David Attenborough makes the simple point that the Human Race is approaching or exceeding a sustainable level.
The problem is any criticism of DA is unjustified without solid evidence that the human race, at its current/ projected population level, is sustainable. In this respect it is a touch idealistic and tenuous to imply, for example, that every newborn represents the potential for a genius who will save us all.......
In ecology, this over population issue is best compared to the 'Equilibrium Model'. Immigration of new species establishes an equilibrium with the extinction rate of other species. So in this case, if the Human race continues to grow, then it must do so at the expense of other species.
In this respect I think DA is imminantly qualified to make the statements he has made. We are after all an organsim that shares a finite set of resources with many other organsims. The question is where is the human race relative to this equilibrium? If we are beyond the equilibrium, which I suspect we are, are we proposing suitable artificial stimulus to achieve a sustainable equilibrium bearing in mind future population growth.
It is a wonderful thought to think that the life expectancy for most westerners has increased substantially. However we have done little to fully appeciate the impact of this and other aspects of human endevour on the global ecological footprint.
In short David raises worthy questions for consideration, not dire predictions without a cure.
