Humans are a plague: David Attenborough

[Annapolis]

I have to agree with Spectral. If this guy is going to use strong words like plague, wouldn't suicide be the best way to fix such a thing? He at least shouldn't have had 2 kids. Kind of hard to argue that populating the Earth is such a terrible thing when you do it yourself.

[Deleted]

I think they are trying to say that to the earthworm humans mean nothing, despite what we have done on this planet (both good and bad) to the earthworm it is the most important thing on this planet.

Is the earthworm even conscious of its existence?

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 05:28 PM ----------

We move into a new environment, push out native species, eradicate anything in our way, and drain the natural resources. We destroy the land and the wildlife. And when we're done we move on to another area and repeat the process.

Sounds like a plague (or a swarm of locust) to me.

What's wrong with that? If that's how your species is operating currently in order to survive and thrive it's all fair in nature's game.

Besides, if the human doesn't do it, someone else will.



And yeah, what's with the use of melodramatic words like 'plague', 'virus', 'locust swarm'.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 05:31 PM ----------

Mankind needs to be wiped out for the good of this planet.

I love Earth, I really do, but if I had to choose between myself and our world, well I'm selfish, because I was built that way.




Also, tons of posters seem to miss something when they talk about available space. Well... space. There's unimaginable space and resources for everyone, in space.

[Paranoid Android]

There has always been a large amount of humans that aren't truly worth much of anything.

I think a big thing to note is that human populations ARE NOT spiraling out of control in the countries of Western Europe and the United States/Canada. This is always something that seems to not be mentioned when talking about the population of the planet getting too big. Countries where populations are blooming out of control are countries that really have no understanding of the idea of overpopulation in the general populace.

Your should not be so biased and open your eyes a little. Industrialized countries drain just as much if not more on our environment. I have stated this a few times, think what it takes just to get a food source to your table. Do you drive, buy plastic goods, living in your home or going to work not only takes up space but think of electricity and other sources in that dwelling. Shoot even when u go on vacation or visit family gettin on a airline. Again simplifying this just to too many people is not the only problem its each humans drain on our environment and yes of course multiplied by 4 billion.

[Deleted]

I have to agree with Spectral. If this guy is going to use strong words like plague, wouldn't suicide be the best way to fix such a thing? He at least shouldn't have had 2 kids. Kind of hard to argue that populating the Earth is such a terrible thing when you do it yourself.

Actually a woman having 2 children doesn't increase the population in the long run.

According to calculations using models the human population will increase to 9 billions and stay at that level. I'm not sure if this is to much people for this planet but there won't be 14 billion people in year 2050.

[Dezerte]

Some people are treating our planet as if it's sentient.

Our planet doesn't give two shits, because it's not alive. We on the other hand should care, because it's our future that's in danger (and because we are alive, I think).

[Deleted]

Some people are treating our planet as if it's sentient.

Our planet doesn't give two shits, because it's not alive. We on the other hand should care, because it's our future that's in danger (and because we are alive, I think).

You're right, we depend on Earth's ecosystem currently, and we should care very much about it, and also, it's our home, the birthplace of so many wonders, both natural and man-made. Earth is a beacon of life in the dark, cold universe. For that alone it's worth protecting.


But there's no need to be dramatic. There are plenty of lovely balls out there, waiting to be explored, and, well colonized. So much space, so many resources out there, ripe for the taking.

Just like the discovery of America was a massive boon and extinguished overpopulation, the same thing applies for space, only here we're talking about an infinitely larger scale.

[Gheld]

The real chronic illness that this species suffers is sporadic outbreaks of self-important assholes who think they are the savior of humanity and that the planet will be destroyed if people don't adjust to their ideologies.

These are the people that sow human suffering. And then they turn to those that they have held down with their campaign of hatred and they say "It is your duty to suffer, and it is the fault of my enemies" in an effort to turn children into soldiers by starving their families to death.

History has time and time again shown just what horrors humans are capable of when they are convinced that they are backed into a corner.

[Fahrenheit]

I think David should stick to narrating the mating rituals of red cherry shrimp.

[Dillon]

I really don't think you guys are really grasping what you're asking for. Most people would like to maintain their right to reproduction, the ultimate conclusion of the human imperative.

How exactly would you suggest that we "lower the population"? You either actively do so, through genocide, or through attrition by not allowing reproduction. Either of which are on their face disgusting, reprehensible, inconceivable... and beneath, are selfish and controlling and ultimately get to the root of an old and buried idea of serfdom, that there are those who are superior, and those beneath who are expendable and replaceable.

Rather than destructive, disgusting ideas, how about we turn toward technology for the answer? Technologies that already exist but are being improved: vertical farming, desalinization, asteroid farming, improved architecture and infrastructure, etc.

[Deleted]

Earth without humans would be pointless. No other species has made a contribution to science or technology since we wiped out the neanderthals. Granted, I may have just hurt my own argument there...

i agree with this, whats the point of the earth without us? just be animals killing each other. we are destructive, but all in the name of progress!

[N-7]

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?

So, your brilliant plan is to kill off corporates and ruin world economy?

[kivipää]

When the earthworm can build a vehicle for transporting itself to other celestial bodies, then sure, it's just about as important as the rest of us.

Honestly I dont even understand what you're trying to say.

And the only thing in the universe to give two shits about humans building a vehicle to travel to other stellar bodies are humans themselves. COnsidering your delusions of importance, it's no suprise that you can't comprehend that you aren't important in the least. None of us are. Thinking otherwise is just subjective, self-abosrbing delirium.

[Dezerte]

I really don't think you guys are really grasping what you're asking for. Most people would like to maintain their right to reproduction, the ultimate conclusion of the human imperative.

How exactly would you suggest that we "lower the population"? You either actively do so, through genocide, or through attrition by not allowing reproduction. Either of which are on their face disgusting, reprehensible, inconceivable... and beneath, are selfish and controlling and ultimately get to the root of an old and buried idea of serfdom, that there are those who are superior, and those beneath who are expendable and replaceable.

Rather than destructive, disgusting ideas, how about we turn toward technology for the answer? Technologies that already exist but are being improved: vertical farming, desalinization, asteroid farming, improved architecture and infrastructure, etc.

Question is, can technology keep up.

[N-7]

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.

Well, to me you seem like a savage person advocating the killing of innocents.

[kivipää]

Human beings are not animal.

We are. We have the same origins, same biology, same body chemistry and same method of evolution. A lion evolved teeth and claws, a deer evolved horns, a human evolved a superior brain. Our brain is a tool like any other organ or appendage on any other being on this planet. Just because it's unique doesn't mean we suddenly ceased to be fauna.
Once again, you only show self-deception derived as a mechanism to cope wioth negative effects of abstract thinking capability."I'm important! I'm special!" Don't make me laugh. The faster we can accept our own insignificance without collapsing inside our unimportant, self-abosrbed little minds, the faster we can overcome the limitations of our current psyche and move on as a species.

[Vulcanasm]

You don't need to kill (or harm) anyone to stop the overpopulation problem. You just need to keep reproduction rates low.

In fact, the best controllers of reproduction rates are womens' rights -- not just their access to birth control, but their societal standing.

In countries where gender gaps are relatively small (northern Europe, France, Netherlands, Canada), and birth control is easily available, population growth would be net negative if not for immigration. In the next tier of countries, including the United States, UK, and Germany, population growth would be zero if it weren't for immigration.

Yet, in countries like Saudi Arabia, Congo, and Ethiopia, where women are treated as brood mares, you find population growth rates of over 2%, even after factoring in the high, net-negative immigration rates. China was like this, too, until their "one child" policy forced an entire generation to rethink gender roles. Now China's population growth is lower than that of the United States.

You can do this kind of study by United States region, too. The data are widely available. Look up gender-based pay rates by geographic region. Better pay rates equal lower birth rate. The correlation is ~0.9. You can find this data at much finer levels than "state", by the way, so please don't turn this into more "blue state"/"red state" bullshit. It's far more dramatic and interesting than that.

No one needs violence, jingoism, or ethnocentrism to correct our population problem. Treat women as equals and the population stabilizes. Talk like "cool story, bitch, make me a sandwich"? Grats, brah', you da' problem.

[Beefhammer]

world renowned wildlife expert and naturalist has recently spoken out, after doing a series based in Africa, of the vast overpopulation of humans across the world. Speaking directly about the overpopulation within countries like Africa or Asia, Attenborough spoke frank about his feeling that humans are one of the greatest threats to the world today.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/22/sir-da...earth-3361381/

Attenborough is known for expressing his feeling towards the growth of humans world wide and the effects on other animal species it has on them. To him, humans are animals in the same catagory as anything else he studies, and such matters as what the population of mankind requires, resources, food and space it takes up as it grows.

Sir David is part of a group that promotes means to stop humans from overpopulating, especially in areas where is does little for the enviroment and the people living there themselves. I think it was said if it was any other species of animal or insect, if a species grew to large, mankind would cull those animals or insects to reduce the population and help balance other species out. Yet its humans themselves who overpopulate, and such a thought as culling humans would be considered genocide or an atrocity.

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.

Anyway, its an interesting thought. We know for a fact the reason other species die out is because one species grows to large in numbers, and people are as much animals any anything else.

Quickest way to solve the areas with over population is to give women the same rights men have in those countries, and elect or appoint women to positions of power in the government and business. Nations that have equal rights, and women who can be leaders in government and business have close to a 0 growth rate. Its the areas where women have no education, rights, or power where populations are booming.

Now on paper it is simple. Actually implementing these policies is another thing.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 07:52 PM ----------

jingoism

Such a great word.

[draganid]

clearly the only soultion is to be like that episode of south park where they thought the only way to keep the future people from coming back in time looking for work was to all have gay sex in a pile to keep people from the future being born. all right back in the pile!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uORAyORWRAA

[Elysara]

Where are we going to go then?

Obama cut Nasa's balls off, We as a species are not thinking about expanding into space.

Where are we going to go when the Earth is stripped of it's resources? We can't live here forever

[Violent]

Earth without humans would be pointless. No other species has made a contribution to science or technology since we wiped out the neanderthals. Granted, I may have just hurt my own argument there...

Unless you believe in the whole "God" thing, Earth isn't meant JUST for humans anyway. Not to mention MILLIONS of species were here and gone before Humans were ever even thought of. Earth without humans is not pointless, in fact it's perfect.
Granted YOU don't get to live anymore.. But hey all the animals would at least get a fair, natural selection type of chance.

I don't see where living on this planet obligates you to contribute to science or technology anyways.
Hell even Chimps use technology.