Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

Saving The World by Killing All of The People


Recommended Posts

I saw this on another site I post at. What a fucking moron... The guy's nuts!

This is what I really worry about though, and not just with this guy.

Dangerous Times

Let me now remove my reporter's hat for a moment and tell you what I think. We live in dangerous times. The national security of many countries is at risk. Science has become tainted by highly publicized cases of misconduct and fraud.

Must now we worry that a Pianka-worshipping former student might someday become a professional biologist or physician with access to the most deadly strains of viruses and bacteria? I believe that airborne Ebola is unlikely to threaten the world outside of Central Africa. But scientists have regenerated the 1918 Spanish flu virus that killed 50 million people. There is concern that small pox might someday return. And what other terrible plagues are waiting out there in the natural world to cross the species barrier and to which scientists will one day have access?

---

Meanwhile, I still can't get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate for the slow and torturous death of over five billion human beings.

And you wonder why I feel the way I do about these types.

Link to comment

I have an idea, we introduce him to the Iranians, and they can unleash genocide on each other! He uses bioagents which take a while to become effective, and they shoot him and burn his body. Ebola would be scary. It could easily decimate the population of any city it gets introduced into. Don't these people realize that even though Ebola kill 90% of the people it infects, it still wouldn't infect everyone? It would decimate most of the world, but it still wouldn't penetrate everywhere. Also, if that many people died, humans would simply breed back up in the following century. They're insane and stupid

Link to comment

This i agree with:

"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 i do not agree with:

"AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs."

As Caine said, Ebola doesnt kill everyone. The 10% that would be alive would be have anemia.

there are much more tactful ways of controlling the population such as birth control or War. Hell I would rather shoot myself in the face then be stricken with ebola.

finally, i cant wholeheartedly believe everything that "Forrest Mims" posted, The speech could have easily been taken out of context, i would like to see another report on this, of possible.

Link to comment

This i agree with:

"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 i do not agree with:

"AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs."

As Caine said, Ebola doesnt kill everyone. The 10% that would be alive would be have anemia.

there are much more tactful ways of controlling the population such as birth control or War. Hell I would rather shoot myself in the face then be stricken with ebola.

finally, i cant wholeheartedly believe everything that "Forrest Mims" posted, The speech could have easily been taken out of context, i would like to see another report on this, of possible.

Do you truly believe that the human species should commit suicide?

Link to comment

I've been hearing about this the last few days. This Pianka fellow has a lot of people riled up, sort of like Dan Brown. And like Dan Brown, it'd be interesting if it was actually new or original.

Two centuries ago, Thomas Malthus noted that the human population was exploding and rapidly outstripping its food supply. He said that nature has a few ways of dealing with this, and the ones humans are concerned with are war and disease. His followers have decided that this is the word of god, and war and disease are the fate of humanity, forever and ever amen. It's not true. At the very least, Malthus thought too small and forgot to take into account immigration as another way of easing strain. Again, he's not the first nor the last to recommend massive human genocide to save the planet. There's an international association out there for people who refuse to procreate because there's too many humans in the world.

Pianka's a crack, and he knows it. He doesn't seriously expect anyone to follow his advice, unless he's a loon, and due to this ruckus his career's ruined. Now, those that agree with him, they are slightly more worrisome. Without video evidence, it's hard to say what swayed the crowd, but I think we're safe because nobody in government or society takes the advice of teachers anyway.

The other thing is that the demographic data will surprise you. Did you know China's population is shrinking? Or that all of Europe is experiencing a greying and decline of population? Or that there are vast tracts of wilderness in the middle of the United States, where no one lives? Most of the world's growth is in Africa and southeast Asia, and given the status of medicine in those countries the huge birth rate makes good sense. Actually, you could fit the entire world's population (standing room only) in one county of Arizona. The problem is that we here in the United States compose 5% of the world's population, while consuming 25% of the world's resources...and everyone looks up to us for it. We feed corn to our cattle. We cannot support the entire world as first world nations, not like that.

If Pianka wants to see men dead in the streets, he need only wait with folded hands. But the idea's to avoid the massive slaughter of Nature's corrective measure, by holding ourselves in check that her heavy hand need not be laid on us. Pinch your pennies and drive slow, for your children and for mine.

Link to comment

I think human society is ruining the earth.

Overpopulation is part of that.

I think that, through efficient use of space, green technology, and all that good stuff, there is enough Planet Earth (with all the resources that entails) to go around. But, of course, that's not how capitalism works so we're fucked.

Link to comment

Bah. Malthus was wrong then, Malthus is wrong now. The damage is far from irrepairable, folks- even now we're on the verge of a greentech boom.

Keep your eyes peeled. This next decade's going to rival the 90s for sheer wackiness.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that you know what we are doing to the Earth and all of its consequences? We don't know what we're doing, we don't know where we will go. That's how progress works, you aren't sure what will happen next. We probably will have a greentech boom, but we have no way of knowing how big it will be or whether it will produce accidental side effects. We don't know if nuclear war (see Iran) will kill us all.

Link to comment

While a meteor will (almost) wipe out all life, this is not under our control. (while i have not heard pianka's speech) He seems to be condemning humans in general for their destructive habits.

right, i dont remember reading in the report anything about pianka's stating that war was destroying the biosphere, however, i may have misread.

Link to comment

While a meteor will (almost) wipe out all life, this is not under our control. (while i have not heard pianka's speech) He seems to be condemning humans in general for their destructive habits.

right, i dont remember reading in the report anything about pianka's stating that war was destroying the biosphere, however, i may have misread.

he didn't specifically mention war, but war is one of the products of overpopulation, which he defintitely was blaming. Also, nuclear war will greatly affect the biosphere.

Link to comment

Also, nuclear war will greatly affect the biosphere.

I hope so. If we as a race must eliminate ourselves, we had better damn well take everyone and everything out with us. Take 6,000,000,000+ lives, leave nothing but a massive frozen rock. Beautiful.

Link to comment

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that you know what we are doing to the Earth and all of its consequences? We don't know what we're doing, we don't know where we will go. That's how progress works, you aren't sure what will happen next. We probably will have a greentech boom, but we have no way of knowing how big it will be or whether it will produce accidental side effects. We don't know if nuclear war (see Iran) will kill us all.

First off, it's the general opinion of the scientific community, not my own, that Malthus may have been Onto Something during his time period... but was promptly proven wrong through a whole horde of agricultural and industrial innovations. And we're not so primitive that we can't make a general guess of the consequences of our current line of experimental techniques and technologies.

Second off, the greentech boom's already started. Single example: Adobe software's actually shored up on maintenance costs through the use of solar panels, "smart" sprinklers for their lawns, ect, ect. Based on the results of the last ten years of tinkering with the concept alone, I'd say that the only disadvantage to greentech is higher initial fees for businesses- a problem that, much to the chagrin of the far right, is actually solved by the presence of government-run incentive programs.

Economists must be giddy at the idea.

Third off, even with refined uranium, it'll take Iran about five years min to get a nuke. Maybe as much as fifteen. Our government may be incompetent, but it won't be as dangerously so as it is right now in about two to three years.

And even if we don't contain the problem by then, Iran's going to have to consider long and hard whether or not it can afford to totally devastate its economy by going to war with a much greater beast.

Fourth off, it's not arrogance- it's trust. We've overcome extraordinary adversary before. If we don't this time around, it's not as if either of us will be alive to appreciate the fallout. >_>

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...