The issue, at its most basic, is that we're turning "useless" animals into "useful" ones, which is a bummer for anyone who likes the former.
Before the industrial revolution, a forest might have trees, shrubs, bushes, snails, worms, insects, fish, birds, mice, squirrels, rabbits, foxes, wildcats, boar and deer. When the forest's been cut down and made into a field, it will have corn, livestock, and people. If you liked a particular species of bird or bug that lived in that forest, too bad - the resources that supported them are now used to support human lives, and certainly their right to live is greater than some bird in the middle of nowhere.
But if you continue this long enough, even in the best of circumstances (i.e. global warming can be managed with minimal impact to our lives), you will have an entire planet of "useful" species, i.e. us and the plants and animals that are needed for feeding us. Everything else, the less essential species that don't generate enough value, will be repurposed (to put it gently).
Of course most people would like for this to stop somewhere, i.e. some portions of nature should be protected and set aside for our enjoyment, instead of being destroyed to make way for more people. For those who clamor about human overpopulation, this line has already been crossed - we already have too many people and too little nature. Your line might be somewhere else (15 billion? 20?), and that is totally fine as well.
But for politicians who must secure votes, and corporations that must generate value for their shareholders, the "useful planet" is the ideal outcome. The environment is not a strongly political topic, nor does it generate significant economic value. As such, it's in their interest to maximize human populations, which by necessity happens at the expense of wildlife. Look at how both politicians and corporations were alarmed by the recent population crisis experienced in many countries, for example.
As a consequence, I am on the side of the environmentalists here - or rather, they're on my side. I want a planet that has at least some wildlife in it, states and corporations want the useful planet, so I'm happy with those who push back against the latter, even if they're loud and annoying at times.
Before the industrial revolution, a forest might have trees, shrubs, bushes, snails, worms, insects, fish, birds, mice, squirrels, rabbits, foxes, wildcats, boar and deer. When the forest's been cut down and made into a field, it will have corn, livestock, and people. If you liked a particular species of bird or bug that lived in that forest, too bad - the resources that supported them are now used to support human lives, and certainly their right to live is greater than some bird in the middle of nowhere.
But if you continue this long enough, even in the best of circumstances (i.e. global warming can be managed with minimal impact to our lives), you will have an entire planet of "useful" species, i.e. us and the plants and animals that are needed for feeding us. Everything else, the less essential species that don't generate enough value, will be repurposed (to put it gently).
Of course most people would like for this to stop somewhere, i.e. some portions of nature should be protected and set aside for our enjoyment, instead of being destroyed to make way for more people. For those who clamor about human overpopulation, this line has already been crossed - we already have too many people and too little nature. Your line might be somewhere else (15 billion? 20?), and that is totally fine as well.
But for politicians who must secure votes, and corporations that must generate value for their shareholders, the "useful planet" is the ideal outcome. The environment is not a strongly political topic, nor does it generate significant economic value. As such, it's in their interest to maximize human populations, which by necessity happens at the expense of wildlife. Look at how both politicians and corporations were alarmed by the recent population crisis experienced in many countries, for example.
As a consequence, I am on the side of the environmentalists here - or rather, they're on my side. I want a planet that has at least some wildlife in it, states and corporations want the useful planet, so I'm happy with those who push back against the latter, even if they're loud and annoying at times.
