This view seems a bit cynical, but of course everyone is welcome to their own opinion of what "progress" means and whether it's a good thing.
The general trajectory of economic development and human population growth seems to leave some room for optimism that some aspect of biological diversity will survive the 21st century and beyond. The human population will stabilize at some point this century and evidence suggests that when enough people in a society reach a comfortable level of economic security the growth rate of the population falls into a sustainable groove, or even below replacement levels (where Japan, Russia, and western Europe are now). China is on track to fit this pattern if what I read is correct, and perhaps India, South Asia, and much of South America. It also seems that economic development causes the majority of populations to move to urban areas so we end up with mega-cities with large areas of formerly inhabited agricultural and rural areas depopulated.
There are huge challenges ahead obviously. Energy, food, and water resources are limited and we need to find ways to extend them sustainably. Some people think that we will find ways to do this and some people are skeptical. Apocalypse is possible, but I think that muddling through to something resembling a sustainable future in which there are viable populations of many of the the species we care about living in functional wild ecosystems is possible too. I'm not a utopian dreamer, but I do see some hope for wild giraffe and elephant populations being sustained and that's what keeps me going.
The world needs cynics.
I hope you don't suggest in subsequent posts that every country should adopt democracy, even if we have to force it on them, and only if it the people vote for a party we approve.
"Progress" often comes with a price in developing countries: change your name and change your religion, because a lot of work is done by missionaries. Many of these missionaries do not preach contraception, and we all know what that does to human populations: go forth and multiply. David, I think that not only am I entitled to an opinion, but I am entitled to be cynical, because I have seen "progression" at the hands of Westerners: there is always a huge price to pay.
These days, progress comes in the form of Chinese freebies and loans for infrastructure projects. I am sure that you have seen this across Africa, but it is happening in SE Asia, South America, and the Caribbean as well. (There is a documentary every month here in Australia about this new form of colonialism.) The Chinese give with one hand, and take a developing country's resources with the other. Corrupt officials are easily paid off to ensure that large tracks of land are used to grow food for China, that the fish is plundered on an industrial scale, and that hardwoods are cut.
Your post is theoretically sound, but there are a few things that you overlooked. For example, although people will move out of the countryside and into the city, these mega-cities are forced to expand laterally. This means that surrounding countryside/forests (and even said abandoned farmlands) are gobbled up. I agree that population should stabilise, and even drop, but by then, most of our planet might look like a scene from a sci-fi movie where the planet's entire surface is one continuous mega-city. Indeed, I have read that this has already happened in Japan, where large cities once separated by many kilometres, have now expanded and overlapped.
You touched on the consumption of these increasing mega-cities (re: water, food, energy), but made only a passing comment on us finding these consumables in a sustainable manner. You may remember the 1973 oil embargo (which was an "oil boom" for many developing countries with oil, by the way) when the energy crisis prompted research into sustainable energy. 40 years later, and I still drive a car fuelled by petrol. We just aren't progressing fast enough in that respect. Water tables are falling, rivers are dammed (and damned), and we keep clearing forests and oceans to feed us. Yes, we may stabilise in a few decades, but by then the world might be barren - except for some giraffes and elephants.
No rhinos, no tuna, no sharks, no polar bears, no tigers. I agree that having viable populations of animals is possible - but it will be a scientist that decides on the (small) viable number (300?), that will be a tiny fraction of the species's population 50 years before. But, don't despair, because at least we have 12 billion people.
I think Agent Smith described us best in 'The Matrix': we are like viruses that consume and multiply.
Pulling it back to the toilet: MIT has a lab that does this kind of thing (called the 'D-Lab'). They go into the field and ask about the most pressing problems, and then get the best designers and engineers in the world to work on them. This link will give you an idea of some of their projects:
D-Lab | Development through Dialogue, Design and Dissemination
Not surprisingly, there aren't (m)any conservation/wildlife projects.
Time for breakfast.
