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

    • This is a huge part of the problem.   Starmer is only interested in himself, not in what is best for our country.    There's a litany of stuff he's done for spiteful jealous personal reasons which has damaged the nation enormously. Burnham would be a much better leader than of the other dross left behind when Starmer goes. To inflict a worse leader (and PM) upon us for his own selfish reasons would add to the problems and be entirely in keeping with his woeful premiership so far.
    • I heard today there was a burglary in Lacon Road yesterday evening between 20.00 - 22.00,  apparently the owners were home at the time & thieves got away with electrical items along with the owners car!  Wtf!   Anyone heard anything else?
    • What standing on the world stage? Starmer is a wannebe leader, no charisma, no passion, no leadership but tonnes of dithering, wringing his hands and pooing his pants.  I'd love to see Burnham give him a run for his money. Reason he became Mayor of Manchester was due to him no longer wanting to be in front line politics.  This thread has now gone well off topic, perhaps it needs renaming. Mandy and Keith's bathrobe Or, how Mandy stuck it to Starmer
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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