Humans are a plague: David Attenborough

[Zeldaveritas]

I mean, a simple college course surely has the breadth to explore the myriad of factors that would contribute to such an outrageous claim. If the model's wrong, or doesn't take into account certain factors (vertical hydroponics, expanding to space, etc.) it will be simply "garbage in, garbage out" and should be taken with a grain of salt large enough to sink the Titanic.

My statement wasn't a resultant of taking the class, I had come to that conclusion way before that. I'm aware that the population model can be called into question, but it was something leading researchers have been working on and adjusting since the 1970's. They are the experts on the topic, our professor was merely relaying the information. Regardless, I stand by my statement that rationing of water/food/energy is going to creep up on us a lot quicker than many people realize.

[oblivionx]

For all the people that think humans are a plague and the earth will be better off without us...

Lead by example already, and remember it's Down the road, not across the street.

[wow2011]

It cannot be repeated enough: Those who support such measures (forced sterilization, forced contraception), fully realize that in order to implement such a program they will have to butcher a significant portion of the world's population. There is no peaceful alternative to bring about your vision for the world. This is the real reason why mass murder is connected to population control: People are not, generally, going to allow themselves to come under tyrannical rule without the threat of real force.

It doesn't have to come down to that if actions are started early. For example, early education about childcare responsibility, importance of family planning, usages of contraceptives etc. Also, government could also put in financial restriction to promote responsible family planning. For example, maybe government can give out food stamp based on number of adults only and no longer increase based on number of children, have government subsidized condoms, government subsidized abortion (maybe 1 time only to prevent abuse) and what not. Of course government would need careful planning so people are aware of this and maybe only apply these rule to people born after 2003 (10 year olds who cannot have possibly have gotten children yet).

These are long term plans to educate people and this is fairly harmless. These kind of measures can only be taken while overpopulation is still not yet a problem. Further technological improvements are definitely good but I don't think standing idly by while hoping everything will turn out just fine is a nice approach to a potentially extremely bad situation.

[Deleted]

We need the emperor, he takes care of that.

More serious though... we are not overpopulated on earth, we will someday.

And no we won't erase ourself and kill humans. The chance for that is incredible small and will fade as soon as we reach the point of non existing diversity in mankind.
Different culture will die out, so does everything else that can differ between humans.

If we reach that point, we won't die out, maybe forever. But we certainly won't be the cause of that.

[Grummgug]

Q: whats the difference between the extreme right and extreme left?

A: the extreme right wants to kill some groups of people and are evil for it. The extreme left wants to kill off large classes of people (oh excuse me we need to compare the process to culling animals per Attenborough) and bring down the human population for the sake of the environment, and this is a nuanced position we need to take seriously.

One side gives us the jewish question. The other gives us human question.

[Garnier Fructis]

Q: whats the difference between the extreme right and extreme left?

There is no difference, extremists are retarded.

[Sunseeker]

He's urbane and well spoken though - that must mean he should be treated as a very serious person!

Indeed, and this a dangerous attitude among social sciences. I can't even begin to say how many literary journals I read by political-science types that just absolutely reek of wealthy, white privilege. I don't claim that being white means you automatically are privileged to a significant amount worth accounting for, but when you are and you even act like it, and act like it's justifyable and OK is just disgusting.

[Stir]

Indeed, and this a dangerous attitude among social sciences. I can't even begin to say how many literary journals I read by political-science types that just absolutely reek of wealthy, white privilege. I don't claim that being white means you automatically are privileged to a significant amount worth accounting for, but when you are and you even act like it, and act like it's justifyable and OK is just disgusting.

That being said, can't we just accept that David Attenborough has the world's best voice for nature documentaries? And he has passion for his work.
Sure; some of his ideas might be a bit strange (such as the notion that humans were aquatic mammals once), but the very fact that people have some weird opinions doesn't make them complete whacks.

For instance: Stephen Hawking. I bet most of us can agree that he's a genius. He's also completely off-his-rockers delusional. Still a genius.
That Kaku guy who loves doing those 'rabbit hole' documentaries? Completely nuts. His beliefs make no sense, and are certainly not backed up by the sciences he claims back up his beliefs. Still a genius in his own right.
Tsoukalos; let's not forget about him. "I'm not saying it's aliens, but..." You know; the guy's pretty smart. Sure; he isn't that good at separating observation from personal bias, but if we're going to judge a person's complete worth on that alone, we'd have to concede that anyone who holds any supernatural belief (not religion itself, but the belief that God is literally a guy who decides everything) is completely worthless in every respect just because they base a large portion of how they see the world on belief rather than demonstrable fact (note that I'm not suggesting that belief is wrong, per say. Merely that it isn't demonstrable fact).

We really can't do that. All sorts of people have all sorts of ideals, ideas, beliefs and convictions. Having one contrary or controversial view does not make an entire personality invalid.

[Sand Person]

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.

[Grizzly Willy]

Why do you assume that just because something is a plague it needs to be fixed? And how is the assessment that humanity is a plague (just like locusts, army ants and other species) even close to 'complaining?'
Humanity is a plague. That's just how it is.

A plague is something that needs to be fixed. A plague consumes until its fuel is destroyed. When you have a plague, you do everything in your power to squash it. A plague means something is not only wrong, but bad.

I would ask if you consider yourself to be a plague as well. I have a hard time imagining somebody say "yes, I am a parasite, sapping the world of its resources" without trying to fix that. It would imply that you are just fine being a plague.

[Stir]

A plague is something that needs to be fixed. A plague consumes until its fuel is destroyed. When you have a plague, you do everything in your power to squash it. A plague means something is not only wrong, but bad.

I would ask if you consider yourself to be a plague as well. I have a hard time imagining somebody say "yes, I am a parasite, sapping the world of its resources" without trying to fix that. It would imply that you are just fine being a plague.

No... When we're BOTHERED by a plague, we do everything we can to squash it. Locusts, pestilence, army ants etcetera.
When was the last time you saw a swarm of locusts destroy itself out of emo-ness?

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

So here it is:
"Yes, I am a member of a plague species (though not a parasite; it is something completely different, thank you very much (though I wouldn't care much if I were; the terminology is simply incorrect)), and I'm pretty much fine with that. There's loads of things we can do to make our behaviour sustainable, and I applaud most of those things because it allows us to plague on lots more, and have a nice and rich environment to boot. Of course we're sapping the world of resources (as does any other species of life, but we're giving so much back! We just have to make sure we don't kill ourselves off with the things we're giving back." :P

[Deleted]

Didnt Agent Smith say the same thing to Neo?

[ripponesan]

In the sense that we ruin worlds, or at least change them excessively to a way that only helps us. Not that its the wrong thing to do, but denying our impact on the world is silly.
Edit: Well only our world

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.

[someotherguy]

David Attenborough has contributed to this "plague" by having kids of his own.

Generally when people say something, or make rules, it doesn't mean they feel obligated to follow same advice/law.
"Do as I say, not as I do!"

[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.

We dont destroy, we consume.

[Howard Moon]

soylent green

Charlton Heston is pro-guns. Get him!!!

For all the people that think humans are a plague and the earth will be better off without us...

Lead by example already, and remember it's Down the road, not across the street.

Late to the party, see page 1.

[Grizzly Willy]

No... When we're BOTHERED by a plague, we do everything we can to squash it. Locusts, pestilence, army ants etcetera.
When was the last time you saw a swarm of locusts destroy itself out of emo-ness?

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

So here it is:
"Yes, I am a member of a plague species (though not a parasite; it is something completely different, thank you very much (though I wouldn't care much if I were; the terminology is simply incorrect)), and I'm pretty much fine with that. There's loads of things we can do to make our behaviour sustainable, and I applaud most of those things because it allows us to plague on lots more, and have a nice and rich environment to boot. Of course we're sapping the world of resources (as does any other species of life, but we're giving so much back! We just have to make sure we don't kill ourselves off with the things we're giving back." :P

I find this to be a much more reasonable position. I still reserve my statement for those saying that humanity should be wiped out.

[Deleted]

Survival of the most adaptable

Yeah, the fittest.

The connotations are clearly different. Fit implies strength whereas adaptable implies flexibility.

[Deleted]

The connotations are clearly different. Fit implies strength whereas adaptable implies flexibility.

No they are not.
It is fittest as in the subjects fitness for a purpose, while this may include physical fitness it is in no way implied.

[Deleted]

No they are not.
It is fittest as in the subjects fitness for a purpose, while this may include physical fitness it is in no way implied.

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.