Those people who reproduce, own the future? Or, the meek shall inherit the earth?
OK, another stellar example of Enmos's intellectual caliber has come and gone.
Pronatalist knows what I'm talking about. Humans belong here. We have always been connected, and humans are becoming more and more likely to keep animals and nurture them, so we're sharing our prosperity with them.
That argument just doesn't quite work. It's "okay" for humans to "encroach" upon more and more supposedly wildlife areas, just so long as we adopt more pets? They aren't the same animals. Isn't that a bit like saying that it's "okay" for Robin Hood to "steal" from the rich, to give to the poor? So how is the rich person who was robbed, repaid for his loss?
What makes more sense, is that the land territory that humans take, that nature just seems to be laying down and and begging us to use, was never secure to the wildlife anyway. One animal doesn't really ask another species, "Oh, were you using this plot of land? That's okay, I'll find another." No, all the animals try to some extent, to multiply and spread and spread, into most every niche that will accept them. And then a natural wildfire comes through, and quite a lot of animals are suddenly without a home? I read big animals simply walk away from a forest fire, while small ones reproduce so quickly, they soon come back anyway.
Generally, as more humans come in, the wild animals move further out. They rarely contest humans coming in, except for some big problem elephants I hear, that can each steal 400 pounds of food from a human garden, in just 1 night. Making wild elephants to soon perhaps go the way of the mostly extinct dinosaurs, which also didn't get along so well with humans, so the dinosaurs lost out, as humans already had the dominion.
It's nature "inviting" us in to take more land, not some of the displaced wild animals. Nature's not doing anything to stop us, as humans are part of nature too. Why wouldn't nature want us to prosper? Of course, nature has no thoughts nor rights of its own, so if I say nature appears to "want" something, I am speaking of outward appearances or symbolic or effective relationships.
But how can some
humans be so anti-human anyway? What could possibly be easier than "controlling" human population growth? How about "not controlling" our growth. Let human populations swell and spread naturally, making no effort at all to curb or limit it. Way too many people are benefitting from the natural proliferation of humans, for humans to have much interest in trying to impose "control" upon such a natural process. Future generations are growing larger and more populous? Let them. They would be glad to be all the more numerous.
If it's supposedly "okay" in the view of some "environmentalists" to let forest fires grow and spread naturally, making no effort to "contain" them, at least in remote places where human intervention doesn't appear essential, and yet many people still think that forest fires are at the very least, mildly "destructive" of forests; then why can't humans, very much a part of nature, be allowed to grow their numbers and spread naturally, making no effort to "contain" naturally-burgeoning human populations? The main benefit we get from letting forest fires spread naturally unchallenged, is saving ourselves the costs and efforts of intervention. But humans hugely benefit from being free to have our children, and collectively letting our numbers naturally rise and accumulate. So if the former is permissable sometimes, then the latter should be allowable all the time. As the latter is far better than the former, to humans at least. Surely this argument should make sense to
humans?