Plenty of attacks on David Attenborough all in respectful terms, irritation that he dare not agree with one of the great modern facts, only capitalism matters not population. An old man who has seen people in huge numbers spread into so much once wild land.

The narrative is population worries are a racist agenda, all around the world ancient human and nature balance has been replaced as traditional communities have been invaded by settlers, it is a human disaster as well, in several countries it has been engineered by governments to

conquer land, elites eventually take land settlers clear, both of trees and indigenous people. The driving factor is manipulated poverty, an elite who profit, they are a mix of local and international rich, the settlers are in some cases relocated as policy, in others poverty and

hopes of land are enough. International trade in gold, timber, wild animals is part of this, but it is no surprise that despotic elites promote big families, encourage the forces which drive poverty, lack of education, lack of resource, family land ever divided, or lost, unfair

trade, commodities magnifying in prices in trade, local big men take their cut and want no opposition. Attenborough supports family planning, just as my father one of ten children in one room with one toy in his childhood did. He never wanted his children to experience the

hardship, poverty, lack of education and opportunity he knew, the brutality of a rough hard life. Women should have the freedom to choose, and everybody should ask themselves what impact having a child has, it is an individual choice.

As to capitalism that eats the earth, but USSR used nuclear bombs to manipulate environment

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/peaceful-nuclear-explosions.aspx

The environmental record of socialism & communism is not in general better than capitalism, as with fascist states all were active in large scale transformation of land for economic projects, introduction of species etc

The real difference between population and consumption by rich (everybody wants to be rich and each year many more around the world become richer) is we can campaign against an economic model of throw-away consumption and waste. Population we can offer choice and empower people.

Biodiversity needs habitat & biosecurity, climate change needs a rapid transition from fossil fuel, they are not the same issue, both matter, human population can impact biodiversity even when living simple lives.

I do not deny that population fears are manipulated, or that trends suggest growth is slowing. The mantra population does not matter is dangerous because as an individual you will make virtually no personal choices more significant than having children, thinking about the

environment as well as your own family economy makes sense. That I think is what Attenborough is saying, not some eugenicist racist bullshit. The bigger question is our economic model and extreme inequality and lack of democratic freedom & accountability.

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691024288/where-have-all-the-birds-gone

An interesting book which balances both the impact of modern high consumption US lifestyle and massive environmental change, and also subsistence land hunger and poverty also producing habitat loss, while acknowledging impact of commodity trade.

This fits with a conversation I had with an Indian ecologist who described to me the impact outside of parks of rising population and poor subsistence farming, she described landscapes with every bush cut for fuel.

Mass movements to cities do in other places cause the opposite as land reverts to forest, it is as all things are when we talk about world environment complex and variable.