the West who believe in unlimited growth and
>unlimited resources?

No, conservatives support reproductive freedom for white people. Social
Darwinism, perhaps the quintessential conservative philosophy, supports
reducing the numbers of non-whites in the world. This same philosophy is
what upheld segregation in the United States without contradicting the
principle of equality - non-whites are not deserving of the same moral
concern as white people, hence no contradiction.  You cannot deny man his
"racial instincts." So if you say FOR WHITES, it is true that
conservatives desire they not terminate their pregnancies (check out which
abortion clinics pro-lifers protest). But for "the other"? The less the
merrier. If conservatives cared about life on principle they would support
anti-poverty programs. If conservatives cared about life on principle,
they would oppose capitalism. Move beyond surface rhetoric.

>You also have not addressed the anthropocentrism you have been accused of.

You are using tired language. The "biocentrism/ ecocentrism" versus
"anthropocentrism" dichotomy is liberal academic silliness. But if you are
wanting me to stand up for my belief that it is wrong to impose fascist
policies of population control on human beings, I have no problem telling
you that I believe that it is. 

With white eugenicists it is the threat to white people the hoards
represent. For the "ecocentrist" it is the threat to other species the
hoards represent. White purity has simply been replaced by eco-purity and
the same outcome is advocated: reduce the numbers of the human contagion.
This position is what allows the anti-environmental contingent to accuse
environmentalists of "eco-fascism." Yes, conservatives may be celebrating
the drop in fertility of blacks in America, but they will also use any
rhetorical prop at their disposal. Unfortunately, because it kinda true it
gives them legitimacy. It gives rise to the uncomfortable occurrence of
Dinesh D'Souza advocating the correct position once in awhile!

>Why should we favor humans so much over other species?

It is an utterly false dilemma.

>Isn't ecocentrism the next logical step for a person concerned that all
>interests be addressed?

Do you mean, isn't it right that we be concerned with ecosystem
preservation? Yes, of course. I advocate this. But the way to protect the
environment is not to reduce the number of people on the planet, but to
eliminate the system of capitalism.

Anyway, I am a stone throw from completing my dissertation, and although
I write fast, I cannot occupy myself with this discussion right now. 

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN