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"!