Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Like most people, I've enjoyed Sir David Attenborough's nature programmes over the years. However, the older he gets the more controversial he gets.


Now, according to him, the future of the planet is at risk because people living in cities have lost a sense of responsibility towards the natural world.


He is quoted today as saying:


"..We have a huge moral responsibility towards the rest of the planet,? he told The Times. ?A hundred years ago people certainly had that ... They were aware of the seasons and aware of what they were doing to the land and animals around them.?


Sir David, they were chopping down wood to burning it to keep warm and fuel industry like it would grow forever - and raising animals to eat.


In his latest series, Frozen Planet, it was the first time that Sir David had visited the North Pole and he said he was struck by the scale and speed of the melting of the ice. ?The sort of thing that came as a surprise to me was that these things can suddenly accelerate,? he said.


If it was the first time he'd visited the Arctic he is basically a tourist. And many countries have refused to take his polemicised episodes.


I've watched your programme Frozen Planet and it strikes me there's a hell of a lot of snow and ice around in the Arctic and only half a dozen polar bears maraunding around.


Please keep doing what you do best, making programmes and leave the politics to us

It may surprise you to consider that he wasn't being politcal at all. He was simply being a naturalist commenting on the vast changes in the natural world and the impact man is having upon them.


Conversely, your own views are based on absolutely no scientific expertise at all. Your comments are founded entirely on politcal motivations, and a wilful conviction that you can do whatever you want because your 'gut feel' tells you so.

I don't think DA is being political either. He's simply pointing out that we live our lives and comsume without considering or understanding the impact that has on the rest of the planet and the things living in it. And let's be honest...he's right. How many minutes on any day does the average person spend thinking beyond what's immediately before them? Because of his expertise he is exactly the right kind of person to be 'informing' us all I'd say.
I've watched your programme Frozen Planet and it strikes me there's a hell of a lot of snow and ice around in the Arctic and only half a dozen polar bears maraunding around.




Does it not strike you as ironic that you're inferring your assessment of the Arctic from the man whose knowledge of the Arctic you are criticising?

that last episode doesn't form part of the core 6-episode narrative tho - it's in a different format with Attenborough on screen and many countries (often for non-english speaking countries) tend not to buy episodes in that format


So I'm not 100% certain that it's for the content


I know several explanation from the BBC have said this, and on balance I tend to believe that explanation.


for example

Interesting comment on your link suggests that though the BBC may have been earnest in the motives for their marketing approach, it unintendedly allows Channels like Discovery in the US to err on the side of caution for more political (climate change denial), rather than practical (people want to hear Sigourney Weaver narrate it) considerations.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> it's in a different format with Attenborough on screen and many

> countries (often for non-english speaking

> countries) tend not to buy episodes in that format


Yep - even other English-speaking countries sometimes prefer to use their own voiceovers instead of Attenborough (Sigourney Weaver narrated the US version of Planet Earth).

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I was in Forest Hill Road today, just past the Rye, and noticed there is a dentist next to the Herne (pub) that has NHS signs outside. I've never had any problems getting NHS dental treatment in East Dulwich, and I get regular check ups. I've been to three  different dental practices here over the years, all with NHS treatment. I think the difficulties are in other parts of the country. Malumbu has a good explanation above. I didn't hear the Radio 4 programme, but I'm guessing that a  radio programme is not going to have time to say where you CAN easily get NHS treatment, and is bound to focus on the negatives and the horror stories, otherwise it would be very boring! ETA: Re children's teeth, I think the major issue is not lack of dentists, it is children being given sugary food, drinks and confectionery which rots their teeth. The education of parents needs to be about this, not just about tooth brushing. And in some cases the poor diet may also be due to lack of money for healthy food. Though of course the lack of dentists doesn't help, if  the tooth rotting can't be rectified by fillings or extraction.
    • Well, I hope you like what you see, the hot air, lack of answers and continual blaming things on the last Government and the made up blackhole, I find are nauseating. The man needs to see reality, because I'd guess that if we had a snap election tomorrow and based on the first six months of this parliament, Labour would get trounced. When the election does finally happen and if that isn't before the people rise up and throw this lot out, Labour will not be voted back in for a millennium.  
    • Yes thanks that's exactly the choices I get.  I will block and if somehow they find a way back I'll report.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...