Purdom lies about Attenborough

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:01 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... rough.html
“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 Optimum Population Trust, 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.”
(I assume Attenborough has in mind the use of contraceptives and perhaps sexual abstinence - and not only in Ethiopia; I've not seen the Radio Times interview and I doubt that Georgia Purdom has either.)

http://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPurdom
"“We [meaning humans] 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.”
This is a quote from David Attenborough, the famous commentator in UK nature documentaries. These ideas are nothing new and were popularized by Thomas Malthus in the early 1800s. His work influenced both Charles Darwin and Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood).
Some people say eugenics and related ideas are a thing of the past but as we can see they are alive and well in the 21st century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
"Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population. It is a social philosophy which advocates for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of less desired people and traits."

Attenborough is a hate figure for Purdom because he is an evolutionist.

Some nasty comments from some Purdom fans underneath as well.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9043
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:14 pm

Thanks for that Ashley - it reminds me that I should sign up to the Optimum Population Trust ASAP. I was briefly involved with a similar but long defunct organisation (the Conservation Society) in the 60's - and things haven't got any better. :( :( :(
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Steve660 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:12 pm

With 9 children (so far) Michael Behe obviously has no understanding of the harm overpopulation is doing to our planet. I have none (children, that is).
Steve660
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:14 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote: Ashley quotes: "Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population. It is a social philosophy which advocates for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of less desired people and traits."

Attenborough is a hate figure for Purdom because he is an evolutionist.

Some nasty comments from some Purdom fans underneath as well.


David Attenborough is probably the most respected person in the UK; Georgia Purdom is a non-entity everywhere.

David Attenborough's television programmes reach audience figures upwards of 500 million. Purdom's reach upwards of zero.

David Attenborough, as head of BBC2, also brought to the world Monty Python. Purdom has brought nothing to television.

David Attenborough has never, ever, advocated eugenics. Purdom's followers have nothing to suggest he did.

However one looks at it, the creationist movement is incapable of putting forward anyone beyond a non-entity.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:21 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Thanks for that Ashley - it reminds me that I should sign up to the Optimum Population Trust ASAP. I was briefly involved with a similar but long defunct organisation (the Conservation Society) in the 60's - and things haven't got any better. :( :( :(


There's a big contradiction in population matters. On the one hand there is the view that growing population numbers increase pressure on resources and growing standards of living do likewise.

However, growing standards of living are strongly correlated with falling birth rates.

So how is the paradox solved?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:22 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:There's a big contradiction in population matters. On the one hand there is the view that growing population numbers increase pressure on resources and growing standards of living do likewise.

However, growing standards of living are strongly correlated with falling birth rates.

So how is the paradox solved?
You need to throw something else into the equation: education, especially of women. Of course, stopping competitive breeding would help, too.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Michael » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:34 am

Steve660 wrote:With 9 children (so far) Michael Behe obviously has no understanding of the harm overpopulation is doing to our planet. I have none (children, that is).



Yes, but he is producing atheists :D
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:25 am

Brian Jordan wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:There's a big contradiction in population matters. On the one hand there is the view that growing population numbers increase pressure on resources and growing standards of living do likewise.

However, growing standards of living are strongly correlated with falling birth rates.

So how is the paradox solved?
You need to throw something else into the equation: education, especially of women. Of course, stopping competitive breeding would help, too.


Yes, it might help but the paradox still remains; poverty means that contraception is unaffordable. Decent education requires a fairly good standard of living to fund it. In poor countries people have large families to look after them when they grow old.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby ukantic » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:43 pm

There is an update here from the Telegraph featuring a Bjorn Lomborg, the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... lague.html

I find this comment of his to be rather irritating:

Dr Lomborg said it was a “human hating” point of view to think reducing the population is the only way to save species.


To start with, David Attenborough talked about limiting population growth not reducing the population. But even if he had done, by what stretch of the imagination does that make such a point of view "human hating?"

At the risk of stating the obvious, arguments should be won or lost on the basis of such things as the quality of the evidence presented, not on whether or not you can get to label your opponent as human hating. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact on the contrary DA, whether you agree with his opinions on human population or not, has always come across as a kind and caring individual.

I get the impression that for whatever reason, Lomborg is trying to smear and tarnish DA's reputation. I think this sort of language has a chilling effect on free speech. No one wants to be called human hating and it discourages open expression.

Lomborg said:
He said as people become richer they live in cities and do not impinge on nature so much.


It doesn't matter where they live, they still require land ploughing up for crops, which causes environmental damage. They still require as much water, electricity, gas, as well as plastics, medicines, clothing and fertiliser for crops - all produced from limited oil stocks. They still still excrete and waste as much and they still want to eat as much - even though they have, for example, already destroyed a significant proportion of the planet's fish stocks and are threatening to finish off the rest with acidification of the marine environment as a result of the overuse of fossil fuels.

I could go on, but someone else has done a good job of exposing Lomborg here:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
ukantic
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:51 pm

Ukantic

Interesting article. I find that Lomborg's comments seem to assume that technology will solve the population issue. His comment "it may even be possible to return degraded land to wildlife" is complacent and simplistic. For instance, even if say the number of orang utans was increased by eg special breeding programmes in zoos, they could not be returned to vast areas of Borneo because those areas are no longer rainforest but vast sweeps of oil palm plantations where they could not make a 'living'. Similarly in South America vast areas of rainforest have been cut down for cattle ranching - areas suitable for cows are not, usually, suitable for jaguars or monkeys.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9043
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby ukantic » Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:43 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Ukantic

Interesting article. I find that Lomborg's comments seem to assume that technology will solve the population issue.


It's definitely helped so far, but there is the problem of diminishing returns. Modern crop and fruit production is already highly efficient. At the end of the day there is only so much that can be extracted from an acre of land.
ukantic
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Michael » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:20 am

ukantic wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Ukantic

Interesting article. I find that Lomborg's comments seem to assume that technology will solve the population issue.


It's definitely helped so far, but there is the problem of diminishing returns. Modern crop and fruit production is already highly efficient. At the end of the day there is only so much that can be extracted from an acre of land.



That can't true, GW deniers like the Cornwall Inst beleive in a cornucopia!!!!
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:48 am

ukantic wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Ukantic

Interesting article. I find that Lomborg's comments seem to assume that technology will solve the population issue.


It's definitely helped so far, but there is the problem of diminishing returns. Modern crop and fruit production is already highly efficient. At the end of the day there is only so much that can be extracted from an acre of land.


It's a tough one Alan. There are a lot of contradictory positions held here. I don't like to see people living in poverty and hunger but, at the same time, am deeply concerned about the ecological/environmental and social implications of increased food output. The concept of sustainability only partly addresses the issue.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby cathy » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:15 pm

It's a tough one Alan. There are a lot of contradictory positions held here. I don't like to see people living in poverty and hunger but, at the same time, am deeply concerned about the ecological/environmental and social implications of increased food output. The concept of sustainability only partly addresses the issue.

Isn't it also an issue of distribution? The affluent west is throwing away vast amounts of food and we have an obesity epidemic costing the NHS millions.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Purdom lies about Attenborough

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:51 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:It's a tough one Alan. There are a lot of contradictory positions held here. I don't like to see people living in poverty and hunger but, at the same time, am deeply concerned about the ecological/environmental and social implications of increased food output. The concept of sustainability only partly addresses the issue.
AFAIK the "green revolution", when agricultural productivity rose massively, was followed by a rapid increase in world population. (Anyone play "foxes and rabbits" on the old BBC computer? Standard ecology.) So unfortunately a sort of Parkinson's Law applies - population increases to outstrip the food available. It's only a matter of time before all the rabbits are eaten and the foxes suffer accordingly, come what may, unless some other mechanism intervenes.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron