Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.
(Via Zombie Pop.)
The sick thing is that I can almost sympathize with this guy.
I agree, for instance, that an ecologically tolerable Earth is unlikely unless extreme measures are taken. To be sure, the sudden demise of 90% of the world's human population would help even the balance, minimizing climate disaster and cleansing the oceans and atmosphere of toxins.
The chorus of voices calling for deliberate dieback is likely to gain a more receptive audience as humanity weathers the new century's inevitable shortages and disasters. Poisoned and weary (and more than likely rattled by the novel excesses of 21st century warfare), many of us may opt for the siren call of a "12 Monkeys"-style virus.
But by that time some of us will have grasped alternatives that allow for an altogether different future. We're quietly entering an era of space elevators and laser-propelled interplanetary craft. With cunning, we can harvest the light of the Sun and transmit its bounty from geosynchronous orbit. Astronauts can begin mining the Moon and passing asteroids for the very materials so desperately needed on the resource-starved Earth.
More portentously, the first humans will begin the arduous -- but essential -- migration to space, testing the waters for their successors.
6 comments:
More portentously, the first humans will begin the arduous -- but essential -- migration to space, testing the waters for their successors.
Why is it that proposals like a deliberate dieback always put me in mind of certain long-defunct dictator with toothbrush moustache? I'd far rather see the cutting edge of humanity simply leave -- migrate off planet and simply leave the struggling masses to their own devices and demogogues. And in fact, I think the Great Migration will have an extremely powerful effect of positive evolutionary selection without even trying (hence without lapsing into any kind of genocidal fascism). And only a very tiny fraction of humanity will be able to participate in this movement anyway -- say, the canonical 144K who are to be taken up into heaven according to the Manual of Revelation of the Singularity?
theres a helluva good universe next door
lets go --
e e cummings
[i]The sick thing is that I can[/i] almost[i] sympathize with this guy.[/i]
Maybe that is the point when some major reconsideration of this whole 'ecodisaster' thing is needed? Because it is indeed quite sick to even think about 90% human population being exterminated for whatever reasons.
Mac, geological resources aren't even the most important ones in economics. Human inventiveness is more important and it's not gonna be ever depleted (but it can be restrained - and that is the core problem for the future - the sociological in favor of egological)
w.m. bear: hitler - hell yeah, that was the bad guy. But Stalin was even worse. And the same with fascism against communism.
magnidude -- I have to say that I dislike comparisons of evil with greater (or as great evil), since these are by and large used to justify one or the other. For example, what you typically hear from the administration and its media lackeys -- sure, we may have done a few questionable things in Iraq but just look at what our enemies are doing! The evil that one person or group does never justifies that of some other person or group, let alone one to which I belong. I would like to think that we are OK not because we may not be as bad as our enemies but because we are completely above doing the same sorts of things altogether. Thus the argument that "X is just as bad or worse than Y" never has any logical (or emotive) appeal for me.
Mac:
Read your post on Meeting Dr Doom with some dismay. The web post you have linked to in reference to Eric Pianka is either directly connected with or influenced by the Christian fundamentalist advocates of ID (Intelligent Design). When you quote from them
“Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.”
…the assumption is that Pianka is asserting or advocating a 90% die-off in the human population as necessary both for the remaining humans and for Earths’ biosphere in general. This is simply a lie. This disinformation directly or indirectly comes from two sources. One a Forrest Mimms, an antievolutionist, who was at the aforementioned speech. The second a William Dembksi, a prominent ID advocate.
Mims on hearing Pianka concluded:
“Mims is now convinced that Pianka is doing more than describing the likely whimper of the end of the world: Mims claims that Pianka is encouraging scientists to build a pandemic agent and purposely unleash it on the world. Yes, that’s right, Mims is saying that scientists can’t be trusted because they may be involved in a personal biowarfare program whose aim is to depopulate the earth of humans.”
See source http://austringer.net/wp/?p=254 on this.
Dembksi then picked up on this tale and turned the whole thing definitely Orwellian. What did he do?
“Enter William A. Dembski, bigtime ID advocate. Did he pause for a moment to consider whether Mims, a fellow who has exagerrated things before, might have the wrong end of the stick? Did he consider that academic freedom was something that applied to people he didn’t agree with? What we do know about the possible answer here is that he reports this as his action in the matter:”
“As soon as this is posted, I’m going to have a chat with the Department of Homeland Security. [Called them — They are aware of it; it will be interesting to see if they do anything about it.]”
Same source as above.
Since I have read many of your reactions to ID and Christian fundamentalism before I thought you would like to hear my take on this particular post. In any case I am generally with you on your reactions. But please do not link Pianka with that “chorus of voices calling for deliberate dieback.”
OldManSeeker
w.m. bear: that wasn't an argument, that was a reminder (and not necessarily to u, to those who need to be reminded, as i believe there is a fair number of them)
OldManSeeker: nice mind-bending manipulation.
So we are not to believe one scientist because he is a right-wing connected 'creationist' and 'antievolutionist' (apage satanas!), even if he is an actual WITNESS to Dr. Pianka's speech, but we ought to believe another scientist who (did I miss something?) actually was not present at the lecture. But wait a minute...that other (i.e. credible, respected, responsible, wise and thoughtful) scientist on his own blog writes:
Pianka has long been talking about how humans have overpopulated the earth, and that human population is liable to “crash” just as we have seen happen in various animal populations that outgrow their resources. In his courses, he discusses both how an airborne contagious version of the Ebola virus might reduce the world human population to 10% of its size at the time of spread, and how, ecologically speaking, THIS WOULD NOT BE A BAD THING.
Ecologically speaking, of course. Ecologically speaking as it seems, u can tell a lot of stupid and dangerous stuff. Ecologically speaking, Twelve monkeys actually depicts the very scenario. Ecologically speaking, who else want to find himself in Bruce Willis's shoes? Don't count on me.