My Environmental Position (Oh I'm so flattered you asked!)

  The technical term for how I recognize myself environmentally would be an anthropocentric conservationist, meaning I believe in conserving resources in order to promote the interest of human survival.  Humans are apart of the ecosystem and like any other species use resources to increase their population and humans should not be faulted for this biological impulse. The problem however the human species faces is that we have out smarted the natural ebb and flow of nature. The natural cycle of populations is that when a species begins to consume more resources than its environment can supply the population is pushed back to more manageable numbers. However humans have developed technologies to prevent the natural contraction of our population, this is more dangerous than the cornucopians (which can best be defined as duffuses that believe that world has a never ending abundance of resources) believe. With the development of more and more technologies, medical technologies included, we are adding in the natural development of catastrophic population controls including super bugs i.e. drug resistant tuberculosis.  In order for our species to not become extinct we must manage our population to resources ratio.
  Suggesting controls on population and resources is a dangerous thing to say since it implies that some people should die and some should live, people get really upset at this idea and rightly so because it removes the right of the individual, and I do believe in the autonomy of the individual. Still the question remains who should live and who should die? Well I have no problem giving the answer based on history. I, as a human, have evolved to write this because my ancestors chose to survive and reproduce, which is the biological impulse of every individual wether man, insect, plant, or animal. They didn't try make sure the neighboring tribe survived and reproduce. In fact in the ancient world tribes were constantly fighting for resources in order to survive. So who should live and who should die? Well according to the genetic impulse to survive I should live and everyone else should die. Also to ensure my genes go on to the next generation I am also concerned about my families survival.  However in the modern world we have evolved to live in larger communities and developed governments because we have recognized the danger in fighting and we are healthier by ensuring our neighbors wellbeing. Now we are faced with the problem of our success as a species which is over population and a depletion of resources, but we don't want anyone to die, and this puts an incredible amount of stress on our ecosystem.  So what are we to do? People have the right to reproduce and live the way they see fit, so we agree that eugenics and killing people are wrong.  As for the earth we can agree that it has intrinsic and instrumental value so its resources must be conserved and responsibly managed. For example one of the resources that must be mentioned are undisturbed virgin forests, yes they are so pretty but they also serve us by cleaning the air and water.
  As for how this reflects my personal political position, as a true moderate I believe that this is a compromise between both extremes. By the compromise of conservationism we are saving both humans and the environment. The ultra liberal idea of holism I feel places humans outside of the ecosystem and vilifies our existence. While the ultra right view is that the earth is here to be striped of its resources to make a profit which is short sighted and vilifies the natural world. We must see that each position has pros and cons and only through understanding and compromise can we try to achieve the necessary balance needed to maintain the natural and man made worlds. We also can't vilify the people of the past, as they felt they too were doing the right thing based on their resources and information just as we do today. We must continue to right the wrongs of the past while heralding the successes while we keep moving forward.
  My opinion stems directly from my own experiences and relationships with people of several different backgrounds and opinions. I was raised with the idea that questioning inflexible ideas and examining each side of an argument. This way of analyzing ideas leads one to see that almost always either side is extreme and dogmatic and the best answer is usually somewhere in the middle. Learning to be less idealistic and more pragmatic is most likely due to me becoming a parent and trying to make a pile of dirt and weeds into a profitable farm while be responsible enough to not use chemicals due to the fact that they hurt people and the environment. I really can't see my opinion changing, but I am fascinated in how environmental policy effects our culture and how our culture pushes against it.
  As I step down from this weeks soapbox I would like to conclude by restating that my position is based in balance and the environmental problems we face are due to excess in our population leading to a depletion in resources and if we agree that killing everyone is wrong then we must learn to live with in our natural means and conserve. We need to also resist that this has a moral solution. Morals are based on cultures and religious in nature and no one likes to have others religion or culture pressed on them. If we want to save ourselves save the planet, but if you want to save trees because you believe in the wisdom of plants then I'm going to file that right next to virgin birth.