Humans are a plague: David Attenborough

[Deleted]

There's nothing morally or inherently wrong with being a plague.

In fact, it's morally wrong to be a plague. Because of the population dynamics of a plague, if you content yourself to that status, you are condemning to death by lack of resources (probably starvation) to a great portion of the population, the ones who can't get a hold of resources in front of an exponential growth of the resource consumption. Also, by being a plague, you are condemning the whole of your population to periodic crisis and suffering every time you have to move to a new area because the resources are depleted. Finally, there's a chance you will find some other species that will want to take advantage of those resources, and the same we exterminate the plagues off our crops, they might exterminate us. That would be the ultimate evil.

Humans not behaving like a plague is a great way to avoid a lot of suffering to human beings.

[The Riddler]

Aside from that, to 'correct the human plague' would require at minimum some form of overarching world government with complete and utter control over the entire human population, even just to implement some sort of contraceptive measures. Look to the Kyoto Agreement to see just how effective simple promises are. There is no question, force would have to be used to bring those who disagree into line. Anyone who supports such thinking should be kept away from any positions of power; they've already stated that they're willing to murder anyone who disagrees to achieve their goal.

Quoted for truth. All the egalitarian hand-wringing over the "human plague" really has only one solution. It has been stated clearly. The radical environmentalists and all their off-shoots and acolytes want to reduce the population of humans on earth from their current levels (about 7 billion) to roughly 1.4 billion (the population of earth in 1880). This (they claim) will "bring the planet into balance". By this they are almost universally talking about carbon dioxide emissions, though to some extent they also infer other things such as water consumption, et al.

So - after you boil away all the crap, the word-smithing, and the high-falutin' double speak - the real goal and thrust of the environmental movement is to eliminate 5.6 billion human beings. In short, they are the most heinous, genocidal, mass-murdering James Bond type super-villains that the world has ever known. Roll up Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other homocidal butcher in history together and it still isn't even in the same league as these Enviro-kooks.

For example, maybe government can give out food stamp based on number of adults only and no longer increase based on number of children

No offense to the poster of this, but it is a fine example of the thought process. Here is a person who is seriously advocating that government withhold FOOD from children as a means of controlling population size. That isn't just creepy. That's horrifying. And yet it is said as calmly as if they're talking about a tea party, or a game of chess.

Like I said, if the Enviro-nuts had their druthers, they'd march 5.6 billion people into gas chambers tomorrow morning. And they think they'd be heroes and saints while they were doing it. That's the scariest thing of all about the Enviro-nut movement. It takes human beings, and convinces them they are angels while they're plotting atrocities that even devils would recoil from.

[oblivionx]

Late to the party, see page 1.

I did it without telling people to commit suicide though. (mostly because I figure I'd get a ban for it).

[Deleted]

Like I said, if the Enviro-nuts had their druthers, they'd march 5.6 billion people into gas chambers tomorrow morning. And they think they'd be heroes and saints while they were doing it. That's the scariest thing of all about the Enviro-nut movement. It takes human beings, and convinces them they are angels while they're plotting atrocities that even devils would recoil from.

I still have to see a serious environmentalist (which excludes PETA and youtube nutters) to advocate population reduction through killing. In fact, the extension of education to women worldwide, and giving them the chance and the knowledge to use contraceptives is working wonders in curbing the population explosion everywhere. Human problem of overpopulation will probably solve itself as long as women keep winning equal rights.

[oblivionx]

I still have to see a serious environmentalist (which excludes PETA and youtube nutters) to advocate population reduction through killing. In fact, the extension of education to women worldwide, and giving them the chance and the knowledge to use contraceptives is working wonders in curbing the population explosion everywhere. Human problem of overpopulation will probably solve itself as long as women keep winning equal rights.

Have you tried reading the link this thread is all about?

[Deleted]

Where exactly does Richard Attenborough defend killing or letting people die?
He is known to advocate legislation to limit having children to 2, not unlike many others, though, for the reasons above, i think it's completely unnecessary. But never killing people or letting people die, unless you are grossly misrepresenting his words.

[oblivionx]

Where exactly does Richard Attenborough defend killing or letting people die?
He is known to advocate legislation to limit having children to 2, not unlike many others, though, for the reasons above, i think it's completely unnecessary. But never killing people or letting people die, unless you are grossly misrepresenting his words.

Humans are a plague wasn't enough for you?

What does he mean by this nugget?

‘Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.’

[Deleted]

Humans are a plague wasn't enough for you?

So, calling us out on our pattern of resource consumption is the same as wanting our extermination? No, that doesn't seem to be correct.

What does he mean by this nugget?
‘Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.’

Exactly what it says: either we limit our population growth (see how he says population growth ie the speed with which we create more people, instead of saying 'reduce our population'), or the natural world will do it for us, which is also true. And it's also true that the natural world is already doing it.

When a group of people settle in a region, and there are not enough resources in that region to sustain them, either they receive food from outside or they starve. That they need to receive food from outside is proof that they are settled in an area that doesn't produce enough to sustain their numbers. Completely different matters are whether we should or not give them that extra food (of course we should), and whether we should help them settle in another place (we should too). But the fact that they cannot produce enough food to sustain their numbers is objective.

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 02:36 AM ----------

There is context and then there are connotations. Most people don't see the difference between fit and strong. To them, they are synonymous.

So I will be precise. It is those who are the most adaptable to change who will survive.

Though they are terms used in the scientific literature, i think both terms are imprecise. In the end, it is the survival of the luckiest. The survival of those lucky enough to have developed adaptations among their population that happened to be the right ones for the next environmental change.

In fact a general trend has been that the fittest survive in eras where temperatures are high and weather is very humid, which means more vegetation = food sources are plentiful. In this environment specialization is rewarded: because food is plentiful in every niche as you get the most advantage by being the best in your niche.
But when temperatures are low and the atmosphere is dry, and the planet becomes nearly a desert, that's when adaptability is rewarded: no niche is going to give you enough nutrients, so you need to tap on different niches at the same time, and need to be able to endure different climates as you probably have to move along large distances along the year (dry climates mean seasonal differences are larger) to feed.
(This is why i'm convinced intelligent species can only come up when the global climate is cold and dry: intelligence is the ultimate tool of the non-specialist, the greatest adaptability tool.)

[Wælcyrie]

Need another big war imo.

[Grizzly Willy]

Need another big war imo.

So, the solution is more suffering?

[bekilrwale]

We are a threat to other species, that's called competition and we just happen to be pretty damn good at it. Humans> other animals is my overall mentality when I see or hear things like this. The day a plant or an animal threatens us with nuclear war is the day when I agree we are a plague, but until then we are an extremely productive species that is the absolute Apex predator of Earth.

[Deleted]

Need another big war imo.

Won't work. Those that won't deserve it will end up dying and the "beasts" will end up staying alive, it will do more harm than good. However, the death penalty might just work as it'll be rid of all the animals.

[Grizzly Willy]

Won't work. Those that won't deserve it will end up dying and the "beasts" will end up staying alive, it will do more harm than good. However, the death penalty might just work as it'll be rid of all the animals.

Define "beasts".

[Deleted]

Well up to this point we are only accounted for the destruction of ONE world.
Tho i guess it is just one cause we are not evolved yet to easily move to another planet we can destroy.

You see civilization as a process of destruction?


My, these people and their cheerleaders like Attenborough are beyond help.

[Mondroc]

You see civilization as a process of destruction?


My, these people and their cheerleaders like Attenborough are beyond help.

You're missing the point. A lot of the destruction is unwarranted. We do it simply because it is more convenient for us and I'd say a fair majority don't even consider the consequences. There will be consequences, eventually. We, like every other species of animal, exist in order to live. To expand. We do it at a rate that is necessary to our needs. The problem is we have no natural way of limitation. If a wolf pack gets too big they kick out members because they understand it is unsustainable yet we have no such concepts because we believe we are above nature. We are, truth be told, but that doesn't mean we should live such a carefree existence.

Civilization is not a process of destruction. The way we do it, however, is.

[Shoekron]

humanity is absolutely a cause of irritation to me; I'd be happier if their numbers dove some 80%

[leviathonlx]

David Attenborough has contributed to this "plague" by having kids of his own. Why doesn't he just off himself? Help the environment! Mass suicide!!!! lol

On a serious note, nature will fix this on its own. We humans are but a blip in Earth's history. New species will emerge and inherit the earth after we are long gone. It's called evolution.

To be fair he only had 2 kids which makes it a zero population gain or loss and is what he advocates. With a 2 kid limit the population would ,in theory, go down a bit as well since you'd have those that would die from other causes or have no children. Honestly I just think the human race should aim for a world population no more than 2 billion and we'd find that things like renewable energy also become much more feasible with no concern whatsoever of running out of food or water and would have overabundance rather then only having our population numbers survive right now only because of our modern processing.

[Cybran]

Humans are not the problem. Consumers are.

[Shakari]

Didn't the Matrix make this point about us being a virus.

I agreed with it then and do think we need to stop overpopulating. The issue at hand is how to do it; would any of you want your friends/family not be allowed to pro-create.

Humans cannot stop one another from pro-creating which is extremely frustrating as there are one or two sections (not race or colour or creed or religion) of the population I would love to sterilise

The issue is not that we reproduce... its the fact we have no realistic natural predators at this point and where as other species have to live around what the local environment will support we don't we engineer the environment to suite us. Put those together and you get very low relative mortality rates compared with the birth rates plus we're living longer = gross population. We don't even have the same theats from diseases and infections as we used to and there getting less and less of a problem.


If the 3rd world contries had the same health care, and resources as all the other countries things would be even worse from the population point of view.

[Unholyvamp]

i am just gonna put this video right here