I read this article in Spectator. Excellent Graham. I wonder if it will be as well accepted here as it would be by Spectator readers.

Attenborough, a one time authority and hero of nature, has fallen for the tricks of the manipulators and is desperate to be relevant when he should have retired gracefully when he had the chance. A sad old man.

At various times dominant species like the trilobites and dinosaurs must have thought they were in control but it didn't end well. My suspicion is that the Earth could only support say 1 bn people if we had to live off wind and solar. That would be only after a fossil fuelled orgy of building solar panels and wind turbines.

I suspect it will become clearer this decade (ie by 2030) that 7.7 bn is too many for everybody to eat steak, drive a car and take air travel. One reason we are so numerous is the geological accident that an accumulation of coal, oil and gas was laid out for us to exploit. That will turn into a shortage after leaving behind its waste product, namely an unstable climate. The next generation will have much tougher conditions.

Human compassion has a hand in all these excesses. Whilst the going is good, compassion is misplaced & causes many problems. When the going is tough, compassion flies out the window to a large extent.
We now have humans who gamble with the fate of mankind for the sake of undeserving humans who out-breed all but insects !

The really important question this raises is, “Is the world supposed to be in one state rather than another?”

If the universe, including humanity, has just happened to come into being by unintentional, unconscious physical processes then logically it follows that no, there is no particular state that the world should be in.

A world with lots of humans or no humans, with lots of whales or no whales, lots of rats or no rats, is just as “right” or “wrong” as any other.

We may have preferences for how we would like the world to be but in a materialistic universe such preferences don’t actually mean anything or have any moral weight.

Graham, you mention the creation account from Genesis but you failed to note that that account explicitly affirms that human beings are unique in the universe – having alone been created in the image of God.

It is not by some odd quirk of evolution that there just happens to be this undeniable, enormous gulf between human beings and the rest of the physical universe.

Yes, human beings are physical creatures but there is something much more to us than that. Indeed, that is blindingly obvious, but incredibly many choose to turn a blind eye to the obvious.

Rather than taking David Attenborough's comments out of context and libellously attributing anti-human motives to him, you should take three minutes to watch them in context:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-56752541

Thanks Aidan, for highlighting that David Attenborough is merely a pommy actor who fell into wildlife documentary narration, & has since grown into a silly old man, who takes himself far too seriously to be of any use to anyone.

Attenbrorough is has become just a paid shill and propagandist for the totalitarian fascists, that is all.

Probably the most absurd of all his jumble of confused self-contradicions is the jump from the religiuos premise that human resource use, alone of all species, is sinful; to the conclusion that the best way to rationalise scarce resources to their most urgent and important ends, is to have giant technocratic bureaucracies ruling by wads and screeds of regulations so as to block every human action without limit or reason, unless we first get permission from the government pffft.

Laughable foolery.

Homo Sapiens is a parasite on this, once beautiful, planet, our ONLY home.
We have taken nearly everything, managed to destroy it, and given nothing worthwhile in return.
Along the way we have completely ignored the fact that we DO NOT own this planet. We merely share it with all other animal species. Each of which fills a niche essential for their, and our, survival.
The ultimate arrogant parasite.

ateday

So the obvious question is, what are you doing here?

Just enough of you, too much of everyone else, is that it?

Yes, we are clever, well most of us! Culminating on putting a man on the moon! But counterbalanced by diabolically dumb elected decision-makers ignoring the advice of scientists like NASA scientist and nuclear technologist Kirk Sorensen. Who advocates MSR thorium as a means to decarb the economy while quite massively growing it! Conflicted and dishonest pollies are putting the financial interests of a few foreigners ahead of the national interest.

In around twelve months, a 500 MW thorium, molten-salt reactor will be added to the Indonesian grid to pump power costing as little as 1 cent PKWH. Thorium is an indicator mineral that often comes with rare earth deposits that along with the abundant thorium, have to be mined.

No mining jobs need to be lost, by a sane transition to thorium!
And with a few technical issues already solved, able to pump the world's cheapest, cleanest, safest power into our grid and indeed export billions worth to an energy-hungry world! Via graphene cored undersea cables.

Power as cheap as envisaged will end our reliance on China as a supply chain manufacturer and instead open up our steel production, aluminium and manufactured goods to the rest of the world! Given we replace our aging transmission lines with a graphene underlay under highways and byways, enable a profit margin of around 200% at around 3 cents PKWH.

And without ever creating a waste problem by rather solving the nuclear waste problem while earning an annual billion for the service. When Lance Hancock approached various Aussies pollies to solicit funds for an Australian iron or industry, the same Mr smirk characters refused and forced the sale of the incredible assets and the loss of billions of export dollars!

Nothing much has changed other than the names of the recalcitrant, tin-eared drongos, now making similarly stupid decisions about energy policy. For the exclusive benefit of around a virtually disarmed and helpless 2% of us!? Go figure.
Alan B.

Correction the helpless 2% should be read as 98%. Iron or should be read as iron ore. Grammarly kees shifting blocks of text around and Auto correcting things like ore into or As a marketing tool to move me to Grammarly premium, a dismal failure. If they don't want folks to use their free service? They should offer it! And where is the unsubscribe button!
Alan B.

On the contrary, Attenborough's doting hi-resolution nature-porn encourages first-world humans to think that everything's going just great.

Sure, we're a brilliant species, of astonishing science and culture, but we're also uniquely murderous, and way out of control. With 8b of us, you get half the land surface converted, rampant land clearing and logging, poisoned oceans, increasing pandemics, the sixth wave of extinction, not enough water, rising CO2 and temps, unsustainable migration and population pressures over land and resources.

At exactly what point would the endless-growth brigade agree that there might be a slight technical problem, and maybe back off? 25b humans? 50b?

Steven S

So what are you doing here?

You may not be able to solve the whole problem, but surely you can solve the one eight-billionth part over which you have control?

Yes?

Yes? You agree?

And who's this "we" you're talking about?

Post proof that everyone else in the world has appointed you their representative, and that you know what their values are.

We're all in it together and it's the only planet we've got! Even though there are a few dozen who think we can do as we like without repercussions. And need to all row together if we're to avoid allegorical Niagra falls of climate change we drift toward as we argue whether it's real or not!

People that cherry-pick their science, can't keep fooling all of the people. We all know how long the asbestos industry kept repeating the lie that theirs was a benign product that caused no harm! As did the tobacco industry, alongside the alcohol industry. To critique the latter, puts one in the wowser brigade.

I'm reliably informed that the scientists employed by the coal, gas and oil industry are telling the public one thing and their masters another. And fear the power of thorium, the most energy-dense material on the planet, to effectively put them and big nuclear, out of business? As well as put a huge dent into big pharma's massive profit margin and curve.

I wonder what Cumberland a co have against MSR thorium?

Add on real fair dinkum and rational tax reform, cooperative capitalism, then just let it rip. Add a bill of rights to stop the endless erosion of rights/being sold down the river by the few quislings in our midst!

And we all of us could be so much better off and again self-reliant masters of our destiny/economic sovereignty!

The above, all of it, could make it possible to drought-proof the nation and make rapid rail a possibility in our lifetime, along with true egalitarian equity alongside truly affordable housing!

Finally, eliminating the paper shuffling middleman and commission sales, could halve the cost of living and doing business here!! All very much doable with the right leadership!

Take off the blinders and remove the earplugs! Do all of the above and just let the climate take care of itself! As it will if we burn waste not our ever-shrinking forests.
Alan B.

After reading this article and most of the comments all I can do is donate to The Greens and even more to Extinction Rebellion and hope they eventually hold sway. The Green ascendency in Germany is a faint glimmer of hope, especially when combined with the push back in the Financial Times and Daily Telegraph.

>However, I'd be much closer to Mozart, than even the closest of our animal relatives is to the lowest performing human being.That's the distance between us and the rest of the animal kingdom, and it is so large that it obscures the fact that we are just another animal.

I kind of gave up taking this seriously when I read that nonsense, based on that a whale can dive more deeply then you so they must be way more sophisticated ? You can never out swim a seal, so they are must be better then all of humanity ?

Perhaps read some John Gray, start with Straw Dogs.

Back to the point of the article, I have long admonished David's nonsense documentaries displaying the natural word as though it hasn't been near completely destroyed by humans so its good that in the ninth decade he's starting to say what needs to be said and don't need to remain quiet just to be loved by all.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote of David Attenborough : “he's not the only environmentalist to downgrade and misclassify homo sapiens, but it is a damaging mistake to pretend that, somehow, we are not members, albeit the most outstanding members, of nature”.

He does seem to have gotten a bit carried away there, Graham. That’s journalistic language – designed to shock. But though he is undoubtedly one of Britain’s most famous broadcasters (with the highly reputable BBC Natural History Unit), he does have a natural science degree from Clare College, Cambridge where he studied geology and zoology and also served as president of the British Royal Society for Nature Conservation.

You cited the Independent's headline : “Humans are intruders, and the natural world is better off without us”, but it’s the second part of his declaration that’s more indicative of his concerns and explains his outburst :

« the natural world, by-and-large, would do much better if we weren’t there at all », i.e., “if we weren’t part of it”.

Attenborough does not “downgrade” humanity, he admonishes it.

There is little doubt among reputable scientists that human activity has largely contributed to climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, the global water crisis, and natural disasters.

According to Wikipedia, for example, “nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors. A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%”.

Attenborough shows us reality. He travels the world over. He reports on every possible aspect of nature, seeking it out in even the most secluded and inaccessible nooks and crannies, and films it.

« That the attention of business and political leaders is now focusing on these issues and, critically, on the links and feedback among them, means there is a vital need for clear, unambiguous advice on the status and drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem degradation and, importantly, on options and solutions to address these challenges in an integrated way to achieve sustainable development. » :

http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/ipbes-7-5_en_review.pdf

.

There is a human trait that WANTS to believe that things are unravelling and we are on the brink of disaster. It goes back as far as we have records. The old testament would be half its size if you took out all the predictions of impending doom.

Back in the early 1970s we were told of impending doom. The then less than 4 billion souls were, we were assured, too many for the planet to hold. India and China would lose most of their population. There’d be widespread famine in the USA and Europe. Didn’t happen. But that didn’t and doesn’t deter those who so want it to be true. They just go on believing it will happen.

Remember when we were going to run out of oil? Didn’t happen. Copper? Didn’t happen. But still we are assured that we are going to run out of this or that any day now, and the usual dills continue to fervently believe it. That we’ve never run out of any resource, ever, seems to be a mere detail to these cultists.

Attenborough has long ago become the spruiker-in-chief for these people. He can lie about walrus deaths (http://alethonews.com/2020/11/19/new-footage-reveals-netflix-faked-walrus-climate-deaths/) and they neither know or care. He can make failed claims about the immanent extinction of polar bears and they nod in agreement. Ditto global warming. Ditto the great extinction event.

Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. But there is a subset who thinks that denying this makes them seem insightful and compassionate. It doesn’t. It makes them dupes in the hands of those like Attenborough. Although to be fair to the man, it’s not really him but those who write his scripts for him.

People who preen themselves at their insight that we can’t understand our own demise just as the dinosaurs couldn’t, utterly fail to understand humanity. We are the only species that even knows how to ponder our demise. Every other creature ponders nothing more than the next meal. Only the human brain is capable of understand the world, its past and future. More such brains are always good

One has to admire the sheer chutzpah of people like Attenborough. He'll happily tell those who want to hear it that humanity is detrimental to ‘nature’ (whatever that is) and that the natural world would be better if we were absent, but at the same time continues a career that is utterly dependent on he, and his handlers, intervening in ‘nature’ constantly.

He’ll fly around the world to tell us to not fly around that world. He’ll intrude into ‘nature’ to show us why we shouldn’t intrude into ‘nature’. He’ll lie in the service of ‘the cause’ and never be called out for it by those who hang on his pronouncements.

It’s just the way the world works in these times. In the past, humanity had real issues to be concerned about. Little more than 100 years ago, most of humanity was one bad seasons away from starvation. A virus could wipe out maybe two-thirds of humanity. Natural disasters were truly disastrous. Now, famine is all but defeated. Deaths from natural disasters have fallen by 99% in a century.

But the human need to believe in impending doom remains unsatiated. Even as the causes for fear recede, we need to create them anew. So we adhere to shamans who satisfy that need. The difference between Jim Jones and the likes of Attenborough is in degree, not intent.
Being such a shaman is of course lucrative. Gore became a billionaire telling us to do what he himself wouldn’t. Kerry likewise. Attenborough. Thunberg. Flannery.

Part of their shtick is that they convince their followers that they are sophisticated and insightful, when indeed, they are following the most primal of instincts – fear of the uknown.

Banjo

So saying it would be better if we were all dead is not donwgrading humanity?

Can you see the contradiction in saying we are, and are not, part of nature; that all other species except us are entitled to use natural reources? How obvious does the stupidity have to be before you twig to it?

You've are confusing technocrats with scientists, don't understand the knowledge problems you are talking about, and are bleating anti-human fascist hate ideology that's been brainwashed into you, under the mistaken impression you're being clever.

Use your brain! Think for yourself! Think of all the changes that have taken place in geological time. What's are just some of the multiple obvious critical problems in Attenborough's and your anti-human value judgments?

And since, according to you, we would be better off without you, why aren't you doing something about it, to the relief of all creatures great and small??

Dear Hasbeen,

Mate, I know you are getting on but getting things so completely arse about re Attenborough just so you can flesh out your ideologically driven derision of the man is pretty poor form.

He was never “merely a pommy actor who fell into wildlife documentary narration” rather it was his brother Richard who was the actor. David had an interest in the natural world from a very early age and “ was educated at Wyggeston Grammar School for Boys in Leicester and then won a scholarship to Clare College, Cambridge in 1945, where he studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in natural sciences.[19] In 1947, he was called up for national service in the Royal Navy and spent two years stationed in North Wales and the Firth of Forth.”
Wikipedia

Do try and make the effort to get your facts right before slagging off old boy.

And what was he doing when he got his first gig as a narrator prey tell?

Dear GrahamY,

Wow.

Well can I congratulate you on at least having the honesty to lay your ideology bare for all to see.

They maturity and development of the human come with both age and experience. One of the capacities we pride ourselves on, though not one unique to us, is our empathy.

When we are infants our world really centres entirely around our parents especially our mother who feeds us. Selfishness around having our needs provided for is understandably very strong. That relationship circle soon grows to include siblings and wider family often because of the love and attention they provide.

We learn to engage with other outside our immediate family as we grow. We can identify with them and therefore care what happens to them, That can extend to a neighbourhood, an ethnic group or a religious group and perhaps a sporting team. It can also extend to pets. These are all groups we are to prepared to defend the interests of as we grow.

As we mature further and learn more of the world and our place in it then a sense of nationalism may develop, again understandable. Perhaps a sense of being part of the 'Western group' of nations might sneak in.

Every single instance has a degree of self interest involved as does your identification and justification of as a member of a specific species.

The real last leap is to express empathy, and a proclivity to want to care for, for other species who inhabit this globe with us. That is a sign of real maturity and fully realised understanding of our place in the world. It is also the heightened display of empathy as self interest is much less an influence.

Cont...

Cont...

People can be judged on how far along that journey they have come. I submit that you Graham, and a lot of your political ilk, are firmly stuck at anthropocentric and nationalist roadblocks. The selfishness which seems to fester at these levels is often notable and your article is a great example.

A 2018 study by Israeli researchers called “The biomass distribution on Earth” http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 was extraordinarily sobering for me. It turns out that the biomass of humans on this planet is now nearly 10 times that of all the other terrestrial wild mammalian species put together. The domesticated livestock which provide our food sources are nearly double that of humans. Our wild mammalian species make up about a 20th of the terrestrial mammalian biomass.

If a highly advanced alien species were to look at this planet there would be very little doubt that the human species were having a highly detrimental impact on the biodiversity and populations of other species.

Yet you glorify it. I am left to wonder how much your staunch defence of laissez fare capitalism and its inherent selfishness has dictated your outlook. I suspect a fair measure.

Cumberland,
> So saying it would be better if we were all dead is not donwgrading humanity?

It would be better if people didn't resort to strawmen - even though it would mean this thread wouldn't exist!

David Attenborough made the correct observation that most animal species would be better off without humans. And for that he's getting maliciously accused of "anti-human value judgments"!

.

Dear Cumberland,

.

You wrote :

« So saying it would be better if we were all dead is not downgrading humanity? »
.

I don’t see why it should, Cumberland – the way we live our lives could, perhaps, be downgrading – but I can’t think of any reason why death should be considered as “downgrading humanity”, whatever the circumstances.

Apparently, you interpret David Attenborough’s statement to mean that the world (or nature) “would be better if we were all dead”. That’s not what he said at all, Cumberland, but taken out of context, it could, possibly, be interpreted like that.

If you care to read (or reread) the “Independent” article to which Graham posted a link, you will see that what Attenborough actually said in his interview with the BBC was as follows :

« Human beings, even with the best will in the world, cannot but restrict the natural world. That's what we're doing, we're pushing it aside, even the most considerate of us.

« That's almost inevitable to some degree, but let us realise we are intruders, that we are latecomers, and that the natural world actually by-and-large would do much better if we weren't there at all. »

Attenborough describes humans as “intruders” and “latecomers”. By “intruders”, in this context, he means “introduced into a situation with disruptive or adverse effect” (OED definition), and “latecomers” because homo sapiens are one of the last, if not the last of the animal species developed by nature.

So, Attenborough is not saying that the world (or nature) “would be better if we were all dead” as you suggest, Cumberland. He is saying that the world (or nature) “would do much better if nature had never developed us [from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about five to seven million years ago].

That, of course, is Attenborough’s personal opinion – which I do not necessarily share – but, unlike Graham, I do not consider that Attenborough “downgrades and misclassifies homo sapiens”. As I indicated in my previous post, Attenborough admonishes homo sapiens for “downgrading and misclassifying” nature.

.

"David Attenborough made the correct observation that most animal species would be better off without humans."

Not quite. Yes he makes that observation. But he then, in his advocacy, goes on to assert that the human element ought to be removed from 'nature'.

It is entirely valid to say that the krill would be better without the blue whale. Quite another thing to then talk about banning the blue whale from the southern ocean.

It is entirely valid to say that the kangaroo would be better without the dingo. Quite another to suggest that we try to make the dingo vegan.

The trouble with most of this rhetoric is that it denies evolution. It has this pretence that the way the world was 40 or 100 years ago is the way it ought to be. They think that any change wrought by humans is inherently bad. But is the greening of the planet due to CO2 fertilisation bad? They pretend to not notice.

Some species suffer due to human activity and they are highlighted. Others prosper and they are ignored. The reasons are obvious and they are, if not precisely anti-human, at the very least not favourable to human prosperity, but very favourable to a subset of those making the claims.

mhaze,
>But he then, in his advocacy, goes on to assert that the human element ought to be removed from 'nature'.

Reference please?
He didn't make that assertion in the BBC interview that this all purports to be a response to.

No he didn't say it in the interview. But that hardly constitutes his full body of work.

He has been around for a while and has long since been captured by the environmentalist movement.

Our Swedish "friend" Greta has just now admonished the Chinese people not to use chopsticks as they are made from wood. The Chinese replied, "Go back to school. Our chopsticks are made from bamboo. By the way, tell all your friends not to use toilet paper because toilet paper is made from wood!"

Hmm, and, who were the toilet paper panic merchants in our Supermarkets?

Aidan

How do you know what man's effect on "most species" is?

Did the measurements, did you?

You're contradicting yourself. It's about CO2. Try applying your own premises to your own conclusions.

Steeleredux

Either man is part of nature , or is not, and either way you're contradicting yourself.

Anyway, who are you to talk? You live from the selfishness of capitalism that you criticise. You use natural resources just as much as everyone else, and more than most.

Your moral superiority is fake, and so is your pretended concern for other species.

All species have conflicting relations with some species, and complementary relations with others. The same people who are moaning that man emits too much CO2, contradict themselves in saying that man's action conflicts with those of all plant species to whom CO2 is food, durrrr.

Dear individual,

Once again it took just 20 seconds to find yet another one of your claims is utter crap.

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greta-thunberg-chopsticks/

"Other red flags in this post indicate the rumor is little more than an invented anecdote to mock the teenager. For starters, we found that this story was being shared almost exclusively by people expressing a negative view of Thunberg."

Why do you think you continue to do this

SteeleRedux,
You believe one lot, I rather trust the other !

individual,
Why do you put blind faith in dubious sources?

Anyway, considering you claimed she'd said it "just now" and Snopes debunked it almost a year ago, it's clear you're spreading lies.

________________________________________________________________________________

mhaze,
I never claimed the interview was his full body of work.
I asked for a reference because I strongly suspect you're another of those people who are spreading lies. And as expected, you can't provide one.

Did you make up the lies yourself? Or did you read them online somewhere?
Are you so imbecilic that you thin everyone in "the environmentalist movement" thinks that the human element ought to be removed from nature?

________________________________________________________________________________

Cuberland,
You're lying too: I didn't mention CO2 in this thread.
And try watching the BBC link I supplied - Attenborough himself has a pretty good answer to your question!

It seems everyone who disagrees with whatever Aidan wants to be true is a liar.

Attenborough's anti-humanism is something that one sees in most of his work these days. Aidan picks out one interview where it's less prevalent and wants to pretend that is the sum-total of his hero's thoughts.

When Attenborough and his propagandists found footage of walrus falling to the deaths from cliffs, he didn't just report an interesting though tragic natural event. He concocted a story that ultimately blamed humans for the tragedy. That his concoction was wrong and was ultimately shown to be wrong and a lie (Aidna knows all about them) is ignored and he carries on as though he wasn't found out. As do his flying-monkeys - no names here but Aidan does spring to mind.

O try this quote from the environmentalist's mouthpiece... "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." We are a plague he claims....but don't dare point out his anti-humanism or Aidan will label you a liar.

Oh how will I ever live down the ignominy.

There is a distinction between people who see humans as totally negative, and those of us who want a reasonable balance, for our own right to have decent lives that allow human flourishing as well as for the other species and the continuation of Earth as a viable home for humanity. There is an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA giving biomass estimates for various species. Apart from aquatic species, 96% of mammal biomass is us humans and our domestic animals. Only 4% is all the wild mammals put together. The biomass of chickens alone is three times that of all the wild birds put together.

http://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

Why do people like Cumberland want it to be 100%, so that the largest surviving land animal is a cow? What is the advantage of more of us living in a vast factory farm for people, with no human dignity and no freedom, because the environment is in such a precarious state that no one can be allowed to rock the boat? Where is your evidence that the many scientists claiming that we are destabilising some of our life support systems are all fools or liars?

http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

>It seems everyone who disagrees with whatever Aidan wants to be true is a liar.

No, mhaze, this isn't about what I want to be true - this is about people posting what they want to be true despite a complete lack of evidence.

You only have to read this thread to see that Cumberland's accusation that I was contradicting myself is false. And do you doubt individual is lying when he claimed that Greta had "just now" made a claim that Snopes debunked her making a year ago?

And despite your whataboutery, I see that you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim that David Attenborough goes on to assert that the human element ought to be removed from 'nature'.

" I see that you still haven't provided any evidence...."

Huh? Did you miss my last post?

Dear mhaze,

What evidence is there in your last post?

Attenborough certainly said:

"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."

Then he said:

"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."

If there is a mice plague people don't talk about eliminating all mice but rather controlling their populations.

There is zero rational argument to say the current human population hasn't had plaque like impacts on virtually every other wild mammal species on the planet.

If you don't agree then at what stage would you deem us to have reached those plaque like proportions or is your anthropocentric world view incapable of making that call.

Plaque plague.

Brain fade.

No, mhaze, I didn't miss your last post. It did not contain any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that he "goes on to assert that the human element ought to be removed from 'nature'".

It accused me of picking one interview and asserting it was the sum total of my hero's thoughts. That accusation is also wrong on three counts: Graham Young picked the interview, though he was too lazy to provide a direct link to it, and apparently based his article on a newspaper report of it. I wouldn't really classify Attenborough as my hero either, though he has made some very good wildlife documentaries. And I nether considered nor claimed that interview to be the sum total of his thoughts; my requesting a reference for your claim was an implicit acknowledgement that it wasn't!

You then engaged in whataboutery by restating your claim about walrus deaths on a Netflix documentary. There's some evidence of deception by one of the producers there, but not Attenborough himself, and his subsequent use of the footage indicates he wasn't involved in a coverup. Nevertheless it would be worth an interviewer putting questions about that to him. But I'm not an interviewer so there's not much point in my continuing to discuss the matter.

You did manage to find a quote that could, far more credibly than what Graham found, be construed to be anti-human - though it looks to me far more like a headline grabber than genuine anti human sentiment.

OK, St. David didn't specifically say humans need to be removed from nature. I was paraphrasing his general stance over the past two decades. I'm writing a 350 word summary, not a legal brief. Wanting to play little semantic games just illustrates how clear my point was.

He and indeed most deep Greens think mankind is a plague on earth. He and indeed most deep Greens think man is a detriment to 'nature' (whatever 'nature' is). He and indeed most deep Greens think, like SR, that man is has no more value than mice.

He and indeed most deep Greens think human population needs to be curtailed to 'save' 'nature'. Of course, what that means in effect is that they want less brown and black babies since that is where the population growth is coming from. Population is in fact in decline in pretty much all western nations, China, Japan, Russia. There the problem (if you see it as a problem) is already resolving itself.

Another quote for you to ponder...
"“Human beings, even with the best will in the world, cannot but restrict the natural world, That’s what we’re doing. We’re pushing it aside. Even the most considerate of us.

“That’s almost inevitable to some degree but let us realise that we are intruders, that we are latecomers and that the natural world, by-and-large, would do much better if we weren’t there at all.”

But somehow, in the minds of his worshippers, that doesn't mean he wants humans excluded from the natural world.

Agree, not just misanthropist, but much to do with Malthus and Darwin's relative Galton and the eugenics movements (with roots UCL, Kaiser Wilhelm Inst. Germany, US movement and Population Council pre WWII, then UNPD post WWII), plus the fringe immigration restriction and/or population control groups round the GOP and Trump administration (via Sessions, Bannon, Miller, Conway et al.).

No surprise, same ideas and focus cut across the Anglosphere in Attenborough patron at Population Matters UK, along with Paul 'Population Bomb' Ehrlich too, who founded ZPG with (deceased) anti-semite and white nationalist John 'passive eugenics' Tanton (supported by old fossils and industrialists in Rockefeller/Exxon, Ford and Carnegie Foundations); both also liaised with SPA Sustainable Population Australia.

It's about old white nationalists obsessed about WASP identity, masquerading as environmentalists, to claim immigration and population growth as the main causes of environmental degradation, deflecting from fossil fuels, mining or agriculture and delaying robust environmental regulation.

The Cafe con leche Republicans warned their colleagues a decade ago to avoid being manipulated by these types of influencers and/or lobbyists as they disgust any future constituents e.g. immigrants, and tear the GOP apart...... to become unelectable; well done.

mhaze,
Worshippers? I'm pretty sure the number of people who worship David Attenborough is precisely zero. Nor is he a saint - he's just a nature documentary filmmaker who's very good at his job and has become famous for it.

Your claim that he thinks man has no more value than mice is ridiculous. You're putting two and two together and getting twenty two.

Rather than his (imaginary) worshippers, it's practically all people who are consistently capable of rational thought to which "that doesn't mean he wants humans excluded from the natural world". But I've noticed quite a large proportion of right wingers always attribute the worst motives to their opponents, and suspend rational thought when it doesn't suit their agenda. It's a phenomenon which Trump exploited to get elected, but it was noticeable on this board long before then.

Talking your book again, Andras, as an "education consultant" bringing in foreign students. COVID really must be hitting your bottom line. So anyone who doesn't think that humans and their domestic animals should be 100% of mammal biomass instead of only 96% must be an anti-Semite and a white supremacist? No one, after all, could really care about nature or overloading our planetary life support systems rather than just about money.

I find it amusing that SR's ego is so overinflated as to suggest that left whingers antipathy towards humanity shows that they are far more "evolved" than conservatives and are no longer restrained by logic or reason.

That ecological damage is far more prevalent in 3rd world countries than in OECD countries would indicate that development is the answer.

You're half right, Shadow:
Sustainable development is the answer.

'Talking your book again, Andras, as an "education consultant" bringing in foreign students. COVID really must be hitting your bottom line'

What else don't you know, ten years out of date? That's all you can respond to facts with, infantile jabs?

Here's related article from Malcolm King all those years ago warning of Attenborough et al. and Sustainable Population Australia (formerly Stable Population) in 'Stable Population cuckoos invade Australia' (4 July 2013):

'The Stable Population Party (SPP) is the bastard child of Big Brother's persuasive social engineering methods. It has been succored by the Optimum Population Trust (now called Population Matters UK) and had, through one of its Senate candidates, links to right wing anti-immigration figures such as John Tanton and the Social Contract Press in the US.

The SPP is using environmental and heritage groups - much as cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of other birds - to hatch their anti-immigration message in the lead up to the September Federal election.

The party has no environmental credentials'

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15206

Trying to socially engineer Australia.....

Shadowminister,

True to form you have conflated a developed sense of empathy for other species with being anti-human.

You obviously aren't aware how very boring this tactic from you has become. You don't even attempt to disguise it any more.

Then there is this little pearl:

“That ecological damage is far more prevalent in 3rd world countries than in OECD countries would indicate that development is the answer.”

Utter crap, unless you consider Australia with its land clearing and species extinction record as being the product of a third world country.

Costa Rica, a developing nation, has done an extraordinary job of reforestation.

“"In the 1970s and 1980s Costa Rica had one of the highest deforestation rates in Latin America, but it managed to turn that around in a relatively short period of time." Costa Rica is the first tropical country to have stopped -- and subsequently reversed – deforestation.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/27/americas/reforestation-costa-rica-c2e-spc/index.html

While in Australia we have on of the worst records in the world.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-10-08/deforestation-land-clearing-australia-state-by-state/12535438

Look I'm sure these little factoids are created somewhere within that brain of yours and another part regurgitates them as truth, but perhaps it would do us a service if you checked them once in a while.

Andras,

You may have a different job now, but 10 years ago, you were spruiking the same line, that people who didn't want extremely high population growth were white supremacists. After all, they couldn't possibly be upset about the damage from more pressure on the enviromment, unaffordable housing, water shortages, overloaded infrastructure and public services, very few apprenticeships for our young people, and so on. You didn't declare your own financial interest in high immigration, of course, and Malcolm King was also very cagey about whether he stood to benefit from it.

There is no evidence that either Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) or the Sustainable Australia Party have any interest in race or eugenics, so you need to go far back in time to make your tenuous claims, to John Tanton, who was born in 1934. Well guess what? George Washington actually owned slaves! Here are links to the policies of both SPA and Sustainable Aistralia. Gold star if you can find anything racist or fascist.

http://population.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SPA_population_position_and_policy_statement-April-2021.pdf
http://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies

Good try, whingeing and moaning dressed up as informed analysis? What's next wheel out environmentalists Paul Ehrlich, Dick Smith, Bob Birrell, Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson for testimonials?

The whole population movement stinks, and King managed to have the former head of SPA, O'Connor admit to hosting in Canberra Ehrlich's mate John Tanton an admirer of the 'white Oz' policy (while the former is more frequent visitor); not sure what is says about others including former Labor MPs?

Tanton who died few years ago, described by the NYT as 'The most influential unknown man in America' (I'd suggest along with deep south radical right libertarian economist James Buchanan), from SPLC on Tanton's legacy (runs across the Anglosphere):

'John Tanton, the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement, has left behind a legacy that spawned more than a dozen nativist organizations, driven an anti-immigrant agenda for four decades, and found friends in the White House.

Tanton created groups that billed themselves as fact-based think tanks and lobbyists. Instead, those groups spread propaganda targeting immigrants that has become central to President Trump’s immigration policy.'

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/07/18/john-tantons-legacy

Andras,

You are an idiot if you think that either population or consumption can grow without limit on a finite earth, and you are ill-informed if you think that Australia can support a much larger population, except at a very much lower standard of living for the vast majority of the population. Australia is essentially a small- to medium-sized country wrapped around a big uninhabitable desert. Most of what isn't desert is semiarid range land that might feed a scattering of sheep or cattle in a good year. 85% of our population live within 50 km of the coast, so your migrants would end up on a narrow coastal strip, forcing its entire development with consequent mass extinctions. Our inland towns were in danger of running out of water in the last drought, even with their existing populations, not to mention the massive fish kills.

Only 6.2% of Australia is arable, and the average quality of that arable land is very low compared to Europe. We can feed around 60 million people in a good year (less than France alone) and half that many in a drought year. We have terrible problems with land degradation.

In some very important ways, the standard of living of ordinary people is much less than in the 1970s. Wise up. You need to think beyond lining your own pocket or burnishing your anti-racist credentials.

John Tanton has nothing to do with SPA and similar organizations, and hasn't for a very long time. Of he were still alive, he would be nearly 90 years old. You don't have much, if you have nothing but ancient history. You need to show that these organizations are promoting racism now.

"While in Australia we have on of the worst records in the world."

According to the FAO (Forest and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) (yes the UN so people like SR are genetically required to believe everything they say)....well according to them, Oceania, which is primarily Australia, between 2010 and 2020 REforested by 400,000 ha. That is we ADDED 400,000 ha of forest in that period. Europe similarly ADDED 300,000 ha. The US ADDED 100,000 ha in that period. (Indeed the US has MORE forest now than whn Columbus arrived due to the decline in the buffalo herds) Asia ADDED 1.2 million ha.

So where does the great deforestation scare some from? South America LOST 2.6 million ha. Africa LOST 3.9 million ha.

So SM's statement that "development is the answer" is spot on. But that's only true if the facts matter, and for many, feelings and virtue signalling trump facts.

SR,

With all due respect, Australia is far from the worst. Compare this to South America, Africa, India and we are far better.

The tiny nation of Costa Rica is not representative of the entirety of the 3rd world nor is Australia representative of all OECD countries.

Also, you were the one to draw the link between care for animals and anti-human sentiment, and being conservative does not mean that there is no sympathy for animals.

Why do you put blind faith in dubious sources?
Aidan,
I do no such thing ! I merely put up for OLOers' to see what weird things are being put up by people. None of which I agree with or approve of !

individual,
So were you lying or trolling when you said to Steele "You believe one lot, I rather trust the other !"?

Dear mhaze,

Up to your old tricks again.

With only 16% of its forests in protected areas Oceania joins Europe and North and Central America as having below the world average figure and well below Africa on 27%, Asia on 25% and South America at 31%.

Over 3/4s of Oceania's plantations are from introduced species compared to a world average of 44%.

Oceania has the highest proportion of its forest in private hands of any of the regions of the world.

As to Australia increasing its forest cover the figures are about as reliable as one of Scott Morrison's promises.

1. Forecasts have not been provided for the years 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. 2. For the years 2017 and 2018, the area of Naturally regenerating forest and the area of Other planted forest are simply a copy of the areas reported in 2016 for these categories

2. For the years 2019 and 2020, the areas of all FRA categories are simply a copy of the areas reported for the year 2018.

10. To address the mapping inconsistencies between forest area figures published in SOFR 2018, SOFR 2013, SOFR 2003 and SOFR 1998, a set of derived forest extent figures have been calculated and reported for the purposes of the FRA 2020 for 2015, 2010, 2000 and 1990

15. The area of forest reported by Australia for the year 2015 in FRA 2015 was 125 million hectares. The difference in the reported forest area for Australia for the year 2015 in FRA 2020 derives from the use of more accurate state, territory and national datasets and recent high resolution imagery, plus actual on-ground changes in forest area.

http://www.fao.org/3/ca9968en/ca9968en.pdf

shadowminister,

No actually we really are among the worst.

"You believe one lot, I rather trust the other !"?
Aidan,
I would have thought what I stated was rather obvious seeing that he rather believed the Left !

Dear individual,

How on earth are you calling Snopes of the left. I have never seen them be other than straight down the line virtually without exception.

SR,

"Up to your old tricks again."

By quoting accurately from a report from the foremost authority on the state of the world's forest? That's tricky? Rather revealing that you'd think that. But when your modus operandi is to reach a conclusion and then look for the data, I can see why you'd be confused.

We were talking about deforestation and SR's information deficient claim that we were the worst in the world. I amply proved that that was rubbish, so SR, as per usual, immediately starts to try to move the goalposts.

eg:"With only 16% of its forests in protected areas..."

So what? Are trees in unprotected areas less tree-like?

"Over 3/4s of Oceania's plantations are from introduced species"

So what? They are still trees and a bunch of them still constitute a forest.

"Oceania has the highest proportion of its forest in private hands"

So what? Are private trees not really trees?

SR then goes off on some rant about the data for 2020 being based on the data from the previous years. Is he saying the data is wrong? Probably because anything that doesn't fit his uninformed prejudices is, to him, wrong.

But I'd point out that I was comparing 2010 to 2020 so even if the 2020 data is based on 2019 or 2015 data, my point stands. Indeed it is reinforced.

SR made a claim that he hoped was true but which was proven to be wrong. A better man would acknowledge that or at least slink away chastened. But that's not how SR works.

Dear mhaze,

Boy you can be think sometimes.

I said:

"Over 3/4s of Oceania's plantations are from introduced species"

And you inanely replied:

"So what? They are still trees and a bunch of them still constitute a forest."

No mate, they are a plantation, they are not a forest at all. Why is this very simple concept so difficult for you? I thought I was making that point quite clearly with the figures I quoted, but it seems you didn't even have the basics sorted.

SR writes "No mate, they are a plantation, they are not a forest at all."

Plantations aren't forests? Well you'd better tell the FAO and the Australian government that since they both treat plantation forests as forests in their statistics.

Actually what we have here is classic SR. He made an initial blue, and then spends innumerable posts trying to find a way to pretend otherwise and/or move the goalposts.

Bottom line is that when SR claimed "in Australia we have on[e] of the worst records in the world [as regards forests]" he was shooting his uninformed mouth off in the hope he'd get it through. Its always fun to disabuse him of that notion.

SR writes "Boy you can be think sometimes."

I deny that emphatically. I think all the time. You should try it occasionally.

SR writes "How on earth are you calling Snopes of the left."

Its obvious Snopes is of the left since they are utter morons. They fact-check the Babylon Bee FFS.... http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/hands-off-the-babylon-bee/

I have no idea what Snopes is. I only know that Leftists are nothing more than a waste !

... straight down the line virtually without exception.
SteeleRedux,
If you're either trying to be funny or having a lend of us you're failing miserably & totally with that remark !
Leftists are the most conniving & hypocritical & parasitical out there !
If Snopes are Leftist then I think nothing more needs to be said.

individual,
I initially thought what you stated was rather obvious, but then you seemed to backpedal a bit so I thought I'd better clarify. But now I'm more puzzled than before. If this is an attempt at irony then you're not at all good at it. But if you unironically discern the value of information according to whether you'd classify its source as left or right, then you're truly the stupidest person on this board - and this isn't somewhere where idiots are in short supply!