Good posts, Pelican

You have really said it all.

Just as an added point, I am currently reading Noel Kingsbury's book "Hybrid: the History and Science of Plant Breeding". It describes the extraordinary lengths that the plant breeders went to to put genes from wild relatives, often quite distant, into our staple crops. They included embryo rescue, where the parent plants are so distant genetically that the embryo will die after fertilisation, unless it is removed and grown in tissue culture. They also used bridging species, where a cross is made between A and B, and then B and C, as the only way to get genes from A into C. The wild genes were often vital to improve disease resistance, to extend the climatic range of species, and allow them to survive environmental shocks such as drought. It is safe to say that without this, many of Philistines who sneer at the concept of preserving biodiversity wouldn't be here today, because there simply wouldn't be enough food for such an enormous global population, even with most of it living under miserable conditions.

Would someone please explain just what I, & most other humans, get from Biodiversity.

I did hear some clown rabbiting on recently that mosquitoes, flies & sand flies should be protected, as they are part of biodiversity.

That greens are ratbags is a given, that they are suicidal ratbags is now becoming apparent.

Of course, most of the destruction is motivated by greed. Our political and economic systems are very good at bringing sociopaths to the top. But why do so many ordinary people go along with the greedsters, even if they are not going to benefit, even in the short term?

I think that a certain strain of Christian ideology bears some of the blame. Some Christian denominations teach awe and respect for God's creation, but others think quite differently. Many Christian fundamentalists think that God wants more and more human souls, much as Zeus or Apollo were believed to want more and more animal sacrifices.

http://www.quiverfull.com/

It doesn't matter if the people are wretched and unfree, because the rewards in heaven for the saved are so great as to justify any imaginable earthly suffering. The others, perhaps the vast majority, who will be tortured for all eternity in hell, after plenty of misery here on earth, will have only themselves to blame.

It doesn't matter if we wipe out other species, because God only intended the rest of creation as a scenic backdrop for us and our doings. Only people count. This goes much further than the 16th and 17th century Christians who believed that it didn't matter if a species was wiped out locally, because God would never allow it to become extinct worldwide.

It likewise doesn't matter if we degrade carrying capacity, decreasing the ability of the earth to support human life, because God will intervene with a miracle or because Jesus is coming soon.

http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousright/ig/Christian-Propaganda-Posters/Christian-Environmentalism.htm

Of course, Christianity is not the only religion that can be growthist. Even atheists such as Pericles can be growthist because of non-religious philosophies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox

You also make excellent points divergence.

Hasbeen
I am constantly amazed why people mock the importance of biodiversity and potential impact on human survival

Read this link first:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares#WhyisBiodiversityImportant

For example wipe out a particular bug and you may find it's prey breed out of proportion and have an impact on vegetation including food crops.

Or one type of potato tuber might be more resistant to a disease than another but if is extinct it is not of much use.

It is important, I know, to keep things simple for you, divergence, otherwise you tend to get very confused.

But this is one simplification too far.

>>Even atheists such as Pericles can be growthist because of non-religious philosophies.<<

What, please, is a "growthist" in this context? You may occasionally find me pointing out the bizarre attitude demonstrated by folk who think that we can simply turn our population numbers on and off like some kind of existential bathtap. But you will also find that I am keenly aware of the finite nature of our existing resources.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to bung a label on me so that you don't feel you actually have to listen - or worse, think - then please, be my guest. Always pleased to help out where I can.

Pericles,

Please scroll down to the graph that shows legal immigration to the US since 1900. You will see that it is quite possible to turn immigration on and off like a tap. Approximately two thirds of our population growth is coming from immigration. Natural increase is another matter, since there is always a lag due to demographic momentum, unless a stable age structure already exists. However, our fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976, so we are only in for another decade or two of it, and there will be less and less of it all the time, if we get immigration back to zero net and stop encouraging people to have large families by giving them money. Kelvin Thomson believes that it is quite possible to stabilise at 26 million without a draconian one child policy or the like.

http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/population/consultation/submissions/0004a.pdf

You are the one who is confused if you think that high population growth is compatible with addressing resource shortages. The idea that wilderness areas will be preserved in the face of human need is laughable.