To want there to be coral reefs in the future

[ringle]

Just that really.
Yes, just watched blue planet 2....

Sending food aid is a notoriously shit and counterproductive way to 'help' the majority world. Is he advocating stopping food aid and increasing other kinds of aid? Or is he literally saying we need to stop feeding the majority world to 'cull' them?

Food aid is very short term. Long term benefits come from micro loans to women for businesses, farming aid, water aid, toilet aid etc.
I tend to do the buy a goat, sponsor a child, twin a toilet kind of aid for lasting benefit to a country.

And yes, we desperately need to address the destruction of the planet, and our resource hungry lifestyles.

I agree with you both re other aid. He doesn't mention any of these ideas, because you know why, he's not interested.

He wants to stop sending food aid to reduce the population

That’s quite an extreme take on the issue - to stop sending food aid (or other types of aid), to reduce the population suggests he actively wishes to starve people to death in an attempt to reduce population.

I haven’t seen him advocate that anywhere.

There’s a huge difference between killing people that already exist (abhorrent, obviously), and advocating a more sustainable future where fewer people are born in the first place.

But i’ll happily admit to not having read all his views on the subject so if you can link to him advocating culling in the developing world then I’m happy to be corrected.

Attenborough believes the most important thing is the education of women (this reduces population growth).

It is a silver bullet. In a world where we cast around for things to believe in, this has been shown to work.

It just shows how hard it is to speak with a collective voice.

Vita, can you recall what led you to change your views about DA.? Perhaps you strongly valued something that he critiqued?

Food aid is very short term. Long term benefits come from micro loans to women for businesses, farming aid, water aid, toilet aid etc

Exactly. This makes such a big difference - and helps to address a lot of underlying problems.

There are other areas that affect population growth such as access to contraception and family planning. Unfortunately Trump has targeted those NGOs that work in those areas.

This is The Telegraph:
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html

Food Aid hasn't solved any issues in Africa that I can see - we still get the same begging adverts that we've been having since Band Aid.

Part of me wonders if they'd been left alone would the population have dipped down to levels sustainable by the land they're trying to live on...

What he is saying is that the earth can't support the amount of people there are. True, it can't. Not without GMO and scary farming practices.
Environmental pressures will make this worse. True. Food aid as a solution is 'barmy'? True. Overpopulation and bad environmental choices cause famines. True.

I understand why people want to send food to a starving child. It's a natural reaction. But what happens is that we react to famines, rather than trying to prevent them. The economy reacts very poorly to food aid, local farmers suffer, end up in debt. They then can't buy what they need to help food security and more people starve. Africa's economy becomes dependent on aid and the West and we really can't be trusted to act in their interests (debt and tied aid for example) so more people starve.

DA proposes educating girls. Which leads to lower birth rates, less extremism, fewer wars, better educated children, better healthcare and all round a better world.

The only thing I disagree with him about is that overpopulation in Africa and Asia is the only problem. I think almost everywhere has too many people and the West consumes more per person by magnitudes so our population is 'worse' for the environment.

He's mostly right. He just isn't sentimental and he is scientific. That is very unpopular.

If DA thought that

"overpopulation in Africa and Asia is the only problem"

he would be a much happier man than he is.

Vitalogy -

ouch!

I see your point!!

that Telegraph journalist has twisted what DA says. I appreciate you are genuinely interested in this/genuinely concerned. I need to find you a link to the actual programme. In it, DA ran through the potential "solutions" and identified why all of them are unacceptable (for the reasons you identify) He then concluded that the only solution is to empower women.

I'm still at work but will try to find it for you - I think you'll want to watch it through

ringle I watched the 20 minute presentation that he did at the Population Matters if that's what you mean.
Still doesn't wash with me.

What I meant ringle is that he seems to think overpopulation is an issue in Africa and Asia, rather than the West. Not that he think that is the only problem overall.

Could you give a reason it doesn't wash? Why you think the planet isn't overpopulated? We have finite land, limber, fresh water and oil. Food production is only keeping vaguely up because of GMO and overuse of pesticides and fertilizers; often requiring oil and leeching into water.

I'm veggie and practically vegan really as we don't eat much dairy (just a disclaimer because I am actually NOT vegan and not trying to be) but just to say - I never eat soya or tofu! It's the first thing that comes up in these kind of discussions and I'm always surprised.

We don't buy meat substitutes so that's soya out really and though I like tofu I never remember to buy it.

We eat... rice. potatoes. pasta. lots of vegetables. lots of curries and mediterranean things I suppose. If I make a chilli it wouldn't occur to me to put soya mince in for example. It's just vegetables.

Is it just me?!

I love my diet

perhaps we're just very dull.

I ordered the Blue Planet poster from the OU which is advertised following the programme.

Came in a plastic wrapper.

This map gives an idea of the falling birth rates since the 70's. The countries where population is growing don't consume the resources that the low birth rate countries do.

brilliantmaps.com/fertility-rates/

I know what you're saying Vitalogy .... still fighting to get out of work but will come back later, hope you're still around this even.

MrsTerry - sorry I was tetchy!

I know that Vitalogy. I think I said it in my posts!

But that doesn't mean the world isn't overpopulated. We have done a lot to reduce birthrate which is great. But the bigger issues are things like China and India copying our rampant consumerism and disregard for the environment. With their massive populations. Really shitty of us to say, "hey we got really rich and dominant by exploiting natural resources and polluting the earth but don't you do it!". But what's the alternative?

No worries ringle I got what you meant!

But what's the alternative? It would take a shift in consciousness for us to change the way we live and consume.

I don’t know how Africa is going to be fixed. Africa seems to have the biggest problems with population.

The UN are quoting figures of 2.4 BILLION by 2050. How on earth (literally) can that number of people be fed, educated and taken care of in one continent? The scientists will say that is when nature will kick in - epidemic or some such.

It was 477 million in 1980. That’s an enormous predicted increase.

Of course this huge growth rate in another continent won’t confine itself there, those individuals will emigrate, legally or probably not legally to the more controlled areas of population growth (where women are educated and have fewer children). It is the world’s problem not just Africa’s problem. Any aid either through foreign aid or charity is a pun prick in the ocean.

I cannot imagine what the world will look like in 2050. It’s bloody scary.

Very interesting maps vitalogy.

I think we would all agree with you that the countries with the fastest growing populations do not consume anything like the same resources as the ones with the declining populations. If I understand rightly, that's because high population growth happens mostly in societies that are very very poor (no doubt with a few exceptions).

Attenborough would recommend schooling and educating all the girls in those populations now -I.e. Making them rich. People like being rich and comfortable. It won't bother us that all the cars are electric driven by wind power (etc, etc). That's the idea anyway.

The alternative (that Attenborough wants to avoid) is to allow the high population growth countries to go through the same slow journey towards population stability that we did.

I think you e touching on a different point JamesBlonde? To do with negative affects on rich countries of many poor people moving there.

I don't think DA is bothered about that.