I agree that there is little point discussing this as you see me as unwilling to admit to what I believe is your delusion. Stalemate, though there are interesting points you raise that to me are worth discussing.
"Clearly you believe we have a right to do whatever we need to keep increasing the population and supporting it regardless of the consequences for the species that have managed to survive us so far."
The concept of rights is purely a human construct and is therefore irrelevant to nature. If there are any "rights" in nature then the only one is "might is right" or survival of the fittest in Darwinian terms. Species extinction is simply an expression of nature giving a species a redundancy notice that it is unfit to survive. if we are part of nature then we have no business(or any real ability outside our imagination) to issue "rights" to nature. The only way we can confer "rights" to anything to survive is to stand somewhat outside of nature and act as a custodian but to so do that we have to admit we are 'special" and above nature. Which will it be do you think? Personally I am agnostic on the issue, while I love animals and hate to see anything suffer or die I know that is nature.
"Step back and look at what you wrote and you too might see it as racist with our species entitled to do as we wish at the expense of all other life because we are special."
The term you are looking for instead of "racist" is speciesist, a term coined by or at least popularized by philosopher Peter Singer, if I'm not mistaken. He used that argument for argue for infanticide BTW but that is another story. That still doesn't answer the question that is if we are part of nature, what rights do we owe to the rest of nature given the underlying principle of survival of the fittest, in other words which animal philosophises about it's situation and allows rights to other species against its own.
In an earlier post on this thread you extrapolated current doubling times for the world population. As it turns out I think you may find that the rate of increase is slowing, which then of course would extend the doubling time.
i would also be interested in your views as to how a drastic and rapid population reduction could be achieved without recourse to the methods I outlined in my earlier post.
