[abe]

And he got a STANDING OVATION from the audience after giving this speech!

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Drastic Measures
A University of Texas evolutionary ecologist recently gave a speech at the Texas Academy of Science in which he advocated killing off 90% of the human population in order to save the planet. Reportedly, Dr. Eric R. Pianka suggested that this elimination could be accomplished by the spreading of airborne Ebola-- and the audience enthusiastically applauded after his speech! Read more at The Citizen Scientist.

31 March 2006
Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker's remarks.

If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the conscience of science.

Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist. 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_...e1p/index.html

Eric Pianka
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eric R. Pianka is an American biologist, famous for his studies on herpetology and evolutionary ecology. He is nicknamed "The Lizard Man".
Pianka grew up in Yreka, California. He graduated from Carleton College (B.A.) and the University of Washington, earning a Ph.D. in 1965. Since 1968 he has been on the faculty of the University of Texas.
Pianka was a 1978 Guggenheim Fellow, and a 1981 American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow, a 1990 Fulbright Senior Research Scholar.
It is alleged by Forrest Mims that, while accepting the Texas Academy of Sciences Distinguished Scientist of the Year award in 2006, he advocated genocide in the form of a deliberate ebola virus pandemic to eliminate 90% of human population.[1]
[edit]

[FireWire]

Well, he's not that crazy. While I definively don't approve the killing of any population, I must admit that for the good of the planet, it would be a good thing if we (human race) disappeared for some reason. I thought about it last year and discussed about it with a few friends (which told me I was crazy ), but I came to the conclusion that we have no business on earth. We are in fact "parasite". We take, without giving back. We have no place in the food chain, except eating and destroying everything below us, without respect or measure.

Millions of years of evolution, only to destroy it in a few hundreds years.. Very shameful. Our ancestors and many actual tribes respected nature way better. Now if we'd be willing to abandon our capitalist ambition and revert back to "we take what we need" approach, maybe we'd deserve to stay, but as it is right now, we really deserve to be eradicated. Each day, for example, morons are harvesting the "lungs" of the planet, the rainforest, without guilt.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should destroy ourselves. Just that we deserve it, by our selfish action and total lack of respect for what nature has given us. To finish, I'll quote (a rough translation of) a song performed by an environmentally-engaged band from Québec, Les Cowboys fringants:

Original lyrics in french

Plus rien (nothing left)

(chorus):
I only have a few minutes left to my life
A few hours, at most, I feel I'm weakening
My brother died yesterday, in the middle of a desert
I am now the last human alive on earth

They told me that, when I was still a child
The world looked a lot more different
When lived the parents of my great-grandfather
When we still had snow falling during the winter
[...]

Everything began many years ago
As my ancestors were so fascinated
By that thing they called "money"
Which made a few of them very rich and powerful

These new Gods felt so powerful
That nothing could make them stop
To earn even more money, they clearcutted every tree they saw
Polluted the air and poisoned the rivers

But after a hundred years people stood up
They warned them that they had to stop
But they would not listen to these wise words
These men were only concerned about their profits

Only many years later they realized what they had done
In the chaos they called a state of emergency
When the ocean engulfed the lands
And the floods drowned the cities

After that, during the next decade
Came the hurricanes and the great fire
Earthquakes and neverending drough
On every face, you could see the fear

People had to fight against pandemic
Millions were killed by atrocious disease
Those remained died of thirst and hunger
One by one, falling like flies
Until there were nothing left

My brother died yesterday amid a living hell
I am now the last human alive on earth
In the end, the intelligence we were given
Was nothing more than a big poisoned gift

Sorry for the lenghty post, but this song really makes oneself think about what we are doing and where we are going, especially in he wake of the recent nature disaser that hit us the past years...

[The Internet]

OH NO HE DID'INT

[Salty]

Just so long as the other 90% are the annoying ones with cell phones.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe

And he got a STANDING OVATION from the audience after giving this speech!

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

Figures it would be from the Art Bell site. I bet he thinks this ties into the quickening or something.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Salty

Just so long as the other 90% are the annoying ones with cell phones.

[Dr Reducto]

We are in fact "parasite". We take, without giving back. We have no place in the food chain, except eating and destroying everything below us, without respect or measure.

That being said, so what? The Earth is a rock floating in space, nothing special, and if we tak too much, we only risk killing ourselves off.

[Seb G]

The rats and mice would dearly miss us.

[gerbnl]

Originally Posted by abe

And he got a STANDING OVATION from the audience after giving this speech!

and deserved, i might add!

[Gee4orce]

Thing is, I don't think we're going to need Ebola or bird flu or anything else - we're doing pretty well at killing ourselves as it is. The Earth is our life support system, and we are (quite literally) sh!tting in it.

Make no mistake - life on Earth will continue. It will be as diverse as it's ever been. But we won't be around to see it.

If we want to avoid this conflict there is only one solution - birth control. The population is out of control, and growing exponentially. We've got to stop spreading like a cancer. We should either exercise self control, or people should be sterilised after the first child.

[Kevin]

People are nutzo. esp environmental wackos.

[Spliffdaddy]

It would have been so cool if he had his audience machine-gunned just after their standing ovation.

"And we're starting with you folks...."

[Kevin]

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

People are nutzo. esp environmental wackos.

How much of a clue do they need?

[Gator Lager]

dammit he's a Mac user. don't need nut's like this associated with being a Mac user.
people already think that Mac user's are looney

Pianka's Ten Commandments

1. Thou Shalt NOT mess with Mac TCP/IP.

3. Thou Shalt NOT use an IBM PC.

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

[Dakar]

Major deja vu on this thread.

[himself]

Save the planet? How in the hell are we going to "save the planet?" The question is how do we save ourselves... we're making our environment uninhabitable, slowly but surely. In which case, the planet will just shake off the human race like the common cold. It's hard to take folks like this seriously if they can't even address the proper question.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by FireWire

We are in fact "parasite". We take, without giving back. We have no place in the food chain, except eating and destroying everything below us, without respect or measure.

Frankly speaking, yours must be a very bleak existence to preach such horrible things about humanity. But, I suppose you're at least being philosophically consistent, as blind as you are.

[d4nth3m4n]

Dr. Doom reporting in.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by FireWire

I must admit that for the good of the planet, it would be a good thing if we (human race) disappeared for some reason.

Honestly, "the good of the planet"? "Good" is a human-based concept; without us, there is no "good of the planet," there just is. Existence is, simple as that, and no need to complicate things with our batty brains.

I thought about it last year and discussed about it with a few friends (which told me I was crazy ), but I came to the conclusion that we have no business on earth. We are in fact "parasite". We take, without giving back. We have no place in the food chain, except eating and destroying everything below us, without respect or measure.

Humans may have the capacity to do farther-reaching harm than other organisms, but humans are one of the few that do attempt to "give back."

Millions of years of evolution, only to destroy it in a few hundreds years.. Very shameful. Our ancestors and many actual tribes respected nature way better. Now if we'd be willing to abandon our capitalist ambition and revert back to "we take what we need" approach, maybe we'd deserve to stay, but as it is right now, we really deserve to be eradicated. Each day, for example, morons are harvesting the "lungs" of the planet, the rainforest, without guilt.

"Deserve to stay"? Who's to say?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should destroy ourselves. Just that we deserve it, by our selfish action and total lack of respect for what nature has given us.

Nature hasn't "given" us anything. We are a part of nature and evolved to use that which our atavistic ancestors used.

[ghporter]

I've often thought that if avian flu killed stupid people (i.e. horrible drivers, people who shout on their cell phones -particularly in small spaces- etc.) and left non-stupid people alone, the world would be a much better place. But I'm not advocating MAKING a flu that would do that.

[davesimondotcom]

Mac users are about 10% of the world, right?

[lothar56]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It would have been so cool if he had his audience machine-gunned just after their standing ovation.

"And we're starting with you folks...."

People will talk a lot...but when it comes to action...very few stick with it.

[BRussell]

Apparently these are creationists who are claiming that this prof said he wanted to kill all the humans. Sorry, but I don't believe them, and I don't believe their claim.

BTW, there was a Tom Clancy book based on this premise. I think it was "Rainbow 6."

[Salty]

You know... if we got rid of the french...

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Frankly speaking, yours must be a very bleak existence to preach such horrible things about humanity. But, I suppose you're at least being philosophically consistent, as blind as you are.

May I dare ask you how exactly am I being blind? Sometimes I'm wondering if I'm not the only who sees things in their entire perspective. I'm proud to be "objective" (non-biased) enough to not favor my own life over general life. Who are we, to act like the kings of the earth kingdom? Human were acting properly (in regards of nature) less than a century ago, but they decided to change their attitude. They can still change it, but I doubt they will.

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Honestly, "the good of the planet"? "Good" is a human-based concept; without us, there is no "good of the planet," there just is. Existence is, simple as that, and no need to complicate things with our batty brains.

Excuse me if the term used was not appropriate. I think we should think farther than a simple semantic definition and see the idea behind the word. To reuse your word, existence, I will say that if human continue to exist as they are, there won't be any existence whatsoever. Human are so greedy they will destroy everything to make even more profits, just like the song I quoted is warning you. The sad thing about that song is that all they say is real, it's a big warning, and people still don't believe it and ignore it.

Originally Posted by Stradlater

"Deserve to stay"? Who's to say?

To make my position clear, I will state that I'd more than willing to sacrifice my life (well, if i'm not the only one ) for the "good" of "life".

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Humans may have the capacity to do farther-reaching harm than other organisms, but humans are one of the few that do attempt to "give back."

Yes, we give it back, but only after taking so much more than we should have taken in the first place. Seriously, do you see a pack of wolves decimating a whole population of reindeer "just because", without being hungry, just to "have more" than the next pack? Other living things on this planet don't even have a remote conception of what is "capitalism", there's simply no such thing in nature. We're the only one doing it. Other take what they need, no more, no less. Acting this way, we're gonna destroy everything. Don't you feel sad to learn that moron are destroying the natural habitat of rare species, making them extinct? Every day is day "too much". Many acres of rainforest destroyed for logging everyday.. Very bright!

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Nature hasn't "given" us anything. We are a part of nature and evolved to use that which our atavistic ancestors used.

Again, don't take it literally. I'm using these words as a lack of a better term, as a general concept.

I guess it's hard to grasp this concept, but once you see and understand the "magic" (no bad jokes on that word please) of nature, you will want to do everything to protect it. Everything is in balance, result of millions of years of evolution and adaptation. Nature is so diverse, I cannot tolerate that a single specie reduce it to only a few, only for its own benefits.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by FireWire

Excuse me if the term used was not appropriate. I think we should think farther than a simple semantic definition and see the idea behind the word. To reuse your word, existence, I will say that if human continue to exist as they are, there won't be any existence whatsoever. Human are so greedy they will destroy everything to make even more profits, just like the song I quoted is warning you. The sad thing about that song is that all they say is real, it's a big warning, and people still don't believe it and ignore it.

What you're basically saying is the the Earth would be better off without the general influence of human activity, but my point is that such relativistic concepts (i.e. "better" and worse, "good" and evil) are so innately humanistic that the entire thought process behind it seems paradoxical.

Let's change focus to the prehistorical: was the the Earth "better" off with or without dinosaurs? Would She have been better off if birds hadn't evolved?

To look ahead, let's take the final part of your post,

Originally Posted by FireWire

I guess it's hard to grasp this concept, but once you see and understand the "magic" (no bad jokes on that word please) of nature, you will want to do everything to protect it. Everything is in balance, result of millions of years of evolution and adaptation. Nature is so diverse, I cannot tolerate that a single specie reduce it to only a few, only for its own benefits.

taking particular note of "Everything is in balance". You're absolutely right, and as humans tilt the scale, the environment tilts back and may one day fail to support even us. I understand your concern for the incidental casualties of other life, but to say that the animals don't "deserve" it is more moralistic than naturalistic—if you think simply, Evolution is the mechanism that determines what creatures deserve (many won't make it, and humans may be included in that prescient list). Animals evolve and die out with and without the help of humans; just because we accelerate the process doesn't really change the "balance" issue.

The universe (especially beyond this pellet of muck on which we live) is indeed an incredibly interesting thing (in the mind of this observer), but preservation—at large—seems to stem from humanity's fear of death and obscurity.

Back to it...

Originally Posted by FireWire

To make my position clear, I will state that I'd more than willing to sacrifice my life (well, if i'm not the only one ) for the "good" of "life".

And I'm sorry, but again with semantics, I don't agree that there is a necessary "good." Existence, life, is more complex than dichotomy.

Originally Posted by FireWire

Yes, we give it back, but only after taking so much more than we should have taken in the first place. Seriously, do you see a pack of wolves decimating a whole population of reindeer "just because", without being hungry, just to "have more" than the next pack? Other living things on this planet don't even have a remote conception of what is "capitalism", there's simply no such thing in nature. We're the only one doing it. Other take what they need, no more, no less. Acting this way, we're gonna destroy everything. Don't you feel sad to learn that moron are destroying the natural habitat of rare species, making them extinct? Every day is day "too much". Many acres of rainforest destroyed for logging everyday.. Very bright!

Yes, humans accelerate (in a fairly depleting manner) earthly change, but it is unlikely we could ever destroy everything. We may eventually destroy ourselves, true, and then Nature's balance shifts again and, well, life goes on—if not on this planet, on another. Feel free to complain about what humans are doing to their planet because of the consequences humans will suffer; the problem is, once you remove humans from the equation, preservation makes no sense.

Originally Posted by FireWire

Again, don't take it literally. I'm using these words as a lack of a better term, as a general concept.

I'm not taking them literally so much as toying with them literarily. I still think that my comments have clout.

[ambush]

More on Doom:

Dr. Epstein in "The Corporation" (who's seen it?)

"We are now in the midst of a major cancer epidemic—and I have no doubt and I have documented the basis for this, that industry is largely responsible for this overwhelming epidemic of cancer, in which one in every 2 men get cancer in their lifetimes, and one in every 3 women get cancer in their lifetimes."

Related article: http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/rtk031204a.htm

So ****ing much for the Godly Invisible Hand. It's ****ing killing us and people like Kevin are being optimistic like we're in the 19th century again.

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Salty

You know... if we got rid of the french...

A nice ambassador of Christianity here.

Do us a favor and go get your ass pounded. I'm sure you'd come back more relaxed.

[gerbnl]

Originally Posted by Salty

You know... if we got rid of the french...

How about everybody that believes in any religion? That probably would bring us a bit over the 90% target, but better safe than sorry...

[turtle777]

akljsdfjvba ha SR FJKUOH OIUAwrh uifoh w9p8 yt98

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by ambush

A nice ambassador of Christianity here.

Do us a favor and go get your ass pounded. I'm sure you'd come back more relaxed.

You're not even French.

A nice ambassador of Canada here.

Last time I checked, Canada wasn't on the European continent.

[Spliffdaddy]

BUT...if I were Canadian, I'd certainly pretend to be from somewhere else

[ambush]

You're right, I'm not French. Your point being [___insert_point_here___]

[FeLiZeCaT]

Why don't you ALL DIE AND LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

So I can feed bambi in peace.

[TailsToo]

Don't let stupid people have babies... that would solve all of our problems.

[abe]

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Po...one_child.html

China's One Child Policy

One of the more extreme measures taken in an attempt to control population has been China’s one-child policy. Some environmentalists and population advocates ranging from Garrett Hardin to media mogul Ted Turner have suggested the rest of the world adopt similar policies. Unfortunately for Hardin, Turner and others, when you get beyond the mythology and seriously examine the one-child policy, it is clear the policy is not viable even if one can stomach the horrendous human rights violations it entails.

Following the consolidation of politically power by the Communists in China, the nation’s population exploded. Annual population growth exceeded 2 percent for most years between 1949 and 1974 (Tien et al 1992, p.6). Beginning in the mid-1970s, however, China abruptly shifted gears and fertility declined dramatically. The annual population growth rate has remained around 1.5 percent since the mid-1970s.

This sequence of events is significant mainly for this reason -- the one-child policy wasn’t adopted by China until 1979, yet China’s huge fertility drop occurred between 1970 and 1979 when live births fell from 34 per 1,000 people to 18 per 1,000 people. Since the introduction of the one-child policy in 1979, there has been no large drop in fertility and in fact China experienced a slight increase fluctuating around 21 births per 1,000 people in the 1980s (Tien, et al 1992, pp.6-8). As Tien, et al put it, the impact of the one-child policy has been minimal:

The TFR [Total Fertility Rate] never fell below a 2.5 child-per woman average in rural areas, although it dropped to about 1.2 in urban areas. By the mid-1980s, less than one-fifth of all eligible married couples had signed the one-child certificate -- a contract which granted couples and their child economic and educational advantages in return for promising not to have more than one child. Throughout the 1980s, nearly half of all reported births were second, third, or higher order births. Various surveys suggested that the desire to have at least two children remained strong among Chinese couples (Tien, et al 1992, p.11).

Why did the one-child policy fail? The likely explanation is that there are limits to how far government policies can push demographic changes. Policies emphasizing later marriage and fewer children in the 1970s clearly played a part in lowering total fertility rates. Contraceptive usage in China by the early 1980s, for example, was extraordinarily high for Asia at 71 percent of women of reproductive age.

The one-child policy, however, was strongly resisted by people, especially couples living in rural regions. Enforcing the one-child policy in the face of such heavy resistance would have required more forceful measures than the Chinese government was willing to use. This is the source of criticism of China from population advocates such as Garrett Hardin who argued China needs to more strictly enforce the one-child policy.

Finally, the one-child policy and the successful resistance to it should give pause to claims made in Western nations that there are up to 500,000 "missing" girls in China. The usual claim is that the "missing" girl phenomenon is caused by infanticide. In fact a far more likely explanation is that Chinese couples systematically fail to report the birth of girls. Tien et al note that figures on the sex ratios of adoptions bear this out:

Adoptions rose sharply in the 1980s. There were over 500,000 cases in 1987 and about 400,000 per year between 1984 and 1986, compared with fewer than 200,000 before the one-child policy. The extremely low sex ratios of 27 to 36 boys per 100 girls among the adopted children are not surprising; parents traditionally are more likely to give away girls, a practice that intensified under the one-child stipulation. When the adopted children by year of adoption are added to their respective cohort of births, the sex ratio at birth comes closer to normal for the years in question. This reduces the number of missing girls by half (Tien, et al 1996, pp.15-17).

In addition, girls in China, like girls in much of the developing world, receive far less attention and resources than boys. As a result the sex ratio of infant deaths in China averaged 114 over the 1980s (Tien et al 1996, p.16-7).

This low ratio suggest that girls receive less care and attention than boys in many Chinese homes, reducing the chance of survival of girls beyond their first birthday. Most importantly, this gender discrimination affects girls most adversely in the poorest areas (Tien, et al 1996, pp.16-17).

[Scotttheking]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Apparently these are creationists who are claiming that this prof said he wanted to kill all the humans. Sorry, but I don't believe them, and I don't believe their claim.

BTW, there was a Tom Clancy book based on this premise. I think it was "Rainbow 6."

Hey, I was going to post that!!!
In Rainbow 6 the 'bad guys' created a virus named "Shiva" to kill off most of the population so they could restore nature. But they all died at the end.

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Why don't you ALL DIE AND LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

So I can feed bambi in peace.

Uh, (gulp) sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/ju...i_vs_Godzilla/

I don't think Bambi will be munching out anymore.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by TailsToo

Don't let stupid people have babies... that would solve all of our problems.

Who gets to decide who the stupid people are?

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Who gets to decide who the stupid people are?

[zubro]

Originally Posted by Salty

You know... if we got rid of the french...

Great idea!
Actually the G5/G8 countries should go out!

[JoshuaZ]

We'll be fine as long as we have the fantastic four around to save us from any Dr. Dooms.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by FireWire

Who are we, to act like the kings of the earth kingdom? Human were acting properly (in regards of nature) less than a century ago, but they decided to change their attitude. They can still change it, but I doubt they will.

Humans were most certainly not acting properly in regards to nature less than a century ago. There has been no significant "attitude change" regarding nature in the last century – the last such change was perhaps the scientific legitimization of natural exploitation by Descartes, Newton and others with the rise of "mechanical philosophy" during the seventeenth century, but our proir actions indicate that even this didn't make our impact much greater.

Humans have repeatedly shown a propensity to wreak havoc on the natural earth around them for tens of thousands of years, since we were mere hunter-gatherers. Civilization merely increased this impact by raising our efficiency and our population. We are the top of the food chain, and we love to be satisfied.

greg

[TubaMuffins]

Wouldn't it be more consistent with his argument if the earth levelled us itself instead of us destroying ourselves to save the planet. I think the Earth knows its capacity for supporting every species, I think that the reason we are still flourishing is that because the earth can still provide for us all. I am not denying that we are hurting the planet and we one day will suffer, but that day is not today, earth will let us know when that day is.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by TubaMuffins

I am not denying that we are hurting the planet and we one day will suffer, but that day is not today, earth will let us know when that day is.

I think most people are arguing that the Earth already is letting us know when that day is...

[gerbnl]

the saga continues...

http://infowars.com/articles/life/pi...f_genocide.htm

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by gerbnl

the saga continues...

http://infowars.com/articles/life/pi...f_genocide.htm

The elite have created a religion of genocide and the nation's universities are the churches for the communication of an environmental jihad that threatens to decimate the human species as we know it.

[waxcrash]

I'm waiting for everyone to turn into trees.

http://chocodog.com/chocodog/ween/tr...20animated.wmv

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by Salty

Just so long as the other 90% are the annoying ones with cell phones.

That and all the homosexuals. KIDDIN