Support NeoGAF

[nelsonroyale]

Not much in there to rock the boat really or that is surprising given his field. I have greatly enjoyed his part in wild life documentaries since my youth, but describing him as the 'world's greatest naturalist' is a bit puzzling to me. He has done an absolutely stellar job in communicating nature to the public, but there are many others in the natural sciences who have obviously done more on the research and conservation side of things who have been every bit as trail blazing. He must have a fantastic breath of knowledge though given the wealth of programs he has produced.

As for the issues he addresses here, I think he says he understands why there are those that do not wish to belief in climate change, not that he is sympathetic with their denial, but sympathetic with their plight.

On over-population, on which he has made a number of statements and has cast his allegiance, I think it is a complex issue. I agree that we are a large and rather destructive species that is saturating our resource base, and a high population is constraining living conditions in many parts of the world. We need population control in the West as well as in the developing world. In the UK there is quite a lot of hypocracy when it comes to population and consumption. Climate change and the monopoly of resources is at the moment chielfy a minority world problem. There is a minority of people controlling a huge amount of resources and a minority of people polluting. I think the issue of consumption is every bit as important as overpopulation. See this lecture from a rather progressive climate scientist to see there is still a major gap between the climate change scenarios that policy-makers are 'targeting' and those which are more robust given current model outputs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_EIPuchOw

Also, re-dubbing his voice is ridiculous. That has been one of the main draws of the docs to be honest. Nowadays, I often find the content a bit basic, but the visuals are incredible...It makes me excited hehe.

 

[mclem]

Not much in there to rock the boat really or that is surprising given his field. I have greatly enjoyed his part in wild life documentaries since my youth, but describing him as the 'world's greatest naturalist' is a bit puzzling to me. He has done an absolutely stellar job in communicating nature to the public, but there are many others in the natural sciences who have obviously done more on the research and conservation side of things who have been every bit as trail blazing. He must have a fantastic breath of knowledge though given the wealth of programs he has produced.

One thing that's probably not terribly well-known outside the UK is the fact that he's actually worked in television management for a while, too; he was controller of BBC2 from 1965 to 1969, and Director of Programmes up until 1972. While doing that he commissioned Civilisation and The Ascent of Man - documentaries in a style that would later be adopted by Life On Earth, but for art and science, respectively.

He's done more for education in the UK than just the Natural History side of things, and those two documentaries that spawned the Life On Earth approach are both excellent.

...and on top of that, he gave the original commission to Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Not sure about World's Greatest Naturalist, but I find little to dispute with World's Greatest Broadcaster.

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

Always been a fan.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-famineridden-countries-is-barmy-8823602.html.

 

[nelsonroyale]

One thing that's probably not terribly well-known outside the UK is the fact that he's actually worked in television management for a while, too; he was controller of BBC2 from 1965 to 1969, and Director of Programmes up until 1972. While doing that he commissioned Civilisation and The Ascent of Man - documentaries in a style that would later be adopted by Life On Earth, but for art and science, respectively.

He's done more for education in the UK than just the Natural History side of things, and those two documentaries that spawned the Life On Earth approach are both excellent.

...and on top of that, he gave the original commission to Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Not sure about World's Greatest Naturalist, but I find little to dispute with World's Greatest Broadcaster.

Now that I didn't know. Massive respect for that.

 

[Kadayi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-famineridden-countries-is-barmy-8823602.html.

One always has to admire soundbyte journalism.

 

[| Praxis |]

David Attenborough has been a big part of my life, he's like the knowledgeable grandad I never had. I can't believe they get celebrity idiots to narrate his documentaries in other countries!

 

[Jasup]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-famineridden-countries-is-barmy-8823602.html.

Yes?
Overpopulation is a problem and we need effective ways to control population growth. And dumping Western surplus food to third world has many adverse effects to local economies and agriculture as well as not really being a solution for many of the problems that cause the famine.

Apart from sensational journalism which cuts away the context and focuses on few soundbites there's nothing really controversial.

 

[| Praxis |]

Yes?
Overpopulation is a problem and we need effective ways to control population growth. And dumping Western surplus food to third world has many adverse effects to local economies and agriculture as well as not really being a solution for many of the problems that cause the famine.

Apart from sensational journalism which cuts away the context and focuses on few soundbites there's nothing really controversial.

Agreed. It needs to be said, I commend his bravery in this over-sensitive time we live in.

 

[StayDead]

David Attenborough is a national hero and his documentaries have taught thousands of people to love not only nature but our planet as well.

I could watch a documentary by him of how paint dries and still enjoy it. The world would be a better place if there were many more men like him <3

 

[nelsonroyale]

Yes?
Overpopulation is a problem and we need effective ways to control population growth. And dumping Western surplus food to third world has many adverse effects to local economies and agriculture as well as not really being a solution for many of the problems that cause the famine.

Apart from sensational journalism which cuts away the context and focuses on few soundbites there's nothing really controversial.

From what I have read of his stance and the organisation he represents, I think they over simplify the issue and direct their attention mostly exclusively towards the developing world probably for three reasons: there is greater population there; there are still in tact 'wild lands' with high diversity in these countries; and there is more capacity to influence these governments in more striking ways. However, much of the pressure put on ecosystems etc., is backed by countries from Western or other powerful countries. Over-consumption is every bit as problematic as over-population, in some ways they intersect. The population explosions in Asia and Africa are occuring as a direct result of innovations in agriculture and biomedical practice mostly developed in the West and Asia. Maximise individual health care to the extent we are doing and of course you are going to cause problems at a population level. Individual health also has social determinants and social consequences. In terms of macro demographics, it is not easy to understand what is going wrong. The solutions on the other hand are complex and there is quite a bit of hypocracy in this debate.

Personally, I do have a problem with a lot of this. In the UK we do a lot of window dressing - there is some great stuff going on at the grass roots, but the government is mostly well behind the curve - but are doing very little on a macro scale in terms of curbing consumption, re-wilding a lot of our land, and dealing with vast over-population in the South of England. I honestly don't think other countries are going to regulate their populations in time unless we regulate ours. Even in the UK we should have an optimum of three children (the majority should have no more than two) with the choice of adopting. Every child born in the West is a bigger threat to the evironment, a bigger contributer to emissions than probably any 10 born in the slums of Delhi. People need to being proponents of partial analysis, and actually communicate the whole story. Engage with the complexity.

 

[genjiZERO]

I totally read that with Attenborough voice in my head.

 

[Kadayi]

From what I have read of his stance and the organisation he represents, I think they over simplify the issue and direct their attention mostly exclusively towards the developing world probably for three reasons: there is greater population there; there are still in tact 'wild lands' with high diversity in these countries; and there is more capacity to influence these governments in more striking ways. However, much of the pressure put on ecosystems etc., is backed by countries from Western or other powerful countries. Over-consumption is every bit as problematic as over-population, in some ways they intersect.

No ones denying that over consumption is a problem, nor are a lot of environmentalists skipping over the population density issues of the western world. From a sustainability perspective the UK is massively over populated by a good 40 million or so and has been for a considerable period of time (immigration is largely a bugbear) . The country hasn't been able to feed itself without a reliance on food imports since WWII. Implementation of family size limits wouldn't be a bad idea, but getting people to agree to it in a democracy isn't easily achieved.

 

[PJV3]

Bad person. No biscuit.

Although that said, it does boggle me ever-so-slightly that the two of them are related. Giants in completely distinct fields.

It's sad to think of his brother stuck in a nursing home, David is in good shape though.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

He is the white Morgan Freeman in terms of voice narration. Can't believe they got Alec fucking Baldwin and Oprah fucking Winfrey on the US versions.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

David Attenborough is basically the grandfather you desperately wish you'd had. Greatest respect to the man, I've grown up listening to him explain the world.

 

[Jasup]

From what I have read of his stance and the organisation he represents, I think they over simplify the issue and direct their attention mostly exclusively towards the developing world probably for three reasons: there is greater population there; there are still in tact 'wild lands' with high diversity in these countries; and there is more capacity to influence these governments in more striking ways. However, much of the pressure put on ecosystems etc., is backed by countries from Western or other powerful countries. Over-consumption is every bit as problematic as over-population, in some ways they intersect. The population explosions in Asia and Africa are occuring as a direct result of innovations in agriculture and biomedical practice mostly developed in the West and Asia. Maximise individual health care to the extent we are doing and of course you are going to cause problems at a population level. Individual health also has social determinants and social consequences. In terms of macro demographics, it is not easy to understand what is going wrong. The solutions on the other hand are complex and there is quite a bit of hypocracy in this debate.

Personally, I do have a problem with a lot of this. In the UK we do a lot of window dressing - there is some great stuff going on at the grass roots, but the government is mostly well behind the curve - but are doing very little on a macro scale in terms of curbing consumption, re-wilding a lot of our land, and dealing with vast over-population in the South of England. I honestly don't think other countries are going to regulate their populations in time unless we regulate ours. Even in the UK we should have an optimum of three children (the majority should have no more than two) with the choice of adopting. Every child born in the West is a bigger threat to the evironment, a bigger contributer to emissions than probably any 10 born in the slums of Delhi. People need to being proponents of partial analysis, and actually communicate the whole story. Engage with the complexity.

On the other hand in many western countries poplation growth has slowed down, stagnated or reversed already and this is the trajectory more countries are suggested to be on. I know there is a problem that this trend doesn't affect consumption at all, people are using ever more natural resources.

However I think we should urgently address population growth in poor and developing countries because it poses a direct threat to the people there. Take for example Rwanda where the traditional system of cultivating own land and dividing it between one's children resulted in smaller and smaller farms that can't sustain the families living on them eventually leading to growing tensions and genocide. Or the slums in many cities where poor sanitation and lack of clean water become ever more increasing problems as more and more people pack in. Sure people there don't use as much natural resources as we do in the west, but this isn't only about saving the world but also alleviating human suffering.

 

[nelsonroyale]

No ones denying that over consumption is a problem, nor are a lot of environmentalists skipping over the population density issues of the western world. From a sustainability perspective the UK is massively over populated by a good 40 million or so and has been for a considerable period of time (immigration is largely a bugbear) . The country hasn't been able to feed itself without a reliance on food imports since WWII. Implementation of family size limits wouldn't be a bad idea, but getting people to agree to it in a democracy isn't easily achieved.

Well I think it would be largely related to who were the peronsalities and organisations who would advocate and propose such a scheme. There is little enough democracy in actual decision making, so getting the populace to support such a policy precludes the media and political establishments taking a lead. And they are doing that in almost nothing these days except for privatisation and stratification.

Of course I mostly agree with what you say, but I think the central narrative is generally not challenging factors central to western thinking and practice which have driven resource depletion and unsustainable practice: namely, no globally coherent and equitable stance on land use practices and resource exploitation and distribution; and no real effective challenge to the idea that the invidual human can and is entitled to have it all in almost every way possible.

Jasup: Oh I agree with you that there is no easily solution here and that our eyes must be open with compassion. But to be honest, there is little being done to actually redress true developmental issues between countries. Don't expect Somalia for instance to become peaceful and have excellent infrastructure and standards of living in the next 50 years. In terms of alleviating conditions, I think we need a far more holistic approach. Actually, we can't alleviate macro-suffering without alleviating poverty and on a global scale we are almost making no progress on that account. There are more poor people today than there ever has been at any other point in human history, but there are also more wealthy people. In terms of environmental health, both these facts are probably a bad thing. We have never had such depleted wild lands. We need a massive paradigm shift through pretty all our macro-systems.

Anyway, it is not individual people so much I have a problem with, because I think in general we have a tendency to maximise our confort and consumption like any other species, unless there are appropriate checks. In fact, even people like myself who try and buy all the appropriate products, etc, still consume more than the average member of the elite 100 years ago very likely. There are not appropriate checks and unless there are, I don't think we are, I don't think we are going to be lean and mean enough to avoid future tragedies caused by changes in our environtal and climatic context. Long term planning should be instituted at a macro level, it is one of the primary benefits of having macro coordination. But it seems life cycle thinking is too damn short term at the moment.

 

[beast786]

As old as he is. He was probably actually their.

 

[Kadayi]

Well I think it would be largely related to who were the peronsalities and organisations who would advocate and propose such a scheme. There is little enough democracy in actual decision making, so getting the populace to support such a policy precludes the media and political establishments taking a lead. And they are doing that in almost nothing these days except for privatisation and stratification.

Children are widely seen as a right not a privilege, so attempting to change that dialogue as well as social policy would require a monumental shift in public thinking without falling foul of a lot of needless hand ringing and public protest. Just as many people are opposed on principal to the idea of immigration caps, similarly they would be opposed to say the state no longer picking up the tab for children conceived and born whilst on state benefits. The actual statistics regarding the likelihood for children born into poverty escaping it make for sober reading, but the idea of saying 'you're too poor to afford to have children' is not something that sits easy with most political parties. Thus the ongoing impasse.

 

[SteveWD40]

His work has often been diluted for an American audience, with his masterful narrations for Planet Earth and Life re-recorded by Alec Baldwin and Oprah Winfrey before they were broadcast on the Discovery channel. There have also been accusations that the U.S. network sought to downplay climate change in the shows.

If they had a shred if integrity they would have refused and made it public they did, put pressure on the producers to not fuck with this great mans work.

 

[Calabi]

This is how you defeat creationism and climate deniers. As sad as it may be people dont believe the evidence, they believe the people that they respect.

The US needs someone like him to speak up eloquently, showing the evidence.

 

[MegaMelon]

I really respect the man, but I do think it's a bit insensitive to group all people who believe in creationism in the same bucket so to speak.