David Attenborough: Don't Have Large Families

[Youssuf Ramadan]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/david-attenbor ... ml#88JGO0o

David Attenborough: Don't Have Large Families

Human beings have stopped evolving and should be persuaded not to have large families, Sir David Attenborough has said.
The TV naturalist, 87, said he was not optimistic about the future and "things are going to get worse".
He said he did not believe humans would become extinct, but told the Radio Times: "I think that we've stopped evolving.
"Because if natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, is the main mechanism of evolution - there may be other things, but it does look as though that's the case - then we've stopped natural selection.
"We stopped natural selection as soon as we started being able to rear 95% - 99% of our babies that are born.
"We are the only species to have put a halt to natural selection, of its own free will, as it were."
The broadcaster said of the future: "I don't think we are going to become extinct.
"We're very clever and extremely resourceful - and we will find ways of preserving ourselves, of that I'm sure. But whether our lives will be as rich as they are now is another question."
Speaking about the one-child policy in China, Sir David said: "It's the degree to which it has been enforced which is terrible, and there's no question it's produced all kinds of personal tragedies. There's no question about that.
"On the other hand, the Chinese themselves recognise that had they not done so there would be several million more mouths in the world today than there are now.
"If you were able to persuade people that it is irresponsible to have large families in this day and age, and if material wealth and material conditions are such that people value their materialistic life and don't suffer as a consequence, then that's all to the good."
The broadcaster, who is presenting Rise Of Animals, a two-part documentary on the ascent of man on BBC2, had a pacemaker fitted in June, but described the operation as "no big deal".
"When you're in your 80s, your heart gives you a funny five minutes every now and again and they won't insure you unless you have a cardiologist to say that you can go on a long-haul flight. So I had to have the pacemaker," he said.
The wildlife star, who previously had a knee replaced, said of the possibility of retiring: "I don't think so. If you've got a motor car and its brakes fail, and you have the capacity to replace them, you replace them. And we have the capacity to replace knees, which is wonderful."

Seems like a reasonable idea, to halt population growth.... How to effectively do this ethically is an obvious issue....

[Johan]

.I think he's got the right idea. But I think he's wrong about the halting evolution business. And I think its kind d of ironic that he's pointing his finger at people having babies in one breath and talking about how wonderful it is that he has a pacemaker and a new knee in the next.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm fully for limiting reproduction. But making it a reality? More or less impossible

It tends to be under-developed countries and populations that reproduce more than those that have advanced technologically, and also tends to be an issue for poorer sections of society than rich (evidenced in a microcosm in my own city nere in England) so really we need to get over the whole stigma of not recognizing demographic variations and start attacking the issue head on.

But again, how? Not something I could answer.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

First we kill all the lawyers.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

.I think he's got the right idea. But I think he's wrong about the halting evolution business.

I don't know.  I guess his point is that because we protect the weakest (in theory, depending where we live) then any advantages would not necessarily be advantages, thus negating 'evolution'.  

As an aside, I'm trying to imagine what an evolutionary advantage would look like in our societies.  I guess, (theoretically) that if and when we finally exhaust all the antibiotics and disease becomes difficult to defend ourselves again, then an innate propensity to resist disease would be one example, just like it would have been before the rise of medicine....  :-k

And I think its kind of ironic that he's pointing his finger at people having babies in one breath and talking about how wonderful it is that he has a pacemaker and a new knee in the next.

Because of the rising proportion of older people in the population as a whole?   Maybe.  

Anyone remember Logan's Run?  

[LikelyToBreak]

AllPurposeAtheist has a good idea:  =D>  

First we kill all the lawyers.

Don't know how likely it is to be implemented though.  

I tried to do my part and only had one.  Though, I sometimes think it was one too many.  We should stop giving tax advantages to those who have a bunch of kids.  It would be a start in trying to change people's minds on having a herd of children.  One thing they did here in California, was to quit giving welfare payment hikes to those already on welfare, who had more kids.  Big stink about it.  

I remember one nineteen year-old complaining about it.  She first went on welfare at sixteen when she was pregnant with her first, she had three by the time she was nineteen.   Daddy would come "visit" the kids and by being in the same room with him, she got knocked up.  She was complaining that when she had another kid, the state wouldn't give her more money.  Daddy never gave her any money, just sperm.  Oh well, sluts are entitled to tax money.  At least when Daddy is a deadbeat.

[Jmpty]

AllPurposeAtheist has a good idea:  =D>  

First we kill all the lawyers.

Don't know how likely it is to be implemented though.  

I tried to do my part and only had one.  Though, I sometimes think it was one too many.  We should stop giving tax advantages to those who have a bunch of kids.  It would be a start in trying to change people's minds on having a herd of children.  One thing they did here in California, was to quit giving welfare payment hikes to those already on welfare, who had more kids.  Big stink about it.  

I remember one nineteen year-old complaining about it.  She first went on welfare at sixteen when she was pregnant with her first, she had three by the time she was nineteen.   Daddy would come "visit" the kids and by being in the same room with him, she got knocked up.  She was complaining that when she had another kid, the state wouldn't give her more money.  Daddy never gave her any money, just sperm.  Oh well, sluts are entitled to tax money.  At least when Daddy is a deadbeat.

It's a good thing that you're not judgmental. at all. That would be bad.

[LikelyToBreak]

Jmpty wrote:

It's a good thing that you're not judgmental. at all. That would be bad.

I'm not judgmental because I'm a Libra.  

[Johan]

.I think he's got the right idea. But I think he's wrong about the halting evolution business.

I don't know.  I guess his point is that because we protect the weakest (in theory, depending where we live) then any advantages would not necessarily be advantages, thus negating 'evolution'.  

But when you look at how long we've been protecting the weakest and then you look at how long evolution actually takes, you realize that less than a millisecond has ticked off the evolutionary clock since people have understood what evolution really is.

I understand why someone would look at the advent of modern medicine and modern social constructs and deduce that things are so different now that we have stopped natural selection in humans and thus stopped evolution. And to that I say check back with me in 250,000 years and we'll see if you're right. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put money on it.

And I think its kind of ironic that he's pointing his finger at people having babies in one breath and talking about how wonderful it is that he has a pacemaker and a new knee in the next.

Because of the rising proportion of older people in the population as a whole?   Maybe.  

Well yeah in a round about way. If we still had a life expectancy of 35 like we used to, people having large families wouldn't be a problem. So when some 80 year old starts flapping his pie hole about how people need to stop making so many babies and then talks about how awesome it is that he's still alive because of all the electronic do dads he's been implanted with, it comes across as being a little douchy to me.

[Colanth]

I used to have a little respect for Attenborough.  Could we write this off to senility?

[Mister Agenda]

We haven't stopped evolving by any stretch of the imagination. I hear 30% of humans are being born without wisdom teeth these days, for instance. I never had them, myself. Body hair seems to be in decline as well, and not just because it's become fashionable to shave it off in the USA and parts of Europe: what you don't use, you lose. There are signs of resistance to HIV and heart disease. There are clearly reproductive pressures against diabetes. A 1% difference in reproductive success can result in a trait becoming common or being wiped out over generations.

People aren't going to stop having large families for the sake of the planet...people who don't want large families might say it's for the sake of the planet, though. Economics drives family size. When you're depending on children to be your farm hands and social security, you want at least half-a-dozen or so. When you work in the city and social security is your social security, children become a luxury instead of an asset.

We're probably going to add another 2-3 billion to the planet's load, but our population will probably not double again. According to UN estimates, it will probably peak at between 9 and 10 billion around 2050 and start to decline very slowly after that.

[Plu]

But when you look at how long we've been protecting the weakest and then you look at how long evolution actually takes, you realize that less than a millisecond has ticked off the evolutionary clock since people have understood what evolution really is.

From what I've heard, evolution can go in bursts, and those bursts can take as little as a few generations to have a major effect. I wouldn't be so quick as to discount anything based on time alone.

[ParaGoomba Slayer]

Isn't the cure to poverty simply to not have (any) kids? Or to be better educated so you'll have a better job and have less kids because smarter people tend to have less kids?

If you're poor the last thing you need is a brood of kids.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

We haven't stopped evolving by any stretch of the imagination. I hear 30% of humans are being born without wisdom teeth these days, for instance. I never had them, myself. Body hair seems to be in decline as well, and not just because it's become fashionable to shave it off in the USA and parts of Europe: what you don't use, you lose.

I guess it depends on the definition of evolution.  I don't see lack of wisdom teeth or body hair being a survival advantage.  I can see lack of body hair feeding into sexual selection, bearing in mind cultural fads, but not much more than that.  Things are changing over time and presumably always will.

There are signs of resistance to HIV and heart disease. There are clearly reproductive pressures against diabetes. A 1% difference in reproductive success can result in a trait becoming common or being wiped out over generations.

Yes, good point.  I'm not sure how much this would affect the ability to reproduce, given our medical advances.  I'd say the vast majority would be reach reproductive age, even if their life spans were shorter.  I'm not sure of the size of the impact on the overall population.

[mykcob4]

I am about the biggest Sir David Attenborough fan there is. Did you know he invented sports television?
He explains evolution so easily it isn't even funny.
His special on the "Bird People" of Easter Island explained fully how and why those statues are there.
I can't think of a finer human being that ever existed.
His rise in the BBC was a complete accident. He was completely overshadowed by his famous actor brother Sir Richard Attenborough.
He has confirmed my atheism with his knowledge that if ever I had any question it was completely erased by his teaching of natural science.