David Attenborough saw more clearly than most what was being lost. But even he stopped short of fully applying that logic to animals themselves.

Rewilding at scale, deep emissions cuts, and a serious move away from animal agriculture are the same project.

Every Nature documentary that ends with David Attenborough saying "there is still time to revert this destruction of natural habitat" makes me want to turn of the TV. I understand David's motivation (instill some catalyst for change) but I am with that other David - David Suzuki.

As per David Suzuki: it is shit, it will get shittier, responsible people should act accordingly [0]: <<"The science has said, ‘We have passed a tipping point, we cannot go back,'" Suzuki said. Survival in a warming world, he says, will increasingly depend on the resilience of local communities — and preparation must start now.>>

[0] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/david-suzuki-memoir-life-bir...

fwiw a lot of his programming has for decades included explicit conservation messaging and warnings about climate change, disappearing habitats, etc. It's an old strategy (and one he helped invent) of making people care about the thing they're seeing before telling them it's being destroyed.

Sadly I don't think the outlook is very positive on that. I saw an article from McKinsey about the Himalayan country of Bhutan which has famously put restrictions in place to keep the country heavily forested. Good for nature, good for preserving culture, not so great for capitalism.

The article I saw basically outlined in more detail what I said above and then followed it with: "....but what if that forest could be made productive?" It's rare that I want to reach through the screen and choke somebody but they got me that day.

The cult of Line Go Up will continue to win. They will destroy what we have and then sell us the solution to the mess they created. This will be coupled with a morality tale around individual hard work and personal accountability.

> I wish humans would come together to re-wild more of the earth. Restoring wild nature and cutting emissions is the only way to really restore natural ecosystems. We're nowhere close to doing that.

A big issue is cost and economic opportunity. For example, a lot of land in the SF Bay Area cannot be developed. This is great for the environment, but not so great for housing costs.

Long term, it’s likely worth it to save the environment, but let’s not ignore its immediate cost to everyone besides the upper class.

I like that Google does easter eggs like this.

Of course, they'll still put tracking links in the share button. Got to get that sweet data of who shared David Attenborough's birthday.

Desperate not to let anyone else have a go at his job.