Sir David began presenting natural history programmes in 1954
Posted on 04/13/2009 3:18:40 AM PDT by JoeProBono
The broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has become a patron of a group seeking to cut the growth in human population.
On joining the Optimum Population Trust, Sir David said growth in human numbers was "frightening".
Sir David has been increasingly vocal about the need to reduce the number of people on Earth to protect wildlife.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Sir David began presenting natural history programmes in 1954
Actually, aren’t population demograpics decreasing in important Western European and Anglo/American countries to the point of not being able to properly sustain themselves, hence the increased Islamofascist population?
I love wildlife, etc, but I’m more worried about the survival of America and Western civilization than I am about wildlife.
Who says and why, is “wildlife” more important than me? Perhaps Mother Nature wants all those animals crapping all over the place to drop dead. Maybe they should be extinguished, maybe that’s Mother Nature’s plan and desire?
Who are we to say?
Why do these "good hearted" liberals always focus on just one aspect of an issue (and then always make the wrong choice)? Then they trench in and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Europe is facing an immediate population problem alright - because they are dying off and being infiltrated by islamofacists - and their very societies are in imminent danger. But this clown wants to pretend it's the 60's again and put his concerns over the planet above all else. Idiotic.
No kidding. None of these people should be taken seriously unless they practice what they preach.
Gotta love the conundrum liberals caused. You cannot have babies because that would put a strain on the existing financial system and you have to have babies because you need new blood to pay into the financial system.
I’d listen more if his comments were part of a suicide note.
Seeking to cut the growth in human population,I think China is has been working on that for the last few years two kids per family law.
>>>Sir David has been increasingly vocal about the need to reduce the number of people on Earth to protect wildlife.<<<
A perfect illustration of the sickness of the Enviro-Statists. To them, animals, plants and the Earth itself are more important than people, who they see as a infestation on Mother Earth, rather than the highest form of life.
Looks like he contributed to the problem:
“In 1950, Attenborough married Jane Elizabeth Ebsworth Oriel; the marriage lasted until her death in 1997. The couple had two children, Robert and Susan.”
The problem is that people like Attenborough have turned the natural world into a god. Instead of man being the steward of creation, man is now the servant of creation. In his view, God (if there is one) did not give man dominion over the natural world. Man has no more rights than any other animal, which is why Attenborough seems to be more worried about preserving the world for wildlife than he is about preserving western civilization.
These people are not against population growth, they are just against the population growth of whites.
You are in error. China has a draconian one-child policy.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07042303.html
Beijing (AsiaNews) – Recent unrest in Guangxi is a sign that China’s population is less and less willing to put up with the one-child policy so much so that is ready to take to the streets. Many voices in the country’s scholarly community are also calling for a policy overhaul for the sake of society but also the economy.
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9374
Its no coincedence that socialists impose this kind of control on “their” masses. What greater power than that of life and death? Concentration camps are just an extension of the thought that human life is a drain on resources and the economy.
SgtYork, you are absolutely right.
It's funny the opinions you see flying around here, even amongst conservatives.
Some people are pro-life because they are at least humanists (they see humanity as a positive good) or even more, they see in the human being the image and likeness of God. (I'm in this group.)
Some people are what they call "pro-choice" (rather a misnomer because babies never choose to die)--- but concede this much, they want to leave every choice that affects family size in the hands of individual baby-disposers.
But some, even FReepers, approve of Population Control (usually some variation on "Why doesn't the government contracept all the teeming nonwhite hordes?") -- and population control has neither virtue. It does not respect human life, and it doesn't even respect individual choice.
As properly distinguished from "Family Planning" (by husbands and wives who are --- you know --- planning families) "Population Control" is government power using manipulation and coercion to use differential fertility as a political-economic weapon.
It is abusive of human dignity. It is is one of the things the Nazis were condemned for at Nuremberg. It has no place in a conservative agenda and, in my view, no place in a conservative forum.
Europeans are suffering from a collective mental disorder on this topic. They don’t seem to be aware that their birth rates are actually far below replacement level, and that even in the developing world, birth rates are falling. In fact, world population may start falling by the middle of the century.
Attenborough's yesterday - new liberals are taking up "we're all going to die of thirst - THERE'S NO WATER" scam. It has lots more potential to scare the sheep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.