I know this is very long but read it and tell me what you think?

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

We are in a population decline check out Italty's birth and death ratio.

Second you said "We’re very skilled when it comes to killing off deer, snakes, rabbits, and fish for population control." I hope you were being ironic because we either exterminate or domesticate species we never manage them in the wild.

Answer 2

Population control was a subject of concern even in the 1970's. The threat of a virus or other type of disease thinning out the population is very real. I believe we should now put our minds into finding new ways to deal with what our over population has caused. I cannot believe it is too late. I do believe this is not the first time it will happen nor will it be the last. Nature is survival of the fittest and to believe we are above this game is arrogant and stupid. I do not believe we have the right to play God. If we do so the one mind who could help this situation could be lost or never born. Perhaps we should go back to simpler ways. Like walk instead of driving when work is only 6 blocks away. Perhaps we should find better ways of using the sun and wind to fuel our houses and cars. Or maybe we should educate the ignorant people of the world and help them understand what is happening to our earth. Maybe just maybe by saving the other endangered animals of this earth we can save our selves. Perhaps we should be in our 30"s before we have children. If everyone waited this long perhaps fewer children would be born to parents who could not or would not take care of them. Maybe teachers should be paid more than big cooperation executives so there would be more teachers to teach the uneducated people of the world.

Answer 3

Which 90% would you kill off, those mostly in undeveloped countries, who use so much less of the world's resources, or those in the developed world, who are using more than their fair share of resources?

Funny, he should wish a natural disaster with an epicenter in a third world area. Why not wish that all Americans die from driving SUV's, becoming morbidly obese, and having heart attacks?

And how would his disaster change anything? It would only perhaps buy more time for the remaining 10% , who could go on with a fresh start on a wasteful lifestyle.

No, a natural disaster will not cure the problem. Instead, we need to go to a lifestyle that values contemplation and mindful, purposeful activity. Not the frenetic consumptive lifestyle that seems to be the norm in the US.

We have no health care in the U.S. We have medical care. You speak of all the disabled and elderly. What about all the unnecessary heart disease and diabetes caused by our sedentary lifestyle?

The very fact that we consider growth as necessary to a healthy economy only exacerbates the situation.
Why aren't the uneducated being educated? I admit, it may be difficult to find enough people willing to suffer hardships in third world countries. But why is there a lack of adequate education in the U.S.? Certainly, every home could be filled with educational television broadcasts, instead of the ridiculous nonsense that floods the airwaves.

I agree with the statement that the doctor could show us the way, by setting an example for the rest of us.

No, a virus would not affect us all equally. The privileged could quarantine themselves in comfort, while the rest, who would still need to work, would not be able to afford to insulate themselves from the disaster.

Just from the impression I glean from your post, I get the impression that the doctor is not seeking a catastrophic virus so much as a lucrative book contract.

But a book saying Americans park your SUV's! ride your bikes! and we may avert this disaster, just doesn't have the same punch.

Doomsday and entertainment, and exotic disease sell well.

Answer 4

As far as killing off 90 percent of the population, don't you think that is a bit extreme? Yes humans are destroying the earth, that is very true. Yet in turn we are also trying to find ways to fix at least some of the problems. Yes uneducated people do seem to have more children then educated people, yet it is the educated people that will make sure their children continue to become educated. It is not the uneducated that will take over and or run anything, that is left up to the voters, so if you want to make a difference in who runs what, then get out there and vote.... you don't have to kill off people to achieve what you desire. Over population can be a problem, yeah. Yet even with all of the technology out there that we have, some still die. People will die when it is their time. Some few are taken before their time because of stupid people making bad decisions. For the most part, when it is time to go, that person or whatever, will then go. Killing off 90 percent of the population sounds alot like the middle east and their method of controlling their people. We are not and I hope we will never be like that.

Answer 5

This is a total crock. I also think its dangerous to advocate killing off 90% of the worlds population. What if this virus of yours doesn't occur naturally? What if its made by someone and released into the world? However you choose to dress it up, you've just made an argument for genocide.

Humans are fast draining the Earths resources, but we have the intelligence and technology vto move to other planets. Why don't we move some of the population away from Earth rather than get all excited about the prospect of killing several billion people.

Answer 6

Klling 90 % wil not solve the problem it will just slow us down by a few decades. At present birthrates are low in the developed world, because it costs us too much to have big families in terms of loss of standard of living, if the population were dramatically reduced we would stil have all the technology we have developed and population wold increase very rapidly to fill the void. It might even make things worse. Any event must be dramatic enought to change the way humans view their own existence, lets say of the 60 million people in the uk that only 50,000 were left .. THAT would make us change!!

economic growth is NOT a necesity, why is it that ALL governments seem to crave it?

Answer 7

As harsh as it is, I tend to agree.

There are few problems in this society that are not caused primarily by overpopulation. The population will continue to rise until we reach a point rescources are no longer available to sustain the population and then massive die-offs will occur due to starvation, wars over limited rescources, and disease due to an over crowded monospecific population. The only possible solution to prevent this is to limit the population and return it to levels we are capable of sustaining.

We could make the choice of what segments of the population get removed, or let nature run it's course and possibly eliminate all of us.

Don't expect us to do anything until it's too late. Too many belief systems are based on supernatural help which will magically bail us out of the problems we have created. That's the great attraction of many of them... no need to act responsibly because somebody else will save you in the end.

Oh, and it would reduce the population much more effectively to exterminate several others than to kill myself (one person), so please don't suggest I volunteer to start fixing the problem myself.

Answer 8

You say that natural selection should happen to humans but not to other animals. Stop being so anti-human. It is every animal's wish to live for as long as possible (not just human) and the majority of animal's wish to see their offspring live for as long as possible (not just humans). Just because we are the best at that does not mean it is wrong for us to do it.

To say that disabled people or the elderly should be killed off is hypocritical if you are saying that our technologies are leading to the killing of other animals and should be stopped. All animals must adapt to a changing world and only the strong shall survive. Maybe one day we will kill ourselves off but then we would have been naturally selected against and then it would be fair enough.

hoping a virus would come along to kill us off is just insanity. If a virus does come along then fair enough. but hoping for it is wrong for any reason.




If you do so passionately agree with him, why don't you and your doctor friend take the first great leap and be the primary example to the world by taking your own lives in the name of the future of all ecology on the planet! Now do you see why you are not talking sense?

Answer 9

It's the "maximum capacity" theory of game management. For example, say you have a 5-gallon bucket. How much water can it hold, maximum?
This hold true for game or ( pounds of ) fish, also. Say, hunters are complaining that they are not bagging enough rabbits. Game managers COULD simply introduce more rabbits into the area, but the excess--beyond what the area can support, in terms of food, water, shelter, cover--WILL die anyway, whether from disease, hunger, predation, whatever. In order to increase the population, one must increase the availibility of one or more of those four basic needs.
Humans are no different in this respect; we simply have the ability to exert the greatest change over our enviornment to suit either our, or other species, needs. For example, we are changing farmland to housing at a tremendous rate. Advances in technology might be insufficient to feed the world's population in the future. What then?

Answer 10

Ha ha ha ha an academoc jedi mond trick..lol Is he or you one of those 90% or just others? though the 90 % is interesting as at one time 90% of all life on earth did go extinct. Those damn trolobites were just causing to much trouble. so the other 80% of life had to be cleaved too>>>> thanks a lot damn trolobites, and the malthussian trolobites were probaly advocating this extinction
THEM BASTARDS