From: ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: abortion and environmentalism
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:28:45 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


    All moral questions must address what kind of planet we wish to live on.
How we wish to consider abortion must also be considered in this
context.  Killing and death have been common occurances on this planet. 
Let's consider them in the big picture of the environment.

    The birth and death of species on this planet has been an ongoing
process.  A species dies out and other new species take it niche.  The
process has not always been smooth.  Biologists believe that been times
when the extinction rate of species has far outstripped the introduction
rate of new species.  For example, many biologist believe that a large
meteorite caused a period of global cooling which lead to the death of
dinosaurs and many other species.  After this bout of extinction, the
natural balances than lead to the creation of many new species.
   We are now in radically different era for two reasons.  The first is
that extinction rate is now much greater than speciation rate (the rate
of introduction of new species.)  The diversity of life on this planet
is decreasing.  Some niches simply are not being filled.  For instance,
Pennsylvania no longer has wolves or any carnivore to kill dear and
other large mammal. 
    The second reason is that the extinction rate will continue
increasing as long as human population is increasing.  Human population
reduces the amount of land that is available for nature to produce new
species.  
    Without new species, evolutionary processes can not continue to help
nature to adapt to large changes in the enviroment.  For instance, if
the global warming story is true, then its effect now will quite a bit
more serious to higher life forms than was even the meteor that killed
off the dinosaurs.  You could say that we risk environmental meltdown.
 
    There always the possibility that with technology that humans beings
can somehow escape the consequences of a biological meltdown.  However,
we should note that the majority of the world's population lives in
poverty.  The people in Somilia are dying of hunger, though current
agricultural production is more than enough to feed everyone. 
Environmental meltdown certainly would make the poor's life no easier.
 
    To some extent the environmental worse case scenerio misses the
point.  A planet with some amount of nature is a more pleasent planet. 
Do people really want their entire lives defined by shopping malls and
freeways?  (The previous question presumes that technology makes it
possible for every region to achieve prosperity.)  In this way,
population control is the most important moral facing the world, because
how we answer the question will determine what kind of world the
children will inherit.
 
    From the above discussion, I have concluded that the fewer
the children the better the world.  When I hear that a woman has had an
abortion, I am happy for one less burden on the environment.
I am aware of the sophomoric response what don't I
kill myself.  (Perhaps the best response would be for me to point out
the questionner that I could help the environment even more by killing
him before I kill myself.)  I think the best way to think of this issue
is one of balance.  There are too many humans now, but being the selfish
biological creatures that we are, we can still rejoice that humanity
exists.  There is nothing I desire more that a delightful planet for
future generations.
 
Michael Loomis