4 ms·
Sir David Attenborough warns things will only get worse
- lutusp 13y ago> Attenborough said he was not optimistic about the future and 'things are going to get worse'." How right he is. The Logistic function says mathematically what Sir Richard says with words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function In the beginning, at the left, the logistic function (a way to mathematically describe the evolution of a biological colony) shows a species struggling against having too few members. In the end, at the right, the function shows a species struggling against having too many. We humans are at the right-hand end of the curve. But the risk in speaking out about this issue is that sensitive, intelligent people will listen and reduce their numbers, while less sensitive, less intelligent people won't. The result will be fewer sensitive, intelligent people in Earth's future. That, by the way, is an idea I call the "Population Paradox": http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html#The_Population_Paradox http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html#The_Population_Par...
- dennisgorelik 13y ago> We humans are at the right-hand end of the curve. Do you have any proof to that? Judging by the amount of unfarmed land available on Earth it looks like number humans is nowhere close to being "too many". > "Population Paradox" There is no paradox here. It's survival of the fittest in its purest form. If increasing reproductive desire is a key to species survival, then species with stronger reproductive desire would survive. If you don't care about reproduction much - your genes are less likely to survive.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hackckck 13y agoDon't worry, nature will always balance population. If men try to do it, it's called EUGENICS and it's immoral. I'm very disappointed Attenborough joined the eugenics club of Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Eli Broad, Bill Gates, Rockefeller and .. Adolf Hitler. These people want population reduction: why don't they start with themselves ???
- Gigablah 13y agoWow, you Godwinned that right out of the gate.
- Kudzu_Bob 13y agoYou've got it exactly backwards. It's dysgenics when the more socially responsible elements quit having kids.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ramblerman 13y ago"If men try to do it, it's called EUGENICS and it's immoral" No it really isn't. Eugenics describes selective breeding to remove or increase certain genetic traits. It has nothing to do with controlling population sizes as a whole. "I'm very disappointed Attenborough joined the eugenics club of Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Eli Broad, Bill Gates, Rockefeller and .. Adolf Hitler." Pathetic... and also wrong since none of those people except Hitler actually practiced EUGENICS "These people want population reduction: why don't they start with themselves ???" As if the Hitler association wasn't enough you further lower yourself to arguing 'ad Hominem'. Wether these people are hypocrites or not does not adds nothing to the argument. And to my knowledge Oprah has no kids and David Attenborough and Warren Buffer have 2.
- Kudzu_Bob 13y agoWorst idea ever. It would simply ensure that the people who give a damn will breed themselves out of existence, thereby ensuring that the world is inherited by the clueless and irresponsible.
- TeMPOraL 13y agoIt would be the plot of Idiocracy playing out in front of our eyes.