Humans are a plague: David Attenborough

[Dald]

At the same time, Humans could fix the problems of the planet and make it stronger. We can be a boon, rather than a plague.

[Kurioxan]

Meh, my opinion on this has always been the same and will be.

First we need to promote development, with development comes lesser growth rate.
Second, we arent even close to overpopulation, problem is how we manage our resources, which is full of wastefulness and needlessness.
Check how retail clothing is packed, there is almost as much plastic as there is fabric as each single item is wrapped individually, same with food.
Awful management of resources is the problem, we have to change mentalities not cull people.

Also dont forget the economic system we have is based on scarcity, which made a LOT of sense in the middle ages, but it s deeply outdated so it creates fake scarcity to keep prices up, we ought to revise that as well.

Biggest problem is that our governments and society are all outdated, our governments were made for low populations, they cant handle this much people, same with monetary system, same with social systems, same with education system, they are all based on industrial era and some preindustrial era models that are outdated as fuck, but our governments have this animal-like sense of self-preservation, it is as if we as a species forgot that governments are meant to guide us, never rule us, when a government starts using force to keep itself in power is already a sign we should take it down.

We have to stop being so reactive, all we do is react react react, and reaction is the worst system, we have to predict and prepare before hand, to design and plan new ways to cope with future problems and realize that change is much needed, to be able to let off chains of the past and understand when something needs to be changed.

Also his views about the impact we have in the planet are a tad silly.
Yes, we are causing global warming, that we must stop (talking about scientific consensus so PLEASE dont start another talk about that, lets just assume that is true for the sake of the conversation) but that is the major problem really.
Nature adapts, there are already several bacteria and even animals who eat polymers, they wont take hundreds of thousands of years to vanish as we first thought, in most cases a few decades and natural degradation is enough to reduce most of them to almost dust, i do believe that burrying it all actually will preserve it far longer than it would if left out.

About animal extinctions, extinction is natural and our contribution to it is fairly limited, nature itself has annihilated whole planetary cycles of life, we arent doing shit compared, doesnt mean we shouldnt try to prevent it, we should, but honestly to use that as an argument to overpopulation is also a tad silly.

We have to change our ways, but the problem does not lie on population, i always seen that, personally, as a sign of a simple mind who just blames the most obvious factor and forgets the underlying problems, like our own medicine who treats symptoms and many times forgets about the disease, we have to fight the disease, which in this case is reckless management of resources and outdated social policies.

We have to change the world to suit us, not start killing people because our systems cant handle that many people, if they cant handle it, then it is the systems problem, not population.

Not to mention we thrive in adversity, it is very interesting to see what kinds of solutions, real solutions, we will come up with to solve our problems, instead of just reducing the population.

[Dezerte]

Reproduction isn't the only issue, though. It's the consumer culture that is what is being raged against, and while I respect the arguments of those who find our culture wasteful - it is, there is no denying that - I do not respect those who rage against it while simultaneously partaking in it. If you want to stop it you must rebel completely. Remove yourself from the process. Don't contribute to the problem. Any less is hypocrisy.

The only thing I expect is that you care about other humans suffering. Some posters in here seems to not care at all, now that's something I find disturbing (but again, maybe there was some misunderstanding). I wasn't trying to be the "holier than thou" person, I'm rather guilty of several environmental disasters myself(such as driving a car, not sorting my garbage)

[Frozenbeef]

Reproduction isn't the only issue, though. It's the consumer culture that is what is being raged against, and while I respect the arguments of those who find our culture wasteful - it is, there is no denying that - I do not respect those who rage against it while simultaneously partaking in it. If you want to stop it you must rebel completely. Remove yourself from the process. Don't contribute to the problem. Any less is hypocrisy.

Yes our way of life isn't perfect and we are very wasteful. However is it better for 7billion to have medium- high quality of lifes or 12 billion to have low quality of lifes?

[starlord]

nature is already starting to adapt to us; our medicines become less and less effective to combat disease because we have accelerated their evolution with it. meanwhile we become more and more vulnerable to it because of globalization. imagine if someone with the Ebola virus managed to get to an international airport.

its a matter of time really.

[Deleted]

Old news. Anyone with a brain could figure out that when they were 10.

[Stede]

Blah-Blah-Blah Yet its humans themselves who overpopulate, and such a thought as culling humans would be considered genocide or an atrocity.

That's a point you've yet to prove - overpopulation. Might want to put some supporting evidence in your OP.

I am finding myself in agreeance with sir David, in no way believing mass killing of people would be the answer, but finding a way to stop people overpopulating the planet. Its easy to turn a blind eye to such a thing and think its all just some dorks saying stuff that doesn't effect you, and yet from this same report, people talked about how in some countries it is so overpopulated by people, they are forced to emigrate to other countries.
And, with the world facing this current economic decline, in having more people come into it each generation (they expect humans to double in population by the year 2050), its not going to get better.

Who's 'they'? Because that statement sets off my BS-meter. The developed world is hovering just under the replacement rate. Several European countries will face a populatiion crisis in a few decades because their birth rates are so low. The third world cannot continue to grow indefinitely without feedback effects like health crises, wars, and famine.

Underpinning most of this is birth control - it revolutionized birth rates, and hence, populaiton in the absence of large-scale war. Unfortunately, many of the areas of the world that haven't developed have a cultural reluctance to use birth control, generally based on their religious beliefs. Now that we've identified trends, feedbacks, contributing factors, and more - we can have an intelligent conversation beyond the scope of a naturalist who bears little, if any more expertise on such a multi-discplinary subject than, say - you or me.

[Grizzly Willy]

The only thing I expect is that you care about other humans suffering. Some posters in here seems to not care at all, now that's something I find disturbing (but again, maybe there was some misunderstanding). I wasn't trying to be the "holier than thou" person, I'm rather guilty of several environmental disasters myself(such as driving a car, not sorting my garbage)

I do care. It's why I find the "humans need to wiped off the planet" or "humans are a scourge/blight" sentiments to be disgusting. It's not about fixing the problem by addressing the faulty components, it's about throwing the entire machine into the furnace. I specifically addressed those sorts of people in my initial post responding to Spectral's post.

Those who sit back and say that it's not their problem because those suffering are outside of their zone of awareness, or because they'll be dead before it's a big enough problem, aren't any better, and I hold them with equal contempt.

Yes our way of life isn't perfect and we are very wasteful. However is it better for 7billion to have medium- high quality of lifes or 12 billion to have low quality of lifes?

You haven't offered anything to fix it, nor how you would participate. Additionally, I never said that nothing should be done. I have said that I don't know what should be done. Maybe everybody here is magnitudes smarter than I am, but I can't come up with a solution. The world is a complicated place and I can't wrap my head around all of it.

[Deleted]

I have to fully agree with OP and Sir David Attenborough.

I actually thought about this a couple of years ago concerning resources and life quality; health.

I also believe that we should stop overpopulation the earth and perhaps have something like the rule China once had, max 1 or 2 children?
This would decrease the problem with overpopulation indeed.
Although I only see this fit in certain areas tho, especially as Sir David also noticed, Asia and Africa.

Concerning the belief "THE EARTH WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT HUMANS", I did agree with that once but studying and learning about our environment I think that phrase is quite wrong. Here is why:

-The humans actually creates a whole lot of habitats for some animals to thrive. Think about farming as an example, there are hundreds of birds, deers, insects and rodents that rely simple on open farming fields. (With farming I do not mean the "modern" farming with endless fields of homogenous plantings, I mean the way farming was made before, smaller fields and variation of plantings with small tree hurst in between them).

- The way we live also benefits many species. Examples are such as; walking paths, what we grow in our garden, alteration to the landscape (such as Chinese rice farming, not making a big forest becoming asphalt...)

These are very important things that we do for other species to survive and thrive on this planet.
ALTHOUGH most people live in the cities and they don't contribute a BLOODY DAMN to the environment, they simply enjoy concrete, which also is a big issue.

We should start getting a stable amount of population on earth, making sure we have "life quality", and trying to live more "intune" to our surroundings and showing responsibility to our planet.
I like to think that the humans has been granted superior intellect to take care of the earth in some sort of "keeper".
I'm not some greenpeace moron, I love hunting and the outdoors which as made me realize how little we really care of our surroundings.

/sorry for any faulty grammar >swe...

[Loaf Lord]

Let's see... I recycle everything that is recyclable, use the 2 sheets method when wiping my ass, only drive when necessary, otherwise I walk, and never I plan to procreate. I'd say I'm in the clear. I think Attenborough should commit to his ideals and leap off a cliff. Meanwhile I'll enjoy my life as a "plague".

[Frozenbeef]

You haven't offered anything to fix it, nor how you would participate. Additionally, I never said that nothing should be done. I have said that I don't know what should be done. Maybe everybody here is magnitudes smarter than I am, but I can't come up with a solution. The world is a complicated place and I can't wrap my head around all of it.

I previously offered my method of fixing it, encourage learning, teaching and contraception to help reduce the growth of people/ improve efficiency. With less people we won't have to worry about spreading resources as thin and would be able to focus on making our current resources more efficient so everyone can gain an equal share. It would be drastically easier to supply resources to 7million that it would to 14million.

No one here could provide a perfect solution, we aren't world leaders representing an entire country with all the facts and figures...these are just ideas and opinions about where the world is/could/should go 0o

[Deleted]

We need a new plague to kill a load of humans. Too many of us.

[Itisamuh]

Agent Smith made this clear years ago.

[Stir]

I'm gay. I don't intend to populate the planet any further.

Homosexuality does not miraculously destroy any urge of reproduction. Sorry, but that's not an argument.

Anywa: I agree with David Attenborough. We áre a plague. It just so happens that, purely ecologically, there's nothing wrong with that. We're not the first plague, and we're not very likely to be the last. We're not a threat to our planet, either... We're a threat to ourselves.
It's also not our population number that makes us a plague. It's the way we use (or rather: Waste) resources. Wastefulness is unnecessary, but economically beneficial in the way our world market systems work at the moment. If anything, our demise will come because of our wastefulness. And we're going to drag other species with us. Some species will be the victim of our wasteful behaviour, and other species will take a really tough beating because they've grown to be reliant on our 'success.'

Population control is a good idea, in my opinion. But we need to stop wasting stuff.

The entire human population could live in a single city the size of France, and could easily be maintained with the proper technology. Most of the knowledge and tech we need already exists. In this utopian city, everyone could live with a level of prosperity we've grown used to in the Western World. The fact that we don't do this kind of thing is a mentality issue. Most of it is due to the market; if you're willing to sacrifice some of your personal profit, then you can bet your arse that someone else is going to nick it, and possibly beat you down. Nobody wants to take that risk, so nobody is making the first move. Fix the mentality, and you can alter humanity's role in the Earth's ecosystems.

[Loaf Lord]

Recycling is mostly a crock of shit, just another money-making scheme. The energy expenditure needed to reconstitute materials from one shape to another isn't worth it.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle... which one of those is the big money maker? Who historically runs waste management in North America? Hmm...

Well, at least I did what I thought would make a difference. Back to being a nasty plague. *slithers away into the darkness* I mean, I also do reuse bottles and plastic containers as much as possible... so that's something.

[Grizzly Willy]

@Frozenbeef

Apologies then, I must have missed that post. I agree with your solution, but it shows that you're not part of the group I'm talking about. My issue is with people who want humanity wiped out, just because they got the idea in their heads that we're a scourge.

We need a new plague to kill a load of humans. Too many of us.

These are the people I'm talking about.

[Deleted]

Mars: Earth, I heard you got humans. Is it serious ?
Earth: I'm afraid it's in terminal stage.

[Kurioxan]

nature is already starting to adapt to us; our medicines become less and less effective to combat disease because we have accelerated their evolution with it. meanwhile we become more and more vulnerable to it because of globalization. imagine if someone with the Ebola virus managed to get to an international airport.

its a matter of time really.

Ebola is a bad example however, it kills too fast so wouldnt spread it self contains very well, one of the reasons that while it is one of the diseases with highest mortality (and most gruesome) it is not considered that much of a threat.
And even then we would adapt ourselves, its an endless arms race that i do believe humans will win in the end due to technological advances...

We already starting using all or nothing technics for example to cure aids, such as simply destroying the whole immune system, wait a couple of days inside a bobble and let the virus die off, then transplant bone marrow.

As tech progresses we might even see technics that simply make diseases useless, one of the ways would be to remove the hayflick limit (one of the reasons im studying in genetics, can say my life's objective, albeit is going slowly sadly) and simply pump someone with multiplication hormones, first off your cells will replenish faster than the disease can damage you, not to mention the closest thing we would have to "eternal youth", then treat it.

Not to mention about genetically programmed viruses to target disease, infect a person with it and the virus will rip a new one on whatever is infecting you.
Or nano technology to which viruses and bacteria cant do crap about.

We still dont have that tech so we are vulnerable for a few more decades, but disease will lose this battle tbh, unless for some reason we all die off first ofc.

Anyway ranted offtopic :P
But yes, nature will adapt a lot, even to our polution, polution is not the best to many current life forms, but it makes others thrive, in fact many jellyfish LOVE our polution, i doubt we will ever see a true mass extinction, but more of a replacement of existing species for species adapted to a human controlled world.

[Loaf Lord]

One of our biggest priorities should be developing an efficient renewable resource that doesn't harm the environment. But of course greedy oil kings get in the way of that.

[Stir]

Recycling is mostly a crock of shit, just another money-making scheme. The energy expenditure needed to reconstitute materials from one shape to another isn't worth it.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle... which one of those is the big money maker? Who historically runs waste management in North America? Hmm...

Whether you expend energy to reconstitute materials from rough ore or waste tins makes very little difference.
However, digging up new ore is itself a much more wasteful process than collecting old tins.

They're leaving out a really big chunk of what makes recycling the more viable option. And that big chunk is: Mining.