[Taxacom] Pro-natalism vs. biodiversity

Kenneth Kinman kennethkinman at webtv.net
Wed Jan 27 21:55:19 CST 2010

Dear All,
       I totally agree with Bob that the main reason for today's
biodiversity decline is mainly due to humans advocating pronatalist
policies, whether they are religious leaders looking for future
converts, political leaders needing another generation of soldiers, or
corporations wanting a cheap labor force and expanding consumer base.
Population expansion only benefits the most affluent percentage of
humans (especially the uppercrust of the most affluen).  Although the
Chinese policy of one child per family may seem severe and an
overreaction, at least they recognize the problem of the human
population explosion and are trying do to something about it.  
      Instead we should be criticizing long-standing pronatalist
policies like those of certain religions, particularly the most
conservative elements of Roman Catholicism and Islam.  In particular
human suffering should be minimized by making birth control easier and
perhaps celebrating even people like Kevorkian who are at least trying
to help those wanting to die peacefully in spite of religious
interference in the right to die with dignity, without martyring
themselves to unnecessary pain (while those who believe that such
painful martyrdom is necessary to attain salvation are free to do so).
There are too many humans in the world already, and efforts to increase
population (especially to curtail population control measures) are
harmful to many humans, not mention the biodiversity of non-human
      What we should be trying to maximize is the QUALITY of the lives
of humans, not their numbers or how much "stuff" they can accumulate.
Zero population growth for humans was a goal proposed several decades
ago, and it is still a goal towards which we should strive, not only for
the benefit of humans overall, but all non-humans as well.  "Manifest
destiny" and unchecked human dominance are the hallmarks of human
arrogance and selfishness run amuck for too long.  It's not only bad for
non-humans, but millions of suffering humans as well.
         ------Ken Kinman   
Bob Mesibov wrote:
     There is simply no way to stop or slow down biodiversity loss in a
pro-natalist world. Even the most biodiversity-friendly politicians and
strategists aim only at finding a balance between conserving nature and
'achieving economic growth and sound social outcomes' (quote from a
recent biodiversity white paper). This balance point is continually
moving in the direction of Humans 1, Other species 0. Such is life. 

More information about the Taxacom mailing list