Odd words from Oddie!

He was on the Sunday Politics show this morning and shoved it in at the end of the discussion on immigration. They moved swiftly on........

Didn't David Attenborough say something very similar last year?

How many does he suggest? He has three.........

Although admittedly he was referring to the world in general, not just the UK.

I couldn't find an article or interview in the Telegraph with Bill Oddie. But there is an online Telegraph article that refers to Bill Oddie's appearance on Sunday Morning Live in which they were discussing the subject of population and immigration.

I suppose if he is invited onto a programme to give his views, then you can't really blame him for giving them - whether he's "qualified" to do so or not.

We are continually being warned that an ever increasing world population is in danger of exhausting the world's resources. Some say that if resources were distributed more equally, there would be less poverty and the trend towards having fewer children (as happens in wealthier countries) would automatically kick in.

As to the question of immigration, I really don't like his tone, which is not racist but seems to me to me to be equally unpleasant. It suggests that some people have a "right" to have more children while others do not.

My own feeling is that people who do not feel a real need to reproduce, should not do so. There is a lot of societal pressure for people to have children and there is underlying assumption that the decision not to is "unnatural" or to be pitied.

I noticed that he has three children and perhaps he feels that's OK because he's part of this group of "superior" people who are entitled to reproduce. Maybe as a "media" person he feels his contribution to society is more important than people doing less high profile - but arguably more useful - jobs.

As to his comments about Britain, I think they were pretty silly. We do not have an unblemished history and there are many things currently wrong with this country (as with others). I am neither "ashamed" nor "proud" of being British, but I feel that, on the whole, it is a reasonably tolerant place to live.

Bill Oddie has 3 children and 3 grandchildren, maybe he should have thought of that before he opened his mouth.

I find him an obnoxious, opinionated little man, his wife is quite rude at times also. (personal experience)

He should stick to what he thinks he knows about wildlife and leave the human race alone with his opinions.

David Attenborough can say anything he likes as far as I am concerned, he could speak to me in Martian or any language.

His comments about Britain were quite daft as well. I'm afraid he comes across as tetchy, irrational and irritable, perhaps Sunday Morning Live should have just brought him on for the section "introducing wolves back to the wild in Britain", possibly he is better able to comment on animal behaviour than the human kind!

Whilst on occasions when pockets of people from our country behave badly abroad, it has made me ashamed to be British, although of course they don't represent all of us. As you say Eloethan on the whole I am neither "ashamed" nor "proud" of being British and whilst we aren't a utopia, with our without wolves!, there are certainly a load of worse places in the world to live.

As he thinks it's OK to make judgemental pronouncements about sections of society, here's mine! Bill Oddie turned up on national tv this morning looking a sartorial shambles, he made me ashamed to be British!

And he was never funny in the Goodies either!

Although I'm a great fan of David Attenborough's programmes, I actually objected much more to a comment that he made (although I agree Bill Oddie is a good deal more irritating).

DA (a father of two) has very strong views about population growth. A while ago, he made particular reference to Ethiopia - that there are too many people there who can't support themselves. It is not the developing countries that are using the bulk of the world's resources, but the wealthy ones. The average American, if what I've read is correct, uses 20 times the resources that the average Bangladeshi uses.

The most effective way of limiting population is by educating girls.

I just want to say that Bill Oddie suffers from overwhelming, debilitating depression and has had a difficult life therefore. Not defending him, just saying. And he's lovely with birds.

Eloethan You are right when you say there is (or was) pressure on women to procreate. I am now 66 and my DH and I decided when we married that we did not want children. Throughout my 20s and 30s I was always being asked why I didn't have children (a very personal question to ask anyone). If I said I didn't want them I was looked at as if I was somehow abnormal.

Since being widowed I have joined several clubs and organisations but as the conversations revolve around grandchildren I am unable to join in. Now I understand people being proud of their grandchildren and relaying details of their achievements and I can respond with the usual admiring and congratulatory comments (and mean them), but after that no-one seems to notice that I am being left out of the conversation, even if I try to change the topic it soon returns to the grandchildren - as a result I no longer attend those clubs.

sunseeker I think it is extremely rude and insensitive to ask people such personal questions - I don't see why anyone should have to talk about something that may be painful to them or to have to justify a perfectly reasonable personal choice.

I also think people who go on all the time about their children and grandchildren are very boring and probably have nothing much else to talk about. I'm sorry that you have felt so excluded but hope you have found a more interesting group of people.

I saw Bill Oddie on Sunday Politics yesterday morning and frankly he came across as barking. I know that he has a family history of mental illness and suffers from depression himself but so do a lot of people. This does not excuse his irrational and nasty comments about being ashamed to be British. he was making sweeping statements about drunken louts and quite frankly came across as a slightly wild eyed irrational arse man. He also looked very untidy.

Gill you've almost made me feel pity for the poor old fellow. Almost but not quite.......

Spot on, janea.

I agree, eloethan, about David Attenborough. I used to admire him but his negativity about the species homo sapiens makes me think this: "One can go off people". I've gone off DA bigtime.

I disliked Bill Oddie over something I heard him say many years ago - it would seem he hasn't changed. Reading about his shame of being British, my reaction was the same as Sian Williams:

Challenged by the presenter, Sian Williams, to leave Britain if he didn’t like it, he replied: “You don’t leave it, you’re talking like Ukip or something. For God’s sake, shut up!

It would also seem that Bill Oddie is ill-informed.

Britain, from what I understand, has been suffering a continued fall in the replacement birth rate, from native British women, (usually around 2.1) - the average number of births per woman that will maintain a country’s current population level. This is the rate that will determine if a country will continue to grow and produce commercially; this could explain why ministers have encouraged immigration on a large scale (amongst other things).

The United Kingdom is going through a radical transformation in its social makeup, largely as a result of immigration. Where a few years ago people were worrying about birthrate and falling population projections, a government report in late 2007 projected Britain would have 11 million more people by 2031 — an increase of 18 percent — and by one estimate 69 percent of the growth would come from immigrants and their children. Liam Byrne, Britain’s immigration minister, called earlier last year for “radical action” to manage the system.

The British situation today seems a far cry from “lowest low,” but it doesn’t mean that immigration is the answer to low birthrates. The actual numbers, according to several authorities, are discouraging over the long run. By one analysis of U.N. figures, Britain would need more than 60 million new immigrants by 2050 — more than doubling the size of the country — to keep its current ratio of workers to pensioners

Maybe politicians are wrong to worry about replacement rates:

For there are those who argue that low birthrate in itself is not a problem at all. Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford scientist who warned us about the “population bomb” in the 1960s, is more certain than ever that the human race is catastrophically straining the planet. “It’s insane to consider low birthrate as a crisis,” he told me. “Basically every person I know in my section of the National Academy of Sciences thinks it’s wonderful that rich countries are starting to shrink their populations to sustainable levels. We have to do that because we’re wrecking our life-support systems.”

I'm inclined to agree withe Paul Ehrlich.

www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I saw Bill Oddie on Sunday Politics and was not impressed by him. I thought he was rude, abrasive and unkempt. As a slightly younger contemporary of his I can only say that if I thought I looked and sounded like him I would hide myself under a large stone. Its very sad about his depression but I think he's a just a very rude, untidy old man with chips on his shoulders and some very fishy views. He's obviously very well-connected in the media world but I wish he'd just scuttle off back into the long grass and spend his time talking to the birds.

He has, in the past, made himself pretty unpopular with some of his bird activities as well.

Ego and arrogance don't always go down too well with landowners.

There's a new book out, one of many opposing Erlich's doomladen views. I haven't read it but I've just put it on my reading list for another time: The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings, by Pascal Bruckner, translated from French by Steven Rendall.

Although I did like Bill in the Goodies [patricularly the Northern t'tea ceremony sketch.]Lately he has become a bit wild eyed and rambling.

Re Paul Ehrlich - I was referring to his comment 'It’s insane to consider low birthrate as a crisis'. I see that as resetting the board. Other than that, I have no knowledge of him and have no desire to learn anything about him.

I do not think he'll be all that bothered, Holly, as he's in his 80s now.
He's still doing research.
The reason my husband and I only had two children was because of population studies in the 60s and early 70s.
If people had taken more notice of Ehrlich and his wife, we would not have the problems we have now as far as resources are concerned.
Even the left-wing have problems with him, saying that the problem is not population, but sharing resources.
That is true, because there is enough food in the world, and definitely in the western world, but there are people starving because food is not being shared.

I didn't know anything about Paul Ehrlich but as he was mentioned in this thread I thought I'd look him up. Some of the actions he considered but discarded for practical reasons I find very chilling - e.g. putting sterilizing agents into mains water - and some immoral - starving countries that refuse to forcibly control population levels.

There seem to be two conflicting opinions about population and what action, if any, should be taken:

That there must be a "tipping point" whereby it is not possible for the world's resources to sustain an ever increasing population. Some people think that measures should be taken to discourage reproduction - either forcibly or by means of a "carrot and stick" approach.

That there are enough resources to sustain the world's current and future population but that poverty results from unequal distribution. So the answer is not to place limits on reproduction but to share resources more equally.

As most of the world's resources benefit only a tiny proportion of its population, I think it's reasonable to argue that this must inevitably lead to poverty for the remainder. But, even if such resources were to be equally distributed, we don't know whether there are enough resources to match the needs of an indeterminate number of people.

If the first view is accepted, given that the world's population is an ageing one, to limit births would create an imbalance between young and older people. A shrinking number of younger people would therefore have to provide for, and care for, for an ageing population.

Given the uncertainty as to sustainability, isn't it mad to be wasting the world's natural resources (including human labour) to produce vast amounts of inessential consumer goods and services, instead of concentrating on those things that are needed to sustain life, such as food, clean water, sanitation, health care, etc.?