Once again Sir David Attenborough presents a mish-mash of
scientific fact and fiction, to promote his ideas about the need to clamp down
on population growth. In an interview
with the Radio Times, he makes the
astonishing claim that humans have stopped evolving.
"We stopped natural selection as soon as we started
being able to rear 90-95% of our babies that are born. We are the only species
to have put a halt to natural selection, of its own free will, as it
were," he tells this week's edition.
"Stopping natural selection is not as important, or
depressing, as it might sound – because our evolution is now cultural … We can
inherit a knowledge of computers or television, electronics, aeroplanes and so
on."
Scientifically speaking this is rubbish. Evolution is not
about healthy babies, it is about genes. As evolutionists like Stephen Jay
Gould explain, evolution is actually co-evolution. It results not from the
strength of a gene, but from the interaction of any organism with its
environment.
There are billions of genetic interactions - many more will
die out after one two generations than go on to become established in whole
populations. But for these interactions to continue, a rich and diverse
environment is crucial. After the great extinction following the Cambrian era,
90% of species were wiped
out and the evolutionary process moved at a snail’s pace for the next 15
million years.
Evolution is simply alert to the opportunity for adaptation;
survival is a by-product, as Dr Ian
Rickard explains in his critique of Attenborough's views.
Attenborough claims human cleverness will prevent us from
becoming extinct. But that is not necessarily true. There is a fragility to
life on earth, and it is entirely possible to reach tipping points where life
is no longer sustainable. If the absolute power of capitalist-induced alienation
is not ended, we humans can create an environment where we cannot live.
We will not be able to soldier on despite all our technology
and cleverness. Some 99.6% of all the species of life that have ever existed on
earth are now extinct, and we continue to eliminate more, in what is being
called "the 6th mass extinction". We may end up without the genetic
material to continue to evolve.
So what conclusions does Attenborough draw from his ideas?
Shockingly, that the Chinese Communist Party's enforced one-child policy was
probably, overall, a good thing. "There's no question it's produced all
kinds of personal tragedies," he concedes, but adds: "On the other
hand, the Chinese themselves recognise that had they not done so there would be
several million more mouths in the world today than there are now."
Attenborough uses this argument to support his views about “sustainable
consumption”. But there is no logic to
this argument! During this period of forced implementation of the one-child
policy, which held back the population, China actually made the world less
sustainable. It became the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the largest
polluter.
This population argument is just one more distraction from a
recognition of the real cause of the greater ecological crisis – the global
capitalist system with its drive for continuous growth. The phenomenal leap in
greenhouse cases coincides precisely with the intense globalisation period that
was launched 30 or so years ago.
Attenborough is saying we can carry on business as usual if
we can only eliminate a few million "mouths". That is a dehumanising
claim. It gives comfort to those who are insisting we must endure a period of
"destructive capitalism" in order to overcome the current crisis.
While his TV programmes may be fairly illuminating at times,
Attenborough’s views on population and evolution are very, very reactionary.
Penny Cole
Environment editor
No comments:
Post a Comment