Nothing new here,a titled bloke telling everybody how to live their lives.

Member of the Order of Merit
Companion of Honour
Commander of the Royal Victorian Order
Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Fellow of the Royal Society
Fellow of Zoological Society of London

thoreau wrote:
You obviously didn't think there thor or you'd have said overdensely situated in specific areas rather than 'overpopulated'.

www.overpopulationisamyth.com < feel free to try and debunk it .

"Attenborough's association with natural history programmes began when he produced and presented the three-part series The Pattern of Animals. The studio-bound programme featured animals from London Zoo, with the naturalist Julian Huxley "

"From 1983 Attenborough worked on two environmentally themed musicals with the WWF "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough

"David Attenborough - eugenicist
****

I was very tempted to title this comment "David Attenborough - fascist" but people might misunderstand my point. Others - via the fine medium of Twitter suggested: "David Attenborough - fabian" in recognition of all those social democrats and pseudo-liberals (and apologists for mass murderers) like Sidney & Beatrice Webb, G B Shaw, H G Wells and J M Keynes who were in favour of government intervention to stop the masses from breeding.

However, I thing that "David Attenborough - eugenicist" will suffice for that is what he is:

"We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so,” warns David Attenborough in an interview in the new issue of Radio Times magazine. “It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde,” says the natural history broadcaster.

And it's not us Western white folk - we're fine (or more pertinently failing to meet replacement levels meaning, but for immigration, negative population growth). It the huddled masses in Africa:

“We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that’s what’s happening. Too many people there. They can’t support themselves – and it’s not an inhuman thing to say. It’s the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a co-ordinated view about the planet it’s going to get worse and worse.”
A less kind blogger might sniff a little racism there!

Now David Attenborough - along with the other posh eugenicists in organisations like Friends of the Earth and the Green Party - has a pretty loose association with actual facts about population and indeed about famine in Ethiopia - true there are food shortages most years in this country but no objective observer - or even the development industry - identifies population pressures as the cause.

The real problem for nasty eugenicists like Attenborough is that economic growth, trade and open markets - by making us richer - are the means to 'control' population. Coupled with sending women to school rather than to arranged marriages. Here are the facts that the eugenicists ignore:

...in the next few years (if it hasn't happened already) the world will reach a milestone: half of humanity will be having only enough children to replace itself. That is, the fertility rate of half the world will be 2.1 or below. This is the “replacement level of fertility”, the magic number that causes a country's population to slow down and eventually to stabilise. According to the United Nations population division, 2.9 billion people out of a total of 6.5 billion were living in countries at or below this point in 2000-05. The number will rise to 3.4 billion out of 7 billion in the early 2010s and to over 50% in the middle of the next decade. The countries include not only Russia and Japan but Brazil, Indonesia, China and even south India.

Attenborough and his posh eugenicist mates can sod off. Humankind doesn't need him to sort its population growth - getting richer and better educated is doing the job just fine. "
theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.ie/2013...ough-eugenicist.html

andyh wrote:
Nope I did think and still think we are overpopulated - I shall have a watch of the link later.

If we were the only species on the planet and were we less consumptive of natural resources I would in all likelihood have a different view. We are not.

What's best about seeing past the RW/LW paradigm is that you never post partisan stuff.

No. Because by declaring that you see past the RW/LW paradigm, nothing that you post, no matter what, can be described as partisan.

And should somebody describe what one posts as biased, they are clearly partsian.

Meanwhile, LSE, Fabian and lefty and green folks are actually trying to kill us all.

Now fuck off.

Who's that for Mikey?

Not you, ofc. But I will let that person reveal their axe to grind all by themselves.

I guessed it weren't me, I'm also hoping it's not Thor. I very much doubt it is but seeing as you posted right after her, I have to ask innit..

ofc not Thor cos it doesn't resemble what she was saying. This thread alone is only part of it.

yeah, sorry mikey, I did know you didn't mean her really. Just looking at how the posts sit together I felt the urge to clarify



So ickle derail over

Cool dude

thoreau wrote:
I'm surprised tbh, didn't take you as the type to fall for the hype.
Regardless, we are not overpopulated, nor will we ever be going by the UN's own stats we will see a peak in 2040 - 2050 and thereafter a sharp decline as the older population dies off.
Its worth noting that in the 3rd world despite the higher birth rates they have higher mortality rates and use sod all resources.
There are still vast parts of this planet as yet sat unused after that theres the solar system and after that theres the rest of the fricking universe ffs lol....

[quote="andyh" post=146246
I'm surprised tbh, didn't take you as the type to fall for the hype.
Regardless, we are not overpopulated, nor will we ever be going by the UN's own stats we will see a peak in 2040 - 2050 and thereafter a sharp decline as the older population dies off.
Its worth noting that in the 3rd world despite the higher birth rates they have higher mortality rates and use sod all resources.
There are still vast parts of this planet as yet sat unused after that theres the solar system and after that theres the rest of the fricking universe ffs lol....[/quote]

To be perfectly honest with you I havent read much 'hype' as it were.

I obviously have a very different view from you about keeping the vast parts of the planet unused. I feel very strongly that we have already taken up our 'fair share' of space. Space which though once uninhabited by humans was inhabited by other living creatures and plants etc.

I accept that a lot of the destruction is consumer led rather then just 'numbers' but the fewer humans the less consumption.

I also agree that herding ourselves into city pens in not strictly necessary but I do see why it happens in the current dynamic.

Have just watched the link and it says pretty much what I think about cities - the end title says it all though 'putting people first' which is cool we humans do like to think of ourselves as being of paramount importance. But that is where I fundamentally disagree as I said in my previous posts.

I do not believe that we humans should have the monopoly on space or this planet or the solar system.

I think the key to a lot of it is urbanization thor. If the population was decentralized and 'naturally' spread across the land we would be living no doubt, a far less ecologically damaging way. Mummy Nature would happily coexist. Urbanization has accute effects, not just within the confines of the city limits. All them streetlights, advertizing hoardings, night buses, kebab grills etc need energy for example. The intensive argriculture required to feed these townies being another.

urbanisation no doubt has its issues and I do not in anyway disagree that if we lived in a different way we may well do less ecological damage.

Humans (some not all) have this strange desire (to me) to see an animal that may or may not be a threat to them and wish to kill it. The more spread out we are and the more areas we colonise the more likely we are to bump into these creatures and as we have done far too often in the past kill them or drive them into ever decreasing areas and for me that is just not fair.

Perhaps if I had more faith in human nature and our ability to live in harmony I would feel differently. But then we are talking about a creature that has enslaved itself to shiny stuff and continues to wage war on each other, commit the most heinous of crimes against the most vulnerable members of its communities and who are happy to see those who may be 'different' killed, maimed, starved, enslaved and generally treated appallingly.

Two kids per family should be the amount to strive for. In another 40 years another 2 billion will be on this planet, more suffering as the elite will be in the final stages of the NWO. Resources like water will be used as a weapon to enslave mankind further.

I think it is irresponsible to have many children in this crucial time.

my great great grandkids are time travelling cyborgs.

batou wrote:
Don't you mean shop mannequin's

Tiz a rare thing that I disagree with you thor. But on this topic I do. For one, I have no belief that "human nature" exists. Certainly not in the way it's painted.

Shake, I think you need to do some looking into it, beyond what the likes of DA have to say.