This is my solution for saving planet Earth, please read this, I know its long and tell me what you think.?

Question

Dr. Pianka’s talk at the TAS meeting was mostly of the problems humans are causing as we rapidly proliferate around the globe. 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 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 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. 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. 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.

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

Pianka's solution is no solution, only a reprieve. Turning back the population clock while the technological clock and the morality clock keep ticking at their current rates only buys us a little time until we fill the toilet again. Then what? Another flush?

The world's survival can't depend upon a super-virus keeping our numbers low enough. We must evolve as a society if we're to survive our planetary adolescence.

Answer 2

Very interesting perspective.

But "controlling" the population with a virus is hardly a reasonable method. First of all, you would need to choose where and how to release it. Even if this were all made possible through science, it would be considered an act of terrorism, genocide, or mass murder, and would only cause greater chaos (such as WAR) which would cause us to further use up our resources.

However the Chinese population control you mentioned seems far more realistic. Limiting the number of children born would directly limit the growth of the population, to the point that we would eventually reach a steady decline.

Although it may seem unethical, perhaps even Hitler's method of allowing for "breeding" of only a select group of people would be just as effective. However it would make more sense to do it on the basis of exceptional intelligence, or exceptional physical health/strength, in order to create a new population with excellent genetics, and thereby weed out the useless idiots.

Answer 3

or the ants! I don't think you are asking a question, but
I disagree that we're over-populated. There's plenty of land in California, one of the bread-baskets of the world, which is unpopulated. Most of Highway 395 is desolate. Most of Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, Idaho, North and South Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona. There's a lot more land to develop, although we should be equitable in maintaining open land for resources and wildlife. I think we are co-habitating fairly well with wildlife presently.

If we get off the antibiotics, maybe we wouldn't have such hard times killing the superbugs, but I think there are natural remedies that are more effective. They're not promoted because there's no money for the pharmaceutical companies in natural remedies.
I use grapefruit seed extract (15 drops) in water to kill off most bugs (bacteria, viral and yeast). Colloidal silver is another that kill virus and bacteria which they do not grow resistant to.

Also, new technology increases the efficiency of food production especially as new kinds emerge like hydroponics. Take a look around you and be encouraged.

Answer 4

No offence, but Eric Pianka is an idiot. Like most pompus, self rigious scientists, he believes that our problems can be solved through just one mean. Yet consider the after effects of the large decrease of population. Sure, the production of greenhouse gas would reduce, but let's not forget the ones that's already up there. Reduced pop = reduced number of ppl to help find a solution. Not only that, what of poliitcal tension, or environmental, especially if one country was ravaged while its neighbour was untouched. Yes, we are killing this planet, but we're also the only ones who can fix it. Killing us off is not the solution.

Answer 5

You should be the first volunteer. I mean you regurgitate someone else's lecture, and radical beliefs as if they are your own with out looking at the natural history of our planet.

There are two ways to look at the problem, one is to stand around and whine about it and act all high and mighty while adding to the problem. The other is to look at all the other species that ruled this world before man. What ever took out the dinosaurs would without a doubt wipe us out too.

There is no answer for your rant because there was no question, but stop whining, if you believe so much in it. As Nike said "just do it".

P.S. I would never normally answer a post like this but it caught my eye and my ire.

Answer 6

very good points ,
70 million more people every year are driving farmers more and more into the forests to satisfy the growing market ,as well as the needed extra living space.

Bush and Blair , Kissinger,and Prince Philip already want to lower the world population by 60% ,this can only be done by mass extermination and nuclear war is the only way to do this ,however it is doubtfull that the planet will not suffer drastic consequences,

these are my solutions and overpopulation is high on the list,the environmental issues,cannot be denied,

if you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if EVERYONE on the planet did this, we would be able to reverse the destructive processes,and start creating more biomass again.

reduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.

the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia

Waterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.

the protection of existing forrests.and the production of water

stop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation stop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.

education to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.

education on environmental awareness
education on family planning to curb over´population

Agricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.

more land design to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks

regulations and control for public behaviour

alternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine

recicling wastes,limit water use

i am a Permaculture Consultant for the department of Ecology for the regional government in Guerrero Mexico

Answer 7

Does Dr.Pianka advocate this method to save the earth or does he simply state that as the easiest solution to overpopulation? Either way, its seems rather inhumane to carry out this sort of method in order to save the earth. Is killing 8 - 6 billion people worth saving 8 - 6 million? Absolutely not.

Answer 8

Yes, I do agree with you that America, is overpopulated along with many other countries.. However, killing us all off through viruses, and such, are sadly a very "unGodly" way of putting things... And very non-humanatarian, behaviour.. Children are "Gifts" from God!! And I myself wouldn't wish I had any less children than I already do.. Plus four grandchildren.. God, is about LIFE, not death.... So, its all Satan's work, destroying the earth and mankind. Because, satan is jealous, of God, and us! Because, we're all made in Gods image.. So according to the bible Satan comes like a roaring lion, seeking whom he can devour, and obviously, he's gotten, ahold of your mind, and your Mentor's as well. God Help, both of you!!!

Answer 9

IMHO< I think you have been brainwashed into thinking that the human race is bad for the earth. The human race is good but there are some bad aspects of human behavior that can be improved, but we do not need a global catastrophy that will cause both human and animal destruction to allow the earth to "heal" itself.

I believe that persons who believe that humans should die are sick and in need of serious help immediately before they do something they will regret.

Answer 10

A wise man said, "You can't believe everything you read, or hear." Each challenge of mankind requires that we work for improvement to progress. Doomsday mongers who don't wish to try to solve the hard problems of life "cop out". It is easy to propose that if we lose 90% of the people, then the existing infrastructure will support those remaining for a long time. To work for alternative energy, improved sanitation, etc -- i. e. solutions to our current population issues -- is more noble.