Is universal sterilization the end goal of environmentalism?

Environmentalism leads to universal sterilization. Seems like quite a jump, doesn't it? And yes, it is. The average environmentalist is well-intentioned and has a deep caring for the earth and humanity. We simply want to see people make positive choices that benefit all of creation, not decisions that bring short-term rewards but hurt the world in the long-run.

However, an opinion article from the New York Times (HT: Joe) reveals that this could be another realistic, albeit disturbing, route for some environmentalists.

Over the past few months I've written a few posts (Here and Here) about a trend I've noticed among some environmentalists that depicts humanity as a problem for the earth - a species the world would be better off without. I hadn't thought about it to this degree before, but in light of the NYT article, it does make perfect sense that a push for universal sterilization would be the logical conclusion of this point of view: if humanity is bad for the planet, then let's do away with humanity, right?

Hopefully Christians can begin to embrace a better view of environmentalism - one that promotes taking care of the earth (rather than the "this place is going down one day anyway" mentality), AND holds a positive view of humanity's role in creation.

Yes, humans are responsible for a great deal of evils against the planet (e.g. the oil spill in the gulf, extinction of a number of species due to over-hunting or destruction of habitats, smog, etc...), but that does not mean humanity is, by necessity, bad for the planet. Nor does it mean that humanity must be done away with. If we can hold to a view that promotes humanity and the planet, perhaps we can come to realize that when we live as we were intended to, both we and the earth are better off.