Posted on 04/01/2006 11:28:14 PM PST by adiaireton8
AUSTIN — A University of Texas professor says the Earth would be better off with 90 percent of the human population dead.
“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,” Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.
Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.
“This is really an exciting time,” he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.” Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,” he wore, surprisingly, a smile.
So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?
6.5 billion humans is too many.
In his estimation, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” all the while leaving the planet parched.
The solution?
A 90 percent reduction.
That’s 5.8 billion lives — lives he says are turning the planet into “fat, human biomass.” He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall — likely at the hand of widespread disease.
“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.”
(Excerpt) Read more at seguingazette.com ...
I have found in the past that you have a very unusual sense of humor. Mine is subtle. I make serious points when I mock and I am mocking when I am serious. I suppose it requires a mind that sees more than just the surface.
Do you deny the biological basis for it? It seems biologists cannot take responsibility for the children they have fathered. Singer's work is in bioethics. It ain't business ethics. His justifications, his way of seeing the world, his language is all biological.
It seems once a subdiscipline leaves the nest and sets up "medical" schools, their medicine was the result of immaculate research.
But why don't you discuss the very subject of the thread? Apparently, you only want to talk about me.
But it is obvious that evolution is a subject whose subtleties can be grasped by the average junior high school student.
And I know this because you have implied it.
Rather Luddite don't you think? Do you blame physicists for the atom bomb and the Industrial Revolution for smog?
They didn't want to have to deal with it.
That's being a Luddite.
You are right, it is plain socialism. Cloning is socialism, whereby strength is not gauged by one's determination and efforts but by "gaining more immigrants" and what not.
It's not more funding, nor more men in Iraq, nor more immigrants for "Americans who do not want to do the job", but the actual will to fight and work. An army that has no will to fight is nothing, and that means trying to do more with less time, or to run the same time on a longer stretch. Cloning, like inbreeding and socialism engender decay: fighting spirit is not added in number, quite the contrary.
Fighting spirit is not added in number, quite the contrary, it is independent of numbers.
Liberals hate those families and a world that can make it in greater numbers with apparently less, is what I really meant in the end. THey are afraid of workers, real ones.
"The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism," he said, describing the belief system in which humans are the central element of the universe. "This is that common attitude that everything on this Earth was put here for [human] use."
I thought God DID create the Universe for my use and pleaure? Why did he have Adam name everything, if he didn't want us to use it? Why did he make animals out of tasty meat, and later have someone invent BBQ sauce, if he didn't want us to enjoy ourselves while we're here?
Step off, Perfesser.
No.
Do you deny the biological basis for it?
Yes.
It seems biologists cannot take responsibility for the children they have fathered.
The idea of the 'improvement of the species' is a 19th century one that has little to do with evolution; Darwin's theory was a scientific excuse for it, nothing more. You see the same sorts of arguments in Christian apologetics for slavery, predating Darwin.
Singer's work is in bioethics. His justifications, his way of seeing the world, his language is all biological.
Have you ever actually read anything by Singer? I see very little in Singer's writings to indicate he's particularly conversant with modern biology.
It seems once a subdiscipline leaves the nest and sets up "medical" schools, their medicine was the result of immaculate research.
Medical schools predated any sort of organized biological science.
What I find most interesting is that many of those jumping to defend Pianka now had, almost exactly a year ago, attacked-hell, eviscerated- Larry Summers on the basis of equally biased and out-of-context hearsay.
Just use a rope
Given the power he would invent Soylent Green.
If, as seems clear except to a few wingnuts, Pianka was not calling for the extermination of 90% of humanity, but claiming it was likely to happen, he's guilty of nothing more than holding a rather extreme environmentalist point of view.
Incidentally, Bill Dembski reported Pianka to DHS. I guess wasting the time of the people entrusted with our protection from terrorism is unimportant compared with scoring political points and maybe marking someone as a dissident. What a vile little excuse for a man he is.
I also read that on Panda's Thumb. Apparently, Pianka'd is quickly becoming a verb, meaning to get one's actual statements grossly misinterpreted by the blogosphere's ignorati (is that last word redundant?)
But to be honest, if he's only saying that population implosion is inevitable (remember Marx was "only" saying that Communism was inevitable) a lot of his students are getting the same mistaken idea. If you go to the link to the evaluations web page (Is one supposed to post such things on the web? It seems pretty obnoxious to me.) you will see the following in Fall 2004:
And I should say this: He's a popular teacher, not necessarily a good one.
I'd definitely encourage you to take note of any student comment that mentions "math" or "equations". :)
All the books he reads are left-leaning.
Mim's account of the talk borders on what might be characterized as psychotic confabulation.
I said above that I was suspicious of Mims' report, very much so now.
But I think it is worth noting that the fascinating choice of reading material you link to thinks that Pianka's word is sufficient for 'debunking'. (The TV report is gone from that website.)
Now maybe I have higher standards, but is that what consists of sufficient evidence to justify a theory in this field? Because he says so?
This seems to have been a very well-attended and well-advertised talk and I seem to have read somewhere that it was not videotaped and remember that they phrased it in a way that suggested that this was done at his request.
Most talks, of course, are not taped. Did he have (Powerpoint?) slides which can be posted online?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.