Sir David Attenborough Delivers Stark Warning In BBC Doc 'Extinction: the Facts' 115
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: At 94 years old and with over 60 years of wildlife documentary-making under his belt, Sir David Attenborough is well-placed to share his thoughts about the future of our planet. And on Sunday, in the new BBC documentary Extinction: The Facts, the legendary presenter had a warning for all humans about the creatures we share the Earth with. "Over the course of my life, I've encountered some of the world's most remarkable species of animals," Attenborough says at the start of the hour-long film. "Only now do I realize just how lucky I've been. Many of these wonders seem set to disappear forever. We're facing a crisis, and one that has consequences for us all. It threatens our ability to feed ourselves, to control our climate -- it even puts us at greater risk of pandemic diseases such as COVID-19."
With the help of a number of academics and experts, Attenborough goes on to explain that extinction is now happening much faster than it used to -- with 570 plant species and 700 animal species disappearing since the year 1500. "Studies suggest that extinction is now happening a hundred times faster than the natural evolutionary rate," Attenborough says. "And it's accelerating." A follow-up to Attenborough's 2019 explainer documentary, Climate Change: The Facts, Extinction: The Facts delves into some of the main causes of extinction and disastrous biodiversity loss today, including habitat destruction (either caused by land use or human-induced climate change or both), unsustainable agricultural and fishing practices, and poaching. The documentary examines a number of species across the world that are at risk, from the two remaining northern white rhinos in Kenya's Ol Pejeta Conservancy to the 25 percent of assessed plant species currently at risk of disappearing forever. Although the documentary is a heavy and often bleak watch, it does end with a message of hope. "One thing we do know, is that if nature is given the chance, it can bounce back," concludes Attenborough.
With the help of a number of academics and experts, Attenborough goes on to explain that extinction is now happening much faster than it used to -- with 570 plant species and 700 animal species disappearing since the year 1500. "Studies suggest that extinction is now happening a hundred times faster than the natural evolutionary rate," Attenborough says. "And it's accelerating." A follow-up to Attenborough's 2019 explainer documentary, Climate Change: The Facts, Extinction: The Facts delves into some of the main causes of extinction and disastrous biodiversity loss today, including habitat destruction (either caused by land use or human-induced climate change or both), unsustainable agricultural and fishing practices, and poaching. The documentary examines a number of species across the world that are at risk, from the two remaining northern white rhinos in Kenya's Ol Pejeta Conservancy to the 25 percent of assessed plant species currently at risk of disappearing forever. Although the documentary is a heavy and often bleak watch, it does end with a message of hope. "One thing we do know, is that if nature is given the chance, it can bounce back," concludes Attenborough.
Cue the denier trolls (Score:1, Insightful)
Perspective (Score:4, Funny)
Just tell the critters to think of us humans as a bunch of pink chatty meteors.
Re: Perspective (Score:1)
If humans had any control over extinction events - mosquitoes woulda been the first little critters to go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While it's quite possible we may inadvertently kill the vast majority of ourselves off, I doubt we'd go outright extinct. Humans are one of the most adaptable animals.
The survivors will live in caves again if they have to. A few thousand survivors is enough to keep the species viable.
But, we may have to kiss civilization goodbye for while. It'll make the Dark Ages look like a party.
Re: Perspective (Score:1)
Proof Amerifags can still copy and paste.
"bounce back" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. Species go extinct all the time, though it's hard to say exactly how many:
https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]
The only thing that makes us a particularly special species as far as our environment is concerned is how much we fuck everything up. The nature he's talking about would be better off if we went extinct. I'm not saying it's an ideal outcome— I think some self-interest here is entirely warranted given the alternative— but ol' Mother Earth would let us pass without even a shrug.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah. Species go extinct all the time, though it's hard to say exactly how many:
https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]
The only thing that makes us a particularly special species as far as our environment is concerned is how much we fuck everything up. The nature he's talking about would be better off if we went extinct.
If he really thinks that he's an idiot. Nature doesn't care whether or not humans are around. Its not 'worse' or 'better' off like some abused spouse. Nature is simply a set of scientific laws and the biological and nonbiological systems which interact with it not some Goddess to worship. I have to laugh at the edgy envirowackos that say we're nothing special then turn around and act like humans are the Dark Lord Sauron. The Earth has been through far worse than humans and it will continue on whether or not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're the worst. I don't understand how stupid you have to be to think "save the planet" doesn't implicitly mean "save us". It's the species' that go extinct, and we're probably going to be one of them. The reason you're so dumb is you recognize species go extinct all the time, and the planet doesn't care. If your objective is to survive, than getting onside with the envirowackos is important, because you really have to be moronic to think there's an alternative to surviving here and that we're not dependa
Re: (Score:2)
Barring some planet killer asteroid or nuclear war or some such, humans will go on living just fine even with the worst of climate change and mass extinction of other species. That is the truth. Humans don't need saving.
I think there is value in preserving species and preventing extinctions caused by us where we can. It's laudable and worthwhile. However, we are the dominant species and reshape the environment to our needs like nothing before us. Our first responsibility is to better the human condition and
Re: (Score:2)
We have been bettering the human condition for as long as Homo Sapiens exists. Look around and see where it led us. If we go on like this humans won't be fine. We will survive, but not after many wars, famines, floods and tornados destroying most of the livable land. So maybe it's time to make this planet habitable again for not only humans but many other species as well. After all, everything in nature is linked and by wiping out species at the rate we do now must lead to catastrophe some day.
Re: (Score:2)
>by wiping out species at the rate we do now must lead to catastrophe some day.
This is the emotional response I was talking about. Again, even at the worst possible scenarios for extinction and climate change, humans will be fine.
I do not like assumptions about what will happen when we extrapolate to the nth degree. Conservation biology has many good reasons based on scientific rigor that are perfectly adequate to convey the issue without such extrapolation and emotion.
People generally care so long as th
Re: (Score:2)
We have been bettering the human condition for as long as Homo Sapiens exists. Look around and see where it led us.
It has led to me sitting inside an air-conditioned home, working at a desk by moving my fingers. My father did not live with air-conditioning until he was nearly 50. His mother's work was washing clothes on a wash-board by hand.
It had led to me sitting here with a full belly after celebrating taco Tuesday, wondering when the last time I felt truly hungry was. My father often went days without food as a boy. His father just thought that was a normal thing.
Wars are now rare compared to the past (I mean,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you forgot a #maga at the end of this rant.
Re: (Score:1)
Nature doesn't care whether or not humans are around.
That's what he said you cherry picking alt-right dumfuck:
Re: (Score:2)
Odd that you only name the least appealing non-human species. But at any rate, what specifically do you mean by "progress"? At this point in human history it seems like most of our problems aren't caused by external forces, but a thousand self-inflicted cuts due to stupid, pig-headed short-sightedness.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point in human history? This point in our history is no different than any other. All of our problems have always been caused by "pig-headed short-sightedness".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
or probably just reduced. When he was born the population of the world was 2bn. Now its nearly 4 times that, think of the ecosystems pushed aside and concreted over just to house us, let alone levelled to provide us with food and water.
Now imagine what its going to be like 94 years in the future, humanity is not intending to stop reproducing in ever increasing numbers (even if the growth rate slows, its still growing).
The only danger to the planet from humans is over quantity. 2bn people were fine, now we h
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much every developed nation in the world has negative growth rates - population growth is basically all coming from immigration from the developing nations.
And population growth in the developing nations typically falls to almost zero within a single generation of getting access to cheap/free (to them) birth control, family planning education (to instill the alien idea that you can choose how many children you have and when), and good enough health care that their children will almost certainly live
Re: (Score:2)
They tried that in India - free birth control for the poor.
What happened is that the poor had loads of kids, then went for the birth control after their reproductive ages was over (for the incentives).
I agree that good family planning (and women's rights that include education and healthcare) are essential, but also old age social care too. The reason many have so many kids is to provide in old age, and that lead to immigration push - send your kids to the West so they can send money back.
Its a terribly uns
No worries (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a climate change denier just appointed as the head of NOAA. He'll take care of it. Nothing to worry folks. Ignore the rising water.
Re: (Score:1)
Ignore the rising water.
But it's Global Warming, right? That means most of the seawater will evaporate, leading to the same (or even dropping!) sea levels -- just with more humidity.
:-Q
Besides, I hate the cold anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
and don't forget to ignore the choking smoke too, and then the oncoming crisis in the food supply chains which will be shortly coming, a bit of famine is healthy after all, goes down well I have heard with a bit of plague - or you can take covid perhaps, then dont forget to ignore the other extreme weather events as and when they hit, increased hurricanes, increased mass flooding events. Be sure to pretend it won't effect you or your loved ones just because you want to pay lower taxes and drive your SUVs. T
Re: (Score:2)
All that counts is the Koch family is okay.
Re: (Score:1)
A better way to combat choking smoke and rampant fires would be better fire management in the West (talking specifically America) and education to the public so that people stop using pyrotechnics for a gender reveal party or who throw cigarettes out a window.
One thing that bothers me about climate change talk is that it is used as an excuse by politicians to do nothing. Fires in the west? Climate change we are doing {something}. Nothing really different from before but there is a new grant for a few more s
Re: (Score:2)
A better way to combat choking smoke and rampant fires would be better fire management in the West (talking specifically America) and education to the public so that people stop using pyrotechnics for a gender reveal party or who throw cigarettes out a window.
Also, we could get a DA that doesn't release people who start forest fires with molotov cocktails. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea... Such idealism you have.
What a world we inhabit.
Re: (Score:2)
Threats are a waste of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Bottom line, climate change is years from now but rent's due at the end of the month. Anything that might possibly upset livelihoods in a country with no safety nets and 70% one paycheck from homelessness is a dead issue.
Again, if you care about this sort of thing you need to change tactics.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
China and the EU pollute at half the rate America does. If you wanted to kill off 300 million people to save the world. There literally is no people better than Americans to remove. Sorry troll, it's just a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
There literally is no people better than Americans to remove.
Bring it on, tough guy. Might want to ask Germany and Japan for some pointers first, though.
Stop living in the past and go back to hating on China in the present, the Orange One compels you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LeBron? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Threats are a waste of time (Score:4, Informative)
Lots of stuff from the Green new deal where taken from Germany where it has worked REALLY well. In increased focus on education, infrastructure, and more modern jobs. That means focusing on wind, solar, power storage, better farming, etc. This has created a lot of jobs and even during the height of the pandemic (which was several months ago now in Germany) the unemployment rates did not go above 5% or so.
Other European countries have adopted the same kinds of politics and it has also helped a lot. In the USA more people are already employed in wind and solar than coal and those jobs also don't get outsourced. We can make the country better and focus on technology which helps more long term. Actually, read through the entire list of proposals for the green new deal. Not the stuff from any news organization but the actual proposals. The house bill is only 14 pages long and can be found here. https://ocasio-cortez.house.go... [house.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it's worked so well. Second highest prices for electricity in the EU, and Germany is still heavily dependent upon coal. Right next door, France, is considerably more "green" with a lot lower CO2 output.
Watch in real time the way power is generated throughout the EU: Electricity Map [electricitymap.org]. You'll see France (nuclear), Iceland (hydro), Norway (hydro), and Sweden (hydro) are the only countries regularly green - and Germany and Denmark, for all their vaunted windmills and solar panels, are almost always bro
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are so convincing (sarcasm). You state that
a) someone does not know what it is, then you:
b) provide no information about what you think it is, instead preferring to
c) tell what you think will be the 'actual' results - which clearly and obviously are not the intended results.
Basically you did the equivelent of "Nuh nuh, drinking that glass of water won't solve your thirst, it will make your head explode."
It may be that the creators of the Green New Deal are wrong. But it would take a creative gen
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the Green New Deal that create jobs and employ people.
The only "green new deal" I'm aware of is a harebrained totalitarian plan to destroy the global economy, being pushed by mental midgets like Alexandria Occasional Cortex.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate change is years from now until it's also due at the end of the month. The thing is it's a gradual process, you do not see it, you do not feel it, so it doesn't seem urgent. And yet you wonder why 3% of the total area of your state has burned to the ground for the second year in a row...
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't threats if you live in California, or Oregon or Washington state, or Australia Melbourne, earlier this year - then all you need to do is look outside your window or step outside your door. They are reality, which many are choosing to ignore.
There is a strong argument that covid itself is tied to human activity as we are more and more encroaching on environments that we have no right to be in, so you can expect more of this not less, and whilst you are willfully ignoring it, you can expect a hell
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, it's not just California, Oregon and Washington state seeing the reality of the threat. Though, admittedly, they're seeing it far more immediately, as my friends in California have informed me over the past few days. They can't be outside, and even inside they're coughing and choking on the air that's thick with soot and ash. And looking outside they say it literally looks like hell.
But clear out here in South Dakota, halfway across the country, the sun is a faint orange disk in the sky that's easi
Re: (Score:1)
Green New Deal. That gets the entire nation the opportunity to experience what we have here in California: highest power rates in the lower 48, and rolling blackouts. Hurray for all!
If you look at the actual facts [electricitymap.org], you'll see that CA with heavy use of gas is actually greener than Germany, which is highly dependent upon coal and biomass. And France, with lots of nuclear, is actually better than either one.
We have a solution right in front of us - nuclear. If you actually cared about CO2 emissions, it's a
lets point fingers at pointing fingers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
oh well (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
"if nature is given the chance" (Score:5, Insightful)
There is the crux of the issue.
Arrogance (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
biodiversity will thrive, as it ALWAYS HAS
Well that disqualifies you from having a valid opinion. Biodiversity has been plummeting. And if you read the summary you'd know it was happening faster and faster.
Re: Arrogance (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Life finds a way (credit to the mathematician in Jurassic Park)
Why not give credit to Michael Crichton for writing the book? Do you get all your life's wisdom from fictional characters?
believing that life as a collective (and especially the human species) cannot adapt and recover from a change that is barely perceptible on their generational timescale seems like arrogance to me.
That's because you don't appreciate how slow evolution is, or that there have been multiple great extinctions already.
Some 10,000 years ago, most of the planet was far too cold and icy to support any of the biodiversity we have today.
And the last time atmospheric CO2 was this high for any length of time, the Earth couldn't support human civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
>Humans will survive, animals with survive, plants with survive, biodiversity will thrive, as it ALWAYS HAS on this violent, harsh, ever-changing planet.
You seem ignorant of the fact that massive extinction events that wipe out upwards of 90% of all life on the planet are a fairly regular event - and it's usually the species at the top of the food chain, like us, that are most likely to be wiped out.
And that many of those extinction events appear to have been caused by rapid temperature changes wiping ou
Re: (Score:2)
Not the industrial revolution, but the agricultural one led to the boom in population (I think).
Today the technological revolution is keeping that going - where we once had fields that produced enough to feed X people, we now cover them with chemicals and machinery and environmental controls to ensure they feed 10X people. Its why tomatoes taste of nothing compared to the ones my mum grows in her garden. its a requirement for the modern age and the population density of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say exactly the opposite. The agricultural revolution has led to a decrease in population. You used to have kids so that you'd have farm hands. Now, you burn a little diesel fuel.
Re: Practical differences (Score:3)
Sigh, I know, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, as much as I love nature documentaries, I can barely even stand to watch them anymore. They show such amazing, fascinating things, and then, inevitably, they talk about how humans are fucking everything up. It's just too depressing.
I don't suppose we can have just a few nature documentaries that focus exclusively on nature instead of preaching to the choir about climate change and all the other ills of humanity? Or is that simply not allowed anymore? Call me crazy, but I'd bet anyone who watches nature documentaries is probably already on-board with saving the planet, so to speak. Sorry, I know it's important, but it's gotten bad enough that I've literally just stopped watching these shows.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's because if we don't do something then there wont be any nature documentaries because there'll be no nature left to document.
The point is that, here's a lovely natural thing, but it's going to go soon unless we act. We can't have nature documentaries without that because otherwise they wouldn't be documentaries, a documentary without the risks to the species is barely more than a fiction to make you feel better and if that's what you're after then Disney+ has a massive fucking library of happy cartoon a
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I've heard a term for shows that ignore the fact that all the natural beauty and wonder they're showing you is facing an imminent existential threat: Nature Porn.
No context, no consequences, just "Here, have a dose of pleasure, and damn the torpedoes!".
Re: (Score:2)
Fish are friends, not food!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you may be reaching for things in a show called "Extinction: The facts" ;-)
A naturist is going to find it hard not to mention the problem though. Pretty much every species on earth (except humans) are in decline. Thus, you show a swarm of ants or a herd of antelope, it's going to be hard not to say "10 years ago this would have been twice the size, but their numbers are in decline". The "nature porn" you seek is getting harder and harder to actually document - if there aren't thousands of lions in
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know... Of course I'm talking about more typical titles, in which you're expecting more of a focus on nature (Planet Earth, Galapagos, Blue Planet, Ant Mountain, etc). Or, at the very least, try to keep the message from being so damned depressing. I really don't like being on the receiving end of a guilt trip at the end of each of those shows. Focus on the positive at least. Honey, not vinegar, and use a light touch.
For people who want the full impact of the environmental message, shows like this a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I highly recommend you check out the BBC's documentaries, nothing else even comes close to their quality. In fact, Attenborough, backed by the BBC, was the pioneer of the whole concept back when TV was in its infancy.
I find it frustrating, but completely understandable, when I hear others talk about how documentaries are slow & uncaptivating. I've tried to branch out from my BBC Docu diet many times, however the alternatives are often complete snorefests.
Daaaymn (Score:2)
That's a huge fine. They could have spent that on R&D of advanced acciendent avoidance features instead. Oh well.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, they could have... or they could have spent it on making the front end look more like an evil scowling face, or improving the "smartphone integration," or trying to figure out a way to cheat up another 50 HP without running afoul of the dreaded Greenies, or something else that will sell cars to Merkins.
BBC in the UK (Score:2, Informative)
Re:BBC in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
There is no left wing Bias in the #BBC - the BBC board of directors is a wholly elected subsidiary of the conservative party.
Re: (Score:2)
Which Momentum supporter voted this as insightful, the BBC themselves admit they have a left wing bias it's in their dna
My favorite example of this of all time (Score:2)
Not that it hurt him in the slightest. It benefited him, he would have looked worse trying to answer the quest
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ben Shapiro: US commentator clashes with BBC's Andrew Neil - BBC News [youtube.com]
Or just search "Ben Shapiro Andrew Neil" on YouTube for commentary & abbreviated clips.
Neil did indeed ask a number of provocatively framed questions, however as an interviewer, that's kind of his job...
UK only (Score:2)
Not sure why it's worth discussing, BBC restricts it to a UK audience only...
99% of all existent species already extinct (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unreadable, that's for sure.
Listen to your dear leader (Score:2)
"These are not problems," he calmly causd outrage (Score:2)
In the 22nd century...
"Here's your Jr. Biomolecular Physicist kit, Bobby. What animal will you make today?"
"Probably a dodo. That's a classic."
"Cool. Well, I'm off to work!"
"Have fun running that team of robots recycling that old garbage dump! 'Tell me if you find Jimmy Hoffa!' ha ha"
All under an assumption. (Score:2)
That assumption being that things would continue as they are. Highly unlikely under a centuries long prediction.
Most of the world doesn't care (Score:1)
I had a job where I worked with people that knew about all this stuff. Compared to the rest of the world North America is a great big green spot. The rest of the world looks like a desert. Just a bit of green here and there. Same with animals. North America has all kinds of laws that have protected them for almost 100 years. Most of the rest of the world they don't care. So it's not the US or England, it's the rest of the world that needs to wake up.
For some reason I read... (Score:2)
BBC: Extinction of the facts.
And I found the misread amusingly appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Put him on a watch list (Score:5, Informative)
Well, that is quite a dastardly lie. How about you read his Wikipedia page which is quite interesting, even overwhelming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
He has been director of programs, wrote, produced and presented, and has won a tremendous number of awards. So he created the partnership, directed the program, wrote the script, interviewed scientists, directed the filming, pioneered new filming techniques to get the shots he wanted, and THEN narrated it all.
He's got 32 honorary degrees and many titles including being knighted. It's like saying the men who first walked the Moon were just some shaggy cropduster types paid to get their feet dusty. Yeah, those shenanigans... On the MOON.
Re: (Score:3)
>People forget that we've been hearing dial cranked to 11 stories for decades and the sky still hasn't fallen.
Or you haven't been paying enough attention to notice that, for all those decades scientists have also been warning that the consequences of our actions will take centuries to manifest. The planet is *huge*, which introduces a lot of lag into its response. Slightly upsetting the energy balance only causes very slow changes, but by the time they start becoming big changes it's far to late for an