Skip to content

David Attenborough – Humans are plague on Earth

March 26, 2019

By Paul Homewood


h/t Dan Donnachie


When we see David Attenborough spouting off about climate change, it is worth remembering what his real agenda is.

From the Telegraph in 2013:


The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the world’s resources.

He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; 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,” he told the Radio Times.

Sir David, who is a patron of the Population Matters, has spoken out before about the “frightening explosion in human numbers” and the need for investment in sex education and other voluntary means of limiting population in developing countries.

“We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that’s what’s happening. Too many people there. They can’t support themselves — and it’s not an inhuman thing to say. It’s the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a coordinated view about the planet it’s going to get worse and worse.”

  1. Malcolm Bell permalink
    March 26, 2019 5:35 pm

    Without reservation I am on Sir David’s side regarding population, I have neen beating that drum since I was an undergraduate fifty years ago.

    People bleat on about global warming, plastic waste and wild life extinction. If we had a smaller population these would not be problems. The future due to population growth looks dreadful.

    I am deeply grateful that at last, and fufty years too late, we are at last starting to take notice.

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      March 26, 2019 5:54 pm

      Have you bothered to check the increase in global food production? You sound as stupid as Attenborough.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        March 26, 2019 5:59 pm


      • quaesoveritas permalink
        March 27, 2019 12:28 pm

        But what damage is the unsustainable increase in food production doing to the planet?

    • rapscallion permalink
      March 26, 2019 6:01 pm

      You can lead by example then, and remove yourself from human existence. If you won’t do it to yourself, don’t foist it on others!

    • HotScot permalink
      March 26, 2019 7:33 pm

      Birth rates in the western world are falling, some below sustainable levels, some alarmingly, quite naturally.

      If you are happy to conduct eugenics, kindly start with your own family and have your children and their children sterilised at birth.

      But don’t expect me or any other civilised human being to do so.

    • March 26, 2019 8:42 pm

      Are you stupid because you are a Malthusian, or are you a Malthusian because you’re so stupid? At least Attaboy has the excuse of age.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        March 27, 2019 9:49 am

        The main control of Population growth is Improved living standards and industrialisation.
        Which brings more energy, more & better food, cleaner water, better medicine, shorter working hours and better life expectency and removes the dendency on large families.
        In the last 40 odd years the Rate of growth has droped from 2.1% down to 1.1%.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 27, 2019 10:12 am

      And which people do you consider to be less important other species?

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        March 27, 2019 12:30 pm

        The human species is of no more importance than any other species.

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      March 27, 2019 12:25 pm

      I agree entirely with you (and Attenborough) on that.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      March 27, 2019 4:18 pm

      Population is not a problem. We could give every person living one-quarter acre in Australia and have the whole of the rest of the planet for whatever else we need. Almost 10 years ago a report (on which I blogged at the time but have regrettablly lost the links) put the case that Sudan only needed technology and an end to the disruption of warlords to become capable of feeding the whole of sub-Saharan Africa.

      I would also repeat a longstanding cliché that while drought is climatological, famine is always political. We have the land and the farming methods to feed a world population considerably greater than the 10.5 billion which the UN estimates will be the peak — peak, note — by mid-century. Thereafter it is projected that population will start to decline post 2100 to the extent, according some projections (computer models, no doubt!), that by 2200 some regions will become unviable due to lack of population.

      The solution to a population “problem”, assuming there is such a thing, is to alleviate poverty worldwide. Nothing in history has been more reliable at lowering birth-rate than increased wealth. The dirigisme of the obsessive Malthusians has never worked. Malthus got it wrong and his acolytes have got it wrong ever since.

  2. March 26, 2019 6:06 pm

    Does nobody listen to the explanations of the late Hans Rosling. He is to be found on You tube. He shows, convincingly to me, that population growth is about to peter out and give way to population decline. Let’s deal with the plastic etc but there’s no need for a cull of humanity. It’s happening anyway,

    • March 27, 2019 9:34 am

      High birth rates and poverty are closely related. Use of so-called fossil fuels remains the most effective route to boosting wealth – join the dots.

      Attenborough travels more than most so he can’t complain about others doing so.

  3. saparonia permalink
    March 26, 2019 6:26 pm

    Attenborough can be first, as he is playing God.

    Yes the population still contains all the coal miners, steel workers, textile producers, fishermen, turners and ship builders that ‘they’ don’t need any more because our Industry is dead.
    Monsanto poison is worse than anything we good people have done, the way our animals are raised is diabolical. We are poisoned by things we can’t see.

    Food shortages will be because crops are failing due to bad weather as the Sun turns off into Super Grand Solar Minimum. None of this is because of the climate getting warmer. Our governments will save themselves before they start to store supplies.

    • tom0mason permalink
      March 26, 2019 9:28 pm

      The world does NOT have “Food shortages”. There is more than enough food in the world.
      The only problem we have is a lot of poorly managed and inefficient food distribution networks.

      • March 27, 2019 11:45 am

        There is a shortage of capitalism and free market economies. There is a shortage of personal liberty and instead an abundance of elitist dictatorships.

  4. Stonyground permalink
    March 26, 2019 6:33 pm

    The one thing that prophets of doom have in common is that they are always wrong.

    • Lezz permalink
      March 26, 2019 6:43 pm

      Imagine if everyone in the world had a carbon footprint the size of Mr. Attenborough’s.

  5. bluecat57 permalink
    March 26, 2019 6:38 pm

    Please start by removing yourself from MY planet.

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      March 27, 2019 12:21 pm

      He doesn’t have to do that, he merely has to produce no children.
      Its not your planet,
      It belongs to every species on the globe.

  6. Broadlands permalink
    March 26, 2019 7:00 pm

    Since it was first pointed out and discussed by Newell & Marcus in 1983, “Carbon Dioxide and People”, the correlation between global population and atmospheric CO2 is almost perfect. The proximate cause is the sum total of human activities, not, of course, “people”. as they mention, the solution is the dilemma. Slowing the growth rate makes sense environmentally if not economically. Eliminating carbon and burying billions of tons of CO2 does not, regardless of the growth in population. it is doubtful that Sir David even knows about what CO2 mitigation represents in terms of size and scope. Neither do the politicians who spend their time at climate conferences discussing “sustainability”.

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      March 26, 2019 7:55 pm

      CO2 does not need to be mitigated, it is plant food. Humans eat plants and so do the animals that humans eat. Co2 is good, environmentalists are bad (mostly) hehe.

  7. Graeme No.3 permalink
    March 26, 2019 7:01 pm

    I remember when I was an undergraduate Paul Ehrlich came to us and spoke about The Population Bomb. He was adamant that
    The Earth couldn’t sustain a population of 2.5 billion.
    Oil would run out in the 1970’s.
    Famine would devastate the USA, so cannibals would roam the mid west etc.
    He’s still at it, over 50 years later although he has added Climate Change to the list of caused by humans.

  8. March 26, 2019 7:22 pm

    Does anyone (apart from Homewood) bother to find out the facts? The UN have recently published detailed figures country by country. In 1960 the women of the world were averaging 4.98 births. By 2016 this was reduced to 2.44 children per woman. The world is approaching a plateau of population numbers and as from 2040/50, assuming prosperity continues to spread as it has done since 1945, the world population will begin to decline, quite sharply in some areas, less so in others. As China stands, and if her fertility rates remain stable, her population will drop 28% by 2100, and Japan even more to a 34% reduction. These are UN figures available on the web. Is anybody able to read?
    As for food production, the latest detailed FAO UN figures showed that from 1961 to 2012 the yield of world wheat production had no less than quadrupled. Rice and coarse grains had seen a tripling of yield. China wheat yield during the same period has increased more than fivefold. These are published FAO stats. Can anyone read?
    Scientists had warned us in 2011 that because of climate change Kenyan tea production would be drastically reduced. FAO stats show that Kenyan tea production had more that quadrupled between 1960 and 2012. So much for the useless ‘scientists.’
    Professor Ranga Myeni of Boston University, following intense satellite research, published a paper in 2013 entitled How Much did the Earth Green over the Past 30 years. The results were
    1. Increase in area of green global vegetation … 31%
    2. This greening translates to a 14% increase in gross productivity
    3. This greening is seen in all vegetation results
    Professor Myeni published this data in Nature Climate Change April 2016 when he also announced that 70% of the greening was a result of increased CO2 over the 33-year period investigated.
    And another plus: In May 2017 Nature Ecology & Evolution a paper described how the continent of Africa had become 36% greener, but at the same time 11% less green due to cutting down of wood for heat and cooking.
    The circumstances of the world are steadily improving. There is a balance of food and people worldwide. The current pr0portion of CO2 in the atmosphere of .04% is too low and ideally, we should aim to increase this to at least 1%.
    David Attenborough is a complete prat and BBC’s useful idiot.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      March 27, 2019 12:48 pm


  9. Broadlands permalink
    March 26, 2019 7:25 pm

    ” It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food..” Sir David seems to have forgotten, overlooked? that those places to grow food will be needed for solar panel and wind turbine “farms”, not to mention biofuels and all those trees that will be needed to sequester carbon. It is these that will push people out of the way.

    • Colin Brooks permalink
      March 26, 2019 7:58 pm

      We do not need solar panels or wind turbines and we do not need biofuels, what we need is oil and the globe is awash with the stuff.

      • Charles Wardrop permalink
        March 26, 2019 10:17 pm

        Well said, but we had better not waste it, whatever that means!

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 27, 2019 10:14 am

      And yet at every turn the Greens to prevent agriculture from using as little land as possible. They block GMOs, targeted pesticides and promote organic farming. It’s almost as if they care more about us using their solutions than solving the problems…

  10. March 26, 2019 8:07 pm

    I got rid of my David Attenborough videos “Planet Earth” and “The Life of Birds.” In the former, commentators gloat that human breast milk now contains toxins! What an a-hole, Attenborough is, and I rarely use profanity in my comments. I am also old enough to remember the vile Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb” and how it FAILED TO EXPLODE! Ehrlich continues to mislead people, despite the falseness of his claims. I’m happy to say that my husband and I were not misled and are the parents of six children. People today should have kids–the US and Europe are at below replacement level!

    • March 27, 2019 11:49 am

      I was just about to comment of Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb”. It came out in 1968 when I was a grad student in botany at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We read it. NONE of it has happened.

      Actually you could put the world’s population in an area the size of Texas (standing). These folks who bleat about the need to reduce the world’s population have the beginnings of that reduction in their own control. Amazingly, they never exercise that option.

  11. BLACK PEARL permalink
    March 26, 2019 9:25 pm

    Well according to EU we can just import population

  12. Mack permalink
    March 26, 2019 10:54 pm

    It is a matter of fact, historically, that the provision of cheap and reliable energy and the attendant benefits of mechanisation, improved health care, sanitation and education, do more to curtail population growth in the developing world than any other stratagem known to man, bar socialism and genocide of course! Wealthier societies, who reap the benefits of technological advancement, also tend to take better care of their natural environments. Well, they did do until they decided to go down the windmill, solar panel, biofuel and electric battery route to assuage their climate guilt. However, when you are dirt poor, energy deficient and the daily choice is either feeding your necessarily large family or trashing the environment, just to get by, one might think that Attenborough would be a great fan of high energy, low impact, fossil fuels to bring about the population transformation he so desires? If, in his new documentary, he lauds wind, solar and battery power as the answer to the ‘non problem’ of global warming we will know that he is a fraud in relation to his claims of wanting to protect the natural environment of planet earth.

  13. March 27, 2019 8:11 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    The only plague is from unfeeling authotarian eugenicist elites who that think it’s perfectly fine to brainwash children. These people are sick.

  14. Malcolm Bell permalink
    March 27, 2019 8:48 am

    Thank you to those who responded to my comment. You have called me “stupid”, a “eugenicist”, suggested I am ignorant of world food production and of population growth patterns.

    I was careful not to suggest any solution, eugenic or otherwise, I avoided reference directly to food production. I did make clear my concern that reported global weather changes may not be as presented.

    The simple fact is that the world population has grown in the order of three times in my life and the world is not a better place for any life forms as a consequence. For most life is is a degrading quality experience and if we
    were still at 2.5 billion how wonderful it could have become.

    Maybe we can squeeze in another couple of billion or so, and feed most of them more or less adequately, but why would we choose that?

    How to avoid it? I don’t have a clue but we can work it out.

    • March 27, 2019 12:10 pm

      Where you have leftists running the show, life for people is degraded . I give you San Francisco, CA; Flint, MI; California as a whole, etc. Rather than a lack of resources, we have an overabundance of corruption.

      Actually, things get cleaner when the living standards rise. Seems I remember that the elitists of the EU were preventing Africans from using their own coal to generate power causing a lot of deaths. But, hey, they are just Africans and only important when they can be used a poster children for the left.

      I certainly don’t understand the mindset (although I recognize the source) of the elitist left and don’t wish to join it. However, I have observed that the common thread is the need to be miserable. They must always have some crisis or cause to hand-wring and to moan about. When we do not, they come unglued. In their unhappy world, if you can find ONE thing in the whole planet which, in their unhappy minds, is out of kilter, we must have a global crisis and for some unknown reason, I am required to join in.

      To these professional hand-wringers I say: grow up. You are looking for a utopia which cannot exist in this life. As my wise Problems of Democracy teacher in high school said (in 1962–prior to Mr. Ehrlich and his nonsense): “all utopias fail because they do not take human nature into account and when it comes into play, you have to jail and kill a lot of people.” History is replete with validations of her statement: Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cuba, Pol Pot’s Cambodia in the 20th century and Venezuela today.

    • March 28, 2019 4:58 pm

      Hi Malcolm, yes I noticed that you were being trolled
      is people just making nasty comments to wind you up.
      That is very unusual here, and since you seem new here , I wonder if these new commenters also followed you here.
      The discussion is usually very civilised here, but most of us have grown very thick skins after visiting alarmist blogs.

      • March 28, 2019 4:59 pm

        oops autocorrect
        I wrote : “i.e. people just making”

  15. Alex Garden permalink
    March 27, 2019 10:31 am

    I sympathise to a significant extent with Malcolm Bell whose defence of what he wrote originally is quite reasonable . He certainly doesn’t deserve some of the diatribes above. Yet I share others’ dismay at someone like Attenborough whose skills at describing wildlife are being used for ignorant propaganda purposes and are corrupting the minds of our young with fear.

  16. Max Sawyer permalink
    March 27, 2019 1:14 pm

    David Attenborough is absolutely right. The problem resides in patriarchal societies (religion-based or otherwise) where women are regarded as second-class citizens whose main function is to produce children. Solution – educate women. All the evidence is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they have.

  17. Louise Rietveld permalink
    March 27, 2019 3:06 pm

    As someone who lives in Canada, I realize that some other areas may have overpopulation. However with a population of about 37 million we are still sparsely populated and produce much food for export.

  18. March 27, 2019 3:48 pm

    David Attenborough is a doomster dunce, Captain General of the Quivering Order of Chicken Little & the 21st century equivalent of Paul Ehrlich, the dire doomster bug professor who has never made a correct prediction his entire life.

    Julian L. Simon took money off Ehrlich in a bet on resources, 1980 – 1990.
    A brilliant economist, Simon researched the data on all the topics Attenborough wails about:
    Population, food, energy, pollution, resources, land, recycling, technology, productivity, species loss, Malthusianism, immigration, The UN Club Of Rome Limits To Growth, & more.
    His 1998 book, The Ultimate Resource 2 concludes that human population growth is an engine which drives improvements in farming & all technologies & that human progress can continue indefinitely.

    The Ultimate resource is human ingenuity, which dumb doomsters never factor into their waking nightmares.

    700+ pages, well referenced & indexed, this book is a joy to read, & I never thought I’d be writing that about an economics book.

    John Doran.

  19. March 27, 2019 6:49 pm

    I remember reading the Brit equivalent of Limits To Growth in 1972, when I was 19:
    A Blueprint For Survival. Originally a chapter of the Ecologist Magazine, it was republished as a Penguin Special.

    Authored by the 5 editors of The Ecologist, it contained a Statement of Support from 35 worthies, most of whom had bunches of letters after their names:
    Dr. A. Watson, D.Sc., PhD., F.R.S.E.; Dr. John A. Loraine, D.Sc., M.B., PhD., F.R.C.P.End.; & Prof. Don Arthur, M.Sc., PhD., D.Sc., F.I.Biol., to name just three.

    Scientifically, it was a complete pile of pooh.
    Population growth & resource depletion were both presented as exponential curves.
    All metals bar chromium & iron were going to run out by 2020.
    World population has doubled: 3.6 to 7.2 billion with, thus far, rather little evidence of cannibalism in the Home Counties.

    The highly qualified bunch of eejits advocated the Bankster’s wet dream: complete deindustrialisation & an agrarian future, after vast depopulation.
    The refrain, after a half-century of lies, stupidity & exaggerations, has not changed.
    The mad plotters condemned out of their own mouths:
    Click on Quotes.

    John Doran.

  20. john cooknell permalink
    March 28, 2019 4:57 pm

    In roughly 100 years the world population increased from 1.5 billion to 7 billion, each of these human beings excreted large amounts of organic waste, methane, CO2 etc. Resources used to feed and house this population increased in line with the rise in numbers.

    The planet has not noticed!

  21. March 28, 2019 5:04 pm

    Yesterday 4:30pm Radio4 Attenborough’s producer was on
    ..telling us about the new WWF sponsored Attenborough progs on Netflix
    ‘Did you move so you could be more campaigning ?’
    “Oh no it’s not any different from what we did on the BBC”

  22. Charles Wardrop permalink
    March 28, 2019 6:51 pm

    WWF and the like, “environmental charities,” cannot be relied upon for any objectivity in their policies or statements.
    They are pressire groups, not in receipt of taxpayers’ money, I hope.

  23. Mitchell Taylor permalink
    March 29, 2019 3:19 pm

    In 2018, we added about 81 million new people to the earth. The UN says we will be at about 10 billion by 2050, and they also say that for everyone to have a decent diet, we will all have become vegan. Most of the new people are not coming from nations with sound economies, good health care, and modern efficient farming methods; they are coming from poor over-populated countries. The reason is simple, when you can’t depend on social assistance to feed your family you need a large family to mitigate the risk to all family members. Africa has been unable to feed itself since about 1970. The demographic transition (zero population growth) has played out as expected in western countries with healthy economies. The demographic transition has not occurred as expected in poor countries. Neither Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development) nor the Millennium Ecosystem Report mentions population growth as a problem, or makes any recommendations on balancing human numbers with ecosystem services. The socialist goal of equity will never be realized by raising third world nations to the same standard of living as developed nations, and everyone knows it. So the new plan is to reduce the standard of living in developed countries, open the borders, and meet somewhere in the middle. What better way to slow down the developed world than to handicap them with self-imposed artificially expensive energy. The “climate crisis” is at the heart of every socialist initiative even though the accepted data clearly shows there is no climate crisis, and the climate models that tell us to expect a climate crisis run hot and have proven unreliable in almost every respect. The climate narrative is false; but for those with socialist values the narrative is essential to generate political support to cripple western economies and bring us all closer together.

    Across cultures, political views, and economic circumstances; there is no appetite for population regulation anywhere. A rational species would identify the regional limits to human numbers that would sustain a given standard of living indefinitely; and regulate its numbers correspondingly. Homo sapiens are not an entirely rational species. So we will increase in numbers until we experience density effects, with all of the social chaos and hardship that brings. As Darwin noted, there are limits to all populations and eventually more individuals are produced than can be sustained. This is the raw material for evolution. Perhaps one day we will come to deserve the species name we have given ourselves. It won’t be a happy journey to get there though.

    • sixlittlerabbits permalink
      March 29, 2019 3:50 pm

      It’s very amusing–and naive–that you consider the New World Order UN a reliable resource on future growth.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: