Yeah. I know what you mean. The west is probably even worse now, totally lost the plot.
Agree on everything you said about global warming hoax.
As for:
Man, it breaks my heart. I grew up watching him since I was a kid. he was like unofficial grandpa, learned a lot about animal and plant kingdom. Collected all his documentaries, his life series, I even made custom DVD covers for it. Great stuff.
When I first saw him jumping on the Great bandwagon and pushing this insanity I was similar to you. oh, he just old man, almost a 100, so probably the have him just read script. And while there is some truth in that, like someone ghostwriting a book in his name to push this agenda.
Book: A Life on Our Planet - My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future 2020
Basically, written by some WEF ideologies as ghostwriters for David, to push UN agenda 230, a complete insanity and than hide behind him to give this propaganda a mask of environmental concern.
The troubling part is that when I look back at his career, it actually was his stance for a long time. He didn’t have all the Agenda 230 ideas to put forth, but his ideas are rooted in the same watermelon ideology. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
As Doomberg writes in their latest article: Green Is the New Red
Jun 22, 2023
“The goal of socialism is communism.” – Vladimir Lenin
We do not buy into the theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its Dr. Evil look-alike leader, Klaus Schwab, are the brains behind a nefarious scheme by the world’s elite to execute a global depopulation agenda. A far more likely explanation is that Schwab created an “access” grift that succeeded beyond his wildest imagination. Having correctly identified the Malthusian instincts of the rich and politically powerful, Schwab built for them a private club that validates those predispositions, justifies them in a veneer of intellectual rigor, and paints them into a future of digital utopia. In exchange, the WEF collects untold millions in membership fees, and what Klaus does with that money is conveniently obscured by the secrecy of the Swiss regulatory and banking systems.
Having evolved into a lightning rod of intrigue, Schwab has fed the perception that he is an omnipotent player on the international stage. Each one-on-one meeting with a head of state only serves to further solidify that personal brand. Aside from hosting its annual hob-knob festival in Davos, Switzerland, the WEF regularly publishes white papers tailor-made to stoke controversy and keep Schwab in the news. We turn to the Wall Street Journal for the latest example of Schwab poking his blade of influence at the masses (emphasis added throughout):
“If the World Economic Forum (WEF) has its way, the number of cars around the world will be reduced by 75% by 2050. How ironic that the denizens of Davos who spend much of their lives being chauffeured back and forth from international conferences hate cars.
The goal is buried in a briefing paper released last month called ‘The Urban Mobility Scorecard Tool: Benchmarking the Transition to Sustainable Urban Mobility.’ It points out that more than two-thirds of the world’s population will be urban by 2050. If we are to meet their needs and achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, the report recommends ‘electrification, public transport and shared mobility.’”
Eat bugs and ride bicycles. We get it.
That Schwab isn’t the brains behind a global anti-human agenda doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. The grift of the WEF wouldn’t work without it. As we described in “Malthusian Malarkey,” the modern environmental movement seeped from an ugly history of eugenics and techno-pessimism that actively sought to implement population control in the name of saving planetary resources for those more deserving of them. Our interest in that history stems from a desire to understand how so-called environmentalists—those who profess concern about carbon emissions as an existential threat to the planet—could be steadfastly opposed to nuclear energy:
“As uncomfortable a thought as it is, the history of the funding, propaganda, and influence around the anti-nuclear sentiment was born out of a non-fringe belief that the preferred solution to the population ‘problem’ was not more abundant energy to support such growth, but rather, fewer people to compete for available resources. Proselytizing nuclear waste as a meaningful issue became a convenient, palatable vehicle used to veer the discourse until it took hold generally. Today, this is done either by those who are victims of such propaganda or are knowing architects of it.”
You could be forgiven for assuming that depopulation hippies have been marginalized to the political fringe. This is certainly true in the developing world where, as we have recently documented, leaders have all but abandoned their climate commitments, correctly sniffing out whom the suckers are meant to be at the global resource poker table. However, things have taken an ominous turn in Europe, and Malthusian thinking is being normalized once again. As each energy policy failure is used as proof of the need to double down, leaders have resorted to increasingly totalitarian tactics, careening much of the region toward a system of government with more than a whiff of communist characteristics. Let’s have a look at some recent developments that should give everybody pause.
Sir David Frederick Attenborough (born 8 May 1926) is a pioneering British natural history filmmaker and writer.
Interview in Metro 29 Jan 2013
-
Fifty years ago, when the WWF was founded there were about three billion people on earth. Now there are almost seven billion. Over twice as many - and every one of them needing space. Space for their homes, space to grow their food (or to get others to grow it for them), space to build schools and roads and airfields. A little of that space might be taken from land occupied by other people but most of it could only come from the land which, for millions of years, animals and plants have to themselves.
-
The impact of these extra millions of people has spread even beyond the space they physically occupy. Their industries have changed the chemical constituency of the atmosphere. The oceans that cover most of the surface of the planet have been polluted and increasingly acidified. We now realise that the disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all - the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on the planet.
There have been prophets who have warned us of this impending disaster, of course. One of the first was Thomas Malthus. His surname – Malthus – leads some to think that he was some continental European savant, a German perhaps. But he was not. He was an Englishman, born in Guildford in Surrey in the middle of the eighteenth century. His most important book, An Essay on the Principle of Population was published over two hundred years ago in 1798. In it, he argued that the human population would increase inexorably until it was halted by what he termed ‘misery and vice’. Today, for some reason, that prophecy seems to be largely ignored – or at any rate, disregarded. It is true that he did not foresee the so-called Green Revolution which greatly increased the amount of food that could be produced in any given area of arable land. But that great advance only delayed things. And there may be other advances in our food producing skills that we ourselves still cannot foresee. But the fundamental truth that Malthus proclaimed remains the truth. There cannot be more people on this earth than can be fed.
Many people would like to deny this. They would like to believe in that oxymoron ‘sustainable growth.’ Kenneth Boulding, President Kennedy’s environmental advisor forty five years ago said something about this. ‘Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet,’ he said,’ is either mad – or an economist.’
Economic Analysis, 1941 Boulding’s first major work in economics was his introductory textbook, entitled Economic Analysis. It was written in the time he was instructor at Colgate University in the late 1930s and first appeared in 1941 with Harper & Brothers as single and two-volume edition. This work was extended and republished in four editions, the last in 1966. In a 1942 book review Max Millikan explained the books was published on the right time and the right place. According to Millikan (1942):
“For some years there has been a yawning gap in the literature of economic theory between the very elementary text designed for beginning students and the clutter of specialized monographs and periodical articles accessible only to the fully trained economist. The teacher attempting to lead his charges over this difficult and dangerous terrain has had to choose between two unsatisfactory alternatives. He could devote all his time to formal lecturing about a subject that requires informal discussion and problems for its proper comprehension; or he could assign and discuss a hodgepodge of advanced books and articles in the hope, usually vain, that some fraction of the class would struggle through to a comprehension of some fraction of the material.”
- Make a list of all the environmental and social problems that today afflict us and our poor battered planet. – not just the extinction of species and animals and plants, that fifty years ago was the first signs of impending global disaster, but traffic congestion, oil prices, pressure on the health service, the growth of mega-cities, migration patterns, immigration policies, unemployment, the loss of arable land, desertification, famine, increasingly violent weather, the acidification of the oceans, the collapse of fish stocks, rising sea temperatures, the loss of rain forest. The list goes on and on. But they all share an underlying cause. Every one of these global problems, environmental as well as social becomes more difficult – and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people.
“There are some four million different kinds of animals and plants in the world. Four million different solutions to the problems of staying alive. This is the story of how a few of them came to be as they are.” - Sir David Attenborough, Life on Earth (1979) - Opening narration
“This is the last programme in this natural history, and it’s very different from all the others because it’s been devoted to just one animal: ourselves. And that may have been a very misleading thing to have done. It may have given the impression that somehow man was the ultimate triumph of evolution, that all those thousands of millions of years of development had no purpose other than to put man on Earth. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for such a belief. No reason to suppose that man’s stay on Earth should be any longer than that of the dinosaurs. He may have learned how to control his environment, how to pass on information from one generation to another, but the very forces of evolution that brought him into existence here on these African plains are still at work elsewhere in the world, and if man were to disappear, for whatever reason, there is doubtless somewhere some small, unobtrusive creature that would seize the opportunity and, with a spurt of evolution, take man’s place. But although denying a special place in the world may be becomingly modest, the fact remains that man has an unprecedented control over the world and everything in it. And so, whether he likes it or not, what happens next is very largely up to him.” - Sir David Attenborough, Life on Earth (1979) - Closing lines
You can go further back if you like with Attenborough and its clear that he has been reading and adopting ideas of Malthus since at least 1970’s.
By the time he made his first landmark series: Life on Earth: A Natural History in 1979 he was already talking about it.
Episode 13 “The Compulsive Communicators” aird. 10 April 1979
“This is the last programme in this natural history, and it’s very different from all the others because it’s been devoted to just one animal: ourselves. And that may have been a very misleading thing to have done. It may have given the impression that somehow man was the ultimate triumph of evolution, that all those thousands of millions of years of development had no purpose other than to put man on Earth. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for such a belief. No reason to suppose that man’s stay on Earth should be any longer than that of the dinosaurs. He may have learned how to control his environment, how to pass on information from one generation to another, but the very forces of evolution that brought him into existence here on these African plains are still at work elsewhere in the world, and if man were to disappear, for whatever reason, there is doubtless somewhere some small, unobtrusive creature that would seize the opportunity and, with a spurt of evolution, take man’s place. But although denying a special place in the world may be becomingly modest, the fact remains that man has an unprecedented control over the world and everything in it. And so, whether he likes it or not, what happens next is very largely up to him.” - Sir David Attenborough, Life on Earth (1979) - Closing lines
In his next series: The Living Planet (1984)
Immensely powerful though we are today, it’s equally clear that we’re going to be even more powerful tomorrow. And what’s more there will be greater compulsion upon us to use our power as the number of human beings on Earth increases still further. Clearly we could devastate the world. […] As far as we know, the Earth is the only place in the universe where there is life. Its continued survival now rests in our hands. * Closing lines
Life in the Freezer (1993)
“At a time when it’s possible for thirty people to stand on the top of Everest in one day, Antarctica still remains a remote, lonely and desolate continent. A place where it’s possible to see the splendours and immensities of the natural world at its most dramatic and, what’s more, witness them almost exactly as they were, long, long before human beings ever arrived on the surface of this planet. Long may it remain so.” * Closing lines
The Private Life of Plants (1995)
“Ever since we arrived on this planet as a species, we’ve cut them down, dug them up, burnt them and poisoned them. Today we’re doing so on a greater scale than ever […] We destroy plants at our peril. Neither we nor any other animal can survive without them. The time has now come for us to cherish our green inheritance, not to pillage it – for without it, we will surely perish.” - Closing lines
The Life of Birds (1998)
“Three and a half million years separate the individual who left these footprints in the sands of Africa from the one who left them on the moon. A mere blink in the eye of evolution. Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever-increasing population. In spite of disasters when civilisations have over-reached themselves, that process has continued, indeed accelerated, even today. Now mankind is looking for food, not just on this planet but on others. Perhaps the time has now come to put that process into reverse. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it’s time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment.” * Closing lines
Life in the Undergrowth (2005)
“If we and the rest of the backboned animals were to disappear overnight, the rest of the world would get on pretty well. But if they were to disappear, the land’s ecosystems would collapse. The soil would lose its fertility. Many of the plants would no longer be pollinated. Lots of animals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals would have nothing to eat. And our fields and pastures would be covered with dung and carrion. These small creatures are within a few inches of our feet, wherever we go on land – but often, they’re disregarded. We would do very well to remember them.” Closing lines
Life in Cold Blood (2008)
"Reptiles and amphibians are sometimes seen as simple, primitive creatures. That’s a long way from the truth. The fact that they are solar-powered means that their bodies require only 10% of the energy that mammals of a similar size require. At a time when we ourselves are becoming increasingly concerned about the way in which we get our energy from the environment and the wasteful way in which we use it, maybe there are things that we can learn from “life in cold blood.” Closing lines
How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? (BBC Horizon, 2009)
Today we’re living in an era in which the biggest threat to other species and to the Earth as we know it might well be ourselves. The issue of population size was controversial because it touches on the most personal decisions we make, but we ignore it at our peril. m0s50-m1-13
I was born into a world of just under two billion people today there are nearly seven billion of us. Whenever I hear those numbers I can honestly say I find it incredible, triple the number of human beings in what seems like the blink of an eye and the world transformed utterly. Human population density is a factor in every environmental problem I have ever encountered, from urban sprawl to urban overcrowding; disappearing tropical forests to ugly sinks of plastic waste, and now the relentless increase of atmospheric pollution. I’ve spent much of the last 50 years seeking wilderness filming animals in their natural habitat and, to some extent, avoiding humans. But, over the years, true wilderness has become harder to find. m1s58-m3s03
I support a group called the Optimum Population Trust which campaigns to reduce birth rates because I think, if we keep on growing, we’re not only going to damage nature but we’re likely to see even more inequality and human suffering. m4s08-m4s43
Human beings are good at many things, but thinking about our species as a whole is not one of our strong points. m4s45-m4s53
Just as the human population was starting its unprecedented growth spurt in the late eighteenth century, this was published. It’s a first edition of an essay on population by the English clergyman Thomas Malthus. Malthus made a very simple observation about the relationship between humans and resources and used it to look into the future. He pointed out that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man.” Food production can’t increase as rapidly as human reproduction. Demand will eventually outstrip supply. Malthus goes on to say, if we don’t control human reproduction voluntarily, life could end in misery, which earned him a reputation as a bit of a pessimist. But Malthus’ principle remains true. The productive capacity or the Earth has physical limits and those limits will ultimately determine how many human beings it can support. m10s58-m12s18
For most people the idea of someone else telling them how many children they should have is simply unacceptable so when governments attempt to do just that it always causes controversy. In 1979 the Chinese government introduced its infamous one-child policy, changing family life in China forever. Families were encouraged to have fewer children. Those that didn’t were fined. The policy was a direct response to the preceding decades of famine and starvation. It’s still in place today. According to official figures, without the one-child policy, there’d be four hundred million more people in China, that’s more than the entire population of the USA. Its unlikely that other governments could undertake such an extreme path without major civil opposition. In the 1970s the Indian government also sought to bring down its birthrate. To start with it took a less aggressive path, setting up festivals around the country where vasectomies were carried out for small incentives. m31s56
In the south west of India lies the long narrow coastal state of Kerala. Most of its thirty-two million inhabitants live off the land and the ocean, a rich tropical ecosystem watered by two monsoons a year. It’s also one of India’s most crowded states - but the population is stable because nearly everybody has small families… At the root of it all is education. Thanks to a long tradition of compulsory schooling for boys and girls Kerala has one of the highest literacy rates in the World. Where women are well educated they tend to chose to have smaller families… What Kerala shows is that you don’t need aggressive policies or government incentives for birthrates to fall. Everywhere in the world where women have access to education and have the freedom to run their own lives, on the whole they and their partners have been choosing to have smaller families than their parents. But reducing birthrates is very difficult to achieve without a simple piece of medical technology, contraception. m35s09-m38s21
Presidential Lecture by Sir David Attenborough to the RSA on 10 March 2011
The impact of these extra millions of people has spread even beyond the space they physically occupy. Their industries have changed the chemical constituency of the atmosphere. The oceans that cover most of the surface of the planet have been polluted and increasingly acidified. We now realise that the disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all - the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on the planet.
There have been prophets who have warned us of this impending disaster, of course. One of the first was Thomas Malthus. His surname – Malthus – leads some to think that he was some continental European savant, a German perhaps. But he was not. He was an Englishman, born in Guildford in Surrey in the middle of the eighteenth century. His most important book, An Essay on the Principle of Population was published over two hundred years ago in 1798. In it, he argued that the human population would increase inexorably until it was halted by what he termed ‘misery and vice’. Today, for some reason, that prophecy seems to be largely ignored – or at any rate, disregarded. It is true that he did not foresee the so-called Green Revolution which greatly increased the amount of food that could be produced in any given area of arable land. But that great advance only delayed things. And there may be other advances in our food producing skills that we ourselves still cannot foresee. But the fundamental truth that Malthus proclaimed remains the truth. There cannot be more people on this earth than can be fed.
Many people would like to deny this. They would like to believe in that oxymoron ‘sustainable growth.’ Kenneth Boulding, President Kennedy’s environmental advisor forty five years ago said something about this. ‘Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet,’ he said,’ is either mad – or an economist.’
Make a list of all the environmental and social problems that today afflict us and our poor battered planet. – not just the extinction of species and animals and plants, that fifty years ago was the first signs of impending global disaster, but traffic congestion, oil prices, pressure on the health service , the growth of mega-cities, migration patterns, immigration policies, unemployment, the loss of arable land, desertification, famine, increasingly violent weather, the acidification of the oceans, the collapse of fish stocks, rising sea temperatures, the loss of rain forest. The list goes on and on. But they all share an underlying cause. Every one of these global problems, environmental as well as social becomes more difficult – and ultimately impossible - to solve with ever more people.
…
Basically David Attenborough whole of his adult working life has had one theme. Animals are precious and good, which I agree, humans are bad and too many of them, de-population agenda which I don’t agree with.
It seems David read Thomas Malthus, when he was young man and ever sine than he has been all about de-population, which fits into UN Agenda 230, and whole WEF climate change/great reset idea very well. So I don’t give him a pass as old man that didn’t know what he was doing. Neither should you. He was always about this. Sadly I did not recognize the extreme ways in which he was prepared to advocate exterminating billions of people.
…
Thomas Malthus, c.1820 ©
English economist Malthus is best known for his hugely influential theories on population growth.
Thomas Robert Malthus was born near Guildford, Surrey in February 1766. His father was prosperous but unconventional and educated his son at home. Malthus went on to Cambridge University, earning a master’s degree in 1791. In 1793, he was made a fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. In 1805, Malthus became professor of history and political economy (the first holder of such an academic office) at the East India Company’s college in Haileybury, Hertfordshire, where he remained until his death.
In 1819, Malthus was elected a fellow of the Royal Society and two years later he became a member of the Political Economy Club, whose members included David Ricardo and James Mill. In 1824, he was elected as one of the 10 royal associates of the Royal Society of Literature. Malthus was also one of the co-founders of the Statistical Society of London in 1834.
Malthus’ most well known work ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ was published in 1798, although he was the author of many pamphlets and other longer tracts including ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent’ (1815) and ‘Principles of Political Economy’ (1820). The main tenets of his argument were radically opposed to current thinking at the time. He argued that increases in population would eventually diminish the ability of the world to feed itself and based this conclusion on the thesis that populations expand in such a way as to overtake the development of sufficient land for crops. Associated with Darwin, whose theory of natural selection was influenced by Malthus’ analysis of population growth, Malthus was often misinterpreted, but his views became popular again in the 20th century with the advent of Keynesian economics.
Malthus died on 23 December 1834.
…
Malthusian Malarkey
Doomberg
Aug 12, 2022
“Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” – Lao Tzu
We often say that if nuclear energy were discovered today, it would be heralded as planet-saving technology to be invested in and propagated at warp speed. An intelligent global energy policy with nuclear power as a foundation can provide abundance to all humanity with minimal impact on the environment. Without hyperbole, there is no path to a decarbonized economy that avoids mass starvation and economic collapse without nuclear power, and the hardest opponents of the technology know it.
Foundational to the environmentalist anti-nuclear movement is an ugly strain of Malthusian pessimism born of eugenics, a fact that many would now like erased from history. Thomas Robert Malthus was an English economist who specialized in the fields of political economy and demography. In 1798, he published a rather unfortunate book called An Essay on the Principle of Population. In it, he argued population growth always outstrips our ability to supply the concurrent need for increased resources (especially food), resulting in inevitable cycles of overpopulation, rapid resource depletion, and extreme human suffering.
In essence, Malthus was a techno-pessimist who radically underestimated humanity’s potential for innovation. He contended it was better to prevent the overpopulation catastrophe proactively, calling for a combination of increased birth control and “permitting” higher mortality rates – a euphemism that could only have been penned from the comfort of a university office. Of course, once one decides the world has too many people, all manner of cruel solutions suddenly become justifiable, especially if the expendable ones live in a far-off land and don’t look like you. It takes no special knowledge of history to connect the dots from the Malthusian school of thought to some of the cruelest and most regrettable episodes of our collective past.
Alarmingly, environmentalist opposition to nuclear was, from the start, precisely because it makes cheap and clean energy abundance possible. In 1968, a book called Population Bomb was published. The book, authored by Paul Ehrlich, was written at the request of then-President of the Sierra Club, David Brower. In a later interview (surfaced by Emmet Penney, cited below), Ehrlich pointedly memorialized this position by stating: “In fact, giving society cheap abundant energy at this point would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
The mid-twentieth century represented a time in which concerns over overpopulation were very much in the Overton window. In his excellent recent essay published in American Affairs titled Who Killed Nuclear Energy and How to Revive It, Emmet Penney forces the reader to confront this uncomfortable reality (emphasis added throughout):
“The postwar American environmental movement began as an outgrowth from the eugenics movement. This has been largely forgotten, leading one historian to write, “Although one can hardly pick up an environmental book from the late 1960s and early 1970s that does not warn about overpopulation, it is surprisingly easy to find a history of the movement that barely mentions overpopulation. Eugenics took root in late nineteenth-century America with the formation of groups like the Immigration Restriction League and the Eugenics Records Office. Its boosters included historic figures like Theodore Roosevelt and lesser-knowns like Madison Grant, whose bestselling book The Passing of the Great Race was referred to by Hitler as his ‘Bible,’ and Henry Fairfield Osborn, then president of the Natural History Museum. Both Grant and Osborn connected poor breeding with environmental degradation.”
