Download Flashcard: Environmental Ethics (second semester) at Free Flash Cards Maker

Download (Environmental Ethics (second Semester)) Flashcards

Choose a format below:

TEXT Format (.txt) MS-Excel Format (.xls)

Preview »

Side A ------ Side B
Pew Center on Climate Change (cause and effects,  greenhouse gasses) ------ Climate change (cause -> effects): Cause: natural and unnatural events (volcanoes, livestock rearing, processing, etc; fossil fuel emissions, plant growth and decay); Effect: change in earth's average temperature (because of CO2, Methane, & Nitrous Oxide)
Greenhouse gasses: CO2, Methane, & Nitrous Oxide
Begley ------ Earth Day: How individual action will not make a difference.All significant environmental progress has been done through governmental reform: Leaded gasoline was banned by the EPA in 1996, people didn't stop using it; 1987 Montreal Protocol banned CFC's people didn't forgo spray cans and air conditioning.Why is Begley skeptical that individual green choices "save the planet?" People accumulate moral points to keep a balance; this balance is dependent upon what type of person they think they are. If people accumulate "enough" we are free to act amorally, or even immorally.Individual changes makes too many people feel like they have already "done their part," and fulfilled their "virtue quota" for the day.
Wenz ------ Environmental racism is not really racism because… Doctrine of Double Effect - hysterectomy for cancer, causes death of fetus. I foresee death of fetus, but don't intend it. I am blameless of hysterectomy, thus blameless for death of fetus. And thus garbage distribution is not racist.
Wenz rebuttal says that… Disproportionate impacts on poor proper violate principles of distributive justice and so are not morally justifiable in the first place. Thus, exposing non-whites toxic substances is not justifiable even if incidental to the exposure of poor people. (But how is that really racist?) -> X is an unjust for some reason, we foresee racial disparity, thus it is racist.
B+B Principle: The Principle of Commensurate Burdens and Benefits states the general assumption that those who shoulder burdens deserve similar benefits (or is it only vice versa?)
When we ship our toxic e-waste to a developing country is it racist, unjust, or racist and unjust or neither? unjust, because we are the ones reaping the benefits, we should not force others to shoulder the burdens.  It is economic discrimination, which makes it unjust not racism, because it has nothing directly to do with race. It is only chance that they are mostly non-white people have less money and thus seem to have an unfair share of the burden. -> X is unjust because students should be able to go graduation and we can foresee a racial disparity in charging $1,000. Even though it's not intentional racism. …but that racism is chance. things just happen to fall that way - it's economic discrimination.
Martin ------ How does Martin distinguish between civil disobedience and eco-sabotage? Environmentally motivated, considered "obstruction not destruction," not a public act, done to stop slow or frustrate.
Is his approach reasonable? Yes. 
Problems with it? -> civil disobedience doesn't work for every example, he says the difference between the two is public or not; suicide bombers is in public. 
Daniel McGowen ------ Actions for which he was convicted: eco-terrorism
Where they civil disobedience, eco-sabotage, or terrorism? ELF crimes Daniel committed began as monkey-wrenching and escalated to eco-sabotage. Terrorism evokes fear for life and there was no need for anyone to fear for their lives because as a group ELF hit 1200+ places but never caused one injury or death, ever. And that was on purpose.
Does it matter which of these three terms applies? Definitely. If he is a terrorist, he goes to a prison especially built for terrorists after 9/11. Otherwise, he goes to normal prison. Such a difference could change the rest of his life.
Foreman ------ Is "strategic monkey-wrenching" more innocent than eco-sabotage or terrorism? Yes. It is nonviolent and explosives, firearms and other dangerous tools are generally avoided. Just "fun" not seriously violent and done in the simplest way possible. Think nails in tires, pad locks where they shouldn't be. Think annoying deterrences.
Is it ever justifiable? Yes. I mean it has came to this, hasn't it? If this was really important to you, name another way you could work towards actually getting something done (a way that could actually produce result?). There isn't one. So I'm all for this. 
Stone ------ What are prerequisites for trees, streams, and natural objects to have rights, according to Stone? (1) Tree must have "standing," suit brought against IN THE NAME of THE TREE(2) Factory owner is liable for damage TO TREE, dependent of impact on humans(3) judgement would benefit tree, MAKING IT "WHOLE" AGAIN
Do trees and streams now have rights? No, but there are regulations. Not enough harm to the individual people for them to join and help the tree. Cheaper for corporation to pay off individuals for damages, not fixing the tree. Etc.
Why does Stone think it would be good if they did? Because then we would not have to rely on the government to pick and choose its battles based on things other than the environment's best interest. We could be guardians ourselves and protect what cannot protect itself, legally.
What problems do you foresee, if the legal system changes to give them rights? Where would you draw the line? Is there anything too small or too big to have natural rights? Do mountains, trees, rocks, streams, rivers, oceans, desserts? It would be difficult to define if you think it needs definition.
What does Stone think this change would not be "unthinkable?" Because other non-living things already have rights, like land and corporations. So its not that different.
Wright and Pojman ------ What are the ethical questions we wold need to answer before arriving at an ethical solution to climate change? Is an ever-increasing population bad?
What are the factual questions we would need to answer? .
Is the problem of climate change difficult more because of factual uncertainty or ethics? Option number three - the "powerful opposition from the fossil fuels industries"
Is it morally suspicious to avoid changing our lifestyle by coming up with a technological solution? Yes.
What is "human engineering?" A less drastic (biomedical), technological solution to risks we face for the planet as well as for the future generations.
Examples of "human engineering:" Pharmacological meat tolerance, making humans smaller, cognitive enhancement to reduce birth rate, moral enhancement (oxytocin pills in water supply?)
How could it be used to address climate change? Meat tolerance, degreases livestock GHGs 
Lomborg ------ Lomborg's main arguments: Global warming is real, reduction won't work. Poverty is a higher priority, excessive fear not logic motivates the global warming advocates.
What is right about his views? It costs a large amount of money to reduce a relatively small amount of global temperature the way it was proposed in Kyoto; polar bears should not be shot. 
Wrong? His price of "good" he references throughout the movie, based on a steep social discount rate of 5-6% which skews results in his favor.-> Lombourge says cap and trade corrupt, but he was talking about if it was within a country, not global.
Meat and Tech ------ What are the environmental problems associated with meat (and other animal products)? GHGs produced (18% of total) and large amount of land necessary for grazing and producing food for livestock (deforestation -> habitat destruction -> endangered species) and depleted resources over 15x more gasoline necessary to produce meat than veggies.
How could new technology help solve these problems? Enviropig & Cow-roo lessen or completely stop GHG emissions, Lab meat lessens environmental damage (less land necessary).
Are there any environmental problems with meat (etc.) that can't be solved with technology and must be solved through reduced consumption? Water costs of raising beef compared to plants per pound of protein. (Lab Meat, but very expensive and requires significantly more resources). 
Coady ------ What is meant by the phrase "playing God" according to Coady? The phrase means that we shouldn't try to do something outside our capabilities - we are after all, only human.
Can you worry about "playing God" if you don't believe in God? Yes, definitely.
Rauch ------ Benefits of genetically engineered crops? GE will feed the world; environmental benefits.
Specific GMOs: Bt Cotton [no run-off, less pesticide required], Round-Up ready soybeans [less soil erosion or runoff, tolerate the herbicide], tomato plants that easily grow in salty water.
What are the ethical arguments against developing GMOs? Ricks to human health, environmental risks, "playing God" (Coady).
Elliot ------ Why do we value it? Partly because of it's genesis, but also because of the value of component parts like plants, animals, species, and ecosystems. Elliot PLUS biocentrism, animalism, or ecological holism, etc. t is the specific genesis or history behind the place that is important, a thing made of human bone changes your perspective and regard of it.
Have people always valued it? No. It used to be very scary and dangerous.
Does everyone value it? Everyone that can afford to, people who don't have to deal with the "red teeth and claws" of nature, and is educated can.What does his argument imply about real-world decision-making with respect to preserving or restoring nature? So when it comes "environmentalists must argue the empirical inadequacy" of restoration attempts.What does he say about art? Cities? Origins affect value. A global good, human good, something everyone values and belongs to society as a whole. A faked forrest is just as non-valuable as a faked painting.
Gardiner ------ It is more expensive to reduce versus adapt.But the global models that produced that result: are questionable, too simple, and controversial. Even Lomborg said 2% over time "wouldn't put us in the poor house." Ethics issues with economic brake-down of environment: Social discount rates influence models heavily in medium-to-long term; SDR does not acknowledge that our grandchildren and their children will be the greatest impacted by our environmental decisions today.
Guha ------ What is Guha's case against western environmentalists who try to preserve wildlife and wilderness in developing countries? There are more pressing environmental problems in developing countries (clean water, sanitation, air pollution, etc.). UNJUST because just a transfer of resources from the poor to the rich (self-serving distortions).What would SMIDTZ say to Guha? When we are trying to resolve environmental issues, we should focus on everyone's INTERESTS, NOT their POSITIONS. So that resolutions actually revolve around the issues and not the people.
Past Climate Change Initiatives (4) ------  (1990) IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - climate change real, need a global treaty
(1992) Rio Earth Summit - just a general framework, no treaty.
(1997) Kyoto Protocol - developed countries to reduce GHG 5%, US opted out. "Not fair for developed countries to shoulder entire burden." - Pres. Bush
(2009) Copenhagen Climate Summit - accomplished little
Singer ------ Singer's reduce approach: sustainable global total, equal shares per capita (1 metric ton per person) -> global cap and trade -> a mechanism for reducing the total number of greenhouse emissions; there's a serious cap, making the emissions of the whole world much lower than it is right now.
Historical (1): You broke it, you fix it. Area under the graph, based on overall produced over all time (simple, no write-offs).
Time-slice (2): All EMISSIONS are NOT the Same.
(a) emissions where produced when plenty of room in atmosphere
(b) benefits were shared globally
(c) emissions occurred before climate-change was understood
(d) emissions linked to necessities, not luxuries - Africa
Time-slice (3): FORGET the PAST. Distribute burden based on current time-slice.
Time-slice (4): EQUAL share per PERSON. The more people you have, the more you can emit.
Why other's will not work? (1) No understanding about people cooking to survive, versus people heating pools in summertime
(2) Too dicey, too many write-offs. (??)
(3) Not fair for countries like China, who only relatively recently started producing any at all and now produce the most. United States gets off too easy, even though they did the most damage over time.
(4) Countries encourage to grow population
(Aiding the Worst Off) "most of our emissions just benefit us" -blog (explain that to me..?)
(Greatest Happiness) American's might miss their swimming pools...
How is Cap and Trade is different? Low-emitting countries would have an incentive to stay low, so they can sell. High-emitting countries want to buy less and get lower. Gives worlds poorest nations something rich nations want, helping to address poverty problem.
IMO For or Against Singer's views: Wonderful, but need to discuss how to avoid Dictator Problem. On a global level, not local (corruption).
-> Lombourge says cap and trade corrupt, but he was talking about if it was within a country, not global.
-> Singer has some sympathy for Lombourge because they share for concern for people in extreme poverty.
Ord ------ bigger populations are a good thing:
(1) more people -> more "informational goods" like songs, books, with fewer people having to work to produce them
(2) more people -> more complex goods like computers
(3) intrinsic value of additional people
(4) average view wrong, total view right
(5) on total view, growth of population likely to be beneficial to the new people themselves
Kasun ------ overpopulation is nothing to worry about because:
(1) no one knows the earth's real carrying capacity for sure
(2) everyone could live in Texas on 1,500 sq. ft.
(3) resources will hold out long past 2100
NOTE: her numbers are from 1998 and possibly cherry-picked
(4) market forces work: if resources are scarce, prices will go up and people will choose to have fewer children
(5) government has to right nor reason to try to reduce population
Hardin ------ Lifeboat analogy - Assisting people in extremely poor regions is like letting high-reproducers onto our affluent lifeboat. If we let them on, they and their descendants will cause our boat to sink, which would be bad for all of us. If we don't let them on, our boat will stay afloat, which will be good for us, and better for them in the long run (the best swimmers will swim ashore). We shouldn't assist people in extremely poor regions.
What are the factual presuppositions behind it? (1) Rate of reproduction stays the same, regardless of assistance (2) assistance will never lead to development and independence
(3) people in extremely poor regions are no threat to us, like people in the water are no threat
(4) our resources are very limited - there is very little extra space on the lifeboatAre these presuppositions true?Tragedy of the CommonsOverpopulation is a serious concern (see McKibben) -> Boulding's method of coercion: Cap and Trade for reproduction. Two children per woman. 
Schmidtz ------ Nature is nostalgic for people in the city, but the truth is nature was dangerous - beautiful, but in no way innocent.Conflicts in Use: Traffic Jams, people who all try to use the same thing, become in conflict with each otherConflicts in Values: Should elephants be considered a resource? Even if it saves the elephants from poachers (a unanimous goal) some people would not like economically categorizing elephants which, in their opinion, should be wild and free.Conflicts in Priorities: Children > Elephants > Chess Sets. So we say killing elephants for chess sets is wrong, but they say it's so they can feed their children (assuming they care about elephants and the reason is actually the only way they can feed their children).If Schmidtz were replying to Guha, what would he say? When we are trying to resolve environmental issues, we should focus on everyone's INTERESTS, NOT their POSITIONS. So that resolutions actually revolve around the issues and not the people. 
McKibben ------ Overpopulation is a serious concern because:
(1) running out of resources like oil and water
(2) impact on wilderness, wildlife, and biodiversity (they count too, on some views)
(3) running out of food, resulting in famine
(4) people packed into urban areas, resulting in poverty and disease
(5) greenhouse gases, global warming (FOCUS)

Side A ------ Side B
Pew Center on Climate Change (cause and effects,  greenhouse gasses) ------ Climate change (cause -> effects): Cause: natural and unnatural events (volcanoes, livestock rearing, processing, etc; fossil fuel emissions, plant growth and decay); Effect: change in earth's average temperature (because of CO2, Methane, & Nitrous Oxide)
Greenhouse gasses: CO2, Methane, & Nitrous Oxide
Begley ------ Earth Day: How individual action will not make a difference.All significant environmental progress has been done through governmental reform: Leaded gasoline was banned by the EPA in 1996, people didn't stop using it; 1987 Montreal Protocol banned CFC's people didn't forgo spray cans and air conditioning.Why is Begley skeptical that individual green choices "save the planet?" People accumulate moral points to keep a balance; this balance is dependent upon what type of person they think they are. If people accumulate "enough" we are free to act amorally, or even immorally.Individual changes makes too many people feel like they have already "done their part," and fulfilled their "virtue quota" for the day.
Wenz ------ Environmental racism is not really racism because… Doctrine of Double Effect - hysterectomy for cancer, causes death of fetus. I foresee death of fetus, but don't intend it. I am blameless of hysterectomy, thus blameless for death of fetus. And thus garbage distribution is not racist.
Wenz rebuttal says that… Disproportionate impacts on poor proper violate principles of distributive justice and so are not morally justifiable in the first place. Thus, exposing non-whites toxic substances is not justifiable even if incidental to the exposure of poor people. (But how is that really racist?) -> X is an unjust for some reason, we foresee racial disparity, thus it is racist.
B+B Principle: The Principle of Commensurate Burdens and Benefits states the general assumption that those who shoulder burdens deserve similar benefits (or is it only vice versa?)
When we ship our toxic e-waste to a developing country is it racist, unjust, or racist and unjust or neither? unjust, because we are the ones reaping the benefits, we should not force others to shoulder the burdens.  It is economic discrimination, which makes it unjust not racism, because it has nothing directly to do with race. It is only chance that they are mostly non-white people have less money and thus seem to have an unfair share of the burden. -> X is unjust because students should be able to go graduation and we can foresee a racial disparity in charging $1,000. Even though it's not intentional racism. …but that racism is chance. things just happen to fall that way - it's economic discrimination.
Martin ------ How does Martin distinguish between civil disobedience and eco-sabotage? Environmentally motivated, considered "obstruction not destruction," not a public act, done to stop slow or frustrate.
Is his approach reasonable? Yes. 
Problems with it? -> civil disobedience doesn't work for every example, he says the difference between the two is public or not; suicide bombers is in public. 
Daniel McGowen ------ Actions for which he was convicted: eco-terrorism
Where they civil disobedience, eco-sabotage, or terrorism? ELF crimes Daniel committed began as monkey-wrenching and escalated to eco-sabotage. Terrorism evokes fear for life and there was no need for anyone to fear for their lives because as a group ELF hit 1200+ places but never caused one injury or death, ever. And that was on purpose.
Does it matter which of these three terms applies? Definitely. If he is a terrorist, he goes to a prison especially built for terrorists after 9/11. Otherwise, he goes to normal prison. Such a difference could change the rest of his life.
Foreman ------ Is "strategic monkey-wrenching" more innocent than eco-sabotage or terrorism? Yes. It is nonviolent and explosives, firearms and other dangerous tools are generally avoided. Just "fun" not seriously violent and done in the simplest way possible. Think nails in tires, pad locks where they shouldn't be. Think annoying deterrences.
Is it ever justifiable? Yes. I mean it has came to this, hasn't it? If this was really important to you, name another way you could work towards actually getting something done (a way that could actually produce result?). There isn't one. So I'm all for this. 
Stone ------ What are prerequisites for trees, streams, and natural objects to have rights, according to Stone? (1) Tree must have "standing," suit brought against IN THE NAME of THE TREE(2) Factory owner is liable for damage TO TREE, dependent of impact on humans(3) judgement would benefit tree, MAKING IT "WHOLE" AGAIN
Do trees and streams now have rights? No, but there are regulations. Not enough harm to the individual people for them to join and help the tree. Cheaper for corporation to pay off individuals for damages, not fixing the tree. Etc.
Why does Stone think it would be good if they did? Because then we would not have to rely on the government to pick and choose its battles based on things other than the environment's best interest. We could be guardians ourselves and protect what cannot protect itself, legally.
What problems do you foresee, if the legal system changes to give them rights? Where would you draw the line? Is there anything too small or too big to have natural rights? Do mountains, trees, rocks, streams, rivers, oceans, desserts? It would be difficult to define if you think it needs definition.
What does Stone think this change would not be "unthinkable?" Because other non-living things already have rights, like land and corporations. So its not that different.
Wright and Pojman ------ What are the ethical questions we wold need to answer before arriving at an ethical solution to climate change? Is an ever-increasing population bad?
What are the factual questions we would need to answer? .
Is the problem of climate change difficult more because of factual uncertainty or ethics? Option number three - the "powerful opposition from the fossil fuels industries"
Is it morally suspicious to avoid changing our lifestyle by coming up with a technological solution? Yes.
What is "human engineering?" A less drastic (biomedical), technological solution to risks we face for the planet as well as for the future generations.
Examples of "human engineering:" Pharmacological meat tolerance, making humans smaller, cognitive enhancement to reduce birth rate, moral enhancement (oxytocin pills in water supply?)
How could it be used to address climate change? Meat tolerance, degreases livestock GHGs 
Lomborg ------ Lomborg's main arguments: Global warming is real, reduction won't work. Poverty is a higher priority, excessive fear not logic motivates the global warming advocates.
What is right about his views? It costs a large amount of money to reduce a relatively small amount of global temperature the way it was proposed in Kyoto; polar bears should not be shot. 
Wrong? His price of "good" he references throughout the movie, based on a steep social discount rate of 5-6% which skews results in his favor.-> Lombourge says cap and trade corrupt, but he was talking about if it was within a country, not global.
Meat and Tech ------ What are the environmental problems associated with meat (and other animal products)? GHGs produced (18% of total) and large amount of land necessary for grazing and producing food for livestock (deforestation -> habitat destruction -> endangered species) and depleted resources over 15x more gasoline necessary to produce meat than veggies.
How could new technology help solve these problems? Enviropig & Cow-roo lessen or completely stop GHG emissions, Lab meat lessens environmental damage (less land necessary).
Are there any environmental problems with meat (etc.) that can't be solved with technology and must be solved through reduced consumption? Water costs of raising beef compared to plants per pound of protein. (Lab Meat, but very expensive and requires significantly more resources). 
Coady ------ What is meant by the phrase "playing God" according to Coady? The phrase means that we shouldn't try to do something outside our capabilities - we are after all, only human.
Can you worry about "playing God" if you don't believe in God? Yes, definitely.
Rauch ------ Benefits of genetically engineered crops? GE will feed the world; environmental benefits.
Specific GMOs: Bt Cotton [no run-off, less pesticide required], Round-Up ready soybeans [less soil erosion or runoff, tolerate the herbicide], tomato plants that easily grow in salty water.
What are the ethical arguments against developing GMOs? Ricks to human health, environmental risks, "playing God" (Coady).
Elliot ------ Why do we value it? Partly because of it's genesis, but also because of the value of component parts like plants, animals, species, and ecosystems. Elliot PLUS biocentrism, animalism, or ecological holism, etc. t is the specific genesis or history behind the place that is important, a thing made of human bone changes your perspective and regard of it.
Have people always valued it? No. It used to be very scary and dangerous.
Does everyone value it? Everyone that can afford to, people who don't have to deal with the "red teeth and claws" of nature, and is educated can.What does his argument imply about real-world decision-making with respect to preserving or restoring nature? So when it comes "environmentalists must argue the empirical inadequacy" of restoration attempts.What does he say about art? Cities? Origins affect value. A global good, human good, something everyone values and belongs to society as a whole. A faked forrest is just as non-valuable as a faked painting.
Gardiner ------ It is more expensive to reduce versus adapt.But the global models that produced that result: are questionable, too simple, and controversial. Even Lomborg said 2% over time "wouldn't put us in the poor house." Ethics issues with economic brake-down of environment: Social discount rates influence models heavily in medium-to-long term; SDR does not acknowledge that our grandchildren and their children will be the greatest impacted by our environmental decisions today.
Guha ------ What is Guha's case against western environmentalists who try to preserve wildlife and wilderness in developing countries? There are more pressing environmental problems in developing countries (clean water, sanitation, air pollution, etc.). UNJUST because just a transfer of resources from the poor to the rich (self-serving distortions).What would SMIDTZ say to Guha? When we are trying to resolve environmental issues, we should focus on everyone's INTERESTS, NOT their POSITIONS. So that resolutions actually revolve around the issues and not the people.
Past Climate Change Initiatives (4) ------  (1990) IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - climate change real, need a global treaty
(1992) Rio Earth Summit - just a general framework, no treaty.
(1997) Kyoto Protocol - developed countries to reduce GHG 5%, US opted out. "Not fair for developed countries to shoulder entire burden." - Pres. Bush
(2009) Copenhagen Climate Summit - accomplished little
Singer ------ Singer's reduce approach: sustainable global total, equal shares per capita (1 metric ton per person) -> global cap and trade -> a mechanism for reducing the total number of greenhouse emissions; there's a serious cap, making the emissions of the whole world much lower than it is right now.
Historical (1): You broke it, you fix it. Area under the graph, based on overall produced over all time (simple, no write-offs).
Time-slice (2): All EMISSIONS are NOT the Same.
(a) emissions where produced when plenty of room in atmosphere
(b) benefits were shared globally
(c) emissions occurred before climate-change was understood
(d) emissions linked to necessities, not luxuries - Africa
Time-slice (3): FORGET the PAST. Distribute burden based on current time-slice.
Time-slice (4): EQUAL share per PERSON. The more people you have, the more you can emit.
Why other's will not work? (1) No understanding about people cooking to survive, versus people heating pools in summertime
(2) Too dicey, too many write-offs. (??)
(3) Not fair for countries like China, who only relatively recently started producing any at all and now produce the most. United States gets off too easy, even though they did the most damage over time.
(4) Countries encourage to grow population
(Aiding the Worst Off) "most of our emissions just benefit us" -blog (explain that to me..?)
(Greatest Happiness) American's might miss their swimming pools...
How is Cap and Trade is different? Low-emitting countries would have an incentive to stay low, so they can sell. High-emitting countries want to buy less and get lower. Gives worlds poorest nations something rich nations want, helping to address poverty problem.
IMO For or Against Singer's views: Wonderful, but need to discuss how to avoid Dictator Problem. On a global level, not local (corruption).
-> Lombourge says cap and trade corrupt, but he was talking about if it was within a country, not global.
-> Singer has some sympathy for Lombourge because they share for concern for people in extreme poverty.
Ord ------ bigger populations are a good thing:
(1) more people -> more "informational goods" like songs, books, with fewer people having to work to produce them
(2) more people -> more complex goods like computers
(3) intrinsic value of additional people
(4) average view wrong, total view right
(5) on total view, growth of population likely to be beneficial to the new people themselves
Kasun ------ overpopulation is nothing to worry about because:
(1) no one knows the earth's real carrying capacity for sure
(2) everyone could live in Texas on 1,500 sq. ft.
(3) resources will hold out long past 2100
NOTE: her numbers are from 1998 and possibly cherry-picked
(4) market forces work: if resources are scarce, prices will go up and people will choose to have fewer children
(5) government has to right nor reason to try to reduce population
Hardin ------ Lifeboat analogy - Assisting people in extremely poor regions is like letting high-reproducers onto our affluent lifeboat. If we let them on, they and their descendants will cause our boat to sink, which would be bad for all of us. If we don't let them on, our boat will stay afloat, which will be good for us, and better for them in the long run (the best swimmers will swim ashore). We shouldn't assist people in extremely poor regions.
What are the factual presuppositions behind it? (1) Rate of reproduction stays the same, regardless of assistance (2) assistance will never lead to development and independence
(3) people in extremely poor regions are no threat to us, like people in the water are no threat
(4) our resources are very limited - there is very little extra space on the lifeboatAre these presuppositions true?Tragedy of the CommonsOverpopulation is a serious concern (see McKibben) -> Boulding's method of coercion: Cap and Trade for reproduction. Two children per woman. 
Schmidtz ------ Nature is nostalgic for people in the city, but the truth is nature was dangerous - beautiful, but in no way innocent.Conflicts in Use: Traffic Jams, people who all try to use the same thing, become in conflict with each otherConflicts in Values: Should elephants be considered a resource? Even if it saves the elephants from poachers (a unanimous goal) some people would not like economically categorizing elephants which, in their opinion, should be wild and free.Conflicts in Priorities: Children > Elephants > Chess Sets. So we say killing elephants for chess sets is wrong, but they say it's so they can feed their children (assuming they care about elephants and the reason is actually the only way they can feed their children).If Schmidtz were replying to Guha, what would he say? When we are trying to resolve environmental issues, we should focus on everyone's INTERESTS, NOT their POSITIONS. So that resolutions actually revolve around the issues and not the people. 
McKibben ------ Overpopulation is a serious concern because:
(1) running out of resources like oil and water
(2) impact on wilderness, wildlife, and biodiversity (they count too, on some views)
(3) running out of food, resulting in famine
(4) people packed into urban areas, resulting in poverty and disease
(5) greenhouse gases, global warming (FOCUS)