Top globalist Sir David Attenborough, who last year described humans as a ‘plague on Earth’, has now gone on record in calling for nations of the world to stop sending food aid to starving nations in order to reduce the population of the world.

Speaking with the Daily Telegraph, the highly decorated psychopath expanded upon his notion that the plague of humanity must be reduced throughout the world. Reduction that, according to him, really starts with starving poorer nations that have been decimated by first world global powers (and could be fed with about a week or so of military spending). The problem, Attenborough says, however, comes down to numerous “huge sensitivities” that continue to block the goal of massive population reduction.

And what are these ‘huge sensitivities’?

Well, it turns out that the ‘sensitivities’ blocking the decimation of the world’s human population include ‘the right to have children’. How truly horrible. Instead, it seems Attenborough thinks that we should revoke the right of citizens to even have children, let alone feed the existing humans in hungry nations. In the interview, Attenborough states:

Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/attenborough-stop-feeding-third-world-reduce-population/#ixzz2fMDYzfX9

What Attenborough has done is to dramatise the dilemma which faces every potential aid-giving nation.

If the rich nations give food to the starving millions of Africa, they will breed, and there will be yet more starving millions to be fed. And so on. Eventually there will be so many starving millions that there simply aren't the resources to feed them. The outcome would be appalling.

What other solutions are there? Increase productivity, certainly; promote voluntary, repeat voluntary, sterilisation and contraception; basically, teach people to help themselves.

No, I don't agree with Attenborough..... but that is what the world may come to if we do not take other measures to deal with the population issue.

Atters hasn't got a new series starting soon has he?

I think along with food we should give semi permentant birth control (iud, contraceptive rod inserts)

I dont see how someone with no food, job, means to support or feed themselves can bring a child into this world. i also this this should apply to anyone living long term on welfare or benefits in the western world.

Atters hasn't got a new series starting soon has he?

Yes, it's called Death on Earth.

P.S If you filter out the dramatic effect David Attenborough is only stating the reality that governs the population of every other species on the planet, save ourselves. If such a thought is too uncomfortable to contemplate perhaps a similar result can be achieved by selling arms to the third world......Hold on..

Replace food aid with contraception, It's not a lack of resources, food in this case. It;s too many users,

I dont see how someone with no food, job, means to support or feed themselves can bring a child into this world.

While I agree with you, for many people in poor countries, not having children when they are young is a sure way of starving to death when they are old. There are no easy answers.

I think along with food we should give semi permentant birth control (iud, contraceptive rod inserts)

I dont see how someone with no food, job, means to support or feed themselves can bring a child into this world. i also this this should apply to anyone living long term on welfare or benefits in the western world.

Sounds rather totalitarian to me. Semi-permanent, in that situation, is a euphemism for permanent.

I agree with the sentence I've blocked. But they are free human beings, and have to be taught, not compelled, to make sensible choices.

The only major State initiative to reduce population was China's one-child policy. It was a disaster; as a result, there are nearly 20% more males than females in the age bracket involved.

Don't really have an opinion on what Sir David had to say, but my first thought is that it must be nice to be old enough to say whatever the hell one wants to.

The only major State initiative to reduce population was China's one-child policy. It was a disaster; as a result, there are nearly 20% more males than females in the age bracket involved.

Agreed, it should have been the other way around, with me as the stud

Better if, throughout the world, women were sterilised after two children, men have vasectomies after fathering two children, in wedlock or not.

But this would not happen in the poorer countries, where it is most needed, so we should look for a nice big war, fought in Africa, between India and China.

Better if, throughout the world, women were sterilised after two children, men have vasectomies after fathering two children, in wedlock or not.

But this would not happen in the poorer countries, where it is most needed, so we should look for a nice big war, fought in Africa, between India and China.

Better still if limits on reproduction were targeted. Mr & Mrs High rise block are only likely to produce more of the same, whilst Mrs Einstein should be encouraged to produce as many offspring as possible.

Better if, throughout the world, women were sterilised after two children, men have vasectomies after fathering two children, in wedlock or not.

But this would not happen in the poorer countries, where it is most needed, so we should look for a nice big war, fought in Africa, between India and China.

Better still if limits on reproduction were targeted. Mr & Mrs High rise block are only likely to produce more of the same, whilst Mrs Einstein should be encouraged to produce as many offspring as possible.

Inventiveness and intelligence are not all nature, but do require some nurture in most cases.

I cannot conceive of the child of a Masai herder improving upon the Internet, due to his lack of education within the disciplines needed to understand the Internet in the first place. However I can believe that the same herder's child could develop a way of breeding more, and meatier, cattle.

There is seldom a Mr & Mrs HighRise - these are single mums who let the kids go and play with the syringes in the corridors, but the same kids will probably be able to steal some top of the range smart phones and tablets and figure out new ways of delivering the Internet faster, with apps to order the latest drugs for a fracion of their current cost.

Remember also that it was Einstein who forecast the atomic bomb and worked on it's development.

I prefer to think of Crick & Watson when I cite the clever buggers, but even they may have been caught up in genetic manipulations if they were active at this moment in time.

Find a way to chemically introduce the contraception into the food aid, starve or stop breeding? The choice is then in their hands, if you want hand outs then there is a price to pay. Could maybe start with the Chavettes food in the UK as a trial.

Find a way to chemically introduce the contraception into the food aid, starve or stop breeding? The choice is then in their hands, if you want hand outs then there is a price to pay. Could maybe start with the Chavettes food in the UK as a trial.

I was going to suggest that those who dine on Mickey D's offerings every day don't need contraceptives in their nosh, because they're too obese to copulate successfully - but then I saw a fat family walking past and realised that they are the only people left in this country who do actually breed.

How do the clinically obese manage to produce offspring? Yet they do - far too frequently.

Find a way to chemically introduce the contraception into the food aid, starve or stop breeding? The choice is then in their hands, if you want hand outs then there is a price to pay. Could maybe start with the Chavettes food in the UK as a trial.

I was going to suggest that those who dine on Mickey D's offerings every day don't need contraceptives in their nosh, because they're too obese to copulate successfully - but then I saw a fat family walking past and realised that they are the only people left in this country who do actually breed.

How do the clinically obese manage to produce offspring? Yet they do - far too frequently.

Start off by rolling the female of the species in flour to at least give the male a chance.................

Moving swiftly on from the image above...

Interesting piece on the Beeb today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537

Attenborough's Malthusian fixation is probably a tad overdone.

The good news is that globally TFR (Total Fertility Rate, the average number of babies born per woman) is decreasing, driven by a combination of a range of factors, the key ones being;

Reduction in infant mortality

Urbanization

Economic development

Improved literacy, status and employment opportunities for women

Changing mindset re child as a liability/cost rather than as an asset/benefit

Access to contraception

The bad news is that it will take the existing excess in children to pass through their reproductive years before we see a decline in population numbers globally. The drama question is availability of resources in absolute terms and in their allocation for another likely 50% increase in population over the next 30-40 years. TFR is crucial and small changes either way will have a profound impact.

This is a global phenomena with only sub-Saharan Africa and conflict zones such as Afghanistan being slow to change but change is happening in most countries, the key question is how quickly it occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg

One Child Policy (OCP) in China was probably too late in the day (TFR dropped from 5.5 to 2.7 pre OCP's introduction in 1979), too brutal and quite probably unnecessary if the CPC could just trust its people to do the right thing. A comparison of TFR between Thailand and China from 1960 to date is very illuminating.

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CHN:THA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false

Where the CPC didn't impose OCP as a test case is further illuminating:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr26zt_secret-experimental-city-challenges-china-one-child-policy-success_news

Before any of the "usual suspects" start fulminating about muslims "outbreeding" their way to a global caliphate have a watch of this for a more rational POV.

Please excuse the demography lecture but this is a crucially important subject to focus on the data rather than the preconceptions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537

An interesting article which puts the case that the world's population is NOT growing out of control. The number of children produced by each fertile woman has already gone below replacement rate in most of Europe, India, China, and large parts of North and South America. That means that population will level off and then decline.

Even in one major country where the population is currently increasing, Nigeria, a rise in population from 160 m. to 1,000 m, as predicted by some for the year 2100, is probably far too high. Isn't the penny going to drop when there seem to be rather a lot of extra people around?

(Sorry, Folium, you beat me to it by a couple of minutes!)

Very difficult not to sound racist but would like to see these figures broken down by race and creed?

Very difficult not to sound racist but would like to see these figures broken down by race and creed?

folium's video is pretty comprehensive.

Very difficult not to sound racist but would like to see these figures broken down by race and creed?

Being racist, (and I am not suggesting you are), depends on ignorance and prejudiced preconceptions. Good data, well presented, can address both these issues.

Have a play with the excellent Gapminder World

http://www.gapminder.org/

set TFR on the vertical scale against GDP per capita on the horizontal, change the top right box to main religion, and see how race and religion are basically irrelevant when it comes to TFR collapses (see below hopefully). This is what Rosling uses in the video clip.

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2012$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0TAlJeCEzcGQ;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID5;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=283;dataMax=110808$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0.836;dataMax=9.2$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

I think along with food we should give semi permentant birth control (iud, contraceptive rod inserts)

I dont see how someone with no food, job, means to support or feed themselves can bring a child into this world. i also this this should apply to anyone living long term on welfare or benefits in the western world.

Sounds rather totalitarian to me. Semi-permanent, in that situation, is a euphemism for permanent.

I agree with the sentence I've blocked. But they are free human beings, and have to be taught, not compelled, to make sensible choices.

The only major State initiative to reduce population was China's one-child policy. It was a disaster; as a result, there are nearly 20% more males than females in the age bracket involved.

India had a major crack at it under Indira Gandi in the early 70s - enforced steralization. DIdn't end well for her. Got jailed.

Situation in China isn't so good with the gender imbalance. Got to wonder though: counterfactually, had the population continued to increase at the rate it was previously, would the situation be worse now even considering the gender imbalance.

Perhaps you could argue that the surfeit of men in China is the quickest and easiest way to raise the value of women relative to men - if you want grandchildren, the best way of ensuring this it to have girl child.

I think along with food we should give semi permentant birth control (iud, contraceptive rod inserts)

I dont see how someone with no food, job, means to support or feed themselves can bring a child into this world. i also this this should apply to anyone living long term on welfare or benefits in the western world.

Sounds rather totalitarian to me. Semi-permanent, in that situation, is a euphemism for permanent.

I agree with the sentence I've blocked. But they are free human beings, and have to be taught, not compelled, to make sensible choices.

The only major State initiative to reduce population was China's one-child policy. It was a disaster; as a result, there are nearly 20% more males than females in the age bracket involved.

India had a major crack at it under Indira Gandi in the early 70s - enforced steralization. DIdn't end well for her. Got jailed.

Situation in China isn't so good with the gender imbalance. Got to wonder though: counterfactually, had the population continued to increase at the rate it was previously, would the situation be worse now even considering the gender imbalance.

Perhaps you could argue that the surfeit of men in China is the quickest and easiest way to raise the value of women relative to men - if you want grandchildren, the best way of ensuring this it to have girl child.

China's One Child Policy has also been tainted by outbreaks of enforced sterliizations and abortions. Exact numbers are unsurprisingly hard to come by, but China-bashers tens to over-egg them, but there is a body of evidence that quota chasing local politicians did indulge in such activities.

Claims that OCP saved China and the world from 300-400 million extra mouths to feed, resources to cater for are somewhat overblown. The TFR (Total Fertility Rate) had already collapsed from to before OCP was introduced. This was a result as previously posted largely of these factors:

Reduction in infant mortality

Urbanization

Economic development

Improved literacy, status and employment opportunities for women

Changing mindset re child as a liability/cost rather than as an asset/benefit

Access to contraception

Plus the Later, Longer, Fewer, Policy (Later marriage/childbirth; Longer intervals between children; Fewer babies) adopted by the PRC in the 1970's.

Where the CPC didn't impose OCP as a test case is further illuminating:

http://www.dailymoti...cy-success_news

You would have thought that a deficit of women would enhance their value and thus increase their numbers. Sadly while infanticide of baby girls is much reduced, the overriding cultural preference for male children (particularly if OCP is maintained) plus the availability of cheap ultrasounds means that gender selection tends to be achieved by selective abortions.

The cultural bias is not just a Chinese issue, Christian majority Armenia and Georgia, Muslim-majority Azerbaijan also have highly skewed gender balances, and India as ever trails China!

Have a read of this excellent, if unsettling, piece:

http://www.economist.com/node/15636231

South Korea's experience does point to a brighter possible future.

What's happened to this page? It's spread across at least two normal page-widths, and without any photos or similar which would give a possible reason.

Anyway, there is still a necessity to look after all peoples of the world and this will be more difficult if the population keeps growing, especially among the countries where overseas aid, either from governments, charities or UN NGOs, is prolific. (I was going to say profligate, but thought it too inflammatory). Feeding the world would be slightly simplified if we did not grow crops for biofuel, but I am not a fan of GM modifications to make crops yield more, as this may be one cause of obesity.

Sorry, I can't type any more on this stupid page-width.