Humans are a plague: David Attenborough

[Spectral]

What's up with your disrespect towards our generation's greatest naturalist?

People that say stupid things should be called out, their achievements are relevant to that. Not doing so creates cults of personality where brilliant people are able to basically say whatever they like.

I don't know how old Attenborough's children are, but he himself is 86 now. Say he had his kids at the age of 35, in 1961. The world's entire population in 1961 was less than half of what it is right now. Back then 3.0 billion people lived on the planet, compared to the 7 billion that live on it now. I wasn't around back then, but I don't think overpopulation was on a lot of people's mind back then.

Concern for human overpopulation is not new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpop...ory_of_concern

Perhaps he wasn't concerned when he had kids, I'd buy that. Nonetheless, there's an incongruity here - population growth is almost zero in first world nations already, so he's largely preaching to the choir there. Going to underdeveloped countries and advocating against their cultural norms while arguing from a huge place of privilege just seems obnoxious and entitled.

[Howard Moon]

If we solved resource problems we'd be able to accommodation more people. I don't like the whole "WE'RE SUFFERING FROM OVERPOPULATION!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!" When it's more like "WE'RE SUFFERING FROM OVERPOPULATION BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF RESOURCES!!! We have tons of space for people though."t

The surface area needed to grow food is insane. Furthermore: expanding that area equals destroying natural habitats such as forests, which disturbs the delicate balance in our biosphere. Just because you see lots of empty space out on the field doesn't mean that you can fill that space up with 10-story appartment buildings.

[Paranoid Android]

Just reading a few posts here funny how many agree with Attenborough, I being one of them. I mean its obvious from first start that we come into an environment and take it over first by building a homes and other structures, then of course clearing areas for our food supply. This is common sense right here in by doing this, we displace or just eliminate whatever species that used to occupy that area. We are not symbiotic in anyway to the environment in like most species. While I'm not a naturalist or biologist, I am aware that some species do intrude but nature generally has a way to balance or counter that species, humans have none.

[Howard Moon]

Going to underdeveloped countries and advocating against their cultural norms while arguing from a huge place of privilege just seems obnoxious and entitled.

Not all cultural norms are good. Just because the Pope goes to Somalia and says that using condoms is a sin, doesn't mean that we should not try to educate them to use condoms.

[Spectral]

Not all cultural norms are good.

I agree, but that doesn't change the point. Going somewhere, speaking from a place of remarkable privilege and telling the locals the equivalent of, "you savages need to stop ruining things for the rest of us" isn't really something that should receive admiration.

Just because the Pope goes to Somalia and says that using condoms is a sin, doesn't mean that we should not try to educate them to use condoms.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, other than providing an example of cultural obliviousness.

Edit - I think part of my problem with his stance is the optics of an old, white, British guy with tons of money and two kids telling people living in poverty how they should best live their lives. Pretty paternalistic, yeah?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Malthusianism has been pretty thoroughly debunked. We don't have a resource problem, we have a distribution problem. Shit half the food in the United States goes in the garbage already.

The Earth can support tens of billion of people just fine. With advancements in agriculture, medicine, energy generation, recycling, and waste disposal, we will be just fine.

Also, we are not a plague, we are the most important species to have ever existed.

[Rukentuts]

Malthusianism has been pretty thoroughly debunked. We don't have a resource problem, we have a distribution problem. Shit half the food in the United States goes in the garbage already.

The Earth can support tens of billion of people just fine. With advancements in agriculture, medicine, energy generation, recycling, and waste disposal, we will be just fine.

Also, we are not a plague, we are the most important species to have ever existed.

We don't have a population problem as much as we have a pollution problem.

[Slummish]

So if you believe this type of shit why haven't you committed suicide yet?

Because the people that read, research and are concerned with this sort of topic aren't the ones that need to go. I doubt fans of Attenborough are out there clear-cutting rain forests, contaminating the landscape with factory farming run-off, killing endangered species for bushmeat or dumping industrial waste into rivers and streams.

Why commit suicide when it's everyone else that needs to die?

[Deadvolcanoes]

We don't have a population problem as much as we have a pollution problem.

Luckily, pollution problems can be solved, and probably will be in the next 50 years. I mean shit we've already gotten rid of most our coal plants, and those that still exist have a pretty lengthy scrubbing process involved to remove particulates.

[derpkitteh]

i agree with him. but i'm more in favor of harsh methods to deal with the problem at hand. like culling the savage peoples of the modern world. they are no longer needed, their ways of life are useless now that others have advanced beyond it. tribes and jungle cultures need to just be wiped out. advances in technology also need to be made to reduce our impact on the rest of the natural world.

[Afrospinach]

Perhaps he wasn't concerned when he had kids, I'd buy that. Nonetheless, there's an incongruity here - population growth is almost zero in first world nations already, so he's largely preaching to the choir there. Going to underdeveloped countries and advocating against their cultural norms while arguing from a huge place of privilege just seems obnoxious and entitled.

I am not sure how you get obnoxious and entitled from that? What exactly do you think he is doing? Do you know what efforts he supports in these countries? Most of these countries with high birth rates have them because of suppression of womens rights which he incidentally supports. Advocating a better quality of life for them all hardly seems entitled or obnoxious.

[Spectral]

Advocating a better quality of life for them all hardly seems entitled or obnoxious.

Telling people what's good for them is both entitled and obnoxious.

[Deadvolcanoes]

tribes and jungle cultures need to just be wiped out.

Congratulations, you want to wipe out the people who are having the absolute smallest impact on the Earth.

One person driving a car has a greater impact on the environment than an entire village of jungle dwellers.

[iggie]

We are a plague, and the best thing for the world right now is another black plague. It's sad but true, humans are destroying the world. We need a drastic reduction in numbers, especially in Asia/Africa. People get really offended when I say this kind of stuff, but it needs to be said. Disease is natures population control.

[Howard Moon]

I agree, but that doesn't change the point. Going somewhere, speaking from a place of remarkable privilege and telling the locals the equivalent of, "you savages need to stop ruining things for the rest of us" isn't really something that should receive admiration.

Actually, if you watch the documentary I linked, you will see that it heavily criticizes developed countries such as the US for consuming more than their share of the planet's resources.

Not sure why you think that he is arrogantly looking down on underdeveloped countries, when in fact his life-long humanistic work proves otherwise.

[Trassk]

Luckily, pollution problems can be solved, and probably will be in the next 50 years. I mean shit we've already gotten rid of most our coal plants, and those that still exist have a pretty lengthy scrubbing process involved to remove particulates.

yes but as its already been theorized, in another 50 years the population of mankind will be increased vastly too, and where a larger population of man uses up all natural resources, that is when they begin using whatever else they can find.

[Rukentuts]

Luckily, pollution problems can be solved, and probably will be in the next 50 years. I mean shit we've already gotten rid of most our coal plants, and those that still exist have a pretty lengthy scrubbing process involved to remove particulates.

Yup. The only problem is that developing countries tend not to be so environmentally conscious (Brazil, China, India).

[nameuser]

We are a plague, and the best thing for the world right now is another black plague. It's sad but true, humans are destroying the world. We need a drastic reduction in numbers, especially in Asia/Africa. People get really offended when I say this kind of stuff, but it needs to be said. Disease is natures population control.

Asia and Africa is just out of control... I'd say a plague would bring it back

[Trassk]

Actually, if you watch the documentary I linked, you will see that it heavily criticizes developed countries such as the US for consuming more than their share of the planet's resources.

Not sure why you think that he is arrogantly looking down on underdeveloped countries, when in fact his life-long humanistic work proves otherwise.

One can be a humanist, and still believe humans are a problem onto themselves.

[kivipää]

we are the most important species to have ever existed.

Technically true, actually. We are tied in importance with every other species that has ever existed on any planet in this universe, at pretty much dead even zero importance points. So there aren't anyone in the history of universe who were more important than us. Then again, same logic applies when we say we're the least important species to have ever existed.

What's that? Objective importance is not what you meant? Localised, subjective importance then? Alright. From PoV of us humans, we're the msot importan beings ever to exist. Just like from PoV of an earthworm, nothing is more important than the earthworm. So either your definition of importance ends up in an irrelevant, self-inventing definition worthless in this kind of discussion by its very nature, or you have to admit that we are about exactly as important as a pile of brahmin shit.