Mutually exclusive goals and the environment?

Question

When a single species population dominates all others and [naturally] is driven to satisfy the needs of that population over those of other species, environmental changes are inevitable.

As the population of humans increases, more changes will occur. Energy resources will deplete, living space will take precedence over wildlife habitat, by-product pollution will swell to the bursting.

Struggles over maintaining balance between grain production and wild lands will always end with sacrifice of wild lands, because human beings are the main concern of human beings.

The population isn't going away, it's increasing and it's becoming more demanding. 3rd world wealth brings a desire for creature comfort, fossil fuels, refrigerated air television, automobile travel.

If global warming is one of the by-products of a burgeoning, wealthy human population, peeing in the sink to keep from flushing the commode won't help.

Do you see some solution to THAT?

Answer 1

This is possibly the most lucid post in this section. Thanks for a sane argument. Unfortunately, you're right. This emphasizes a point I've been trying to make to elected officials for years ... nuclear power, although not perfect, is about the only feasible way to delay our problems. But, it's only a delay.

Answer 2

The species goals and environmental goals cannot be mutually exclusive. There are external costs to damage to the environment. These are called negative externalities in the economics sphere. Those negative externalities will have increasing costs. Eventually the cost to single species goals will be such that the species will change it's incentive structure to reduce those externalities. Thus, the goals cannot be mutually exclusive.

I don't guarantee that environmentalists will be happy with the equilibrium point the species is willing to put up with though.

Answer 3

This is by no means a sure thing.

But population is not so much an issue in rich countries. One reason people have children is economic support in desperately poor countries.

So, as modern technology makes the world richer (not in Africa (yet?), but in places like China and India) perhaps this will be less of a problem.

Hey, I'm an eternal optimist.

Answer 4

WAH WAH
YA YAH
HOON HOON

HO HO

KAL HO NA HO