[Closed] Attenborough - correct or "barmy" himself

6079smithw - Member

The entire population of the world could live in Australia with a couple of acres for each individual.

Maths disagrees.

Yep. He said that it was barmy for us to think that sending flour was a "solution":

From the article:

He suggested humans are "blinding ourselves" to the problem, claiming: "We say, get the United Nations to send them bags of flour. That's barmy.”

Unfortunately some people, for their own reasons, choose to portray that as [i]"National Icon Says We Should Let Ethiopians Starve Shocker"[/i] which isn't what he is saying at all.

Unfortunately some people, for their own reasons, choose to portray that as "National Icon Says We Should Let Ethiopians Starve Shocker" which isn't what he is saying at all.

It doesn't help with the papers giving the wrong impression by letting their illiterate journalists pen articles on the 'issue'.

The entire population of the world could live in Australia with a couple of acres for each individual. You won't hear Fiona Bruce reading that out on the news.

Because it's bollocks? The figure you are looking for is quarter of an acre, not "a couple".

And that kind of ignores ALL the resources needed to support those people and the fact that most of Australia (like a large amount of the world) is basically uninhabitable.

Or are you saying we should allow poorer nations to have exponential birth rates, as long as they promise to get poorer, keep low standards of living, and not consume as much as us Westerners?

Or, should [i]they[/i] 'allow' [i]us[/i] to continue wasting global resources at an exponential rate?

The USA has 5% of the world's population, yet consumes 25% of it's fossil fuel resources.

Shouldn't the focus be on issues like that before 'we' start telling Africans to have less children?

One issue complicating things is the catholic faith in some countries that still continues to spout crap about not using birth control so you end up a double wammy of families with loads of kids that can't be fed, and the problem of the spread of AIDS.

I think you give too much credit to the idea that people actually govern their lives according to the precepts of the Church. I think you'll find that most Catholics across the globe come to a sort of happy settlement in conscience to live as they need to.

GrahamS - Member

Because it's bollocks? The figure you are looking for is quarter of an acre, not "a couple".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnvm0qhe2g

And that kind of ignores ALL the resources needed to support those people and the fact that most of Australia (like a large amount of the world) is basically uninhabitable.

But that's not the point. If everyone in a 5 bedroom house could fit into one wardrobe, no-one's saying everyone in the household should live in the wardrobe, but it shows the house is not overpopulated.
So if every human can fit onto Australia with a quarter acre each, leaving every other land mass empty, does that sound like overpopulation? No, it doesn't.

6079smithw - Member

But that's not the point

Yes, the point is that your argument is both irrelevant and factually wrong, let's not get too bound up in the factual errors.

nature’s response to too many people and not enough land.

This does rather ignore the effect that wars, inter-tribal conflicts, competition for natural resources with companies growing food for the western consumers and the arbitrary dividing of tribal lands into countries with borders has had.

I don't usually play on political threads, but that made me smile.

The cause of pretty much all war is lack of land, or want for more land. The reason why companies rape the land of other countries for food, is because their land is usually covered in housing and can't support the population's need for food (Obviously I'm simplifying).

Hence, waswas' argument made me giggle.