Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Attenborough - this land is our land, period
Share:
by DrMarty | January 23, 2012 at 03:49 am
120 views | 2 Recommendations | 7 comments
Photos
``Nothing we can do will stop that increase. We may be able to slow it, but stop it in our lifetimes we cannot,'' Attenborough is quoted in the {Guardian}.
Since population growth can't be stopped, Attenborough says we need to focus on ``making sure mankind doesn't spread willy nilly over every square yard of the globe.''
How? By buying large tracts of rainforest, and converting them into private wildlife reserves. Through Optimum Population Trust, Attenborough works to prevent people in the Third World from migrating to England. And through World Land Trust, he works to prevent them from living in their homelands.
Last year, Attenborough addressed a posh gathering in London, chaired by the well-known humanitarian Prince Philip, in which he said only ``flat earthers'' disagree with his view that only population reduction can save the planet.
Nothing was said about allowing native populations to tax private resource extraction for the benefit of inhabitants of the land where wealth is extracted.
Advertisement
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (7)
at 04:40 on January 23rd, 2012
Right on Sir David. We are at the tipping point across the board. The world must embrace sustainability as the essential outcome. World population control is a must. China is now making progress. India, Africa, and South America are out of control. Economic rules must change to favor optimal relationship between population and resources.
at 11:27 on January 23rd, 2012
Attenborough ought to have taken his own advice and not have bred the two siblings he foisted onto this world. Apparently he believes his own progeny more worthy of existence. More hypocrisy from the left. Do as I say not as I do B.S..
at 19:25 on January 23rd, 2012
I don't know who this guy is, but two kids a family is sustainable whereas six kids a family is not.
Nobody with any kind of credibility is telling people not to have children. They are telling people to reproduce at a sustainable rate - one, two, sometimes three, kids a family - as opposed to the kind of reckless reproduction we are seeing in Africa, where an average woman gives birth to six or seven children.
at 21:49 on January 23rd, 2012
How many of those six or seven African children see puberty? It's hardly reckless! It is part and parcel of agrarian poverty. You need to attach some understanding of others social, cultural and economic situation to your self-righteous moral dictates. In 2010 7.6 million children died before the age of five. 60% of that number occurred in Africa. Malnutrition, disease, unsafe water, poor sanitation, etc.. This does not include the numbers lost to war, ethnic cleansing or child soldiers. There is also a high unintended birth rate due to lack of education and family planning services through out the African countries. I suggest you read Attenborough's opinion in full before giving your definition of what "nobody with credibility is saying". Nobodies don't got no credibility. LOL.
at 02:11 on January 25th, 2012
Kerala has economic conditions similar to those in Africa, but they've managed to keep the population under control.
For that matter there's still desperate poverty in parts of China as well.
In Africa, economic gains keep getting squandered because of population growth. I do know people - both inside Africa and outside of Africa - who are working to solve these and related problems. And yes, Africa does need more than just population control; but with some of those countries growing 3% a year in population the solutions are made that much more difficult.
at 01:49 on January 25th, 2012
A fairly muddled and inaccurate account. To start with Richard Attenborough is the actor (David’s brother) Sir David Attenborough is the wildlife expert. Yes there were lawyers and business people present; there were also conservationists, charity workers, artists, designers and many other people. Sir David mentioned population in passing – it was not a major theme as your correspondent implies. And as CEO of the World Land Trust, I ask why your correspondent thinks we prevent anyone “living in their homelands”. There is not one shred of evidence to support this outrageous claim. I am not quite clear what this particular rant was trying to prove.
at 03:51 on January 26th, 2012
John,
Thanks for the fact check. I will be more cautious when taking information along this topic, as well as other topics. I suppose it is true that there are people who organize to prevent the immigration of the unworthy to the UK. The larger point was that with private ownership of vast stretches of nations, governments are less able to encourage common pool/common property institutions or arrangements to sustainably manage resources. Such nations are not sovereign on that point. Britain may have succeeded organizing the native Americans to keep Ohio to California in wilderness in the late 18th century. Do you think the midwest to west US would be wilderness today? I imagine the private land owners (under British control) then would have the interests of native populations secondary at best as they did in India. Bottom line, private ownership of land for conservation is a smokescreen for ineffective, potentially non-sustainable resource use. I understand the attraction to the wealth and power of private land ownership, it is just not ethical. One way we could get nations to better preserve nature would be to establish a resource common pool (per Ostrom's design) extraction trust (in each nation with critical habitats that help regulate a sustainable climate) that taxes the mining of gold, diamonds, cobalt, nickel, silver, uranium, and hardwoods from these poor nations where mothers have 6 kids to improve the odds one makes it. The tax would match what is needed to sustain all renewable resources, and restore those resources damaged by extraction.
I am honored to have this discussion with you.
Marty