" 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.