Univ of Tex professor says 90% of Earth's population should be killed

[kurth]

2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Advocates Deliberate Mass Human Extinction

Members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist...

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

[Inland]

1. Can't find any actual statements of this professor on links

Even though there was supposedly an exchange of emails.

[FormerDittoHead]

37. Reading into this - it's anti-enviornmental propaganda...

My "Former rush fan senses are tingling"....

Look, is there ANY DAMN WAY a prof would get a "standing ovation" if he "advocated" killing 5 BILLION people????

Seriously - think about it.

But... that's EXACTLY what the right wing would have you think of environmentalists, and that's the EXACT purpose of this "article"...

Republicans want people to think that "wacko" environmentalists are anti-jobs, they put the lives of "snail darters" ahead of humans. So it's only logical they want to KILL HUMANS to "balance" the environment...

"Article" in quotes because it's as detailed and referenced as well as Hillary murdering Vince Foster...

[Inland]

82. You're right, it doesn't make much sense.

Like the failure to release emails that would supposedly be on this topic. Why? Because there's probably some denials. Better to post it on the web and watch it rattle around the Right Wing Enterprise. In two months, it'll be the entire science department at Harvard participating in the development of lethal ebola in a project supervised by PETA and Greenpeace.

[FormerDittoHead]

103. Exactly. This will be "Snoped" then forgotten only to be revived in email

Your prediction in your last sentence is spot on.

Listen - these guys don't know HOW to tell the truth.

Has Limbaugh cited the article yet? Any time now.... I'm sure local talk radio hosts have already referenced this great piece of "journalism".

You know, these hypocrites will refer to this, cite this, quote this (as if there were any direct quotes to begin with, of course, that would be actionable...) but when it becomes debunked..... SILENCE.

Oh, maybe months/years from now there will be the "....don't I remember one of these enviornmentalists coming right out saying they want to kill most humans...?"

And these pig headed, two faced, hypocritical, demagogues will criticize the New York Times...

[FormerDittoHead]

114. Follow up - this is what this "report" is being used for...

http://nickfirenze.redstate.com/story/2006/4/2/233421/0795

...and a follow up comment:
"I find chilling parallels between the modern conservation ecology movement and the eugenics crap from the 1930's and 1940's. Both movements were fostered by leftist elitism, and saw global terror as a useful tool to accomplish their goals (in one case, the thinning of the herd, in the other, the eradication of it)."

[Radical Activist]

144. "tree huggers are crazy!" is the only argument they can make.

Since environmentalists are actually acting in the public interest while the Republican pro-pollution stance has no agenda other than allowing polluters to make a profit by harming the public and passing off the costs of their pollution to the taxpayer. Its a dishonest propaganda campaign to make the average person too embarassed to call themselves and environmentalist.

[Orrin_73]

2. Whats up with Texans and death,

they seem to be obsessed with.

[screembloodymurder]

127. Why can't Texans wait for Armageddon?

If we must cull the population, let's start in Texas.

[Flabbergasted]

3. And Let me guess...This guy will of course not be one of these 5 billion

expendable human beings.

[BrklynLiberal]

60. self-delete

[NaturalHigh]

88. Of course not.

Such insightful minds are "too valuable".

[wordpix]

4. obviously this is not the preferred method of birth control

Instead of controlling human population by murder, war and starvation, most of us would prefer the use of birth control.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. was that talk given April 1st by chance?

[standup]

7. It's in the news today:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/14250940.htm

[regnaD kciN]

23. That "news" is merely a summary of the initial "article"...

...written by someone who was fired from Scientific American for advocating creationism.

Why do I get the feeling that they got this news from WorldNutDaily? :eyes:

[FormerDittoHead]

118. Maybe because you have your wits about you? (link to worldnetdaily...)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49555

[Canuckistanian]

15. Actually, no

The author says 3-5th of March, so sometime in that range.

[MadHound]

6. Well, I agree with him, to an extent

I do think that we should eliminate a large portion of the human population from the face of the earth. We are carrying way more population that what the earth can handle, and it's really starting to show. Resources starting to dwindle, hunger stalking the third world, pollution heating the atmosphere and poisoning the earth, species dying off at unprecedented rates, the list of evidence is a long one.

However, I would rather see human population controlled by humans through birth control and negative population growth. That way, we could ease ourselves into a lower population rather than having a catastrophic die off that would throw our entire society into chaos. Sadly though, I don't think that we can get the human population to stop growing, so this man's scenario of a sudden massive die-off due to some deadly plague is a reasonable thing to expect. Mother Nature has a way of checking those species that have over populated, and we will be no different. Our only hope is to start establishing colonies on the moon, Mars and other planets in order to start shipping our excess population there. Sadly, I doubt that we willy fully implement that solution in time for it to make a difference.

[KittyWampus]

22. Earth's NOT carrying "way more then it can handle". It's Distribution

that's fucked up. There are plenty of resources for every human being born. It's our societal system and methods of dealing with distribution and allocation of those resources that's dysfunctional.

Not only is the notion that there aren't enough resources false, it's exactly what those who control the resources WANT US TO THINK.

How else to keep people divided and willing to fight? How else to better maintain their grip on power?

[MadHound]

33. Got any proof of that?

Major populations across the world don't have the land capacity to feed their own population, Africa and China are the two prime examples of this. The US cropland has reached it's carrying capacity, and even exceeded it given the amount of fertilizer we put on it. Right now, farmers in the US are having to put ever more fertilizer and pesticides on the ground to get the same amount, or less, of food out of the ground.

Oil is starting to run out, we have reached our peak domestic production decades ago, and either have reached, or will reach global Peak Oil in the next few years. Potable water is starting to become a problem worldwide, and the vast schools of fish in our oceans have been overfished to the point of extreme danger.

Yes, distribution is a problem, and things can be distributed more evenly. But even if we did that, we would still be falling short for an ever increasing section of our population.

But the fundemental problem isn't merely distribution. The fundemental problem is that there simply isn't enough resources to go around now, and this problem is going to increase in the upcoming decades unless we start controlling the human population now. If we don't, it won't matter how much we optimize our distribution process, there still won't be enough to go around.

[Tsiyu]

68. We are nowhere near capacity on food production here

You are obviously NOT a farmer.

Of course, making the most of our planet means CHANGING the way we do business here, but don't share that part of the equation. Bio-intensive farming, crop rotation, organic methods of fertilization, soil recovery - all of these can increase soil fertility and crop yields. Currently, most American farming is done the old-fashioned way. Monoculture with plenty of chemicals.

I could make this same case for energy needs as well.

Basically what you are saying is "We are going to stubbornly cling to wasteful, environmentally unsound ways of doing things and therefore we can't take care of everybody."

If we changed our energy habits and our farming methods, we'd have an overabundance of energy and food.

[anarch]

90. I have the feeling Nature will settle this argument

If there are abundant resources, then great, we may conceivably improve in the areas of equitable distribution and/or conservation and equitable use, and everybody will be able to live in relative comfort.

If not, then there will be a huge die-off, just like there always is when population grows too large for the available resources to support.

Lucky us who are alive now, we may just live to see which way it goes.

[Tsiyu]

92. It's a choice, not a ball game

I'm not a spectator; I'm a participant here.

Start by supporting organic farming, solar energy, bio-diesel.

Stop spraying your house and lawn with chemicals.

Use less water.

If you wait long enough, the disease WILL kill you. If you treat the disease, you live.

[MadHound]

108. LOL, friend, not only am I a farmer,

But I come from a long line of farmers, one of which, my father with his Phd in Agriculture taught me many, many things about soil, fertilizers, sustainability and how we're painting ourselves into a position that we can't get out of.

Our methods of mono-cropping and clear cutting has led to a severe drop in our topsoil, a vital component in food production<http://www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro/soil/erosion.htm> In fact we have gotten into a vicious circle of massive fertilization in order to make a field produce, which lessens the field's fertility in the future, thus leading to erosion of the top soil, thus leading to ever more fertilizer use.

You are correct that we have to change how we farm, but when we do, we will experience some very serious drops in productivity, some experts estimate by upwards of half of what we currently produce. In addition, many fields that have been monocropped to death will have to remain fallow for decades in order to rebuild the topsoil.

Organic farming, which I am a firm supporter and practitioner of, is not a panacea of bountiful harvests and food for all. It is a way in which we can rebuild the earth that we have harmed, and provide for our own national needs at the same time. However we will not have the massive bumper crops of grains and what have you that allowed us to give wheat away for free like we did a quarter century ago. In fact it is doubtful that if we went to complete organic farming we would have much for export at all.

What I'm saying here is that we've built our worldwide population growth on the false notion that petroleum based farming would continue indefinetly, feeding an ever expanding number of people world wide. Instead, what we are finding is that it is leading to contaminated water and increasingly sterile land. We have absolutely got to be good stewards of this world, and unfortuneately one of those stewardship duties involves controlling our own population. If we don't, then Mother Nature will in a nasty, brutal, catastrophic manner. Rather than that happening, let us start controlling it ourselves in order that we can do so gently and in a manner that is controlled so that we lessen the worldwide impacts that such a decline will entail.

[Tsiyu]

119. we aren't utilizing even a fraction of our arable land

You are still fixated on "mass production." If your bottom line is the dollar bill, then we don't even need to discuss environmental policy or food distribution at all.

Actually, organic yields can be higher and the food more nutritious when done correctly. Switching to healthier grains and less of them ( and relying less on beef and the necessary grain to sustain it) is also key.

Dragging your feet and feeding Monsanto is as damaging as overpopulation.

[MadHound]

123. You obviously aren't reading me right friend

Where ever in the hell did I say that I wanted to feed Monsanto? In fact I'm saying quite the opposite, but hey, I suppose it is all in the interpretation right:eyes:

And while I agree with you that foods raised organically are indeed higher in nutrition value than conventional crops, every single agriculture expert out there will tell you that organics, true organics, will give you less yield per acre than crops farmed conventionally.

And friend, actually the amount of arable land per capita is going down in the use. We have reached our carrying capacity and are shooting right on by it<http://dieoff.org/page40.htm>

This is why I am stating that we have absolutely got to reduce our population growth, both here in the US and around the world. Either we do so in a controlled, gentle, planned manner, or nature will do so for us in a catastrophic, disastorous manner. It's up to us.

[Tsiyu]

124. Modern farming IS feeding Monsanto

Dragging our feet on learning new food production methods IS feeding Monsanto.

We have reached capacity only for the methods we choose to use. Most suburban Americans can produce half of their food needs in their own backyards. Not that they would, mind you, but there is plenty of land left, just not enough for gigunda corporate farming.

You don't even need soil to grow crops. Hydroponics, anyone? And this year, all of the coolest gardening catoalogs are selling upside down tomato planters that hang from supports.

Production and distribution methods must change, no matter how many people we do or don't have at some point in the future. The reliance on chemicals, GM seed and mono-culture have lasting consequences.

[MadHound]

125. And d'uh, what the fuck am I saying pal?

That we've got to go to organic farming! HELLO!!! Listen to what I'm saying, don't keep sticking words in my mouth, OK

Now then, as far as organics being able to feed the world, you are flat out wrong. You want to go to hydroponics:rofl: One of the least organic methods of growing food. Both water and petroleum based fertilizer intensive.

Old style victory gardens? Good luck with that. First of all, a lot of suburban soil is crap, good for nothing more than growing grass and bushes, but requiring major land restoration to get it to the point of being suitable for growing even garden crops organically.

You seem fixated on this utopian notion that organics can feed the current world population, they can't. That is why I'm advocating that we, as a species, volutarily start reducing our numbers to the point that organic, sustaibable agricultural practices will feed us. And like I said, if we don't do so voluntarily, Mother Nature will do so for us.

[Tsiyu]

129. Okay I was not insulting you but somehow you take it that way

Whatever.

I thought we were having a discussion here.

I could go in depth about how our dumping excess grain on Third World markets destroys their ability to feed themselves; I could discuss many issues related to this, but you seem not to want to take what i say seriously, and I'm not going to get anywhere.

As I said, most folks won't garden themselves, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Lots of things are possible, but we'd much rather ridicule anyone with a different approach or idea.

On edit: Nowhere did i take an ill tone with you. I thought I was respectful in discussing my point of view. But I guess you feel better now. I'm going outside to plant some lettuce.

[MadHound]

131. Sorry, but I felt that during this whole exchange you were insulting me

First by stating that I was obviously not a farmer, and then there after by your continous assertions that A: I didn't know what I was talking about, and B: That somehow, even though I've stated organics over and over, I was promoting the same tired old petroleum based agriculture.

So yes, I got a bit steamed about this exchange with you. It is quite frustrating when somebody doesn't read what you're posting, OK:shrug:

Peace:hi:

[pitohui]

140. we are using ALL arable land

this is crap, all useful land is in use in the usa and even w. entire states given over to agricultural desert, esp. in the midwest, as the aquifiers drop and the soil blows away, we will be able to support fewer crops not more crops

those who claim there is plenty of arable land, point it out -- i suppose what you really support is a massive taking of our public lands (most of which is only fit for grazing and not for crops to begin with but by all means don't let a little thing like FACTS stop you)

when the entire country of brazil and the entire continent of south america is a soy desert, resulting in extinction of millions of plants and animals, will you satisfied or maybe you can grab any arable land left in, i dunno, antarctica, it should be melted off by then

sheesh

the poster you criticize is fixated on "mass production" because there are hundreds of millions of people in the usa, and billions of people in the world, and guess what, the mass needs to be fed, not just the elite

we can't say "ain't it awful" that nazi dude thinks we should all eat ebola and die -- and then ignore the fact that if we want billions of people to keep on living, all of those billions gotta eat!

but i love it that you are telling a farmer how to farm, for your next post why don't you tell a heart surgeon how to put in a stent

[Tsiyu]

142. Thanks for your - as usual - pleasant demeanor!

I've been a farmer as well. Care to debate farming with me?

What the hell is with all the nasty moods on this thread? Can you, pitohui, ever have a pleasant discussion with anyone or do you ALWAYS have to patronize?

There is plenty of arable land here, my point is there is not enough for agriculture as we practice it. That must be too hard to figure out for some folks, but it seems like a clear idea to me.

Like, on my four acres, I don't have room for row crops like corn and grain, but I can and do grow herbs, veggies and my hens also produce more than enough eggs for my family. I use this only as an example of using "non-farmable" mountain land to grow a crop. WE can change the way we farm, but only if we choose to do so.

In this nation, we have land laying fallow or used mostly to support cattle. You can take a nasty patch of scorched earth and grow legumes and other recovery crops, add organic matter, etc, and you can grow crops again. But not if you're lazy and not if your bottom line is the dollar bill.

I am not excusing the professor's comments. He's an idiot. But so is this ignorance about the capacities of modern farming. So is the ignorance on food supply around the world. The issue of food supply will not merely be cured by reducing population; that's all I'm saying. And I'm also saying we have more than enough farmland to feed our nation.

We just live with a lot of lazy, greedy people.

[ret5hd]

161. don't worry...

for some inexplicable reason SOME here feel their terribly important feelings have been ignored by way too many here. Your only safe response to them is complete and utter pity, weepy hugs, and lots of "it's ok, it's ok".

[Nikia]

149. Not really

I had the privlege of growing up in an area with a lot of land. I now live in an area that also has a lot of land. Land is inexpensive so retailers build one story stores that take up a lot of area and build a large parking lot. People buy a couple acres of land that used to be prime farm land, build a large house, and use the rest as a large lawn. The town that I was born in has built out into farm land several square miles and actually has decreased in population. I believe that the area that I grew up in Ohio and the area that I live in Wisconsin could support more farming if more land was reserved for farming. I don't think people would be happy if we legislated that, but there could be more farm land available.

[Nikia]

148. All the family farmers I knew in Ohio rotated crops

I went to a mostly rural school and knew many such people. Why does rotating crops cause lower yields?

[Tsiyu]

154. Good question

Here are a few citations:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html

Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds

By Susan S. Lang
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes.

David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture, concludes, "Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans." Pimentel is the lead author of a study that is published in the July issue of Bioscience (Vol. 55:7) analyzing the environmental, energy and economic costs and benefits of growing soybeans and corn organically versus conventionally. The study is a review of the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, the longest running comparison of organic vs. conventional farming in the United States.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm

Organic Farms Viable Despite Lower Yields, Study Finds


A 21-year Swiss study of organic and conventional farming systems is providing new evidence that large-scale organic farming is economically viable and environmentally sustainable over the long haul, although crop yields still fall short of conventional methods.

The study, published in today's issue of Science, reported that organic farming methods used 50% less energy, 97% less pesticide and as much as 51% less fertilizer than conventional methods.

After two decades of cultivation, the soil in the study's test plots was still rich in nutrients, resistant to erosion and readily water absorbent. Overall, organic crop yields averaged about 20% less than conventionally farmed crops, although the differences covered a wide range. Potato yields, for example, were 58% to 66% of those produced by conventional means. The production of wheat reached 90% of a conventional harvest.



*snip*


http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/norm071805.cfm

Studies Show How and Why Organic Farming Must Become the Norm in the USA


(same study as above - another article)



http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/oca19.cfm


scroll down to: 3. GE Crop Yields/Pesticide Use No Better

Recent data from the US Department of Agriculture's Economic
Research Service for the 1997 and 1998 growing season found
that in most cases genetically engineered crops were not
getting any better yields than conventional crops, and
farmers were using about the same amount of pesticides on
engineered crops as conventional crops.

The two biggest boasts of the biotech industry are that
genetically engineered crops will increase yields (and allow
us to feed the world), and reduce pesticide use. The USDA
data released earlier this month looked at engineered
cotton, maize and soya beans and can be viewed at:
www.econ.ag.gov/new-at-ers.

To study the use of pesticides on these crops, the USDA
divided the country into various different regions. In seven
of the 12 combinations of crops and regions, farmers using
modified crops had to add the same quantities of pesticides
to their fields as those growing non-modified crops. To
study yields, the USDA looked at 18 crop/region
combinations. In 12 of them, yields of modified crops were
no better.

"In the majority of crops and regions surveyed, there are no
statistically significant differences in pesticide use or
yield between engineered and nonengineered varieties,"
according to Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned
Scientists. "In one case, pesticide use increased on the
engineered crop and in another case, yield declined in the
engineered varieties."

*snip*


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020531073719.htm


From the Swiss:

Organic Farming Produces Smaller Crops, Healthier Soils, Swiss Researchers Report In Science

Organic farming methods produced crop yields that were, on average, 20 percent smaller than conventional crops, during a 21-year comparison of the two methods. But, the organic approach more than made up the difference in ecological benefits, according to Swiss scientists who conducted the study. Their results appear in the journal Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In one of the longest-running studies of its kind, Paul Mäder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, in Frick, Switzerland, and his colleagues compared plots of cropland grown according to organic and conventional methods. In each system, they grew potatoes, barley, winter wheat, beets, and grass clover.

"There is a need to evaluate alternative farming systems as a whole system in a scientific way. The most appropriate method to do this is still to conduct long-term experiments, which can be analyzed statistically and performed under identical soil and climate conditions. Soil fertility and biodiversity develop slowly, and this is why a long-term study is essential," Mäder said.

Unlike conventional farming, organic farming uses no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. The authors also studied an organic approach called biodynamic farming, which requires some additional activities, based the environmental and spiritual philosophies of its inventor, Rudolph Steiner. Crop rotation, varieties, and tillage were identical in all systems.

*snip*


The more people know, the less they can make false claims. These studies show that there may be around 20% lower yields, but this is offset by a 50% reduction in energy costs, pLUS less reliance on petroleum PLUS healthier environment for everyone.

Thanks for standing up here Nikia! :hi:


*snip*

[FlaGranny]

109. While you may be right that

food production can be increased by good farming methods, energy could be conserved and used more wisely, we may already be past the point of no return - global warming leading to a new ice age. Try feeding all those billions of people on an icy planet. Also, rising sea levels before the cooling of the planet would also cause the populations of major cities throughout the world to relocate to higher land previously used for farming, thus decreasing the land available to feed them.

I fear others are right on when they say mother earth has her own ways of dealing with species that get out of hand. If every person on earth, right now, right this minute, started doing everything just right, perhaps the human species could be saved from disaster; perhaps not.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

87. you cannot substantiate your claim with facts

there is no where, no way that you can prove the earth is beyond it's carrying capacity. All you can point to are 'studies' done that prove nothing. Don't ask for proof if you can't back up your statement. It is a problem of distribution...and of government...not resources.

sP

[MadHound]

122. Those darned studies, performed by scientists and all,

What the hell do they know anyway:eyes

China doesn't have the tillabe acres to feed it's own population of over 1 billion people. India is in the same boat, and are depleting their land and eroding away their topsoil due to the use of western farming techniques such as monocropping and petroleum based fertilizer ever since the seventies.<http://www.worldfoodprize.org/Youthinstitute/04institute/04proceedings/gliddenralston.pdf#search='india%20can%20not%20feed%20its%20own%20population'>

Even the US is facing some serious problems, as our topsoil is depleted and our long years of petroleum based agriculture takes a huge toll. Topsoil delpletion is at crisis levels<http://www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro/soil/erosion.htm> and petroleum based agriculture has painted the US into a corner that we can't get out of. The more petroleum fertilizers we use on the earth, the less productive it becomes. But without using such fertilizers, we could very well not be able to feed our own population, at least in the short term.

In addition, we are facing a looming disaster in the onrushing lack of potable water. Mankind has polluted his own nest so badly that drinking water is starting to become a rarity in the third world, and even here in this country as the Ogalala aquifer(the largest in North America) and others are rapidly going dry.

Is this an inevitable disaster? No, but we have to start taking action now. We have absolutely got to reduce our population growth worldwide. And we also have to start practicing sustainable agriculture practices on a global level. If we don't, then we are headed for a massive human die-off that will effect everybody. Rather than ignore this onrushing tragedy, let us try and live in balance with the earth and its capabilities. This means reducing our population to a sustainable level. If we don't we might all be doomed.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

145. as said...

biased studies contradicted by othe biased studies...fun

Your own statement makes it clear...Is this an inevitable disaster? No, but we have to start taking action now. ...you said we are already past the limit...if that is true then everyone should be dropping dead...not just in places where the government is a shambles and the people have no idea of family planning...

sP

[raccoon]

102. Another problem is some people (i.e., Americans and people

in other industrialized countries) are using the lion's share of the resources.

I'm guessing the average American comsumes 25 times what an average Third World citizen does. That's just a guess; if anybody knows of any stats please post.

And colonies on Mars and other planets? Get real. No way that would be cost-effective.

[KittyWampus]

120. Okay, Distribution AND Agricultural Practices. But there's still enough na

natural resources.

And distribution refers not only to actual resources but inhabitants as well.

Or current model is crashing... but that only means we need new ones.

[alarimer]

110. We are causing the greatest mass extinction since the

dinosaurs. So it isn't about the resources or whether or not the Earth can support this many people, it is the fact that having so many people alive causes a massive imbalance in nature. Biodiversity is declining. Upwards of 50% of fisheries resources are currently overfished or in a state of collapse. Climate change, sea level rise, pollution. All of these problems are caused (for the most part) by human activity. It isn't so muach the size of the human population but rather the impact that population has on the environment. And it is a disaster any way you look at it.

[The Stranger]

180. That is utterly and completely erroneous. It is NOT "distribution."

It is a question of environmental devastation and the destruction of ecosystems all over the planet due to the overburden of too many fucking human beings.

[Ready4Change]

27. I disagree with how it is stated.

By saying "we should eliminate XX% of the population" it sounds like an advocation of death camps.

Rather, I'd say, that our our current ability to support our large population is artificially supported by rapid fossil fuel exploitation. If we don't find a replacement for the energy we are deriving from those fossil fuels, we will face an unavoidable, massive drop in population when those fossil fuels are depleted.

We don't have to "eliminate" people. When fossil fuels run out, they will either starve, or the children that would otherwise replace them when they don't won't survive childhood, or won't be born in the first place.

[MadHound]

42. I agree with you about the tone this prof is taking

But I think that his overall point is the correct one. The human population is much to large for the earth's carrying capacity, and the only thing keeping us afloat is a dependence on petroeum based fertilizers and other technological band-aids. We can't keep up this juggling act forever, and when we fail, it is going to be a catastrophe.

Rather than allowing matters to get to that point, we should, through the use of birth control, start shrinking our population gradually and gently. The only other alternative is to let nature take care of it, and then it won't be gentle or gradual at all.

[Ready4Change]

46. I think his speech is being misrepresented.

Another post linked to a bloggers report of his speech. In that one it sounded to me that the speaker was saying he thought that pretty soon a natural epidemic would reduce the out population, and he merely thought that Ebola was the most likely candidate of the various tools nature has at it's disposal.

In other words, he wasn't saying "Let's spread Ebola." He was saying "Nature has ways of dealing with us. I think Ebola is most likely."

[AngryAmish]

63. I Disagree

Famine is much, much less prevalent nowadays (20-30 years) than in any other time in human history. That is indisputable. There is so much food produced in the US that we pay farmers not to farm. Think about that. Modern farming has done a lot to remediate the damage done to the Great Plains in the last 100 years and (I think) top soil is actually being added through no-till and other methods of farming.

If one objects to fertilizers and pesticides then one condemns hundreds of millions to death by famine. Period. One might as well run death camps if one advocates getting rid of modern pesticides and fertilizer.

Human life spans are increasing everywhere except failed states (Russia comes to mind)and areas where HIV is endemic in Africa. Worldwide, life spans are longer and birth rates are falling.

Life looks good for humans.

[MadHound]

99. It is your right to disagree,

However being able to back up your points with facts helps a lot.

Here are some facts. Famine and chronic hunger stopped declining roughly ten years ago, and has remained steady, even increasing a slight bit for the past ten years.

The reason why we're paying farmers not to farm is due to economic factors, rather than the world population not needing the food. In addition, many fields remain fallow because they have been overworked for the past fifty years, and can no longer produce.

As far as fertilizers go, we absolutely need to wean ourselves off of them. Petroleum based fertilizers are polluting our food and water, and over use of such fertilizers can render a field unsuitable for crops for years to come. In addition, with the rising price of oil, it is going to be economically unsustainable to continue to fertilize our fields.

And despite the best efforts of no till and other alternative farming practices, the US continues to lose topsoil<http://www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro/soil/erosion.htm>

We have based our population growth on the continued use of petroleum based fertilzers and other unsustainable farming practices, and now we are staring down the barrel of a catastrophe. If we don't curb our population growth, we will experience a catastrophic sudden die off. It is best that we start now to reverse this population growth, to bring it back within the bounds of sustainability, in order that we have a gentle decline, rather than a sudden catastrophic one.

Anything else is just asking for disaster.

[sendero]

35. I'm wondering..

... how many people actually read the link.

Personally, I believe in the concept of Gaia, and so my view of his view should be clear. :)

[shance]

138. I agree. We do need to be controlling our growth through birth control

and negative population growth.

Because of the rampant population growth, child bearing should be a very thought out decision and really, almost be an earned privilege in my opinion and not simply some biological impulse that everyone just 'does'. Too much abuse and entitlement to do whatever we please at the expense of so many others. There is a lack of appreciation and there is more of an expectation to do whatever the hell we want. Thats not good.

No doubt, humans, wars, destruction and greed are destroying the planet. They're simply are not enough natural resources to sustain the world, much less us and thinking, caring human beings need to address this issue.

[400Years]

8. First of all I read the article and they don't have a single quote

from the Professor in there and there is no corroborating testimony either.

There is no telling what the man really said other than from the characterizations in this article.

[Ready4Change]

31. There are quotes...

But none that say he is advocation this action.

Were I paranoid, reading behind the quotes that WERE used, I might say he was warning of this possibility, rather than saying this should be done.

However, without the full text of the speech, I can't really support that supposition either.

Anyone have a link to the full text?

[Canuckistanian]

9. Yikes, that's disturbing

Not so much that one scientist espouses these radical views but that, according to the reporter (a well known electronics writer, btw) there was "enthusiastic applause" from the audience of fellow scientists.

[Stanchetalarooni]

10. Here, Here. I second that. I vote that aboriginals only be spared.

The rest of us all are responsible for wrecking this Mother Earth.
Who here does not pollute?
Who here doesn't contribute to global warming?
Our Prius' may get good mpg but how we get our food, our clothing, our heat and cooling all contribute to massive wear and tear on Dear Mother.
:sarcasm:

[DiverDave]

11. Gotta be a joke, right?

What kind of moron says this, and gets a "standing ovation"?

Yeah, I want to see mass murder, with people dying in a painful, horrible way.:sarcasm:

edited for punctuation

[Rocknrule]

111. Who advocates the extermination of most humans & gets a standing ovation?

Ahem...


:scared:

[unblock]

12. sounds like an idiot's interpretation of an academic lecture

the lecturer would hardly be the first person to complain about overpopulation and to tout the ecological benefits of fewer humans. if all he did was get a bit specfic about how such a scenario might come to pass, that would still be no more than standard academic musing.

now, if he said, some forward-thinking student should rush out there and go do this, then he clearly crossed the line, but that i highly doubt.

[400Years]

13. exactly

[bunkerbuster1]

17. I detect more than just a faint whiff of Horowitz

I'll wager this is the latest in a long line of whiny-ass titty baby complaints about evhul academicians.

Anyone else?

[Inland]

83. "Give me a Break!"

It's another in the Right Wing Enterprise wannabees, exposing the trivial and the idiosyncratic and, if that's not enoughn to get someone's attention, making shit up. You called it.

[Canuckistanian]

18. I know Forrest Mims as an electronics writer

He's written a number of basic electronics books that used to be sold at Radio Shack.

He's never struck me as a kook, but, you're right, he may have been selectively remembering parts of that speech.

The audience may have been applauding him for other reasons as well.

[standup]

21. Pianka's talk reported by blogger a month ago:

http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html

[regnaD kciN]

24. It's curious...

...that, while that blog leads with prominenly-displayed quotes by Pianka, none of them come from the actual lecture that's being "reported," and none of them deal with the matters of that supposed lecture.

Why do I get the feeling that this guy's merely echo-chambering the Mims account? Although the blog claims that the author was at the lecture, it sure doesn't sound that way to me.

[standup]

34. Mims is chairman of Environmental Science Section of Texas Academy

He is a creationist and Scientific American didn't like his views but they never questioned his integrity. it's doubtful Mims made this up just to smear Pianka. I think more witnesses will come forward.

[fishwax]

80. he did lose his column in scientific american b/c he's a creationist

or at least rejects evolution. I'm not sure of all the details, nor am I really familiar with his work, but I remember the story ...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

97. What evil discrimination on the part of Sci Am!

That's like booting someone from a Mathematics publication because s/he believes the square root of 2 is rational! Outrageous!

[HereSince1628]

14. Whoa, in his old age Pianka is getting out there...

While I was in grad school back in the 80's he was something of an icon in evolutionary ecology and I met him several times at TAS meetings.

I recognize that every environmental problem is multiplied by human population, and the planet probably is beyond the ability to sustain current human activity. It's a classic argument in environmental science. But I think he is wasting his reputation and his ability to persuade political forces if this level of rhetoric is typical of his presentations.

[400Years]

16. well you don't even know what he actually said

the article is pretty lame, full of rhetoric and short on facts

[standup]

19. Eric R. Pianka's obituary

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/obit.html

[Octafish]

30. He's not dead yet.

And he's volunteering other people to go first.

[5X]

20. I think Mims is misrepresenting what this guy was saying...

He wasn't advocating the killing of people, just saying
the earth may do its own cleansing.

[Heidi]

25. The Drudge Report is what gave this story wings.

If you want to know what Professor Pianka really said, why not just send him an email?

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/

[ptolle]

107. dkos

There's a post over on dkos on this from the excellent science blogger Darksyde that discusses what the professor had to say and how the cretinist( my spelling) Wm. Dembski has decided that the professor was speaking of or maybe advocating the development of just such a strain of the ebola virus, and seeing his patriotic duty clear reported prof. Pianka to the Dept. of homeland security. I'm waiting for more info before making up my mind whether this is some dotty old academic trotting out the latest iteration of his life's work pet theory or whether this is a tempest in a teapot being breathed upon by the frightwingers in their ongoing campaign of discrediting academia/"intellectuals"/science.Anything that has the stink of the sludge report upon it raises my skeptical quotient considerably.

[Heidi]

113. Welcome to DU!

I used to live in your fine state. :hi:

When you hear more, please post or send me a PM. Like you, I find the rightwing spin on this extremely suspicious.

[0007]

26. This is as bad as trying to figure out your phone bill.

[Yupster]

early morning chuckle

good one 0007.

[Yupster]

45. early morning chuckle

good one 0007.

[blindpig]

28. If this is true, and I have some doubt,

it demonstrates a complete loss of hope. While I completely agree with the analysis, the solution is unthinkable. I have to believe that we might reduce our numbers by voluntary means, that we haven't started is the greatest failure of my(boomer) generation.

The longer we dither and pretend that population reduction is not necessary the greater the likelihood that there will be unavoidable die-offs of humans numbering in the billions in the next 50-100 years.

I don't believe that simply waiting for prosperity to reach all is within the time frame though it is certainly an important component of the solution. Perhaps if we had gotten serious 30 years ago it might have.
These are desperate times but I refuse to let my desperation descend into the black amoral despair suggested by this article.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slaveplanet]

32. Well he certainly wouldn't be the first Texan

Who want's to play god...

[5X]

36. Mims is a fundie.....

<http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHP-Communique/communique_12_19.htm>

[Jim__]

38. I just did a quick search on mims

He's a member of "Citizens for Good Science" - an anti-regulation agency.

There is also no direct record of the quote he asserts the scientist made - and, supposedly, no recording of his having made it.

I doubt the assertion is true. If it were, would the Texas Academy of Science have given him a standing ovation? Doubtful.

[5X]

39. Exactly....

a little too convenient that there is no tape.

[5X]

40. My only regret is that I wasted my 500th post on Mims. n/t

[slaveplanet]

155. Would it be inconvienient then

If there was a tape and a transcipt?

[standup]

43. Pianka repeated his talk last Fri at St. Edward's Univ in Austin

http://www.seguingazette.com/

[5X]

47. And if you read that article, hard as it is with such..

crappy punctuation, he is not "advocating" as Mims says,
but offering a scenario for what might happen.

[dailykoff]

51. Are you saying he was misquoted?

If not, he's definitely advocating:

The audience laughed when he said, “You know, the bird flu's good, too.” They laughed again when he proposed, with a discernable note of glee in his voice that, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

[5X]

53. Quotes taken out of context by fundamentalist christians.

<http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHP-Communique/communique_12_19.htm>

[dailykoff]

54. The quote was from Citizen Scientist.

It doesn't look particularly fundamentalist:

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

[5X]

58. If you click my link, you will see that Mims is a fundie....

and a creationist. He would no doubt hear something
different from this talk than I would.

[dailykoff]

59. I don't think Mims gave the lecture. (n/t)

[5X]

61. Ok, never mind, you have yours made up and won't bother to ...

even read what is going on.

[William Seger]

96. "Mims is a fundie, therefore he must be wrong about this, too"

The problem with ad hominem logic is that it's illogical.

[Viking12]

126. No, it's not in this case.

Mims is making an argument from authority. We are to believe HIS account of the proceedings of the lecture. When an argument is made from authority, questioning the authority is perfectly logical. The fact that Mims has an ideological interest in trying to discredit those of us in the reality based community is an issue worthy of addressing.

A real ad hominem is a form of the non-sequitor fallacy -- taking the argument to the man as a substitute for engaging the issues.

[William Seger]

167. Baloney

"Mims is making an argument from authority. We are to believe HIS account of the proceedings of the lecture. When an argument is made from authority, questioning the authority is perfectly logical."

Baloney. Mims isn't making any "argument" -- "from authority" or otherwise -- he's making a claim about what he heard at the presentation. Nobody is requiring you to believe his account. If you choose to disbelieve it because he's a Creationist, fine, don't believe it. But don't try to pass prejudice off as logic.

[Viking12]

168. For a guy that throws around the term logic...

you're pretty logically challenged. As you admit, "he's making a claim about what he heard at the presentation" without any supporting evidence, thus an argument from authority. When an argument is made by authority, the "authority" is justifiably and logically an issue at question. It is perfectly reasonable to impeach the credibility of a witness. Defend nutjob creationists all you want -- you're as logically impaired as they are.

[ronnie624]

172. LOL!

It's always nice to see fellow posters who are not fooled by such crude propaganda.

This article seems like a hit piece to me. A disjointed and inarticulate mess composed by a right wing half-wit who, like most fundamentalist, has an intense fear of professors and scientists who have the unmitigated gall to express opinions on politics and human society. The author of the piece provides not one quote from the speech by Dr Pianka to illustrate his inflammatory claims which include:

-"After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing"

-"His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola"

-"But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation."

-"He spoke glowingly of the police state in China that enforces their one-child policy."

After browsing through Dr. Pianka's website for about forty-five minutes, which I accessed from the article, I cannot find anything that would indicate that he espouses what is outlined in the above quotes from the article. I did however make the acquaintance of a dedicated and hard-working researcher who seems to enjoy life, his work and the process of imparting knowledge and understanding to potential future scientists.

If anyone ever encounters a transcript of Dr. Pianka's speech I would be very grateful if you would post it.

[William Seger]

183. More baloney

"As you admit, 'he's making a claim about what he heard at the presentation' without any supporting evidence, thus an argument from authority."

Well, no, professor; wrong twice: It would an "argument from authority" to assume that Mims' assertion is true simply because he said it, then try to use that "truth" as declarative knowledge in an inference. My comment about Mims concerned assuming that he's lying simply because he's a Creationist. And second, Sherlock, I didn't comment on this story at all without first determining that there is supporting evidence that Pianka did, indeed, talk about the "need" to reduce the population of the planet by 90% and then talk about Ebola's 90% mortality rate. The only issue I see is how explicitly Pianka advocated that as a "solution" -- i.e. how insane is Pianka -- and I guess we won't know that until Mims releases the transcript. But even if I assume Mims is exaggerating that advocacy, and assume that Pianka's supporters are more correct that he simply "hopes" it will happen naturally, I conclude that Pianka is a crackpot, and I am of the opinion that crackpots are extremely counterproductive to the environmentalist agenda. If you feel the need to defend Pianka simply because Mims is a Creationist, then knock yourself out trying to convince people that it really would be great thing if Ebola killed 90% of us.

"Defend nutjob creationists all you want -- you're as logically impaired as they are."

Now, don't get me started on irony... :rofl:

[Viking12]

184. Well you've obviously been influenced by Mims' propoganda...

Shame on you. You continue to misrepresent Pianka. Mims lies have been debunked. I discredited Mims, not just because he is a creationist, but because he is a creationist that advocates on behalf of a group of well-documented liars known as the Discovery Institute. Your perpetuation of their lies makes you as culpable as the DI hacks.

On edit: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/forrest_mims_cr.html

[Viking12]

185. More...

You acknowledge, "I guess we won't know that until Mims releases the transcript" yet you claim to corroborating evidence of Pianka's speech. Strike one. Then you turn to the ad hominem. Strike two. I never defended Pianka. Strike three. You're out.

[fishwax]

89. no, Mims wrote about the lecture in Citizen Scientist n/t

[The Stranger]

181. Oh fucking please.

The audience laughing proves that he was not "advocating" this.

[The Stranger]

182. There are too many human beings on the planet.

The result is the massive and irreversible destruction ecosystems everywhere. We must limit reproduction using birth control, or we will further destroy the planet.

This message is being perverted with lies, smear campaigns, and it must stop.

Wake up, people. Wake up.

[Jim__]

56. Is the text of his speech posted?

I can't find it in that story. It sounds to me like he is saying 90% of the human population will/may be killed in an epidemic - and it sounds like he may welcome this. I really don't see the quote that says he's advocating this. I'd really like to see the context.

[slaveplanet]

153. Uhm..That's not quite

There is also no direct record of the quote he asserts the scientist made - and, supposedly, no recording of his having made it.

what Mims had to say today. In fact he's said the opposite, he has just recieved a full tape of this particular speech, which is different from other Pianka speeches on the same subject. And that he's not releasing it until the transcript is completed.

[fishwax]

157. where does he say that?

In fact he's said the opposite, he has just recieved a full tape of this particular speech, which is different from other Pianka speeches on the same subject.

I just re-skimmed the article (read it more thoroughly this morning) and didn't see anything about receiving a tape or transcribing it. What I see is that there was no video, and so Mims's account might be the only record we have of the speech.

[slaveplanet]

163. He said it on the radio, during an interview

Heard it myself

[fishwax]

164. gotcha. it sounded like you were

taking the other poster to task for misreading something. :toast:

I'll be curious to see what the actual content of his speech is ...

[slaveplanet]

166. I'm assuming it will be released

sometime later in the week. from the way he made it sound.

[guinivere]

41. I'm sure the prof and his family aren't included in the 90%. nt

[dailykoff]

44. “And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said. . . .

Groan. If only this kind of stuff stayed in Texas, or better yet the pigranch.

[Guaranteed]

49. ROFL so get rid of the people.

Seems a little drastic.

[dailykoff]

52. That's his basic idea, yeah.

Apparently he got lots of support from the audience too.

[Guaranteed]

48. This is not for humans to determine. nt

[kestrel91316]

50. I betcha what he ACTUALLY said was something along the lines of

how the human population has exceeded the earth's carrying capacity by 1000% and that it would take a dieoff (due to acute disease) to restore some semblance of ecological balance to the world, and that such a dieoff was practically inevitable.

He's absolutely right, you know. And I seriously doubt he was gleeful about it.

[dailykoff]

57. But that isn't what he said. Read the article. (n/t)

[400Years]

62. the article is bullshit hearsay

[dailykoff]

64. The editor is a Ph.D. and Macarthur Fellow.

They usually don't give their money to bullshit artists:

Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal publication schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter.

Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.,
MacArthur Fellow,
Founder and Executive Director,
Society for Amateur Scientists

Special Editorial: Dealing with Doctor Doom

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

[400Years]

69. so?

[fishwax]

91. but the AUTHOR of the article is

a fundie, as has been pointed out elsewhere. Forrest Mims is the person who claims the speaker said all these outrageous things and claims that the crowd reacted enthusiastically.

[standup]

116. Shawn Carlson is no fundie - he exposed astrologers, evangelists:

Shawn earned his Ph.D. in nuclear physics at the University of California at Los Angeles in 1989, and then accepted a joint research appointment at the University of California at Berkeley's Center for Particle Astrophysics and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory's Division of Space Sciences. There he ran the Leuschner Observatory, was chief observer for the Berkeley Automated Supernova Search, and headed up the search for Nemesis-- the postulated companion star to our sun that may have induced the asteroid shower that killed the dinosaurs...

Shawn is also a veteran of many battles against pseudo science. In 1985 he published in Nature magazine a study that is considered by many to be the definitive test of astrologers' abilities. The study soundly refuted astrology. Since then he has been active with the James Randi Education Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and with the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) in Buffalo, New York. He has been particularly concerned about protecting the public from charlatans who use believers' sincere religious faith against them. He worked under James Randi to help expose a Peter Popoff, then a popular TV evangelist, pretended to be gifted with divine inspiration about his audience members but was actually receiving secret signals through a tiny radio hidden in his ear. Shawn then duplicated the so-called miracle of the crying icon in both paintings and statues. And he lead a five-year investigation into allegations of Satanic crime and in 1989 published a detailed report titled "Satanism in America, How the Devil Got Much More Than His Due." This report has been credited by the FBI as helping to quell what was then a rising tide of hysteria about the influence of Satanists in our society.

http://www.sas.org/CarlsonCV.html

[fishwax]

158. self-delete

[kestrel91316]

72. Does the article contain the TEXT of the speech?

Or exact quotes of the speech?

Or just the paraphrasing of a shoddy journalist.

I have been the victim of shoddy journalism before, with quotes even placed around sentences I never actually said! I KNOW this goes on.

[Inland]

117. Something as newsworthy as Malthus.

Or a discussion of disease.

You know what would make these topics more exciting? Insert a "should" somewhere in there. Instead of "People who smoke cigarettes will probably get lung cancer", report "People who smoke cigarettes should get lung cancer" and move on to "People who smoke deserve to die" to "People who smoke deserve to die and the sooner the better". And remove any quotation marks, which means you can say ANYTHING you want.

[Atman]

55. Professor Hitler?

I'd hate to fail THAT class!

[BrklynLiberal]

65. The author of this article is a fundie and one should know ALL the info

before reaching conclusions.

Here is a telling excerpt from this article

One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?”

Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, “We're no better than bacteria!”

Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it's too late.

This was how this article is condemning Pianka's speech. I see no flaw in Pianka's points here. Since all one has to go on is the hearsay of one fundie "witness", I am a skeptic as to the authenticity of the "facts" of this call to destroy humankind as presented in this article.

[Bridget Burke]

66. We know he said that because an Intelligent Design fan said so....

Sorry, I'd have to read the actual lecture. Well, Dr Pianka is an "evolutionary ecologist"--so you know he's doing the Devil's work!

Actually, I'd like to hear him lecture. Sounds like a pretty cool guy. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/eric.html

[dailykoff]

67. "Cool guys" don't advocate for genocide.

And don't think this is anything new. It simply got into the press. If you're hearing it for the first time, I'm sorry.

[Bridget Burke]

70. Prove that he actually said what the creationist nutcase....

Claims that he said.

Where did YOU hear about this first? Every message I've seen goes back to the Intelligent Design fruitloop.

[BrklynLiberal]

71. Mims is a creationist

From then on, "Piel's attitude toward him changed dramatically" (Hartwig, 1990, p. 6). Piel informed Mims that he would not be allowed to write anything for any publication that Scientific American objected to. Piel was specifically concerned about articles on the subject of creation or against evolution or anti-abortion pieces. Mims was warned that if an outside article was published without Scientific American's prior review and permission, he would face a pay cut or dismissal (Sidey, 1990, p. 56). Mims pointed out in response that he has never used his writing to promote his creationist beliefs, nor would he do so in the future (Mims, 1992a). To insure that he conformed to this demand, Piel continued to insist that all of Mims' outside writings must be reviewed by Scientific American prior to their publication elsewhere.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Bergman.html

[dailykoff]

73. The issue is Pianka, not Mims, and the fear goes back to Malthus

and probably before. It's disproven every time the world's population doubles, which it has many times since the days of Thomas Malthus:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

[BrklynLiberal]

77. And Mims is CERTAINLY NOT influenced by his Creationist beliefs

so we can be sure that his reportage of this lecture is totally objective and accurate, with no ulterior motive or hidden agenda.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[dailykoff]

78. That's for the editor to determine, and he has good credentials. (n/t)

[standup]

121. Point is nobody who was there at either event has contradicted Mims

or the reporter who wrote up the article on Pianka's repeat performance at St. Edward's University

[fishwax]

160. Pianka himself said that Mims misinterpreted him

it's right in Mims's article, in fact.

Mims goes on to say that his (Mims's) interpretation is backed up by Pinaka's own website, quoting, as evidence, a comment from an anonymous student evaluation written by a student who, apparently, shares Mims's inability to understand what Pianka was saying.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

134. Thank you!

I wish we could learn from this so we could better deal with population matters instead of just panicking everytime someone repeats Malthus.

[fishwax]

74. The story is bullshit

According to the article, Forrest Mims is the one and only person who can attest to this speech, as the speaker and other scientists conspired to make sure the speech was not taped.

Forrest Mims is a creationist, and so he probably believes evolution is a scientific conspiracy as well.

The story sounds like bullshit intended to discredit the academic community.

[gollygee]

75. Yes I'm sure that's what he said

that he personally wants to kill 90% of the people in the world. He couldn't possibly have been making a comment about overpopulation that was deliberately misinterpreted.

[NaturalHigh]

76. U of T must have a thing for dumbass professors.

Robert Jensen has been there for years looking for his fifteen minutes of fame, and now there's this guy. What the hell is in the water there?

[Bridget Burke]

81. There's absolutely no record of the professor's actual words....

Only a garbled account from an advocate of Intelligent Design. (Dr Pianka is an "evolutionary ecologist.")

Apparently Drudge carried it.

[dailykoff]

84. ...except for the direct quotations published in Citizen Scientist.

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

Hey that's how the New York Times does it too. :shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. Keep digging deeper, pal.

[Bridget Burke]

94. "The views expressed herein are his own "

...and do not represent the official views of the Texas Academy of Science or the Society for Amateur Scientists."

Is that how the NYT does it?

Mr Mims has done well with a BA in Government from Texas A&M. www.forrestmims.org/pages/1/index.htm

Besides his many Radio Shack publications, he's also an Adjunct Fellow at the Discovery Institute.

The Discovery Institute through the Center for Science and Culture has been advancing the agenda set forth in its mission statements in both the political and social spheres. That agenda includes the intelligent design movement; transportation in the American and Canadian northwest (Cascadia); a bioethics program opposed to assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human genetic manipulation, human cloning, and the animal rights movement. Its economics and legal programs advocate tort reform, lower taxation, and reduced economic regulation of individuals and groups as the best economic policy. Discovery Institute also maintains a foreign policy program currently focused on Russia and East Asia.

The Institute's primary thrust in terms of funding and resources dedicated are those political and cultural campaigns centering around intelligent design. These include the:

Wedge strategy

Intelligent design movement

Teach the Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

[dailykoff]

101. Views and quotations are two different things. (n/t)

[fishwax]

162. none of his direct quotations say anything remotely close to what he

claims was said at the speech. Here, in their entirety, are the "direct quotations" from the speech:

“What good are you?”

“We're no better than bacteria!”

“We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

“And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”

“You know, the bird flu's good, too.”

“We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

"I speak to the converted!"

"...because they deceive the public in every way they can to stay in power."

"Smarter people have fewer kids." He said those who don't have a conscience about the Earth will inherit the Earth, "...because those who care make fewer babies and those that didn't care made more babies." He said we will evolve as uncaring people, and "I think IQs are falling for the same reason, too."

Notice how none of these quotes says anything like what he claims. Notice how the controversial comments are all part of Mims's summary, not part of his direct quotations. To wit: After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

But despite his apparently meticulous notes, Mims can't quote Piankin actually praising Ebola. Bummer.

They laughed again when he proposed, with a discernable note of glee in his voice that, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

Once again, Mims is ascribing emotion/endorsement to Piankin that he simply can't demonstrate with the man's words.

So even if his quotations are an accurate reflection of what Piankin said, there's really little reason to accept his interpretation of Piankin's speech as accurate or authoritative. Indeed, one would think that if Piankin actually said what Mims claims he said, Mims might be able to quote him saying it.

[slaveplanet]

152. Not according to Mims

He was on the radio today, He said he's recently been given a bootleg tape, and a transcript will be released soon.

[Crandor]

79. oh great, another "environmentalists want to kill us all" nut

Check out what these whackjobs believe in. http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwopopcontrol.shtml

Did you know birth control is an Illuminati conspiracy to kill off the human race? :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Why am I reminded of... Nazi Germany?

[FormerDittoHead]

115. In what way?

If you mean how the teachings of a enviornmental / scientist can be misquoted (actually, not quoted at all) misrepresented and demonized beyond all reasonable proportion then mirrored and echoed in major media outlets, yes, I agree it's a LOT like Nazi Germany...

[Bridget Burke]

130. I'm sure some folks would love to burn Dr Pianka's books...

He teaches evolution!

[William Seger]

86. Some of you seem to be kidding yourself

Whether or not it's true the planet has 1000% too many humans, Ebola may or may not evolve into an airborn plague that could wipe out a significant percentage of the population. There's really not much connection between the two -- dense populations simply means that the catastrophe would be more severe and happen a lot faster -- so it's really hard to imagine why Pianka would link the two in his lectures unless he really does believe that would be a good solution to the population problem. Mims may well have misunderstood the extent to which Pianka is "advocating" that solution, but if so, it seems he's not entirely alone in that misunderstanding (including at least two of his students).

My problem is that I think he's right about overpopulation, and we need to do soemthing about it, but when he even gives the impression a mass die-off would be a good solution... by the time the rightwing echo chamber finishes with Pianka, any hope of a reasonable approach could be set back many decades.

[Bridget Burke]

95. No need to tell us about the RightWing Echo Chamber.....

This thread is definitely reverberating!

[dailykoff]

100. It's the right wing that's worrying about the mud people

using up their precious fossil fuels.

[standup]

98. nobody has come forward to say "No, Pianka never said such a thing!"

Of the HUNDREDS of people who heard him at the Texas Academy of Science, and again last Friday at St. Edward's University - NOBODY.

Pianka was a big topic on Austin radio today - again, nobody could contradict what had been reported

[BrklynLiberal]

104. Everyone thought it was too ridiculous to contradict.

They were laughing so hard they could not formulate an appropriate response.
They are contacting the SNL crew.

[Jim__]

105. Has anyone provided a direct quote?

And, can we see the text of the speech?

Otherwise, this does not even amount to an out of context quote. It's an out of context summary of what was said.

[standup]

106. Here's a PC version of what Pianka probably said

"What good are lizards? Indeed, what good are YOU?"

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio301/why.html

[Inland]

112. A "version" of "probably" is two steps removed.

[Jim__]

133. Well,I did ask for a direct quote.

Not a version of what he "probably" said.

But, even given that, what you claim he probably said is a far cry from: ... a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola ...

[pitohui]

141. it is april after all

think it's safe to say this is an april fool's

[Viking12]

128. I've never seen you condemn the Nazi's

Therefore you must be in favor of the Holocaust.....

BTW -- Numerous have spoken up. The accounts from people who were there agree that Pianka was not encouraging the "unleashing" of viruses on people, but was warning of a likely natural result (and apparently, mentioning that this would be a great thing for the biosphere as a whole, despite its dire consequences for us). http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/texas_academy_of_science_getti.php#more

[Bridget Burke]

132. What other topics are hot on Austin Talk Radio?

I doubt anybody who's been to hear Dr Pianka gives a fuck about Right Wing Talk Radio.

[shance]

135. Isn't this what the Bush Administration is advocating?

Just look at every policy and every action being implemented.

[lovuian]

136. Isn't this like playing God...

What a thing to say...

[screembloodymurder]

137. And here's how you do it.

The CDC is creating a flue strain to kill us off. We need millions to march on DC from all across this nation or we are doomed. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050324-030452-8400r.htm

[pitohui]

139. this was a whitley streiber novel

called "nature's end" or something of that sort, i think,(unfortunately a commonly used title for many books or i'd tried to look it up real quick)

well in the novel they drank poison instead of the whole complicated ebola thingy but same idea

as streiber suggested, the mass cremation of the billions of bodies alone might be sufficient to bring on nuclear winter

[blogslut]

147. So that's how

...that damned book ended. I got about three chapters in and stopped reading Nature's End. Black skies. Death everywhere. Shudder. Now that I know how it ended, I'm glad I didn't finish it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

143. 100% of the world's population is going to die.

The current population, that is.

[Rocknrule]

146. And he's not getting as much publicity as Churchill?

:wtf:

[OxQQme]

150. Snack bar is OPEN

Would you like some Soylent Green on that popcorn?

[jmowreader]

151. Mims is kind of a mixed bag

Forrest Mims started out as an officer in the Air Force, doing classified laser research at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. He resigned his commission to become a freelance writer...and took a job as a parking lot attendant at an airport to pay the bills.

Mims was one of the pioneers of the personal computer. The personal computing age officially started when a company in New Mexico called MITS (which was founded to build telemetry gear for model rocketry) created a machine called an Altair 8800. When you got this thing it came as a big box full of parts which you got to solder together. And then you got to go on a treasure hunt for an old Teletype Model 33 so you could type commands into the thing. Mims wrote a two-part article for Popular Electronics magazine that described how to build it, and like most of the articles in Popular Electronics at the end of the parts list there was a price for a kit of parts and circuit boards. A LOT of people bought this kit, and most of them actually got the thing to work.

He's written a lot of electronics articles, and he's very good at it. He's pretty good with the broader field of physics too.

However! When it comes to chemistry, or to any biological science, he's best regarded as an interested layman.

OTOH, I seriously doubt Dr. Pianka was advocating the reenactment of the Ebola attack Tom Clancy described in "Executive Orders."

[ElsewheresDaughter]

156. 31 March 2006 it was an april fools Joke, could you not tell!

it is right?

[Rex]

159. Sounds like a God complex.

Herr Doktor has been spending to much time with his lizards! I bet they told him of this insidious plot to kill the 'warm bloods'! :scared:

[MrSlayer]

165. Captain Trips.

Sounds like someone has been reading "The Stand".

[jzodda]

169. oooo this is inspiring me to write a new story

Dr. Doom this guy is called. Reminds me of the Doctor from the movie 12 monkeys. I must write a story based on this, and will start tonight. Time for me to do some Ebola research :)

[Swamp Rat]

170. Fundie propaganda

"I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola." - Utter bullshit.

Mims should stick to transistors and crystal diodes. :eyes:

[nolabels]

171. If your really worried about Prof, just do the dirty on yourself and......

save us from your wine :banghead:

[Heidi]

173. His remarks were taken out of context. Read this interview

with Dr. Pianka: http://www.kristv.com/global/story.asp?s=4720802

(Isn't it grand how the Right has so easily orchestrated a smear campaign against a respected member of the scientific community? Please don't buy into it, DUers.)

[Jim__]

174. Never mind - the link works. - n/t

[Heidi]

175. Here ya go:

http://www.kristv.com/global/story.asp?s=4720802

[Jim__]

176. Thanks.

I retried your original link and it worked.

[stepnw1f]

178. thank you

[kurth]

179. Well, the right wing had William Shockley et al.

"Father of the transistor", "creator of the electronic age", winner of the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics, who gained widespread notoriety in his old age for espousing eugenics (to reduce the number of low-IQ blacks in particular). Right-wingers LOVE eugenics.

It is probable that Pianka made those comments in public - maybe twice even. But it doesn't matter. The earth needs fewer people, not more.

[Heidi]

186. Here's a book you might find interesting.

But if you read it, plan to spend lots of time in nature to decompress.

"War Against the Weak: America's Campaign to Create a Master Race," by Edwin Black.

www.waragainsttheweak.com

[stepnw1f]

177. Did he say that?

or was it taken out of context?