The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How David Attenborough and the catastrophist crew have humanity wrong > Comments

How David Attenborough and the catastrophist crew have humanity wrong : Comments

By Graham Young, published 5/5/2021

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All
.

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.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 7 May 2021 7:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 7 May 2021 12:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 7 May 2021 1:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 7 May 2021 5:51:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by individual, Friday, 7 May 2021 6:02:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Cumberland, Friday, 7 May 2021 6:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy