Optimal Population?

Dear WSNers and Andrew: responding to my question "what kind of world do we
want to live in?", you answer,

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

This is, of course, a straw man. You do stack up the fallacies. I never
said humans were pests in need of elimination. I argue that there might
just be a more optimal trajectory in world population than the one we are
on.

In response to my (rather generally accepted) view that overpop is reducing
species you say that it is social practices. Let's be a bit less
ideological about this. We are never going to have a perfect system, so
your dreams of a socialist paradise are merely avoiding action on
environmental issues.

In response to my view that people prefer not to be crowded, you write:
"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."

This is overly optimistic. People can't live just anywhere. This reminds me
of the calculations that we could fit everyone on earth in just a small
area. The calculation doesn't follow through and tell us where the human
waste will go. Or any number of other human by-products. My own view is
that people need much more area than they presently have if they are to
live a healthy life.

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

Both, of course. But India, for example, isn't the most oppressive place in
the world by far. If there was an easy "social" solution, they would have
jumped on it. Again, Indians find pop to be an important "lever" of social
change. It is easy for utopian socialists in the U.S. to wave their hands
and create a perfect world. People in India are faced with the grim reality
of overpop every day.

You then say: "This is why we oppose oppressive global capitalism instead
of supporting oppressive population control."

Is pop control really so oppressive? What is so bad about having just two
or even one child?

Even if pop control has been justified in the past for bad reasons and with
bad methods doesn't mean there aren't good reasons and methods now for it.
If a racist built an affordable non-polluting car for racist reasons, I
would still be inclined to buy it for my own reasons. This is a typical
fallacy of many of my colleagues on the left. The same fallacy is committed
in the sociobiology arguments. "Some sociobiologists were racist, therefore
sociobiology is necessarily racist." I am not interested in taking up that
argument again, I only want to point out a recurring fallacy.

Then you lay some cards on the table with the following scenario: "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)."

So my view that you are utopian is correct. It isn't going to happen. I
give arguments for the world we live in, not the one I dream of. Further,
there is a time constraint. Can we wait for the socialist revolution before
addressing these issues?

But the key point here is that you just assume that environmental/pop
problems will just miraculously go away with the establishment of
socialism.

You also write that: "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."

Check out the Brazilian rainforest clearing. I know you will deny it, but
that is a fairly clear case of overpop leading to environmental
degradation. And why shouldn't we weigh the value of humans versus other
species? Isn't that simply the moral point of view extended to all species?
In fact, that is precisely what I am calling for. Is there a population
number that is more optimal/ethical considering the ecosystem as a whole? I
think there is.


You do say that '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."'

Straw man again. I don't think of people as herds. That is just rhetorical
posturing on your part, and not very scholarly. I am saying that an
important question to consider is the optimal size of world pop. Note that
when one does socialist planning, one might want to know how many people
must be planned for. And if certain numbers raise problems, shouldn't pop
be a variable open for discussion?

You then say that I am "using tired language."

Sorry if you don't like my words. As a person fairly conversant with the
field of environmental ethics, these are still standard terms. I didn't
realize "tiredness" was a logical fallacy.

Then you say that "The "biocentrism/ ecocentrism" versus
"anthropocentrism" dichotomy is liberal academic silliness."

Let's see, you just wrote off hundreds of important articles with a wave of
your socialist hand. Is "silliness" supposed to be a criticism? My claim is
that your view is anthropocentric. You have done nothing to undermine my
claim. You will let the non-human (as well as the human for that matter)
world go to hell while you pine away for a socialist utopia that will never
happen. By the way, calling the distinction between ecocentric and
anthropocentric a "liberal" one is another ad hominem, and has no logical
force.

Then you say: "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."

More name calling. I am a fascist for wanting to limit population?
Remember, all we are saying is that people might want to consider having
fewer children. Again, is that really so oppressive? The gains of this
minor change in behavior are quite great, so it certainly seems a great
trade off (although I don't see that much is traded away in agreeing to
have fewer children). I really don't think a family can raise more than two
responsibly anyway, so it looks like a gain for everyone.

By the way, do you think India's poor gain by having more than two
children? Do you think it helps their ability to stand up to the West?

Then you really let fly with rhetoric: "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."

Did you see me espousing any eugenics arguments? Again, you turn to a straw
man.

For the record, I think there should be fewer white people too. I have no
preference for any racial proportioning in world population.

Randy Groves