I am of the opinion that many (not most, not all) leading environmentalists are rather anti-human, as a rule.
For instance, if you seriously think that couples should stop after their second child and not have any more, then I think you have a problem.
Because the two extremes of the argument spring immediately to mind: First, that China's doing so well with that One Child policy of theirs, and second, that in most western nations, population replacement is somewhere over two children per family.
It really depends. I
It really depends. I understand China and african countries, but Eastern Europe could give more support to the families with two or three children
I don't think
I don't think environmentalists are anti-human as much as having a terminal case of tunnel vision. They're so fixated on one issue that they fail to take into account the bigger picture.
Since I don't have kids, maybe my opinion is worth less than a grain of salt, but I think the idea of limiting number of offspring does have merit. (Exactly what number, of course, is up for debate.) Generally, I dislike placing constraints on anybody's reproductive decisions, but I'm also looking at this in a utilitarian standpoint. Parents want the best for their kids, but with diminishing resources, wouldn't it be better to have fewer kids rather than more? Sort of like the idea of manufacturing fewer gizmos of high quality rather than a whole bunch with crappy quality?
And even if there were unlimited natural and monetary resources, I think it would still be a better idea to have fewer kids. Parents have limited time and attention to go around no matter the state of the environment. Fancy boarding schools and endless opportunities have nothing to do with growing up well-adjusted because you were raised by parents who paid attention.