Wednesday, January 30, 2013

David Attenborough: 'Sorry, there's just too many of you'.

Sir David Attenborough, reporting from England, which population control cranks predicted
would cease to exist 13 years ago. 

From the Reich Chancellery Press Office:

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth 

Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the world’s resources. 
He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth. 
“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. 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,” he told the Radio Times. 
Sir David, who is a patron of the Population Matters, has spoken out before about the “frightening explosion in human numbers” and the need for investment in sex education and other voluntary means of limiting population in developing countries. 
“We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that’s what’s happening. Too many people there. They can’t support themselves — and it’s not an inhuman thing to say. It’s the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a coordinated view about the planet it’s going to get worse and worse.”

Malthusians have perhaps the most consistent record of predictions of any fringe movement. If you look at Malthusian predictions dating back to the late 18th century, every one has been the opposite of what has actually happened. From Malthus to Ehrlich, every population control nut has gotten it wrong: the food supply didn't increase arithmetically, but exponentially. Population growth in developed areas naturally slows, and does not increase exponentially. Population density has no correlation whatsoever with human flourishing. The predicted famines in the developed world in the 1970's and 1980's never happened. In the developing world, food security has improved markedly in the past half-century, thanks to the Green Revolution. 

Attenborough's asylum-mates in the population control movement have quite a record:

In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb and declared that the battle to feed humanity had been lost and that there would be a major food shortage in the US. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death,” and by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million. The problems in the US would be relatively minor compared to those in the rest of the world. (Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine Books, 1968.) New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled “In Praise of Prophets.”

Claim: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971. 
Claim: Ehrlich wrote in 1968, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever.” 
Data: Yet in a only few years India was exporting food and significantly changed its food production capacity.

Population controllers' theories may be a joke, but their methods are not. Hundreds of millions of people in China, India, and Peru have been victims of brutal one-child policies, forced sterilization and abortions, coerced infanticide, and incessant totalitarian propaganda campaigns-- all crimes against humanity. 

Take these people seriously. They pay lip service to voluntary methods, but their 'solution' for overpopulation is totalitarian to the marrow, and they mean to do serious harm.


  1. Sorry Sir David, but the problem is not too many babies, but too few babies.

    To learn more, see the forthcoming book What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster.

    Can't wait? Then watch the author discuss the book on C-SPAN2's BookTV this Weekend.

  2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM

    Given that they're so big on recruiting volunteers, you'd think they'd be the first to step up.

    Man up, David. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    1. I hope you're not encouraging suicide.


    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM

      Dying for one's faith is martyrdom, not suicide.

      David could simply eschew meals, sending his share to a starving village in Ethiopia.

      There might be some honor in that, as opposed to bitching about how much other people consume.

    3. I think you're trying to be funny but it's not that funny.


    4. Trish, Anybody that willfully uses “Glen Beck” in their moniker is virtually guaranteed to be an unthinking hateful dolt and bigot, living in an alternate universe of conspiracy theories and violent fantasies. Wishing those they have political disagreements with ill is par for the course. Don’t believe me? Spend some time reading the comments section of “The Blaze”.


    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 30, 2013 at 1:57 PM

      Words of whizzdom from KW, ninja sex god.

      And no, Trish, I wasn't trying to be funny.

    6. I rather like Glenn Beck.


    7. You're rather nasty yourself, KW. Logs in eyes and all of that.


    8. @TRISH:

      [I rather like Glenn Beck.]

      Me too. He's a smart guy.

      I'm very fond of his Navy too (salute to Admiral Boggs!)

    9. I have to side with the Admiral on this one, and not simply due to rank.
      Men like Sir David should lead by example, instead of calling for the death of billions.
      I am no fan of suicide, not by a long shot. That said, one nihilists martyrdom compared to the slow and painful extinction of entire races of men seems to be the lesser of two evils.
      As for Beck: He irritates me on a personal level. Just another Neocon in Libertarian drag, IMHO.
      He makes some valid points, and his show is sometimes entertaining (guests etc), but he grates on me.
      That beard of his reminds me of one I grew in university.
      Still, his navy is quite impressive!

  3. Breed like the unthinking animals you are lemmings! Quality of life means nothing. Don’t worry about the mass extinction we are causing; those soulless animals are there for us to use as we see fit. Get busy, Armageddon is coming, and God wants more souls to harvest!


    1. The only people breeding like unthinking animals are registered Democrat welfare recipients. We breed 'em, you feed 'em! That's the American way.

      No one is suggesting any such thing. What we're saying is that mankind is not "a plague on the earth." There's value to human life. The earth is a wonderful thing precisely because it supports life. Without life, it's just another cold, dark rock in space. This man's attitude toward human beings may sound a little extreme but I suspect that most population control/environmental extremists feel much the same way, and they would say as much in a moment of candor.

      Although world population has increased, food production has more than kept pace. In fact, there's been a global explosion of fat. It's not just Americans. Yes, there are some emaciated people in Africa, but those people were emaciated twenty, fifty, and a hundred years ago as well. The rest of the world is eating donuts and burgers like it's going out of style. I don't think we're all on the path to starvation. To the contrary, all previous predictions to that effect have turned out to be wrong.

      The Torch

    2. KW,
      Your medication is acting up again.
      Time for a new script?

  4. Attenborough is an old darwinian evolution climate warming fart.

    1. Pépé,

      I will translate Bach's comment into a human language:

      "I have no response - or even an opinion on the matter. So, I will call you a name. I secretly love and admire you, but am too proud to say so."

      Consider yourself lucky my Quebecois friend!
      You did not get treated to a paragraph of unrelated technical terms.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Bach,

      Awww. That's really cute. Love you too, buddy.

    4. I like anagrams and found one for bachfiend:

      Beach Find

      Can bachfiend be found with a metal detector?

    5. I must add that bachfiend, like that old UK fart, is also a climate warming FART!

    6. Pepe,

      It's well suited for you. Did you learn anything? I doubt it. It's an atrocious computer generated film with inaccurate information which disagrees with even Monte Hieb. Jack Templar claims humans are responsible for 7% of CO2 released into the atmosphere (your friend Monte claims 3%). Neither are relevant because you have to include the CO2 being absorbed from the atmosphere - in which case humans are responsible for almost all the increase, and that's what counts.

      Jack Templar has also done similar (inane) films, including one in which he claims all religions, including Christianity, are lies.

      If you'll concede his efforts on global warming are inane, I'll agree with you that his efforts on religion are equally inane.

  5. Paul Ehrlich famously lost his wager with Julian Simon. One wonders if in the long run Simon or Ehrlich will be vindicated.

    I believe that quality of life is more a function of the kind of people in a population, and the kind of society they live in, rather than the number of people. (Assuming a population sufficiently large to allow for specialization.) When intelligence, wisdom, industry, thrift, courage, and other virtues characterize a population, resources will be more plentiful -- usually far more plentiful -- than otherwise. But of course each individual in a population has to be free to employ his (or her) virtues for his own benefit, for his family's benefit, and for the common good. So freedom is a prerequisite to human welfare, and for quality of life. Tyranny rarely (never?) fosters quality of life for a population as a whole.

    Another factor not often considered is the need for leisure time and energy (i.e. time and energy not spent on subsistence labor) for education, technological development, etc. When individuals must work 16 hours a day, year in and year out, to produce the bare necessities for survival, they will hardly be in a position to progress. (See Josef Pieper's Leisure: The Basis of Culture. Note that leisure, as Pieper uses the term, is neither inactivity nor mere amusement.)

    Tryanny, disrespect for the rule of law, government corruption, individual sloth -- all these, and other vices, detract from a population's quality of life. It is the character of a people, and the quality of their government, more so than their numbers, that promotes general well-being.

  6. An excellent audio lecture titled "Roots and Fruits of the Environmental Movement", by Cal Beisner, can be found here (20.1MB MP3) Beisner speaks as a Christian, from the Reformed tradition. He was also an assistant or collaborator with Julian Simon. (I don't recall the details; it's been a while since I listened to the lecture.) Beisner chooses as his starting point Abram's parting from Lot in Genesis 13, and discusses the issues of population, resources, etc. from a biblical perspective.