With a 'few loons' you mean many of the founders of the environmentalist movement that are still highly respected today. These people were the founders of some

With a 'few loons' you mean many of the founders of the environmentalist movement that are still highly respected today. These people were the founders of some of the larger organisations today. In fact these 'loons' were invited to give talks in popular TV. There are some of the early environmentalists who changed position and realized these issues, but the waste majority did not. See 'Russel Brand' who help start the environmental movement and has tried to tell them for years that nuclear is the way to save the world. Of course he was basically made into a traitor. > It's pro-human in that the ultimate goal is to avoid those long term negative consequences. No. Saying we should have less people and let more people die faster in order to delay 'perceived ' negative long term consequences, is a anti-humanist way of thinking. > Is it anti-well-being to advocate living below one's means to save for the future? Saving implies spending less right now to realize a potential future gain. Clearly you have not actually read that stuff. They don't want to save for the future, they thought that there were already to many people on earth and they wanted fewer. Conservatives have made many mistakes in this as well, but not so fundamental as liberals.