Categories





Silver Exchange

David Attenborough – Humans are plague on Earth

[Ed. Note: Royal Subject "Sir" David Attenborough also happens to be a human, perhaps we should begin the eradication process with him.]

Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

by Louise Gray, The Telegraph:

The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the world’s resources.

He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he told the Radio Times.

Sir David, who is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, has spoken out before about the “frightening explosion in human numbers” and the need for investment in sex education and other voluntary means of limiting population in developing countries.

Read More @ Telegraph.co.uk

10 comments to David Attenborough – Humans are plague on Earth

  • This guy was a hero of mine as a child, now I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire!

  • Darren

    Just because you don’t like the message and the implications are dire given those who are in control, does not mean the message is incorrect….

    • SGT

      Perhaps. But notice how their solution is always the haves doing away with the have-nots – Look at A.) Agenda 21 B.) Carbon emission reduction to ZERO, as Bill Gates has demanded, just for starters. They want us ALL dead, so the remaining psychopathic Oligarchs have this planet to themselves. Sounds extreme, I know – but if you doubt it, revisit points A and B.

  • dmts

    I visit this site probably 5 or 6 times a day to feed through to various sources and I will continue to, since you guys are doing great work that is coming from a great place, but the Ed. Note up here on this article really pissed me off.

    Why do you take his threat so personally? He’s trying to communicate a broad and serious issue, not steal your guns, food and silver FFS!

    It feels to me like his argument is actually squarely aimed at sustaining a semblance of civilisation as we know it not taking away people’s liberties and slaughtering us down to 500 million! He’s not that man.

    If anyone on this planet has a broad view of what over population has done and will do to our way of life it is him. He’s seen and done things the rest of the world couldn’t imagine let alone achieve. He’s done more for the popularisation of environmental and population issues than any other person alive and the population issue is one that is frankly not going away anytime soon.

    But what he is, is somebody who understands that at our current rate of explosion, we will all soon collectively be paying the price for our collective actions with our freedom whether we like it or not.

    On a deep level I believe that true freedom has to exist within a framework of shared responsibility to create something that is sustainable for us and our children. If freedom instead is the ability to run riot however you wish without consideration then I do not wish it upon us!

    I welcome your critiques and responses.

    Also, @ScottSando … Come on man, this is not a comment that even means anything. To personalise a comment like that in response to an broader subject matter is nonsensical and is the exact thing we all despise the mainstream media for. Let’s not do the same.

    • Jon

      If the goal is having a nice sustainable place to live, giving someone power to decide for others how to acheive that will create the opposite – slavery and destruction. I think what people who love freedom detest about Attenborough is the supremely arrogant assumptions imbedded in his argument. There are only two choices, a dictator with the power to imprison or kill to achieve the objective, or let people be free to live and let live. If we go with the first choice, who do we put in charge and what kind of enforcement power do they get to make sure our collective actions are consistent with some ideal that they decide upon. No one is smart enough to come up with a number in such a complex system as “Earth” for how many people can populate it. I don’t wish for anyone to decide that for me. Maybe they decide that 1 child is enough so to enforce it they will sterilize me after I have a kid. No thanks, I’m not good with that. If we let individuals make their own decisions, peoples preferences will give a better result than the force of a dictator. Under freedom and prosperity, people often choose to have less kids – the birth rates in many developed and wealthy countries are below replacement rate. Innovation and technology lead to cleaner environments, less dangerous environments, higher food production that will keep pace with whatever population growth we have. Eventually, that could even include colonies on other planets if need be. Giving someone power to decide for individuals by coercion tends to have the opposite effect of what is intended.

    • I think to call the human race a plague one must have a deeply unbalanced mind as human beings are natural and of the Earth.

      The future these guys want is impoverishment for the masses and luxury for them, I see through these bullshiters, don’t ask me to buy their lie’s and fake concern for life.

      If you want a sustainable future campaign to have the free energy devices that people like Tesla invented nearly 100 years ago.

      Quite frankly I don’t like the guy or his elite chums that he sucks up too (Prince Charles), I’ve got zero tolerance for the lie

      Here’ an idol for yall of that persuasion to worship
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1857482.stm
      http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cuttingedge.org/Prince_Charles_Statute.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1678.cfm&h=393&w=410&sz=32&tbnid=9S0Cue1QBBwf2M:&tbnh=91&tbnw=95&zoom=1&usg=__F7f46OnYoaPyKHUklK-Pvf_RReI=&docid=352li3wobYRquM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s-j-ULj4IsyX0QXghYCIDQ&ved=0CD8Q9QEwAg&dur=1

  • Fred Hayek

    Of course, if Mr. Attenborough wanted to push this message to its limits he would note that industrialized western nations where women have full rights already have fairly well stabilized populations. Why doesn’t Mr. Attenborough travel to African, middle eastern and southeast asian nations and give them a good lecturing about how they must give their women the same rights as they have in the west?

  • NaySayer

    The truth is there are too many people on this earth and there will be more. 9 billion people by 2050 will make sure that many of us will die of disease, starvation and wars over resources.

    Any animal population which overpopulates faces these conditions and we are absolutely no exception. The question is should we allow people to voluntarily limit the number of children or do we let the elite kill us?

    The poorest countries are the ones with the most children. I believe many of these women would voluntarily limit the number of kids they have so as not to watch them starve. However, I do not believe that anybody should be coerced into having more or less children than they want.

  • js

    Maybe the problem is not population growth. Nature has a natural way of balancing and that is through disease and sickness. Maybe Sir David should be focusing more on removing medical care and medical benefits by cutting his own.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  


nine × 2 =

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>