From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: abortion and environmentalism
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:33:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:


>    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. 
... epistomological question: If we don't know how many species of plant
and anmimal there are, how do we know the rate of speciation is decreasing?
.....

>    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.
> 
.. There are too many humans now. Probably true. How would you establish a
principle for determining the *right number* of humans. It seems this
would depend on an acceptable standard of living. What might that be. Is
anything over starvation acceptable, or is something else required?
Given a conflict between the welfare of the human species and a non-human
species, how in principle would you trade off? My own inclination is to
vote for the humans unless a non-human species is essential for human
existence. For example, I would oppose wiping out birds and bats, since
they eat bugs, and I do not wish to share too much of my food with the
bugs or to be buried up to my nostrils with insects....

>Michael Loomis 

Regards,

Conan the Libertarian rjk@world.std.com
"If you can't learn to love the Constituion, then learn to hate the
Government"-- annon.
--
"Taxation is theft" -- Lysander Spooner
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity