Do you believe that the only way to save the planet is if humans are exterminated? Read this for more info.?

Question

MCCONNELL’S POST ON PIANKA:

Dr. Pianka was named the 2006 Distinguished Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science. He’s an ecologist, a “doomsday ecologist” as he puts it, with a CV several pages long and results that have changed the way ecologists think, forever. And damn is he ever entertaining to listen to.

Dr. Pianka’s talk at the TAS meeting was mostly of the problems humans are causing as we rapidly proliferate around the globe. While what he had to say is way too vast to remember it all, moreover to relay it here in this blog, the bulk of his talk was that he’s waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope, if you can call it that, is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He’s a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.

Humans are far too populous. We’ve used up our resources, and we’re destroying the Earth at an accelerated pace. The more technology we create, the more damage we’re capable of doing. We now consider keeping the forest natural to save a species of catepillar more important that using that space for humans to live and till. And I’m in complete agreement with that. It’s the harsh reality that many people alive right now should be dead. And even harsher to think that the world would be better off with them dead too. My grandparents, who I love dearly and am so incredibly thankful to know, are honestly being kept alive only through the technology that we have created via medicine. The same goes for the millions of other old folk alive and kicking and will continue to do so for another 5-10 years, using up more resources. Or think of all the babies being born every hour with abnormalities that 50 years ago would have kept them from living. Now, those lives can be saved, and we pat ourselves on the backs at how smart and charitable we are as a species that we can create and sustain life. For those against cloning, etc because it’s “playing God,” how is this any different?? Life has a built-in mechanism that keeps species from becoming too overpopulated, and it wasn’t until humans started messing with the system that it went out of whack. Now that we’ve killed off the majority of all top predators, we now must take on the duty of keeping populations in check and at the same time, allowing other species a fair chance at reproduction.

It wouldn’t have been so bad 15-20 years ago when we reached that threshold of sustainability if we as humans would have learned to control our population size then. But instead, we saw the Earth’s resources as unlimited and our authority over them exclusive, and we continued to reproduce when we should’ve stop. Dr. Pianka made a very profound comment during his presentation; he said that China has the right idea by limiting reproduction at 1. We’re past the point of replacement reproduction as a species. We’re too many for the number we’re at now! We need to decline in population. A virus is probably the fairest method of extermination (though still not completely fair, I admit) because it’s nondiscriminatory as to whom it targets. Rich, poor, black, white, brown, nice, mean, religious, agnostic - we’d all be targeted equally. The only difference is who can afford medicine and even then, if it’s a mutated virus that strikes fast, humans would have only the tiniest of a chance to find a cure in time so money wouldn’t matter.

It’d be nice if humans could learn to manage our population as successively as we’ve learned to manage the population of literally every other species on this planet with whom we share. We’re very skilled when it comes to killing off deer, snakes, rabbits, and fish for population control. But we’re a stupid species when it comes to managing ourselves. An insightful observation was made during the talk that education should be the key to learning how to take care of the Earth, but the problem is that the educated have fewer children and the uneducated have many children. So eventually, the uneducated will take over the Earth. It may have already happened.

Answer 1

Earth was here before man and will be here long after, didn't anyone see Jon Stewart's rant the other day. We can have a complete nuclear war and wipe the crust clean and still 5 million years from now something will be walking on Earth.

Answer 2

Earth was inhabited by several species for several years
including humans.

people have existed for several thousand years.
but modern human in the name of technology is meddling the
delicate balance
sensible societies have maintained a balance
but not all are as such, they are STEALING the future form the next generation for the short term financial profit / greed
be Far sighted as a living thing/ don't destroy the earth, the water, the air, the space & the several resourses and species
just for a few bucks - a few means 1 cent to a gazillion dollars
it all means the same. it causes the same damage ,
just a faster scale. it is like destroying one tree or the whole forest , a forest gets destroyed tree by tree
in a few years or in a few seconds

time can provide opportunity to replant & grow back the forest
plant 5 trees for each that is removed this is balance-

Answer 3

Bad news buddy. There have been many Dr. Piankas over the years and there will be many more in the future. The opinions that both you and he have are not new. Every generation thinks they are witnessing the slow, sorry destruction of the world and has some science to back it up....then they die and the world goes on. Ebola is a good choice though... much more plausible than Haley's Comet.

Answer 4

I see no difference between humans essentially dying off in order to preserve the Earth or humans dying off because we didn't preserve the Earth. If I am not here, or humans are not here, I couldn't care less about what happens to the Earth. In either case we're just like all the animals trying to figure out the best way to survive and reproduce as a species. It's a fight for resources. The Earth would be better off if we died off, but it's much better to preserve the Earth for our own benefit to continue to advance our species than to hope for a severe reduction in our species and go backwards simply for the sake of putting the Earth in some idealistic state.

Answer 5

The planet will not even be saved if we're not here. It will in fact heal it's self. Everyone worries about how bad the hurricanes have been lately. The earth is just doing what it always has, cleansing its self. And the uneducated will not take over because the strong will always prevail. To many uneducated makes for weakness.

Answer 6

Well, that is an interesting argument. I guess that people who aren't fit to have children (bad parents, people with messed up lives) shouldn't have children because they're poisoning the world right? Humans shouldn't be extreminated, we just need to learn how to conserve our planet, that's all.

Answer 7

Man self regulates with war. War, the likes of which we have never seen before, is coming. That, and the disease that follows, will solve this problem.

Answer 8

No,
There is no reason why humans can't be more ecologically responsible.

The planet will win in the end anyway. It will be here far longer than we will.

Answer 9

The plant will do just fine whether or not we hang around. It might not be recognizable were we able to come back to visit, but life, of one form or another, would no doubt be abundant.