by Mike Newland.
Sir David Attenborough has really done it this time.
Not content with backing the Optimum Population Trust which wants Britain’s population to be radically reduced, he now describes sending food to Ethiopia as barmy. So that’s our ‘enrichment’ of Britain gone and our warm cuddly feeling as we give in to chuggers who want to help Africa. Well help the parasites who skim charity money anyway.
Too many people, he says. If we don’t tackle the problem nature will. Flag up ‘the tragedy of the commons’,
With the cat among the Guardianista pigeons they were quick to spew the usual sort of sloganising. ‘Sinister’ Sir David went Cristina Odone late of the New Statesman. Get stuck in gel! What you really mean is ‘night and fog’ and all that.
There is a really serious point here going back in Britain to Speenhamland during the late 18th century when the magistrates decided to top up the incomes of the very poor with cash because of rising food prices. Now that’s fine to get over a temporary difficulty but then the old enemy is inclined to pop up – unintended consequences. If people get their incomes topped up to a certain level there is little incentive to improve their reward for working. You have a benefits trap and we know all about that here in Britain.
In Africa, the unintended consequences can be far worse. Sir David says that Ethiopia simply has too many people for its land. If you send lots of aid what will happen? The population will have more children and then you have a bigger problem down the road. It’s a cruel business what to do – a dilemma in fact.
Ms Odone and her squad think no further ahead than the next attack of conscience. You can’t argue with good intentions. They just have a nasty habit of building a road downwards if you are not very careful.
2
He is right. Not only does Africa have too many people our own country does too and this doesn’t just mean overpopulation by immigrants and their offspring. We have too many of our own people here too. Britain would be a more pleasant place if there were fewer people here and we would have a higher quality of life with fewer dual carriageways and motorways which due to our overpopulation are filled to capacity. Our stupid governments should never have introduced their barmy policies of mass immigration and allowed our own population to gently fall over time which is what it would have done.
Shortly after the Live Aid concert, the National Front highlighted this very problem and got screamed at.
Good article Mike. As we all know it’s impossible to state the bleedin’ obvious to the lunatics currently running the asylum. I noted in the media today that Ed Millibland has a large number of extremely wealthy people in his shadow cabinet. Why don’t they hand over all their ill-gotten loot to Ethiopia?
Because they are not really concerned about the poor and starving. They just want to appear so. They are in New Labour to help themselves either directly or indirectly and / or because it is in favour of individualism, ie self-centredness and selfishness.
Aid programmes to the starving peoples of the third world only serve to perpetuate the endless cycle of unbridled reproduction, resulting famine, disease, suffering and death. I appreciate that it can be a moral struggle for anyone with any sense of humanity to deny aid to a helpless child in his or her own land; but by offering our “assistance”, (some might say interference), we only cause even greater suffering for future generations. The great and the good (as they may see themselves) of the liberal left, who apportion blame so freely; and continually attempt to browbeat us to dig deep, are only in it to salve their own consciences, or profit financially, or by gaining high position. I do not wish for my grand children to be subjected to the same deceit.
I agree. We shouldn’t send aid, we should train these people to fend for themselves including teaching them about birth control.
That way, there should be more of a balance between the resources of the country and its population
Attenborough is a great believer in evolution including evolutionary psychology. He said that the young animal he felt most protective about was a human baby because evolution had programmed him to protect his own species.
I wonder what his thoughts are deep in himself when he contemplates a white rather than a black, brown or yellow baby
The world economy demands growth and profit at any cost. These aims are at odds with anyone who values the conservation of any particular lifeform or habitat. While most people remain dependent on the global economy, these priorities are unlikely to change. The fact is, it’s easier to get people to collaborate to become wealthier, than it is to collaborate for any other cause.
In the 1960’s there were a lot of TV programmes about science and psychology. One was about rats in a cage. All was fine when they were given plenty to eat, BUT once the number of rats reached a certain density WOW there was a massive orgy of rat eating rat until the numbers were severely reduced. This happened EVERY time.
When given a bigger cage, all was well UNTIL this magic density was again reached and again war broke out and rat ate rat until the amount of LIVING space was increased dramatically.
Our cage is getting quite full, watch this space.
Sir David is absolutely spot-on. It’s enough of a struggle to look after ourselves, so why send our hard-earned food off to some strangers in what someone called ‘Bongo Bongo’ Land?
Is Mike Newland in fact proposing the abolition of the welfare state?
No just pointing out that you have to be careful that welfare does not create disincentives – something well-recognised by the founder of the welfare state, Sir William Beveridge, and also increasingly by a majority of the population.
Sir William, in fact, based his 1942 blueprint on the concept of social insurance rather than means-testing precisely to avoid the above.
Happy to have cleared that up.