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 ...
Two comments: First, apparently Mim's account of the talk, without any corroboration, was sufficient for many people (including media outlets) to conclude that Pianka is a some sort monster plotting the doom of mankind. For those for whom a single uncorroborated source is sufficient to accuse Pianka of being a monster, Pianka's uncorroborated denial should be similarly sufficient.
Second, thankfully, there were witnesses (other than Mims) present:
From comment #3 to the link in RWP's #190:
Kathryn Perez Says: April 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 amHi, I was also at Dr. Pianka’s talk at the Texas Academy of Science meeting and came away with a very different impression of his talk that did Mim’s. I think my impression was in the majority judging by the standing ovation given to Dr. Pianka by ~400 fellow scientists. Following is an email I just received asking for my support in censuring Dr. Pianka. I am amazed by the vitriolic intensity of this letter and I would like to emphasize that Mim’s has blantantly and dishonestly mischaracterized Dr. Pianka’s statements. [emphasis added]
—– Forwarded Message —- From: Keith Arnett
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2006 5:22:25 PM Subject: Dr. Pianka’s FINAL SOLUTION [snip]
I have no idea if there were any powerpoint slides for the talk.
FWIW, I may not even agree with what Pianka claims he said, but what he claims to have said and how Mims has characterized it are two very different things, and Pianka has the benefit of at least one audience member, who isn't part of launching a character assissination (AFAIK), reputiating Mim's account of Pianka's talk.
Unless Mims can produce additional witnesses who attended the talk and who can corroborate HIS version, Pianka appears to have the preponderance of evidence in his favor.
The poster at that site never actually says what her impression was. She repudiates nothing.
Seriously. She doesn't say anything other than that her "impression" was different.
So we can't really count that.
I really want somebody to say "Mims said Pianka said x. Pianka most certainly did not say x." Or better yet, "Pianka actually said y." That's all. It's not like this was in an obscure parallel session.
I can see Pianka going a little overboard and being provocative and I can see Mims distorting what was said to make it sound much worse than it was. And I can imagine that what happened was a combination.
But if Mims told an outright falsehood, it should be really easy to refute.
Please read the bolded text:
Kathryn Perez Says: April 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 amHi, I was also at Dr. Pianka’s talk at the Texas Academy of Science meeting and came away with a very different impression of his talk that did Mim’s. I think my impression was in the majority judging by the standing ovation given to Dr. Pianka by ~400 fellow scientists. Following is an email I just received asking for my support in censuring Dr. Pianka. I am amazed by the vitriolic intensity of this letter and I would like to emphasize that Mim’s has blantantly and dishonestly mischaracterized Dr. Pianka’s statements. [emphasis added]
[snip]
Calling Mim's account of the talk a blatant and dishonest mischaracterization of Dr. Pianka's statements is a pretty straightforward. I think most people can read that and understand it at face value.
What is so hard about this? I just want to know some facts and evaluate for myself. I'm not going to sit around weighing opinions. For all I know, she's Pianka's graduate student, but motivation doesn't even matter. I'm not taking a vote of peoples' opinions.
Is this the way scientists do it now? The toothpaste commercial method? (4 out of 5 biologists say...)
And I just want a woman with dentures and big t*ts..... Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make it so, for either of us. Absent a video tape or other objective record of the talk, we have only the eyewitness accounts to go on, imperfect as they may be.
We have one person (Mims) claiming this guy is hoping for the death of 90% of the human population of earth by disease. AFAIK, not a single other person in attendance has corroborated Mim's account. OTOH, we have two people who deny Mim's account; the speaker himself, and the woman who posted the comment I provided earlier. And none of the other 400 people in attendance have stepped forward to corroborate Mim's stunning assertions (AFAIK).
For the moment, the data are limited and not verifiable in an objective sense; we cannot be sure which, if any of them, are telling the truth. Courts are frequently face with this dilemma. Somehow, they manage.
If you find an objective source re: the talk, such as audio or video tape, I'd be interested in what reveals.
I think it's a bit unusual that a few of the 400 wouldn't run to the speakers' defense. And besides the speaker himself, all of we have is an opinion from an anonymous post on the internet.
Only Mims has gone on the record and his specific claims have not been refuted.
What do you know of the videotaping? This sounds like a major address? Was it at the request of Pianka?
Ah, the beauties of "outcome based" science.
Let me summarize Pianka's view. He doesn't argue that we should kill 90% of the population actively. He does believe that it will happen eventually and he's happy about it. Oh and if it doesn't happen then the earth and everything on it will be destroyed. He doesn't exactly elaborate on what "destroyed" means, but I assume that means all of x resource will be used up.
Total fruit loop.
You must have "mispoken" when you said "anonymous": the source is clearly identified in my post.
Her professional information is also available online by following the source of the quote in my #201, i.e., the link in #190, and then double-click on her name: it includes, but is not limited to, her e-mail address, research interests, and CV.
For someone who professes to be interested in the facts, you don't seem to be making much effort. Three or four mouse clicks isn't too much strain, is it?
This concludes our dialogue.
Posting on a blog does not constitute public remarks. Sorry.
Facts ceased being important to self-styled "Conservatives" some time ago. The Conservative response to Mims babbling is identical to their behavior in the early days of the "runaway bride" case.
OK. I was supposed to go to a post (that you didn't link to) then click on that and then scroll down through to find what you did (I couldn't find it, BTW, I think there's a mechanism that shortens the posts) then stalk around to find out who this woman was?
Frankly, it's a little creepy and my main point (I love your propensity for tangents) is that she doesn't add any new information.
The guy has his a bull buffalo named Lucifer and writes his own obitutary? What a total whack-job!
Memory hole, anyone?
Utterly fascinating. It should be noted that elsewhere it was reported that Mims works as a reporter (perhaps a part time stringer?) for this newspaper. I'm guessing they took his word for it on the Pianka story, but now that transcripts are popping up and others in attendance have denied Mims sensational characterization of Pianka's talk, their legal advisors have likely told them to yank the stories.
Without corroboration of Mim's version, I'd guess the paper might want to publish a retraction, to limit the damage.
I have the cached version of Brenna M's blog. And Pandas Thumb has the cache of the Seguin Gazette Enterprise story. But evidently, both are trying desperately to erase the past. And gosh, it's the evos who are trying to save the originals.
Samizdat, guy.
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
LoL!
Part of the March 3 transcript is still available here.
After reading the transcripts, it appears to me that Pianka was not advocating the *intentional* use of Ebola.
Thanks. I agree.
This incident has done more serious damage to the reputation of conservatives among scientists.
Not to mention the damage done by Governor Perry's press secretary likening Pianka to The Third Reich.
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.