Posted on 04/01/2006 11:28:14 PM PST by adiaireton8
Second, Brenna is sympathetic to Pianka. Her post was basically, "he is right". Because of the sparsity of sources on the subject (it was at Pianka's special request that his talk was not videotaped or recorded by audio) that people ran to her blog. She posted what can only be called a tearful and angry response to people emailing her. (That's what I saw when I visited her blog.) I would guess that she pulled it down herself. In fact, I seem to recall a page on Pianka's website was pulled relatively soon after this broke, but I can't remember the details.
Third, the Seguin Gazette Enterprise is a small-town paper. It doesn't publish on Mondays or Saturdays note the calendar on the right. I don't know that it has an agenda. Maybe one of their writers does and they're embarrassed. Maybe they just couldn't afford the bandwidth with all the hits. I just think it's an interesting comment on society that a newspaper that prints a story is considered to be hiding something if it pulls it from its website.
I read the transcript at the source on 218. (I guess it's a full transcript, it had a lot of ellipses.) What rambling, nonsensical claptrap! I guess you had to be there. Do you actually spend time going to such things? He didn't say anything until the question and answer session. That's a quarter-hour I'm never getting back.
It can be said that he didn't advocate anything. (That would take courage.) He did speak affectionately of China specifically because they were a police state. It doesn't seem that he mentioned terrorists at all, but again I don't know if that article produces a full transcript. I can guess what he would have said in such a circumstance and I would have to say that such a thing would not be advocating terrorism, but would be an unfortunate choice of words.
He also specifically mentions tax policy. Does it bother you, even a little bit, that this guy's "science" is nothing more than advocacy and is tainted by politics? This is what I hate, the politics, the ridiculous predictions, the herd mentality. If your science weren't so soft, it would speak for itself.
I should say that I didn't find Mims (who ran to the Texas Academy) and the other guy (who called Homeland) credible after I read a little about them. When I found out they were ID advocates, I realized this was a battle over other issues and they were looking for a scalp. So you have the irony of ID advocates distorting the views of and trying to discipline a scientist. You also have the irony of scientist Pianka trying to shield his work (or at least the presentation of his work) from open debate.
I took much greater stock in what Pianka himself had said in the past as the very very revealing comments of his students.
But... that doesn't make any sense. If they kill off 90% of the earth's population, who will serve as the gardeners, and nannies, and do the other jobs Americans won't do?
Who will bus the tables at the fancy resautrants where these great elites go to dine? (Why all professors are food snobs beats me.)
I suspect Pianka is at the end of his career, but he seems to had an impressive career in reptile biology, and trained a large number of students. I don't like the politicization of science: I just spent an unpleasant few hours on Panda's Thumb arguing about whether the 'Swift Boating' (their phrase, not mine) of Pianka is a characteristically Republican tactic. But conservatives are greatly worsening the situation by conducting a witch-hunt against an eccentric but widely admired scientist who may have political opinions but is not obviously political. Most of us feel that if they come for Pianka and we don't object, they will eventuially come for us.
Brenna M, by the way, is apparently a committed Christian.
And Pianka was not Swiftboated; that would imply Mims was telling the truth about him. It would be more proper to say he was either (Nancy) Hopkinsed or (Mary) Mapesed.
Pianka is a prime example of a brain pickled in the brine of darwinism.
The major population growth in the world is in the third world, particularly Africa and the Islamic world. I am surprised Pianka hasn't been called a racist.
Pianka could have prevented being misquoted simply by permitting taping. It seems as if this was the usual thing for a lecture of this type. I am really stunned that the Panda's Thumb crowd thinks that science and scientists should not be subject to scrutiny. And given Pianka's record on these subjects, it's really not hard to believe he'd say what Mims said he did. He's clearly a provocateur and says things for effect.
There was an interesting quote attributed to Pianka by the newspaper's pulled article. It was a quote from a previous speech where he said something like: "This will happen in your lifetimes." They didn't attribute the source of the quote to anyone, so I'm assuming it's genuine. That's crazy stuff. How can any scientist defend that? The problem isn't that he's a guy with a stupid opinion, it's that he uses his credentials to promote the most nonscientific of his theories.
But he hopes to do what Singer does. If he makes insane demands and ridiculous predictions, then he won't get all that he wants, but fear will steer the battleship in the direction he wants.
I remind you that Pianka was speaking before 400 respectable scientists, that his Hiltlerian final solution BS was interrupted several times with enthusiastic applause, and that he received a prolonged standing ovation at the conclusion of his tirade. Respectable scientists liked what they were hearing.
Science's problem is much bigger than Pianka. Science, particularly darwinian science, has taken on all the trappings of fundamental faith system that delights in preaching to the rest of humanity what is moral and what is not, what has worth and what does not, where we came from before birth and where we're going after death. Worse, it has managed to manipulate the power of the state to enforce these preaching and beliefs in the public schools and to make it illegal to criticize them.
That's your problem. You have become what your profess to hate: nutball fundamentalist zealots quick to employ state power to crush the "unbelievers."
Men of honor will condemn Pianaka's "final solution" and dencounce the 400 scientists who gave him an extended standing ovation.
I have no idea where you got that impression. I've said nothing of the sort.
Respectable scientists are concerned about the loss of biodiversity on the planet.
I'm not even going to bother to respond to the rest of your usual tirade.
So you're telling me it's a scientist's responsibility to insure himself against the likelihood fundamentalist Christians will lie about him. I'm inclined to agree it's wise move.
The major population growth in the world is in the third world, particularly Africa and the Islamic world. I am surprised Pianka hasn't been called a racist.
The biodiversity of Europe and North America was seriously reduced millenia ago. That of South America, Africa and South East Asia is still high, but it's rapidly being reduced. But indeed, it is surprising they haven't pilloried him for this; it probably because scientists mostly aren't as leftist as humanities types
They didn't attribute the source of the quote to anyone, so I'm assuming it's genuine. That's crazy stuff. How can any scientist defend that? The problem isn't that he's a guy with a stupid opinion, it's that he uses his credentials to promote the most nonscientific of his theories.
I don't agree with it, but it's not crazy. High population density causes epidemics. Entirely sane European and American governments have been stockpiling Tamiflu against the expectation of a major flu pandemic (and one reasonably sane scientist has made a killing on Gilead Scientific in the last year, not to brag or anything). Yes, Ehrlich and the Meadows cried wolf, but they may simply have been premature. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a major plague in Africa and South East Asia in the next 30 years.
But he hopes to do what Singer does.
Let's not start with Singer again.
Haven't you been paying attention? Mims' fairy tale about final solutions was debunked.
As for 'men of honor', from you, that's rich. Men of honor don't spread lies about others.
May Professor Pianka be the first to lead the way.
One thing I've noticed about you and your compatriots is your propensity to end debate by dismissiveness. You started by being dismissive and then, through some light high-order thinking on my part, I explained it. And you were silent. You laugh at his views, but they are the heat that boils the water in which you now find yourself. That which you should ignore (ID), you battle against tooth and nail. That which you should fight against (prominent bioethicists against animal testing), you ignore.
But, hey, you guys are among the group of elitist intellectuals *cough* who, according to Pianka, aren't having enough children, relatively speaking.
Let's end it right here then. You thought Singer was a biologist. You have posted some of the most prejudiced and hateful nonsense I've ever read about biologists. Any argument with you is a waste of time.
Ah, if only you were trying to be ironic.
You thought Singer was a biologist.
I knew he was a bioethicist. I'm sorry you don't consider "those people" your homies.
You have posted some of the most prejudiced and hateful nonsense I've ever read about biologists.
I do regret that as I know you are above prejudiced statements. And self-righteous hate, not even a hint of it. After all, what is to some a gentle gibe, is to others laying their deeply-held faith bare. And their fellow believers too often play the Stuart Smalley role.
Ah, if only you were trying to be ironic.
You thought Singer was a biologist.
I knew he was a bioethicist. I'm sorry you don't consider "those people" your homies.
You have posted some of the most prejudiced and hateful nonsense I've ever read about biologists.
I do regret that as I know you are above prejudiced statements. And self-righteous hate, not even a hint of it. After all, what is to some a gentle gibe, is to others laying their deeply-held faith bare. And their fellow believers too often play the Stuart Smalley role.
Ah, if only you were trying to be ironic.
You thought Singer was a biologist.
I knew he was a bioethicist. I'm sorry you don't consider "those people" your homies.
You have posted some of the most prejudiced and hateful nonsense I've ever read about biologists.
I do regret that as I know you are above prejudiced statements. And self-righteous hate, not even a hint of it. After all, what is to some a gentle gibe, is to others laying their deeply-held faith bare. And their fellow believers too often play the Stuart Smalley role.
Sorry for the double-post. True, it is worthy of a re-reading, but when my computer likes something I wrote, it can hardly be blamed for resisting.
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.