Wild-eyed Wild Isles

Much nonsense was reported about the final bonus episode of the BBC's Wild Isles recently. This didn't air on broadcast TV but was limited to iPlayer, which prompted the Guardian et al. to cry "right wing government cover-up", and claimed that "reputable sources" had told them it was because the BBC feared being too critical of the Tories.

Now these concerns are not without validity in the wake of the Richard Sharp debacle* and Gary Lineker's escapades, but in this particular instance, it was total nonsense. This extra feature was never part of the main show but commissioned by the RSPB, WWF and the National Trust. It was never scheduled to broadcast, and the show was described as five episodes in length on the RSPB and WWF's own websites. The whole furore was a bunch of bollocks.

* A case of very, very obvious conflict of interest. Good that he resigned, but disappointing that he refuses to see what's right in front of his face.

Not the show itself, though. That's superb. The main run of five episodes is up to the usual exemplary standards of Attenborough... but, it is a shame that the special didn't broadcast. It’s very much worth watching (available on Prime outside the UK, I believe), and contains nothing that attacks the government in any way. But I'm not going to do a detailed rundown of the episode. Instead, I need to go a bit more of a rant.

For once, the doom-laden tone of how badly the British environment has fared is kept to necessary minimum. Instead, the focus is on regeneration schemes, including, unexpectedly, cases where meat production can actually be beneficial for carbon capture, and where improving biodiversity is good for profits. 

I’ve said it before and I’ll reiterate : this positive approach in nature documentaries is badly needed. There have been a few others over the last year or so but the more the merrier. There is no longer any point - any point whatsoever - in the “doom porn” that too often characterises documentaries about environmentalism; I know the situation is bad, restating that in endlessly detailed and varied ways about exactly how bad things are serves no purpose. It just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy : everything is fucked, so why take any action ? Sure, let’s just all wallow in our own self-loathing, but the hell point is that supposed to achieve besides making everyone psychologically damaged ?

Well for one thing it’s not fucked. It isn’t. The environment is extremely robust if you give it half a chance, and herein are presented ways of living with nature rather than the typical binary “them or us” choice that oft-characterises environmentalism. Too often it seems to me that there is no small number of people who take a perverse delight in resharing every single “everything is awful” articles and must at some level actually enjoy this awfully depressing situation, who must be getting some sort of dopamine hit from it or something. 

Well, I’m done with that. It’s stupid. Stop rejoicing in your own misery. Cynicism is a luxury, optimism is both a burden and a duty.

And I do think that this is a problem peculiar to the left. I don't see the same sort of thing in the right. When a loathsome conservative resigns, I see the left-wing press moaning that there'll only be someone worse to replace them. I see bizarre claims that the next election could result in a hung parliament (albeit coming from both political wings, though for different reasons), despite the fact that local elections don't follow national polls that precisely and with Labour still with an enormous national lead. 

I just don't get it. Sure, complaints and criticism can be the engine of social progress. But this kind of ultra-pessimism baffles me. Such an attitude doesn't help achieve anything, it just keeps everyone perpetually miserable. It's weird.

Rant over, you may go about your business. After you watch the episode, of course.