Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rebuttal: Saving Species From Extinction Is No Mere ‘Distraction’
In Besty Hartmann’s post The Great Distraction: ‘Overpopulation’ Is Back (8/30/11), she boldly charges the Center for Biological Diversity of undermining reproductive rights, letting the military and Monsanto off the hook, ignoring global warming, selling out to big advertising companies and distracting people while we subjugate women. Oh, and disrespecting victims of violence, worldwide.
In fact, the Center for Biological Diversity is probably the only environmental group in the country taking on Monsanto, the Pentagon, global warming while also working for environmental justice and reducing the human population to a sustainable level through public education and the promotion of women’s reproductive rights and empowerment. You could hardly ask for clearer proof that overpopulation is not a distraction from other issues.
The Center works on all these issues and believes that most people are equally capable of focusing on several problems at once. In this increasingly conservative time, liberals can’t afford Hartmann’s either/or thinking. We need to work on all fronts and build alliances with other progressive groups, not create false conflicts driving allies away.
We are witnessing one of the most rapid plant and animal extinction waves ever known on the planet. Every basic human need depends on the diversity that exists in the natural world. Our work is to stop the catastrophe sweeping over the planet, making life better for all species, humans included.
We cannot ignore the reality that explosive human population growth has led to loss of habitat, overhunting, overfishing, and pollution of air, land and water. It is critical that we speak out and speak up about this reality. For too long, overpopulation has been ignored by environmental groups and others, largely for political reasons.
Two hundred million women who want access to family planning resources don’t have it. The Center has and will continue to stand together with groups working to ensure women everywhere are empowered to make informed decisions and have access to the healthcare they need.
Every campaign we take on is focused on stopping the threats that imperiled species face. That is why we have fought the Pentagon’s bombing of critical wildlife habitat, killing of dolphins through undersea sonic booms, dewatering of rivers, and building of a massive military base in Okinawa, Japan against the wishes of local people. That is why we launched a massive nation-wide campaign to hold Monsanto and other pesticide manufacturers accountable for polluting our rivers with dangerous chemicals. And that’s why we are educating people about the connection between overpopulation and the species extinction crisis through innovative and creative media.
The Center has mobilized 5,000 activists to distribute over 350,000 free condoms, packaged in boxes with images of endangered species. The Endangered Species Condom project pushed the issue of overpopulation in a way that no environmental group had been able to do yet. Without distraction, we were able to bring the conversation of ecosystem protection straight to Americans, whose growing population is also the most consumptive. The United States has the highest fertility rate of the developed countries and is also the third largest population in the world.
We have experienced a global population explosion, doubling in one generation. The United Nations predicts we will top 10 billion before the end of the next generation. These are basic facts that help people begin to see that consumption at the root of our ecological crisis is shared by a secret bedfellow: overpopulation.
The Center for Biological Diversity will launch a new campaign this September focusing on the arrival of 7 billion people on this planet. We intend to further commit our organization to finding real solutions that will help us curb species extinction before it is too late. We know that raising the issue of human population growth is essential to this work.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
255 Comments so far
Show AllHey cdresearch,
Thanks for your response.
You wrote: "I was speaking about the most publicized version, past and present, which I believe comes most notably out of Europe..."
-- Actually the rest of the world equates libertarianism as anarchism. Chomsky wrote: "But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist."
You wrote: "I guess guys like Chomsky can be considered Socialist-Libertarians."
-- There is no need to guess.... they have publicly stated they are Socialist-Libertarian many times.
You wrote: "...and if the term is meant primarily as a way to distinguish oneself from "State" Socialists then I might be put in that camp myself. State control/centralization and socialist values/principles are oxymoronic."
-- The term is definitely meant to distinguish itself. And I'm in that camp too. Originally the European anarchists of the 1850's started calling themselves Libertarians because they were facing unjust persecution by the State for calling themselves anarchists. The anarchists also started adding libertarian-communism, and libertarian-socialist to distinguish themselves from the "State Socialists". And now in the US people think libertarian-socialism is an oxymoron because they are ignorant of real history.
"Thanks for the info on Bookchin. I haven't read him before, but I think I'm going to give him a good look. And I'm glad we came to more of a meeting of the minds."
-- Your welcome. And thank you for the civil discourse. I learned much... and that is what I think is the most important part of this CD comment section.
Take care... and I look forward to further discussions with you.
______________
In response to the Chomsky quote, I don't have the context in which the statement was rendered, but I would guess that at the time he was focusing on the general "socio-political" environment of Europe. My statement focused on the history of influential "libertarian economists", like those of the Austrian School (in particular, their effect on elite European politicians), which has allowed large Corporations/Big Banks to prosper while holding at bay the more socialist tendencies of the population in general. But there's no doubt that the people of Europe (i.e., their culture, customs, etc.) have more socialist inclinations and institutions than do the people of the United States, and as a result the elites at the top of European governments have been forced to make more socialist concessions (e.g., more business regulation & social welfare).
That said, the European people have also faced periodic setbacks over the the last 30 years, beginning with the Thatcher government, and even with the mass austerity programs that are now in vogue in an effort to prop up corporate bankers. Much of this has transpired out of an "economic libertarian strain" at the most elite levels on both sides of the Atlantic.
Anyway, you raise some good points. Take care, and I look forward to further discussions.
Rather than reply to each workmanlike post: Here is a general response to the fake leftist and his atomic twin:
Idiotic repetition of stupid frames that have been repeatedly negated here throughout the thread. No, no one is saying that; no, no one here is saying that either; no, that too, no one here is saying that; and that also, no, no one here is saying that.
But keep repeating ad nauseum!
A few other posters and I have raised several major categories of objection to your framing of ths issue as "overpopulation."
The reasons for you not handling those objections point by point is that you have no answers. We keep repeating these things because you either refuse to engage in these categories of discussion or because you deny their realities.
You really have nothing to say about the faulty math assumptions your crew is making, nor do you have anything to say about how many people is the "correct" amount if you're going to loudly proclaim that another number is "too many."
You have nothing to say about why encouraging humans on the bottom of the list of resource users not to reproduce - something they are doing less frequently in any event - is the most efficient way to curb total consumption.
You have nothing to say about why you make the necessary assumption that we can't use resources better than now, and why you don't suggest attacking resources usage head-on from that angle with the understanding that population is going to necessarily grow slowly for a bit.
You have nothing to say about the moral arguments as to how the population control smacks of imperialism and how it might be wise and just for people in the West to clean our own houses first.
Most interesting to me is the refusal to address exactly how any of you propose ridding the Earth of the "problem" of billions of people, with the suggestion being made (apparently deriving a number from the rectum) that 3.5 bn people would be a good target. How are we proposing to rid the planet of 4-6 billion people, and are you on that list?
Thanks for making my point for me fakeleftist! Your idiotic repetition of what YOU PRETEND others are saying is simply beautiful. Keep arguing against the straw people you invent.