Nurse, see that the right is well sedated before printing.

The Department of Health consults its usual sources

David Attenborough: A life on our Planet

Having only seen it advertised this morning I rushed to book tickets, a few ‘standard interruptions’ later I was all booked up for this evening. After all, this was one night only. How lucky I was to get a ticket – in the nick of time. Or so I thought.

I sprung it upon my friend and daughter and that was our evening planned. We arrived to an empty cinema – I’ve since heard that 37 were in attendance.

We had the usual trailers except they were ‘specifically chosen’ for this film. Judy Dench in Blithe Spirit- it did the trick, I’m going to watch it. Predictably followed by ‘I am Greta’. I prepared myself for a preachy and condescending self-indulgent rant against humanity designed to fill us all with shame and guilt, as is the modern way.

And we open to a frank and close centre framed piece to camera. “I’m David Attenborough, I’m 93.” he calls this his ‘witness statement’.

A life on our Planet certainly benefits from the cinema screen. Broken up nicely by the black and white archival pieces and the images tell a fair story. Up until 2020.

The facts are displayed in the form of a counter, showing human population on Earth, Carbon Parts Per Million and Percentage of Wilderness left on our Planet.

What gives this biodocumentary its gravitas is the short timeframe. After 2020 its a bit doom and gloom and very op- ed as we call in the trade, but this tells a powerful and provable story from a primary source who has experienced it first hand.

Although the blame started early on – fifteen minutes in, after we have no choice but to recognise the change in the world and we seriously begin to question why – he announces ‘we started farming’. Well yes we did, but I do feel that the farmers of today have done more than anyone to help this crisis and to preserve the natural land. But of course, I now realise, its not so natural at all. Half the fertile land on Earth is now formed.

The film moves along at an engaging pace and the images are truly breathtaking. My own experiences of videography has taught me that yes, the images have been enhanced, but so much the better for we are privy to a dazzling display of places of the Earth most of us are never likely to encounter.

Yes it raises awareness but also highlights that separating card and paper can really have no impact on the cleared rainforests.

Most of us are more careful these days with what we put in our bodies and we get a good feeling from sustainability, organic food and knowing where its come from.

Clearly not a box officer breaker but I view this as a piece of history, whose value will only grow in time. Whereas the message Attenborough portrays is that we are depleting the world’s value. Three trillion trees have gone – half the world’s rainforests. The summer sea ice in the artic has reduced by 40% in 40 years.

It is the lack of biodiversity he mourns most of all.

It reminded me of Christopher Booker’s last column in The Telegraph – David Attenborough has explored this world and has now narrated it’s epitaph, do make sure you see it. It’s on all of us.

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

 Where did you hear about the Salisbury Review?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

28 Comments on Nurse, see that the right is well sedated before printing.

  1. It’s hard to think of a more self satisfied bores than the ones on display here. It brings to mind a group of fat Roman Patricians lolling on couches complaining that just because the Roman army has laid waste their homelands,stolen all their treasure and sold millions into slavery, the inhabitants of Rome’s colonies should stop whining and be grateful for the chance of having their cities razed to the ground or be executed by crucifixion or torn apart by wild beasts.

  2. As Attenborough advances further in his years, and opens his personal intellectual-emotional system to the greater matters of Life-on-Earth, and begins to care less what other people think about him, perhaps he will present his plan for reducing the number of people on the planet who are nett consumers, who are nett destroyers of trees, who cause the extinctions of all the lovely types of lovely little critters that are dying out, and all that sort of thing.

    Meanwhile, as others here point out, what can be done about misguided self-righteous do-gooders who work without cease to increase the populations of those vast parts of Africa, of Asia, of the Middle-East, of Latam Am, by transferring to those places Western money, technologies and various goods and services, and thereby increase the demand for the burning of fossil fuels and/or nuclear power to keep alive all those nett consumers of trees and destroyers of species of animals and insects.

    These are the main questions, actually.

  3. There is a fundamental conflict between conservation and environmentalism. The latter is a globalist movement in which the over paid try to terrify the rest of us into submitting to some vast grand plan, whose ultimate aim is ostensibly a greener, cleaner planet, but whose real purpose is to move money and power from the poor to the rich.
    Conservation is something we should all support, local but with a connection to the wider world “first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”.
    We should all look after our own counties, and also treasure in particular, the Glens of Antrim, the Caledonian forests, the chalk streams of the south country, the moorland of the north country and the mountains of Wales.
    Siting a glass and concrete bunker in the countryside is no less destructive an act, because the owners choose to put a few solar panels on the roof, and park a Tesla in the drive, the larks that nested on that site, before building will never return.
    We should appreciate the independent folk; farmers, ghillies, gamekeepers, and fishermen, who keep our coast and country what it is, and work with them, not agin them. We should stop water companies paying their chief executives huge salaries, when they refuse to invest in their sewage treatment works, prefering instead to pump sewage into the rivers and putting the money into their own pockets.
    We should treasure the birds animals and fish that are here, not seek publicity and promotion by re-introducing so called iconic species, we should stop plans to concrete hundreds of thousands of acres of land, when our indigenous people are not increasing in number. We should protect the nesting lapwings, and look after the Atlantic Salmon and eel.
    We should keep the wild bramble thicket, the thick hedgrow, and the heather uplands, we should save our country churches, pubs and bars.
    These islands do not belong to the globalists, the vegans, those who would put highly subsidised solar panels over good growing land (fencing out all wildlife in the process), nor are they an ‘asset’ of the financial services industry, nor yet part of some madcap Extinction Rebellion/Greenpeace led global scheme. They belong to we Britons, and we must care for them.

  4. What a nonsensical article. The author has swallowed the whole hogwash. Attenborough is a preacher who has grown too big for his boots. The next ice-age is around the corner yet he is still preaching about global warming. It is well known the carbon dioxide is not the cause of the warming, rather it is the result.
    Harry Black and PJR seem to have their fingers on the pulse and the author is way off the mark.

      • An informative yet depressing read..Anything that emanates from Davros is suspect…however,Spiked is the brainchild of RCP Revolutionary Communist Party who have found a easy way to make money&influence the gullible.
        Ex(likely still) a member of RCP,Clare Fox,yes her of Moral Maze&Brexit Party fame calls berself the Director of Institute(cormer Academy) of Ideas..a grandiose endeavour that pretends to be a hub of zeitgeist discourse..but in reality a hub for filling her bank balance and those of her fellow travellers Frank Furedi(already tenured&made financially comfortable as Head oc Social Sciences at Exeter Uni) and his .issus Anna(big in the family planning trough)..not forgetting Brendan ONeill making a contrarian name for himself amongst the new found free-speech movement…the Spectator hires him so he won’t be short of a bob or two..
        The whole mob need monitoring&kept at arms length..

        • Ps..must reiterate the article in Spiked appears genuine and thought through, not to be tarred with same brush as Spiked the Organisation..

    • Noel writes: “Harry Black and PJR seem to have their fingers on the pulse”

      And you and Raven and a few others. And perhaps Trump and Bolsonaro and a few others. But we are few and the leftists are many. Apart from letting off steam in the SR comments, what are we to do?

  5. i have nothing but contempt for David Attenborough. He’s not a scientist, but a superannuated BBC executive who happens to be blessed with a very beguiling voice.

    I gave up watching his documentaries many years ago, when I realised that hours upon hours of film footage that depict “life on earth” as unremarkable are deleted in favour of the ten seconds of thrills that fit the programme makers’ agenda.

    Attenborough may be prettier than Greta Thunberg, but he’s no less stupid and no less fraudulent.

  6. As we all know, it is a common habit among the old to tell their listeners: “I’m 93 you know!” Oh, my goodness, well I never. You don’t look a day over…….

    The trouble with this kind of movie is that, like the all those adverts run by ‘environmental charities’, (and indeed human poverty charities) is that they amount to an intense emotional bombardment presumably intended to affect not only the amount of money we give them but also the way we vote. Well, it’s a free country – for them at least. I too like natural woodlands, songbirds and so on. Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet, as the poet said. I liked these things long before Eskimo Nell from the frozen north appeared on earth. I remember (just) the dark satanic mills and not being able to afford as much house coal as we needed. (No, I’m not 93 you know). So anti-pollution laws seemed to me to be highly desirable.

    What I don’t care much for is being told the same story year in year out in increasingly emotive terms. Do they want me to apologise for being born (I often wish I hadn’t been) as well as for slavery? Was the extinction of the woolly mammoth my fault? Did I cause the formation of the Sahara or the Gobi desert? If I bend my knee, give them my house and my piggy bank, will they go away or will they expect me to face the wall while they shoot me as an example to others? (I’m not 93 you know).

    More to the point, why do they think that intensifying the bombardment will convince anyone that doesn’t already agree that we have some serious problems to deal with? Only white liberals and a few other people see these as a priority anyway, but will they go and bombard the other umpteen billion people whose behaviour is more likely to be beneficial in the longer run and get them to believe they should take some responsibility too? Fat chance. (I’m not 93 you know).

    I suppose that just like the Charitariat the old guy and the film companies have to make a living and the fact that they do it by shaking us down isn’t exactly unusual.

    Enough already.

    • “More babies” is a more fundamental problem than “carbon pollution”.

      If you want less “carbon pollution”, have fewer babies.

      I repeat, in the face of having my common sense constantly ignored:

      We don’t need more houses or more hospitals or more schools or more anything.

      We need fewer people.

      Why is this so hard for our rulers to understand?

      • Fewer babies within our country is a constant refrain of mine. It seems perfectly sensible and logical. Yet our politicians all subscribe to the ‘more is better” theory. Our population grows by the day putting enormous pressures upon our roads, schools, hospitals, farms, fisheries et al.

        The true conservation message never reaches those able to motivate the majority of our people. and so our situation becomes ever more tenuous and irresponsible.

        • Good points T L Hacker.

          I’d add:

          Not many people are open to being motivated in the right direction.

          Which came first:

          Too few politicians and others who could motivate folk to contribute what must be contributed to save our situtation.


          Too few who people who could be bothered to save our/their situation?

        • T L Hacker:

          The most recent mainstream politician who tried to motivate us to save ourselves was Enoch Powell. Not enough of us could be bothered to listen to him.

          Enoch Powell has no successors. His moderate, rational patriotism is extinct. Before he became a politician, Powell was a professor and a soldier. Before he became a politician, “Tommy Robinson” was a mindless thug.

          But none of this is very important. I repeat what’s most important: we need not more houses or schools or hospitals or jobs. We need fewer people.

      • We need fewer people in Africa, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc. European nations are falling below replacement levels.
        High IQ white women are already going on birth-strike or mail-ordering abortion pills to “save the planet” and opening Britain and other European countries to the fecund youth from the “developing” world.

    • Yes, absolutely. My poor regard for David Attenborough would improve a thousand-fold if he would stop his spiteful, dishonest finger-wagging at Europe and America and name out loud the leading destroyers of nature: China, Africa, Indonesia and so many other of those uttrerly ruthless ‘developing nations’.

      • Attenborough says that (on UN predictions) by 2100 a third of the huge world population will be African (Radio Times, 26 September). Average IQ 80 (or lower).
        “They breed ’em, we feed ’em”?

        Read: Asfa-Wossen Asserate, “African Exodus” (2018), Stephen Smith, “The Scramble for Europe” (2019) & “The Great Replacement” online.

        William McDougall & Oswald Spengler saw it coming. But why let it happen?

        White Lives Matter too.

  7. Yes well, if over the past 75 years the economic surpluses created by the most productive 15% of the Earth’s peoples had not been re-directed as food, medical interventions, public-hygiene infrastructure, technical know-how and training to the Rest, then that’d have fully avoided the problems that Attenborough, Greta, Sayer and ilk are bawling about, wouldn’t it.

    If there had been no such transfers of wealth, there would have been no massive increases in the population segments that are nett consumers of the Earth’s bounties, would there.

    Events, dear Myles, events.