Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Lost plot: last seen drowning in a steaming pile of misanthropy

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?

17 Comments

  1. HSLD says:

    Cracking job Lynne.

    What I despise about these idiots is that the only solutions they can come up with are regressive, back to the stone age ( or stoner age more like ) negations of everything mankind has so far achieved.

    If we are going to pour huge sums of money into solving a population crisis, and look for radical solutions then how about terraforming Mars, or colonising other worlds ?
    The technology is hundreds of years in the future ( like the population crisis ) but if we don’t make a proper start then we will never get there.

    Save the planet my arse, what those fuckers really want to do is destroy mankind, or at the very least prohibit everything which makes us human.

    Bastards.

  2. john in cheshire says:

    CC, your posting supports what I have read previously about Mr A. He’s a wildlife documentary maker for goodness’ sake(and other people do most of that I believe), he’s not an oracle. But, he appears to have been infected with the sin of hubris. Mr A should stick to what he knows and keep his snout out of things that don’t concern him. Unless , of course he is proposing to lead his fellow socialist lemmings off the cliff, as an example to the rest of us?

  3. JuliaM says:

    “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?”

    Spot on!

  4. Kevin B says:

    What pisses me off, what really pisses me off, is that we got the boot of these fucking elitist bastards off our neck for a brief moment, in a few places- most notably the US and UK – and what followed was an enormous flowering of art, invention, technology and, in a word, progress, and now the fucking elitists have wormed their way back in charge they want to tear down all that progress and stuff us back under their yoke.

    Oh, and as an egregious insult added to a grevious injury, they’re blaming us for their fascist, eugenic, desires.

  5. Nelsontouch says:

    The one consistent thing in all these ZPG statements is that it’s a “taboo”, which the writer – whoever it is – is being very daring in breaking.

    Of course, they never answer the simple query: who should be sterilised? Who, in particular, is the surplus population?

    One curious fact; both rich and poor countries waste the same amount of food produced: about 20%.

    The rich throw it away because it’s past the sell-by date, the poor lose it to rats, mould, etc., because they don’t have a viable food storage system and cool-chain transport – for which they would need reliable electricity.

  6. Dizzy Ringo says:

    Pity Attenborough hasn’t read any of Julian Simon’s books – or even Tim Worstall. Simon was the man who had a large bet with Paul Ehrlich – another Malthusian – about the price of commodities. Ehrlich said it was going up and Simon said down. Simon won, hands down.

    You haven’t mentioned that principled member of the aristocracy, Sir Jonathan Porritt Bt, who said that Britain could only support 30 million people but didn’t say how he was going to get rid of the excess.

  7. Angry Exile says:

    Is David Attenborough a scientist? I’m not sure a long ago degree followed by a career in broadcasting, much of it beautifully shot but one sided in presentation, qualifies as science.

  8. Sam Duncan says:

    “The 84-year-old praised controversial 18th century demographer Thomas Malthus”

    Oh, for Pete’s sake. He actually said that? Davey, mate, Malthus lived in the 18th Century. He was spouting this guff about Britain being overpopulated when there were about 13 million of us. Now, I don’t know how many he thought was too many, but I’ll bet we passed it long ago. There are, as you know, 66 million people here now and we’re longer-lived (the average life expectancy back then was half your age, you old git), better off, and better fed. And there’s still plenty more open, uncultivated, space than there is populated.

    Malthus was one of the greatest fuckwits who ever drew breath. There should be a Law about him like Godwin’s: anyone who brings up old Tommy in support of his argument has, by definition, lost. Heavily.

    “BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham”

    What, Michaela Strachan’s creepy sidekick off The Really Wild Show? Is he still about, then?

  9. NickM says:

    Why the magic figure of 9 billion? I seem to recall the medium UN estimate suggests global population flattening later this century at about 9 billion. Not “ever increasing”.

    Of course it will keep increasing if the Third World isn’t allowed to develop economically, technologically etc.

  10. RAB says:

    The answer is simple, but mathusian fools like Mr A willfully won’t see it, is that if you want to stop population growth, you make the poor rich, then they don’t have to pop out sprogs at a rate of knots to do the work that could be provided by investment capital and machinery. So Nick is right on the money. Have a good weekend Nick, by the way?

    This, of course, contradicts the second plank of these fools argument, we can’t have our little black, brown and yellow brothers getting cool stuff like SUV’s nice houses, good food and medicines to cure them, cos that is going to fry Gaia with AGW, and besides it would ruin their cute ethnicity and cultural way of life, and then Mr A couldn’t make a nice living going round the Globe making deeply patronising documentaries about them could he?

    Excellent piece again Lynne.

  11. Jim DiGriz says:

    Does this mean that I can now cull the chavs and pikeys that infest our area, think of the future children innit.

  12. Lynne says:

    Jim DiGriz. Oughtn’t the Stainless Steel Rat indulge in an ironically humerous but ultimately non-lethal revenge? I’m sure some cunning plan can be worked out to annoy Attenbore or Packham. ;)

  13. RAB says:

    Lynne, how about we go for the wildlife cameramen first? Well all they’re doing is invading those lovely cuddly animals space and habitat, and embarrassing the hell out of them by showing them killing and shagging all the time.

    That’s bound to piss off Mr A!

  14. freedom says:

    There was I believe some group of nutters who, though they cannot be named for fear of giving offence, said they would “outbreed us all” to promote their repressive beliefs.

    I am sure that as all their spawn are and will have to be fully supported by the state, which can only support the feckless by having zillions fully at work and paying cash in, then I wonder how the necessary cull will work. Which (very) brave person will make the important decisions?

  15. Jim DiGriz says:

    Lynne, You are assuming that they are human, loophole found, napalm ordered :)

  16. David Gillies says:

    There’s a picture of my family that I particularly cherish. It’s one of the rarities when pretty much every member is assembled in one spot. Why is that such a rarity? Because to get them all in the frame it had to be taken from forty fucking feet away. Which of my mother’s eleven grandchildren would Attenborough or Packham have seen fit to will into non-existence? Which of the eight (and counting) great-grandchildren? Which of the umpteen great-great-grandchildren that will, all else being equal, start arriving in fifteen or twenty years’ time? These misanthropic cunts should be boiled in a barrel of their own bile.

  17. [...] This claim is nothing new of course and I’ve sailed on his sea of Malthusian sewage before before .  The fact that Telegraph Environment Correspondent, Louise Gray, is cheerleading for him is no [...]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: