tim -
While it may be true that the majority of people considering themselves to be Progressive do not hold with such views, a large number do.
What is a “large number?”
I know many people who self-identify as progressives, and no doubt, quite a few of them believe that over-population represents a potential problem. I would say, however, that nary a one would agree with the statement that humans are “a plague on this planet.”
I tend to doubt that the sample of people I know who self-identify as “progressives” is a particularly un-representative sample, and indeed I do not see in (at least some of) those quotes you offered, support for the contention that all those quoted see humans as “a plague on this planet.”
I mean, seriously, you go from this:
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
…to “humans are a plague on this planet?”
Really?
And let’s look at this statement of yours…
…the belief, clearly held by people for whom Progressive would be an apt descriptor, that human beings are a plague on this planet and the world would be a much better place with far fewer of us.
I don’t agree that the first belief (that you assume) is a prerequisite for the second belief. I.e., I might think that the world is better off with fewer people without thinking that humans are a “plague on this planet.”
Further, many of those statements of belief seem to be w/r/t “far fewer” than there may potentially be with uncontrolled growth, as opposed to “far fewer” than currently exist.
Finally, even if I did think that “humans are a plague on the planet,” it is simply a belief. It does not necessarily mean that I would advocate any particular policy. I.e., it might mean that I would advocate for greater access to birth control, or more efforts to education poor woman (because that drives down rates of population growth).
My personal opinion is that when discussing crimes against humanity, the individuals quoted above should be included in the discussion.
Really? So let’s look at that for a second. Let’s take one of the more extreme statements (that of Ted Turner). Now I’d say that follow-on clarification he offered is relevant – in that what he said he was advocating was a voluntary pledge to limit their families to one or two children. Now independently of how we judge the wisdom of that advocacy, I’d say that it is a bit of a stretch to view advocating such a belief as being on the same level as committing crimes against humanity. I mean, really, you are saying that expressing a belief that there should be a voluntary effort to limit family sizes is the equivalent of:
atrocity (as extermination or enslavement) that is directed especially against an entire population or part of a population on specious grounds and without regard to individual guilt or responsibility even on such grounds </blockquote
Dude!