View Article & Comments

I expect Attenborough's attitude towards his fellow humans has been brought on by his own self loathing.

After all, having spent most of his working life feeding on the British public's unconditional love, respect and admiration for the states' mind manipulation tool, the BBC, in order to promote pseudo scientific nonsense such as the so called "greenhouse effect" hypothesis and AGW fraud, he then turns 180º and defecates all over his adoring hosts.

Typical parasite.

Yes the world would certainly benefit from less of his kind.

Views like this only fuel the theories that the green movement is nothing more than media friendly eugenics. Be more helpful if we looked at humans as humans and not something that needs exterminating like a plague.

I have found it odd that a liberal view should be about improving conditions which lowers birth rates. Would also help if we stopped employing so many experts from the west (on massive wages vs. local wage rates) or for the same amount employ many local hands empowering these people so they can manage their environment. Oh as a thought why not stop proping up dictators who hoard aid may help rather than bitching about these poor backwards savages who don't have a clue how to use land they have lived on for millenia.

Further to my comment above this what I mean and why the green movement should be disgusted with itself rather than harping on about poor widdle polar bears in Svalvard.

I would also add true capitalism instead of corn laws would help locals but I guess we'll never know if it works as we don't trust anyone but our specialists with their amazing track record on 'free trade'

Two decisive factors for the coming global food crises have been identified.  According to a highly regarded recent study by the New England Complex Systems Institute, [NECSI] (a group of academics from Harvard and MIT who specialize in predicting how changes in environment can lead to political instability and upheavals), the global food crises is driven by efforts to replace food crops with biofuel crops and greedy global investors (e.g. hedge funds, investment banks, etc.) who speculate (bet) on commodity (food) prices.  NECSI researchers Marco Lagi, Yavni Bar-Yam and Yaneer Bar-Yam argue that because “the American breadbasket has suffered debilitating droughts and high temperatures [this summer], leading to soaring corn and wheat prices in anticipation of a poor harvest, we are on the verge of another crisis, the third in five years, and likely to be the worst yet, capable of causing new food riots and turmoil on a par with the Arab Spring.” NECSI researchers predict that in 2013 a “spike in prices is inevitable.”

http://www.ethiopianreview.net/index/?tag=ethiopia-famine

 One of the new “hunger games” that was recently proposed by the G-8 Summit is the “New Alliance for Food Security” aimed at accelerating the “transfer” of hundreds of millions of hectares of arable African land to Cargill, Dupont, Monsanto, Kraft, Unilever, Syngenta AG and the dozens of other signatory multinationals. Working jointly with Africa’s corrupt dictators, these multinationals aim to “liberate” the land from Africans just like the 19th Century scramble for Africa; but will they really liberate Africa from the scourge of hunger, famine, starvation and poverty?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/somalia-famine-for-profit-and-the-east-african-food-crisis/30299

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

Comment edited by Craig M (Twitter) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM EST

Wow, so much ignorance!
You seriously think that the current population increase is going to be sustainable?
This is nothing to do with eugenics or 'extermination' This is recognising that if we don't tackle the problem then Mother Nature will do it for us and she's far, far crueler.
There are many women in many cultures (developed and developing world) who would love to limit their family size, but lack of education, access to contraception, cultural pressures such as a heavily patriarchal society or Catholicism prevent women from exercising a choice or developing a different role in society.
We need to ensure that our consumption of resources is as sustainable as possible at a personal, regional, national and global level. This isn't trendy or green, this is simple good housekeeping.

Posted by Elim (Twitter) on Jan 22nd 2013, 2:09 PM EST

"Wow, so much ignorance!"

Every comment you make is biased and ignorant.

"You seriously think that the current population increase is going to be sustainable? "

Before you begin to advocate the eradication of your own species, you might like to provide us all with some hard evidence to support your beliefs. In the meantime you may wish to lead your own ignorant spawn out into your back yard and do the rest of us a big favour . . . . . No? I didn't think so.

Populations behave in the same way to stress as all organisms. They become prolific.

So the simple answer is to stop the parasitic classes, you know the class that Attenborough speaks for, from destabilising third world nations in order to plunder their natural resources.

Then provide these poor folk with the means to become productive contributors to the global economy, by providing them cheap carbon based energy. Giving them the technology to access their own shale gas reserves for example.

This way their populations will de-stress and numbers will naturally come down.

The billions that have been stolen and squandered on AGW fraud by your ilk Eli, could have gone along way to this end.

A nations most valuable assets are its people.

Something that you will never understand Eli, because you are a conspiring nation-less parasite.

Again Craig - no one needs to be killed ;)

Elim ever heard of Thomas Robert Malthus? We should all be dead by now and the over population mantra has been trotted out for some two centuries now.

Now I never said population growth was sustainable - nice try to twist - I said

a liberal view should be about improving conditions which lowers birth rates

which is what you also said:

There are many women in many cultures (developed and developing world) who would love to limit their family size, but lack of education, access to contraception, cultural pressures such as a heavily patriarchal society or Catholicism prevent women from exercising a choice or developing a different role in society.
We need to ensure that our consumption of resources is as sustainable as possible at a personal, regional, national and global level.

I have no problem with that. Maybe you couldn't see past my widdle polar bear comment ;)you forget Elim I am a former green and I agree with many of their objectives on sustainability which is nothing more than living within your means.

Why no mention of land use for biofuels or indeed hedge fund speculation pushing up food prices? Why no mention of outside Western specialists doing a job for several times what a local would be paid? It's Orientalist greenwash acting no different that the big bad oil companies who believe locals can't manage their own resources.

We could also look at trade agreements which are geared heavily in favour of large outside corporations (under the guise of IMF/World Bank terms) not local business which is who these agreements should be helping. Joseph Stiglitz has covered this quite well in the past (he's a greenie).

It's for this reason greenies are mistakenly called watermelons when it is naked 'capitalism' that is anything but 'capitalism/free trade' hence my reference to the corn laws. The intervention is what is often referred to as 'socialism' and 'big government' when it's not it's just a way of the few controlling resources and concentrations of power etc creating an unfair playing field not to improve conditions but to improve profits.

"Developed countries have taken advantage of their agricultural subsidies to support domestic farmers at the sacrifice of those in developing countries, he said, citing cotton as an example.

"While the US declared to believe in the free market," Stiglitz said, it has provided a total of between $3 billion and $4 billion in annual subsidies to the country's 25,000 cotton farmers. "Most of the benefits went to 10,000 (of the farmers)."

The US has become the world's largest cotton exporter, because the subsidies have driven down its cotton's price.

Consequently, about 10 million African cotton farmers would suffer, and millions of Indian farmers would also lose, he said.

Under the current trade regime, Stiglitz said, developed countries impose restrictions on imports of products they cannot produce, such as textiles, while opening up to products they have an advantage in producing, such as hi-tech electronics.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008-03/22/content_6558114.htm

This isn't trendy or green, this is simple good housekeeping.

and 'housekeeping' is often just a euphemism for extermination - and a right wind favourite phrase in the debt crisis. Sorry I have always found that to be a dreadful phrase although I am by no means saying that was what you meant.

One final thought is access to decent healthcare - including drugs not charged at rates of the annual wage in a developing country - so you don't need umpteen children due to high mortality rates.

Comment edited by Craig M (Twitter) on Tuesday January 22, 2013 at 5:34 PM EST

Elim you may say no one needs to be killed but a big issue is carbon trading etc will lead to people dying and moreover is due to fuel poverty and starvation (as mentioned above in what drives food prices beyond standard market forces of growing food to eat - animal feed is another).

Will touches on this - all the billions spent 'reducing emissions' so it can be turned into just another commodity to trade (lining pockets of the Enrons/BPs/Al Gore's of the world) or the green/solar start up companies that go bust despite massive subsidy and investment (reminding me of dodgy directors in Don't Get Done Dom). Someone is making money and it is not going to the people it is supposed to help and after all we keep getting told the developing world is most at risk from climate change rather than getting told it's rabid policies - green or otherwise.

Did Sir David touch on this?

“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 coordinated view about the planet it’s going to get worse and worse.”

How he could miss the real reasons is staggering unless of course Sir David is part of the problem as Will alludes to.

This is chart for GDP vs. Birth rate

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/177/8/846.1/F1.large.jpg

First of all apologies Craig - I thought you wrote the post that contained the truly vile comment

"In the meantime you may wish to lead your own ignorant spawn out into your back yard and do the rest of us a big favour . . ."

I now realise that was Pratt and I should have recognised that whilst we disagree you are not offensive.

Looking through your comments and examples I think we broadly agree in many areas and I also think that is in agreement with what Attenborough is saying. 'Too many people in Ethiopia...can't sustain themselves' this is true (though could appear controversial)and much of the fault lies at the lack of infrastructure and opportunity due to internal disruption and damaging practices from multinationals etc. The people of Ethiopia could sustain themselves and their resources if the wrongs are righted. We in the UK could also live much more sustainable lives if we addressed our own problems too!

Posted by Elim (Twitter) on Jan 23rd 2013, 3:08 AM EST

It is offensive when I say it but when you say it that's just fine, right. The usual double standards.

When you say "You seriously think that the current population increase is going to be sustainable? "

You are simply echoing a Malthusian meme which has always been an excuse for genocide and you know it.

As I said quite clearly, right before my "vile comment", "Before you begin to advocate the eradication of your own species, you might like to provide us all with some hard evidence to support your beliefs."

The fact that you have not done so is simply because there is NO evidence to support yours, Attenborough's and the rest of you "population reductionists" fallacious and VILE assertions that "there are too many of us".

This kind of unfounded and dangerously anti-human rhetoric, especially from people such as Attenborough with the global media platform they have been given, is a green light to those who actively work behind the scenes to engineer outcomes that result in large scale human suffering and death.

You say "Again Craig - no one needs to be killed ;)"

Let me spell it out for you Elim, MILLIONS OF THE WORDS POOREST PEOPLE ARE DYING OF STARVATION DUE TO FOOD PRICE INCREASES WHICH ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF BIOFUELS.

Current EU law requires 10% of transport energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, with almost all of it expected to come from biofuels made from food crops.

Chairman Mao had faddish, unscientific ideas about how to grow food, and he banned private farms in 1958 in his shift to communes and greater industrial output at the expense of agriculture. This led to a 15% drop in grain production in China in 1959, and another 10% reduction in 1960.

Chairman Mao Tse-tung's infamous Great Leap Forward five year economic plan, is estimated to have killed between 20 and 43 million Chinese over a short three year period.

If you, Attenborough or any of the rest of you anti-human Malthusian sociopaths don't get what harm and human suffering just one aspect of your green fascism, "biofuels", is currently causing to millions of the worlds poorest people, which is entirely justified by the biggest fraud in the history of science, AGW, then again I invite you all to do the world a big favour and lead by example.

The difference between you and I Elim is that I am not a lying, conspiring, wilfully ignorant coward.

I have nothing to discuss with you, Pratt.

Elim,

When are you going to answer this?

"Before you begin to advocate the eradication of your own species, you might like to provide us all with some hard evidence to support your beliefs."

When you advocate "policy", (and which is based on fraudulent science), that is proven to result in genocide, the time for discussion is certainly at an end.

And it's Mr Pratt to you.

Comment edited by Will Pratt (Twitter) on Wednesday January 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM EST

Ravenna, the global population is increasing exponentially, do you need evidence for this?
Nowhere have I said that I want to eradicate my species, doing nothing could possibly cause it though.

No probs Elim. The way the page updated (I double posted) easily happens.

Will - be careful with language it's a first step to going down the current 'exterminate deniers' route that some activists have (not here but a certain thought experiment - retracted - comes to mind). The funny thing is sceptics and warmists both have more in common than we differ - we have an interest in climate in common! Although when it comes to politicians I struggle to be nice as well :-)