Attenborough says humans a 'plague on earth'

Last updated 05:00 26/01/2013
Sir David Attenborough
NATURALIST: Sir David Attenborough

Relevant offers

TV & Radio

Lawyer's daughter lands TV role Review: D-Day Lost Films Fifty years of Dr Who in NZ The TV Guide's top 5 picks of the week Diego Klattenhoff returns in The Blacklist Live blog: The Amazing Race Australia vs New Zealand Restructure at Maori TV Molly's mum learns her lessons TV series shows Christchurch as it is New Yorker Kira Kazantsev crowned Miss America

Every now and then, Britain's best-loved naturalist takes a break from spying on the bedroom behaviour of birds of paradise to sound off about humans' impact on the environment. When he does, it almost always makes headlines - not only because he's Sir David Attenborough, but because he calls it as he sees it.

In October, he took Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and America at large to task for their failure to face up to climate change. That sentiment may have ruffled a few feathers stateside but is relatively uncontroversial in his home country. This time, in an interview with the British TV-listings magazine Radio Times, he stepped in it a little deeper.

"We are a plague on the Earth," Attenborough said of humanity as a whole, in a quote promptly picked up by London's Times and Telegraph and plastered on the Drudge Report. "It's coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so." The full interview is available only in print, but the Independent cribbed from it liberally enough to give you the gist. "It's not just climate change," Attenborough went on. "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."

Now insulting the entire human race isn't generally the best way to win friends and influence people. And Attenborough's remarks drew a predictable gnashing of teeth from online commenters and cranks like the National Review's Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at something called the Centre on Human Exceptionalism. Smith accused Attenborough of "demonstrating my thesis that environmentalism is growing progressively anti-human."

But Smith is exactly wrong. If anything, environmentalism has grown progressively pro-human since the 1960s and '70s, when books like Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" spooked a generation of activists into advocating various desperate population-control measures. Such sentiments are so rare in the environmental movement these days that it made national news in 2011 when one lonely group dared broach even the mild suggestion that voluntary birth control could be good for the planet.

These days the most effective environmental arguments seem to be those that tie climate change to deadly extreme-weather events like Hurricane Sandy. Complex and slippery as those associations may be, they work because they tap into people's strongest instinct: self-preservation. Modern environmentalists have fully internalized the lesson that you don't get very far by telling people that their very existence is the problem.

Ad Feedback

So why would Attenborough say such a thing? Because, at 86, he's an unreconstructed member of the old guard. Because he's a knight and a national treasure and there's no one to tell him he can't. But more importantly, because his life's work has given him a fundamentally different lens on humanity. As a naturalist and nature-show host, his livelihood is intertwined not with the stock market or the gross domestic product, but with the fortunes of the world's non-human species, from insects to penguins to lemurs. And when you look at it purely from their vantage point, there is no denying that humans have made quite a mess of the land, not to mention the sea.

Fortunately, the problem isn't as straightforward as Attenborough's excerpted quotes make it out to be. Yes, there are a lot of people on Earth, but a steady easing of population growth rates is expected in the coming decades even in the absence of population-control policies. And yes, we could eventually be in danger of running out of space to grow the food needed to feed everyone, but that's as much a function of Western consumption habits as sheer numbers. In short, what we need in the world is not necessarily fewer people, but a lighter environmental footprint per person. A man who can sneak up on a lyrebird ought to know something about the possibility of treading lightly.

- Washington Post

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content