
Sir David Attenborough warns things will only get worse  - ghosh
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/sep/10/david-attenborough-human-evolution-stopped
======
lutusp
> Attenborough said he was not optimistic about the future and 'things are
> going to get worse'."

How right he is. The Logistic function says mathematically what Sir Richard
says with words:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function)

In the beginning, at the left, the logistic function (a way to mathematically
describe the evolution of a biological colony) shows a species struggling
against having too few members. In the end, at the right, the function shows a
species struggling against having too many. We humans are at the right-hand
end of the curve.

But the risk in speaking out about this issue is that sensitive, intelligent
people will listen and reduce their numbers, while less sensitive, less
intelligent people won't. The result will be fewer sensitive, intelligent
people in Earth's future. That, by the way, is an idea I call the "Population
Paradox":

[http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html#The_Population_Par...](http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html#The_Population_Paradox)

~~~
dennisgorelik
> We humans are at the right-hand end of the curve.

Do you have any proof to that? Judging by the amount of unfarmed land
available on Earth it looks like number humans is nowhere close to being "too
many".

> "Population Paradox"

There is no paradox here. It's survival of the fittest in its purest form. If
increasing reproductive desire is a key to species survival, then species with
stronger reproductive desire would survive. If you don't care about
reproduction much - your genes are less likely to survive.

------
Kudzu_Bob
Worst idea ever. It would simply ensure that the people who give a damn will
breed themselves out of existence, thereby ensuring that the world is
inherited by the clueless and irresponsible.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It would be the plot of Idiocracy playing out in front of our eyes.

------
hackckck
Don't worry, nature will always balance population.

If men try to do it, it's called EUGENICS and it's immoral.

I'm very disappointed Attenborough joined the eugenics club of Ted Turner,
Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Eli Broad, Bill Gates,
Rockefeller and .. Adolf Hitler.

These people want population reduction: why don't they start with themselves
???

~~~
ramblerman
"If men try to do it, it's called EUGENICS and it's immoral"

No it really isn't. Eugenics describes selective breeding to remove or
increase certain genetic traits. It has nothing to do with controlling
population sizes as a whole.

"I'm very disappointed Attenborough joined the eugenics club of Ted Turner,
Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Eli Broad, Bill Gates,
Rockefeller and .. Adolf Hitler."

Pathetic... and also wrong since none of those people except Hitler actually
practiced EUGENICS

"These people want population reduction: why don't they start with themselves
???"

As if the Hitler association wasn't enough you further lower yourself to
arguing 'ad Hominem'. Wether these people are hypocrites or not does not adds
nothing to the argument. And to my knowledge Oprah has no kids and David
Attenborough and Warren Buffer have 2.

