I used to have a lot of respect for David Attenborough. He makes such amazing documentaries about the natural world. Unfortunately he is also a rabid malthusian and I don’t have any respect for that at all. For a scientist he is showing a remarkable degree of critical thought failure. Maybe it’s his age or maybe he’s just an obnoxious, greenie cunt. Liz Thomas in the Daily Fail reports on the article Attenbore wrote for the Staggers [no link].
Sir David Attenborough has warned that population growth must be stopped in order to offer a ‘decent life’ for all.
Yes, let’s not let poor people in third world countries breed.
The wildlife broadcaster said people were shying away from accepting that the world’s resources cannot sustain current levels of population growth.
And, in Gaia’s blessed name, let’s not let those same poor people have access to electricity and tried and tested GM crop technology to improve their miserable lot in life so they don’t have to keep producing kids to replace the ones lost to disease and starvation.
‘There cannot be more people on this Earth than can be fed,’ he writes in the New Statesman.
But that doesn’t include you, eh Dave? Nor your kids or grandkids.
‘The sooner we stabilise our numbers, the sooner we stop running up the down escalator – and we have some chance of reaching the top; that is to say, a decent life for all.’
So several billion people need to be removed from the equasion to make the plan work. Nice.
Sir David, 84, said the global population is over six billion and will hit nine billion in 30 years, but ‘there seems to be some bizarre taboo around the subject’.
There is also some bizarre logic around the subject too. Attenbore states the world can barely feed the population as it exists today. Yet apparently there will be sufficient food so that people can exist, breed and increase the population by fifty percent thirty years from now. Shome mishtake shurley…
He warned of a ‘perfect storm of population growth, climate change and peak oil production’, leading to ‘insecurity in the supply of food, water and energy’.
FFS! Where to start? Impending peak oil is a greenie shibboleth dating back to the first oil crisis in 1973 and recent massive offshore oil strikes continue to give lie to the claims. Greenies don’t want us using fossil fuels; we must use sustainable energy or Gaia will cry. Let’s not explore the real possibility that oil might not be what it is claimed to be. Is oil actually a fossil fuel or is its source abiotic in nature? Will we run out or will the Earth continue to replenish the supply? As for the perfect load of bollocks storm of population growth and climate change, maybe we should consult some of the 50 million climate refugees and ask their opinions. Oh wait…
‘We now realise that the disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all – the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on the planet,’ he added.
Because we all know that people shagging like rats in mud huts and shanties cause earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. As can the Chinese if they all endeavour to jump off identical chairs simultaneously.
‘All these people, in this country and worldwide, rich or poor, need and deserve food, water, energy and space. Will they be able to get it? I don’t know.’
What people need and deserve is the dignity to get on with their own lives without bastards like Attenbore and the ecofascists telling them they are surplus to requirements so please go away and die.
Sir David said there was a ‘taboo’ tackling the subject and that people shied away from stating the fact that a world’s resources cannot sustain current levels of population growth.
Yes, seeing images of tens of millions starving from failing world resources in the news every day is very harrowing. Or would be if it was true. Please feel free to ignore the real horror of tens of millions suffering and dying from curable/preventable diseases and war.
He said: ‘There seems to be some bizarre taboo around the subject. This taboo doesn’t just inhibit politicians and civil servants who attend the big conferences.
But it doesn’t inhibit you or any of the other people loathing malthusian fanatics does it Dave…
‘It even affects the environmental and developmental non-governmental organisations, the people who claim to care most passionately about a sustainable and prosperous future for our children.’
Maybe because there are actually honest environmentalists and humanitarians out there who realise that there are some lines you do not cross and some alarmist lies you cannot support. Something a misanthropic winnet like Attenbore fails to understand.
The 84-year-old praised controversial 18th century demographer Thomas Malthus, who argued that populations increase until they are halted by ‘misery and vice’.
Misery and vice have been with the human race from the time it swung out of the trees. So far these twin evils have proved to be an exceptionally crap form of contraception. This inconvenient detail makes Malthus look a bit of a silly twunt; just like his groupie, Attenbore.
‘The government’s chief scientist and the last president of the Royal Society have both referred to the ‘perfect storm’ of population growth, climate change, and peak oil production, leading inexorably to more and more insecurity in the supply of food, water and energy.’
All because scaring the UK population out of their knickers and charging them for the priviledge is Big Business. I’d take these rent seeking weasels more seriously if they provided some incontrovertible actualité to back up their claims rather than bullshit rhetoric and propa-fucking-ganda.
The global population is now in excess of six billion and is predicted to hit nine billion within 30 years.
I heard you the first time, Dave. I’m still waiting for you to explain how today’s failing world resources will sustain a 50% population growth thirty years hence.
Experts have predicted that the British population – which is currently around 62million – will increase to 70million by 2029.
Yeah, about the uncontrollable immigration into the UK problem. It seems the “experts” answer to that one is to do sweet Fanny Adams. No need to mention the fact that the birth rate of the indigenous population, that’s people like me and you Dave, is actually in decline because that would put a bit of a crimp in your Malthusiastic philosophy, wouldn’t it.
A report by the sustainable development group Forum For The Future said Britain would struggle to handle such growth. The increase in population would be ‘catastrophic’ and put unsustainable pressure on housing, schools and hospitals as well as natural resources.
Don’t make me laugh! Forum for the Future is a fake charity and will say what it is paid to say by its overlords major donor, the government. The very same government who holds the solution to the problem but lacks the intelligence, the balls and the political will to apply it.
Current trends will see a city the size of Bristol added to the population of the UK every year for the next two decades.
And will continue unabated until someone applies the brakes on immigration. It’s hardly fucking rocket science.
Sir David’s comments follow a similar warning from BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham.
People who pay their TV licences are subsidising this rancid, anti-people cockwaffle. Doesn’t that make you feel your money is being well spent?
The Springwatch presenter suggested offering Britons tax breaks to encourage them to have smaller families.
It’s not sensible, hard working Britons that are the problem. How about not rewarding the undeserving, life-long benefit whores who recreate and procreate at the taxpayers expense?
He effectively endorsed China’s controversial one-child policy, which sees couples who adhere to the rule given a lump sum on retirement.
Because that works so well in cultures and societies where misogyny and male domination is rampant. Let’s hear it for Chris Packham, gendercidal cunt.
But he stopped short of suggesting people should be penalised for having too many children.
Working people with more than one child pay more tax than those with one or none. How isn’t that punitive? And if they are working and can afford to keep their children fed and clothed what fucking business is it of Pakham’s, Attenbore’s any any other misanthropic scumbag?
Packham, 49, who has no children of his own, told Radio Times: ‘By 2020, there are going to be 70million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.’
There’s obviously a Malthusian crib sheet doing the rounds. Saves the buggers having to form anything approaching an independent or critical thought.
He added: ‘There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population.’
This would be the same ecosystem from which people evolved, would it? Gaia played one hell of a blinder, huh?
Packham suggested offering couples a financial incentive as ‘a carrot’ to persuade them to have fewer – or no – children.
He said: ‘I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.’
According to a BBC news article from December 2010 the average size of a British family is shrinking and the trend is ongoing. Yet two prominent BBC employees insist the exact opposite is true. This is reminiscent of alien hand syndrome but with cunts.
‘I question the way, for example, people have two children with one partner, then split up and have two with their next partner, just to even up the score.
That’s unadulterated bollocks by any standard.
‘Fact is, we all eat food, breathe air and require space, and the more of us there are, the less of those commodities there are for other people and, of course, for the animals.’
Fact is Packham and Attenbore hate the very people who put bread on their tables and fund their globe trotting lifestyles. Why do we tolerate and subsidise these bastards?