Today, we have a corking example of the brazen articulation of the BBC green creed through one of their self-appointed “experts” and prophets. Step forward the totally self-regarding (see here) wildlife programme presenter Chris Packham who is telling us solemnly from his corporation eyrie that we must stop breeding, tax those who do not, buy local food, and Generally See The Error of Our Ways. Packham, in fact, is an interesting specimen of the BBC greenie zealot breed. This is how he describes himself on his website:
A precocious young scientist, swat and nerd in training he studied Kestrels, Shrews and Badgers in his teens and undergraduate days at the Zoology department of Southampton University. He also embraced Punk Rock and played in a band and the DIY ethos and determination to never take ‘no’ for an answer are forcefully retained. Post graduation and a cancelled PhD, (the Badgers were getting a bit much), he began taking still photographs and trained as a wildlife film cameraman.
Well slap my thighs. And with those impeccable credentials in green activism, he’s now taken on a new role at the head of the BBC green crusade. His main beef is that we are breeding too fast, and that leads this “cancelled PhD” expert to a call for sweeping new taxes to encourage those who, exactly as under Chinese state fascism, restrict themselves to one child. His message in morals and life management is coupled with an equally solemn intonation that we must buy and cook ourselves local food (and presumably therefore forget the Africans who rely on food exports to avoid starvation). It’s clear that in Mr Packham’s books, those who don’t are plebeian oiks who don’t know what is good for them.
Mr Packham’s message – passed from on high via the official BBC mouthpiece, the Radio Times – is liberally larded with the usual offical greenie-line claptrap. he says:
‘There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population.’
I note, however, that Mr Packham’s homily on the evils of mankind and its nasty proclivity to breed, does not mention a BBC unmentionable word – immigration. Actually, Britain’s headlong hurtling towards a population of 70m+ is being caused almost entirely by largely uncontrolled immigration, a tide that the government is powerless to stop because of their worship of the EU.
And beautifully crafted as it may seem (in BBC green propaganda terms), on close inspection, I think Mr Packham’s message may actually be strangely off-message. Tell me if I’m wrong, but I think there is a blatant racist slant in what he saying. Those who are breeding most in the UK are the so-called ethnic population. So his sermon is thus aimed directly and disproportionately at the said ethnic minorities.
I thought that doing that was the biggest sin in the BBC right-on/Human Right manual. It’s probably OK in this case, though, because the need for greenie propaganda, however clumsily formed, out-trumps everything else.
Update: I see my post has attracted comment from a pro-Malthus acolyte. I deliberately did not analyse that part of the Packham message here, because I am so tired of it, but I will leave it to the very capable Willis Eschenbach to do so. Malthusian pessimism is bunk that is at at the heart – as well as a prime driver – of the greenie creed. If you doubt me, try this.
I cannot say that I agree with the tenor of this piece.
The elephant in the room on man made global warming has always been the rate of population increase.
If the BBC has at last cottoned on to the principle of restricting family size then I am all for it. It will also help reduce the amount of “child poverty” as present benefit rules can actually encourage larger families.
Two adults with four kids receive the equivalent of a wage of around £35000 if not working. Limit all state benefits to two children and I think you would soon see a change in behaviour in some sections of “society”.
Rant over!
Far too little – Far too late, My view is that the world is 50 years too late in giving the mesage out about overpopulation. Wish the bBC had had an ongoing campaign about overpopulation, only remember them doing things like ‘save the children’ etc. Unfortunately joined up thinking does not take place and ask the question ‘why are we having to save the children?’.
I agree entirely Gerald. This sort of population growth cannot continue on our tiny, already-over-crowded island.
The simple solution would be for the government to set a date, and starting at nine months from that date allow benefits for the first two children only. (No chance of this ever happening under the current crop of weak, pathetic LibLabCon morons)
Our country has neither the money, infrastructure, resources or space to handle 3rd world birth-rates.
I find it strange how all of the Parties that support the AGW theory are also the ones who wish to import tens of millions of people from low consumption countries to high consumption countries.
Some history as a swat could be useful when dealing with feral groups hunting vegetarians for food when societal values break down.
But nothing wrong, even at an early age, showing an interest in broadening one’s education, though it can evidently lead to rather selective viewpoints.
Yep, either his hobby is taking down crack houses, or you can become a fully-certified member of our media elite while still not being able to do the basics.
Typo alert:
Eerie = Eyrie
I actually partly agree with Packham on childbirth. Due to the fact that a far higher percentage of people now will reach adulthood due to medical advances, the world needs to know that it must reduce “breeding” to sustainable levels. This doubling of the world’s population every 20 years or so is our main danger as a planet.
I think the Chinese had the right idea in trying to stop their population explosion going through the roof, but failed miserably in its execution. The main problem, if you do manage it successfully, is who looks after the very large elderly population.
But, I also agree with Robin’s main points when it is applied to this country. The native population of this country has reduced its breeding and the population would have settled down by now if it hadn’t been for immigration. Both the numbers arriving every year, and the fact that many second, third and fourth generation of immigrant believe that it is their “duty” to their god to over-breed is what is putting this country’s population up. I am all in favour of reducing child benfits to anybody who has more than two children, as this will (hopefully) encourage moderation.
Quite so. The elephant in the room here is the section of the UK population that has not stabilised. Mr Packham, along with others in the BBC, might care to ask themselves why.
Yes, it would appear that it didn’t occur to them when importing Labour voters, err, sorry, I mean workers to supposedly counter-balance the aging population, that these immigrants don’t posses the gift of eternal youth and will be requiring a state pension themselves in the not too distant future.
I think in this case (and it is only my very humble opinion) this article is a little unfair on Packham. Perhaps it could be because he comes from my neck of the woods – almost literally, and our paths have crossed (very fleetingly) on a couple of occasions but although Packham is obviously an enviromentalist, he doesn’t strike me as quite the hypocritical, zealot that has been painted here.
I’m sure he says the right things at the right time when those who could sustain or further his career on the BBC gravy train are listening but then so would I in his position. Where else could an enviromentalist/zoologist get such a regular healthy pay cheque?
He may (or may not be) a warmist but i’ve never seen him as one who preaches the gospel with typical Beeboid pioty; not like for eg Brigstock ( >:o COCK!!! – sorry, couldn’t help mysefl :-[ ).
I tend to agree with him on population size. It’s a sticky problem. At some point on a planet of finite size with finite resources it’s going to be unable to sustain everyone. Suggesting a tax break for smaller families isn’t exactly radical or authoritarian and buying locally is never going to be for everyone but if an increased number of people did so, it would reduce our consumption of fuel (you thought I was going to say carbon foot print 😛 ) which should be good all round.
Before I get accused of being a BBC quizling – perhaps I should redress the balance by saying that I think that warmism is the new fascism and the BBC is it’s mouthpiece in the UK. Ed Balls and Marcus Brigstock are the most annoying people in the UK…or perhaps that should be Ed (blow your nose) Millipede, Margret Beckett, Dianne Flabbot, Caroline Lucas…..you get the picture. The EU IS an experiment in socialism, the closest Peter Mandelbum should have ever got to Westminster is on the bridge with his head on a spike, and Nigel Farage should be PM.
Can I stay now ? 😀
It seems that BBC-greenie Mr Packham is not familiar with the analyses of these two books:
1.) Christopher Caldwell ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West’;
2.) Mark Steyn ‘America Alone’.
Mark Steyn :
‘Demographic time bomb’
And in this video clip, although the figures may not all be exact, they indicate important demographic trends:
Link to Mark Steyn piece above:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/185459/demographic-time-bomb/mark-steyn
Without the BBC, people like this would be complete nonentities. He’s nothing – a nobody.
George R: re Mark Steyn – I’ve been waiting for ‘Lights Out’ to appear in the UK. Trying to resist paying shipping charges from the US.
sterilise lefties
job done
“BBC to make startling documentary about your unnecessary children”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3689&Itemid=73
Everyone in this country knows exactly why the population of England is increasing at this alarming rate. This man is as clueless as the rest of the elite. Or in denial or insane or deliberately obtuse.
Reality denial is the default postion of the lot of them. In the end it will be their downfall.
Is the population of England increasing at such an alarming rate? Seems to me there is still plenty of empty space before the UK becomes Hong Kong or Singapore or Gaza (Just kidding about Gaza. The oft repeated claim that Gaza is the most densely populated place on Earth has long been exposed as bunk). Are you all alarmed? As much as by the thought the sea level is rising and will drown all the puffins?
Reducing the population of India and China to one child per family has lead to unforeseen results. The numbers of boy now so outnumbers girls that many men will never marry which may lead to increased rape, aggression, etc. This was brought on by a spurt of abortions of female foetuses (there’s even a word for it – foeticide), killing girl babies at birth and abandonment (most Indian orphans are girls). Another problem occurs when there is a disaster, for example a school destroyed in a landslide. A school excursion bus involved in a fatal collision. Effectively the whole family may be wiped out with the death of a lone child.
There is at least anecdotally an increasing discipline problem as the lone male child is spoilt rotten by parents and grandparents.
B-BBCers: Be careful what you wish for.
Much of the problem in the Arab world has been their explosion in birth rate such that there is a substantial bulge at the bottom with no jobs or prospects for most.
All aboard for Lampedusa and then …..
I believe a similar situation persists in East Africa
I’m gonna start breeding straight away.
Is the next programme going to be an encomium to eugenics?
Talking about failed Ph.D’s, I notice that reformed thief, Stephen Fry, is listed on the cover of “The Second Book of General Ignorance” (a book to which he made little or no contribution) as “Dr Stephen Fry MA DLitt DDL FRCP.
There was me thinking that he had an undistinguished undergraduate degree (2:1) in English Literature. I forgot of course that (for a small fee) he was able to upgrade his (Cambridge) BA into an MA, and that this ex-public schoolboy egalitarian was humble enough to accept all sorts of honorary awards and doctrates offered to him by the Leftie establishment for his services to TV presenting.
As a freeloader he makes that smug twat Tony Robinson look like a man of principle.
The premise of “running out of resources” is a common alarmist dystopia. (Yeah,”dystopia”, I’ve got an arts degree) Though we may at some point theoretically run out of oil and food due to overpopulation, there are still two commodities which we will never run out of: Human Ingenuity, and Human Stupidity. The former will outsmart the latter, despite the Environmentalists near monopoly of the latter.
The Greenies other problem is that the world’s main source of population excess (China aside – someones still got to make everything) is either black, or Muslim, or both. Get out of that one.
Those who want to control the population will not be first in line to take the cyanide pill. Who has the right to judge who shall live and who shall die?
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
Is this really the country you want to live in? Because if it is there are plenty of people like Brower to implement your wishes.
I think you’re jumping to the other extreme here, something with which we normally accuse the left. It stands to reason surely that a world population that’s doubling every 20 years or whatever is unsustainable.
And no-one here has called for the culling of anyone (except someone who called for the culling of lefties!). But common sense has to be introduced, and it seems there are some cultures who encourage a population explosion whereas others are more sensible. Financial disincentives are the best way to go about making people think first about their personal contributions to increasing the world population, but if it isn’t a major problem yet it will be if it is not adressed soon.
“I think you’re jumping to the other extreme here” I don’t think so – you may think that population control can be done in a “nice way” But you will not be the one in control. I have to agree with James Delingpole on this ( and with respect disagree with you).
“Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100082551/earth-does-not-have-a-cancer-the-cancer-is-not-man/
As you know yourself, the environmentalists see people as the problem, giving them any encoragement will lead to all kinds of horrors.
As you know yourself, the environmentalists see people as the problem, giving them any encoragement will lead to all kinds of horrors. I agree with you on this and would join you in any fight against extreme attempts to cap world population of the sort you envisage, but as to whether the planet is overpopulated is, as you say, something with which we can agree to differ.
However, I think this thread has shown that people on this site, who agree in general with most of the points raised, have sufficient intelligence to disagree politely on some points. This ability to think for oneself is one of the main areas where we differ from the Beboids and people like Dezzie and Scotty who do not have the ability to think for themselves, and only repeat innuendo and lies against anybody who offers a different opinion to the accepted BBC one on any subject.
The left claim that people having their views automatically make them more intelligent. I think their lack of ability to enquire into anything they are fed by their puppet-masters is proof that their self-claimed intelligence is only in their own tiny minds.
Thank you Demon1001, and it is through polite disagreement that democarcy florishes.
We don’t need to resort to eugenics or whatever just the state stop providing any cash to support more than two children in any household. It does not mean that you cannot have more, but I am prepared to bet that the fast breeders (no not nuclear power stations) would rather quickly modify their “creative” output. I believe Singapore runs just such a policy and is reputedly one of the better places to live and four cultures seem to rub along quite well.
Next time you hear hand-wringing about “the poor” – which you will hear identically from both Milliband and Cameron – remember that the poor are poor for a reason: they neither make nor do anything.
Mostly, they consist of women who made a career choice to have children without a breadwinner and let the State look after their future housing and welfare. In addition are the third-world guests who find more children equals more income. Who can blame them? The blame belongs to both Cameron and Milliband, who preen in the mirror to see the halo over their heads while they steal from real productive workers to obfuscate their personal priviledged roots.