Forrest Mims: 'crazy kook', says Pianka

Finally, it does strike me that Pianka is on one end of the spectrum and that his end of the spectrum is vulnerable to criticism.

Yes. The question for me is whether he's wrong to be at that end of the spectrum, and how good the criticisms are.

For example, the events of the 14th century in Europe and elsewhere can in part be viewed as an ecologically rooted "collapse". Notably, overall mortality from the plagues (bubonic and pneumonic) was about 40-50%. It only approached 100% in some areas.

Seems to me that we are in a substantially different situation than in the 14th century, with modern transport.

In the old days, virulent diseases spent more time wandering around geographically constrained populations---and either burning right out due to isolation, or becoming less virulent, by spending more time competing within a limited host pools with less nasty variant strains of themselves.

So, for example, a plague-ridden town might have half its population wiped out by a virulent fast-spreading strain, a quarter of its population infected but mostly surviving a milder strain---which likely confers immunity to the more virulent strain---and another quarter immune due to some genetic variation. The result would be half the population, half naturally immune and half having had the mild strain, and the virulent strain dying out.

These days, by the time the virulent strain has infected half the population, in a town in Africa, it could easily have spread to New York, and become more virulent in the process---the "fast-spreading" strain has a very different survival/reproduction strategy than the milder strain, and may evolve to be more and more virulent. (As long as it's got fresh, immunologically naive hosts, and is not competing head-on with milder variants that confer immunity to it, it's to its advantage to maximize spreading at the expense of host survival.)

Everywhere it spreads, once it's competing with milder mutant variants of itself, it may eventuallly die out and leave mostly the milder strain. But not before the fast-spreading virulent strain is all over the world, such that it kills most of the people in the world.

The fast-spreading strain has a heightened advantage in an age of fast regional and global transport, such that it can spread vastly farther and faster before having to compete with its own milder variants, and it can become more virulent in the process.

Or so it seems to me. (As I've said, I'm no biologist.)

While the events of the 14th century led to some pullingback, it's short term impact did not lead to a complete collapse of agriculture and civilization.

Another difference between the 14th century and now is that in those days, most people lived at pretty much the subsistence agriculture level. If you killed off half the people, the other half could go on pretty much as before, growing food and eating it.

Not so today. Killing off half the people would cause an economic collapse that would kill many more people by a domino effect, with the collapse of infrastructure and social organization. Most of us couldn't just mourn the dead, pick up our farming implements, and go on.

The ultimate result as we know was of course capitalism.

Right. That's one of the things that makes us more vulnerable than before. Modern capitalism is very dependent on sophisticated social organization and infrastructure. If things fell apart in a big way, they'd fall very far.

It seems to me---and I'm no economist either---that if we killed off half the people in the world, things would fall apart so badly that likely most of the rest would die too. So, for example, if disease killed off 90 percent of people in some regions, and 20 percent in others, the survivors in the "lucky" region would be in trouble because they'd be dependent on the now-dead people in the "unlucky" regions.

So there is always a problem with straight up applications of Malthusian models to humans.

Yes. But it's not clear to me that Pianka is wrong, either about how virulent global plagues can be, or what the bottom line would be in terms of global mortality, indirect effects included.

Aside from the who did what when, right wing Creationists seem to be hysterical over anything that shakes the "dominion" thing and "manifest destiny".
No one wants to hear about the "progress trap" but Pianka is not a one off wacko, no the wackos are the cowards sending the threats, pathetic.

I've noticed that fundies do not take to seriously the prohibition on "bearing false witness." Too bad.

Wait, I thought apocalypse was a good thing for creationists! They're always going on about the first chapter--did they never read to the end of the book?

By using the hot-button word "genocide," Sims equates Dr. Pianka with immorality.

Forrest Mims is an electrical engineer. Why are people acting like that makes him an authority in biology? My dad has a PHD in EE, he couldn't help me dissect a frog back in high school. I would never allow Pianka to design a circuit for me, why should Mims views on biology matter?

If you moonbats really believe all this overpopulation Chicken Little nonsense, then why don't you kill yourselves? Why is it that nobody with a "Save the earth, Kill yourself" bumpersticker does it?

Nick, I'm curious why you think highly virulent diseases are more likely to burn themselves out than to take out the majority of the population.

— Paul W

why should Mims views on biology matter?

wamba: More the reason to dismiss what he says out of hand, for he is talking well out of his field of expertise. Why give him any credibility?

Here the Grand Quartermaster of Delta Pi Gamma asks about ID and Ebola.

Why is it that nobody with a "Save the earth, Kill yourself" bumpersticker does it?

Mims' background in electronics and his identification as a creationist are irrelevant. What is very relevant is Pianka's advocation of airborne Ebola as a good way to kill off 90% of the world's population of human beings (and though he probably hasn't considered it, 90% of the world's population of his beloved lizards too).

The man called for the extermination of 6 billion human beings and you people are defending him. Shame on you.

Comment #94298 Posted by rightwingprof on April 4, 2006 02:53 PM (e) If you moonbats really believe all this overpopulation Chicken Little nonsense, then why don't you kill yourselves? Why is it that nobody with a "Save the earth, Kill yourself" bumpersticker does it?

Comment #94365 Posted by Ed Minchau on April 4, 2006 04:20 PM (e) Mims' background in electronics and his identification as a creationist are irrelevant. What is very relevant is Pianka's advocation of airborne Ebola as a good way to kill off 90% of the world's population of human beings (and though he probably hasn't considered it, 90% of the world's population of his beloved lizards too). The man called for the extermination of 6 billion human beings and you people are defending him. Shame on you.

(and though he probably hasn't considered it, 90% of the world's population of his beloved lizards too).

I have a few more general comments, but first, I do want to address right wing prof.

If you are indeed a prof, then perhaps you could demonstrate it by doing something other than calling people "moonbats". If you have a good argument as to how and why current trends are sustainable, let's hear it. Personally, while I dissociate myself from Pianka's more radical view, I do think there is reason to view currents as being unsustainable. Of course, making any statement with that good old "ceterus paribus" clause is always problematic. What's to say current trends will or should continue.

That's not to say we shouldn't be looking at adopting good, sound pro-environment policies. Pianka strikes me as someone who tries to analyze human societies from a pure biological/ecological perspective. I think that perspective when applied to social ecology leads to some bad models.

So, like I said. There is an argument to be had with Pianka. But I don't see where he advocated genocide.

From a human view, it might be the case that if we had stabilized populations at 1950's levels the world as a whole (in human terms) might be better off. Of course, that does not mean that I advocate killing off anyone alive today-nor do I think Pianka does. I do advocate making sure that "current trends" don't continue because current trends will likely lead to a lot of deaths-even not necessarily a mortality rate of 90%.

Most social ecological models in archaeology, history and anthropology suggest that "collapses" are not always sudden or abrupt or even immediately "catastrophic". Rather they tend to accumlate over time and gradually lead to periodic outbreaks of famines, wars, diseases, declining yields and attendant social conflict. In time, this social conflict tends to lead to a collapse of the dominant state.

An ecological collapse in today's modern industrial world might not look like an immediate catastrophe, but rather a gradual and prolonged period of famines, wars, social misery.

There is no reason why this has to happen and indeed, no reason at all why it should happen. Intelligent institutions, green technological progress, effective environmental regulations, family planning could all prevent such an outcome.

Now I am looking at it from the human view. But Pianka is asking the provoking and interesting question: from a pure biological/ecological perspective, would all the other species (plant and animal) on this planet be better off without us, or with us at much lower numbers. I think the clear answer is "yes".

That said, I'm not about to off myself or advocate offing anyone else. I do advocate finding ways to mitigate ecological damage.

What is very relevant is Pianka's advocation of airborne Ebola as a good way to kill off 90% of the world's population of human beings (and though he probably hasn't considered it, 90% of the world's population of his beloved lizards too).

The man called for the extermination of 6 billion human beings and you people are defending him. Shame on you.

Shame on YOU for totally misreading Pinaka's comment.

To spell it out for simpletons, advocating the reduction of the world's population by 90% does NOT mean it has be be done ALL AT ONCE. People do die naturally, through old age, accident, etc.

And population reduction does NOT necessarily mean it has to be applied to folks who've already been born.

Are you normally this bad at reading moderately complex writing, or do you usually confine yourself to USA TODAY newsbytes?

An addenda to my comment above:

As a teenager growing up in a fundamentalist church I often read books and saw movies that suggested such "doomsday" scenarios were foretold in the book of revelations. I heard a lot of sermons on that point too. And after all, as I think someone else has pointed out, isn't that sort of the whole premise of the "Left Behind" series?

Isn't Pianka just giving us a secular version of the day of the lord? So if you are a fundamentalist, and you believe in the book of Revelations, it seems to me you should be cheering Pianka on.

Of course I guess the difference is that Pianka might suggest we could avoid our fate whereas the fundamentalists say it is all bound to happen and we can't stop it.

Has anyone asked Mims how he views the book of Revelations?

Pianka's scenario of a disease killing off ~90% of the population seems to be more like the introduction of smallpox, measles and other Old World infectious diseases into the New World in the 16th century. I have seen estimates of up to 95% and whole villages and towns being completely wiped out. Sources show that it took only a few years for this to happen in the southeastern North America and the same in Moesoamerica once dominated by the Aztecs.

It seems odd to me that nobody has pointed out that Mims' claim of Pianka's position doesn't even make sense. Mims' claim is that Pianka wants to kill off 90% of the population with a horrible disease that will make them suffer, to avoid a fate in which, THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENS, except presumably due to starvation rather than disease. Doesn't make a lick of sense. If we don't 'kill people off' to make the world 'sustainable', then at least we're facing an unknown, but likely higher than 10% survival rate. Nobody would be stupid enough to make a claim that we need to kill people with a horrible virus in order to avoid having them die of starvation.

Shame on YOU for totally misreading Pinaka's comment.

Check out this blog entry from March 9:
http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html

"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!"
-----------------------

if you knew anything about viruses, you would know why.
I am well aware of the difficulties in migrating a virus from one species to an other. It was a little joke.

Shame on YOU for totally misreading Pinaka's comment.

Check out this blog entry from March 9:
http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html

"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!"
-----------------------

if you knew anything about viruses, you would know why.
I am well aware of the difficulties in migrating a virus from one species to an other. It was a little joke.

Shame on YOU for totally misreading Pinaka's comment.

Check out this blog entry from March 9:
http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html

"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!"
-----------------------

if you knew anything about viruses, you would know why.
I am well aware of the difficulties in migrating a virus from one species to an other. It was a little joke.

The man called for the extermination of 6 billion human beings and you people are defending him. Shame on you.

— Ed Minchau

Check out this blog entry from March 9:
http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html

"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!"
----------------------------------

if you knew anything about viruses, you would know why.
I am well aware of the difficulties in migrating a virus from one species to an other. It was a little joke.

I repeat. SHAME, SHAME on you for misreading Pianka.

Did you bother to read the rest of the original blog entry? Did you bother to read Pianka's other writings? Did you bother to do anything OTHER than quote mine? Did you understand the phrase "if you can call it that" as anything other than literal?

Shame, shame on you for such dunderheaded reading comprehension.

I am well aware of the difficulties in migrating a virus from one species to an other. It was a little joke.

Not to mention moronic and repetitive posting.

But, given his demonstrated contempt for accuracy, Minchau is presumably of the "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" school of demagoguery.

I wonder if Minchau has considered that his bouts with acid reflux are simply a real life reflection of his online posts?

PS: Oh yeah. Dembski helpfully reported Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security. Good job, Bill.

Forrest Mims

If another intelligence, well it was time to reset the human population and we don't have to take any responsibility.

Forrest Mims, afraid the end of the world will be unleashed by Boris and Natasha of the science world...

all i have to say is...

Run Forrest, Run!

hmm, that does make me wonder why there aren't more Forrest Gump puns in this thread.

consider that an invitation, of sorts...

Regarding the chances for a pandemic wiping out 90% of the human race, I am reminded of tales about the Spanish flu in 1917 as survivors told me the main problem with pandemics is the complete breakdown of social order.
They have resurrected the Spanish flu virus from lung tissue of some of its victims. As I remember the reports, the Spanish flu was a particularly virulent mutation which, if it appeared today, would be every bit as lethal as it was in 1917. We have no vaccine that will protect against it.
In 1917, what ultimately saved humanity was that the Spanish flu mutated within a relatively short time. However, more soldiers died during the Spanish flu from it rather than from war related causes. I do not remember the survival rate of the Spanish flu but I think it was far lower than it is for the avian flu, the current disease de jour.

Um...
"Life is like a vial of mutated Ebola?"

You never know what you're going to get, right? get, get?

Aw shucks. That's all I've got to say about that.

Never really liked that movie anyway. Sorry Sir TJ.

Not to mention moronic and repetitive posting.

My apologies for the triple post. Nothing happened for several minutes after I hit "post", so I hit it again a couple of times.

But, given his demonstrated contempt for accuracy, Minchau is presumably of the "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" school of demagoguery.

Contempt for accuracy? I provided a link from another person besides Mims who was present at the speech. That person actually agreed with Pianka, and yet said the same thing that Mims said: that Pianka was "basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population".

So gwangung, I found a second source that supported Mims' account of Pianka's speech. Obviously I didn't misread Pianka, unless both of those people who were present at the speech misread him. This is highly unlikely, considering that Mims and the other source I cited take opposite views of Pianka's conclusion and yet agree on what he said.

And Steviepinhead, I have two independent sources that say that Pianka advocates genocide. Finding a second source hardly constitutes a contempt for accuracy. Pianka's belated denial of what he said strikes me as an attempt to recover face after the s*it hit the fan.

So gwangung, I found a second source that supported Mims' account of Pianka's speech

No, you didn't, because you obviously didn't read the rest of the blog you cited. It did no such thing.

Try again. And try HARDER...a half assed effort won't cut it.

By the way, there are other people at the talk who would dispute yours and Mim's characterization (for example, Kathryn Perez over at Austringer).

Finding a second source hardly constitutes a contempt for accuracy

Mr. Minchau, I have read the entry in that "Serenity" blog too, when I was looking for data on the story. Can you tell me where it says Pianka proposes actively executing a genocide? Can you tell me why you stopped quoting at exactly that point between sentences?
Why don't you put a link up, so that anyone can see who's been honest and who's not?

it was a reasonable attempt, thanks CJ.

how 'bout:

Forrest Mims:

"Mama always said, dying was a part of life."

here's some source material:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/quotes

Not to mention moronic and repetitive posting.

I've looked at your site, seen the ridiculous drivel there, and can easily conclude that your mission is to put down the so called "liberal intelligencia".

you're 46 years old for christ's sake, grow up, would ya?

I don't know what site to which you are referring. Obviously not my site; I'm 37.

Why don't you put a link up, so that anyone can see who's been honest and who's not?

I did put a link up. As Steviepinhead was kind enough to point out, I posted the same link three times.

unless, of course, your sources are all from the same pool.

The author of the Serenity blog (Brenna) agrees with Pianka. Mims disagrees. How is it that these two sources are from the same pool?

Can you tell me where it says Pianka proposes actively executing a genocide? Can you tell me why you stopped quoting at exactly that point between sentences?

The text that I already quoted from the Serenity blog makes that point fairly clear. I stopped quoting because I had already copied the relevant point. Here once again is the last sentence of that quote, followed by the next sentence (which puts the lie to the assertion that Mims and Brenna are "from the same pool"):

"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."

The text that I already quoted from the Serenity blog makes that point fairly clear. I stopped quoting because I had already copied the relevant point. Here once again is the last sentence of that quote, followed by the next sentence (which puts the lie to the assertion that Mims and Brenna are "from the same pool"):

Quote miner.

Which basically makes you a liar.

You didn't read the rest of the blog, did you?

By the way, Dr. Kathryn Perez quite, quite disagrees with your SECOND HAND interpretation.

I'm just a humble philosopher, but surely the advances in medical knowledge and technology will give us an edge over the victims of the bubonic plague? I sure as hell hope so.

"So the Intelligent Designer is advocating genocide ... ?"

Well you know there was one intelligent designer who adovcated that in a book called the bible not that ( cough cough) that intelligent designer has ANYTHING at all to do with THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

I don't know what site to which you are referring. Obviously not my site; I'm 37.

your second-hand interpretation

You're right, I wasn't there at the TAS meeting. Mims and Brenna however, were. Were you? I doubt it. We're all going on second-hand information here.

You didn't read the rest of the blog, did you?

I did read the entire blog post that Brenna wrote. I didn't read the entire blog - who has time to go through all the archives of every blog they come across?

If you want to call me a liar, that is your prerogative. However, your assertion that killing off 90% of the human population "does NOT mean it has be be done ALL AT ONCE" is completely unsupported, and is in fact contradicted by what Mims and Brenna reported. You've made it up out of whole cloth. Back it up, perhaps by pointing to a transcript from the speech or any other writings by Pianka which advocate this culling through gradual processes. Until you do (or anyone else does), I will operate under the assumption that Pianka said exactly what Mims and Brenna said he did, that 90% of humanity ought to die from airborne Ebola.

I'm just a humble philosopher, but surely the advances in medical knowledge and technology will give us an edge over the victims of the bubonic plague? I sure as hell hope so.

Pianka says he would never advocate genocide or extermination like some suggest he does. ""I've got two granddaughters, man. I'm putting money in a college fund for my granddaughters. I'm worried about them,"

how would you explain the ovation the professor's speech recieved in light of Forrest Gump's interpretation?

Robert Bidinotto has one explanation: "Ask yourself the following question: Where is there a place for humans and their works in a world where pristine nature is deemed ideal, and the productive use of nature for human gain is deemed immoral?

In essence, environmentalists are attacking our very right to live, period. That position permits no compromise."

If the fraction of environmentalists among those in attendance was high, then you have your answer.

so when Pianka says he is not now, nor ever has advocated genocide, you would prefer to believe what Forrest Gump Mims says.

why is that?

I believe that Pianka is backpedalling now that his contemptible ideas are becoming general knowledge. After all, he's got to protect those nice juicy grants.

And I'm not just relying on Mims, I am also relying on Brenna, who happens to agree with Pianka's ideas.

A transcript (or even better, a video) of the speech would clear much of this controversy up rather quickly.

Well, I must confess that I had a hand in spreading this wild rumor, on my own blog, because it didn't seem so wild at first glance to me. I've heard as bad if not worse from academics--but I was wrong in this case, and I admit it.

An ecological collapse in today's modern industrial world might not look like an immediate catastrophe, but rather a gradual and prolonged period of famines, wars, social misery.

I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet.

Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.

However, your assertion that killing off 90% of the human population "does NOT mean it has be be done ALL AT ONCE" is completely unsupported,

Nor is it contradicted.

and is in fact contradicted by what Mims and Brenna reported.

Mims, perhaps. But I do not believe this is extractable from Brenna. It IS supported by Perez (who you continue to ignore).

You've made it up out of whole cloth.

Hardly. You are the one spinning the cloth

Back it up, perhaps by pointing to a transcript from the speech or any other writings by Pianka which advocate this culling through gradual processes. Until you do (or anyone else does), I will operate under the assumption that Pianka said exactly what Mims and Brenna said he did, that 90% of humanity ought to die from airborne Ebola.

Sorry, that's not how it works. YOU made the accusation. It was contradicted by others hearing the same speech. The burden falls to YOU to support your thesis by finding consistent themes in his other writings as extraordinary claims needs extraordinary support. It's not MY job to do your work (particularly when I've pointed out where and who to look for)

It's this extreme recklessness and disregard for the truth, relying on second hand evidence (and one a questionable interpretation at that) that makes you a liar.

Seems extremely likely that Pianka doesn't need to "backtrack"; it's more likely some unstable ideologues have to do a lot more work than rely on quote mining.

Derek's post is pretty damning, considering.

Moonglum wrote: Forrest Mims is an electrical engineer. Why are people acting like that makes him an authority in biology?

Forrest Mims is also the chairman of the Environmental Sciences section of the Texas Academy of Science - the same TAS where Pianka made his speech.

gwangung wrote:
By the way, there are other people at the talk who would dispute yours and Mim's characterization (for example, Kathryn Perez over at Austringer).

and

It IS supported by Perez (who you continue to ignore).

Well, you didn't give a URL for this supposed support. So, I did a quick google and found the Austringer blog, where there is this post about Pianka and Mims. However, the author of that blog (whose name is Elsberry, not Perez; nor are any of the commenters on that post named Perez), was not at that meeting. If you are referring to another Austringer, then I suggest that you actually provide a URL.

gwangung said: It was contradicted by others hearing the same speech.

Show me.

I should point out comment #94600 above as well, two comments made in Pianka's fall 2004 course evaluations: those two comments show that not only has Pianka advocated the deaths of 90% of humanity via Ebola before, he has done so for years.

It's this extreme recklessness and disregard for the truth, relying on second hand evidence (and one a questionable interpretation at that) that makes you a liar.

You are treading dangerously close to libel.

On the one hand we have Mims, Brenna, and the two quotes in comment #94600. All of these say that Pianka is advocating the deaths of 90% of humanity via airborne Ebola. On the other hand we have you Gwangung, with your (as far as I can tell, fictional) Perez.

If you have firsthand knowledge of the Pianka speech, then I suggest you share it. If not, then you are sharing secondhand knowledge (which is not supported by any references at all) and yet you accuse me of lying because I am relying on secondhand knowledge (which I support with references).

Just a reminder that Mims is one of the signers of the Discovery Institute's amicus brief in Kitzmiller (see here, the last paragraph before the first "Update", and the update dated 10/24), and that he lists himself as an "Atmospheric Researcher" affiliated with the "Geronimo Creek Observatory," which is his name for the open field in which he keeps his equipment.

Mims' explanation, in a letter to me: "many meteorological observatories are located in open fields" -- which doesn't, of course, explain why the open field has a name which implies the existence of a scientific institution.

If the fraction of environmentalists among those in attendance was high, then you have your answer.

How far into the woods will you have to go to stay safe?

Comment #94578 Posted by Ed Minchau on April 4, 2006 09:29 PM (e) I believe that Pianka is backpedalling now that his contemptible ideas are becoming general knowledge. After all, he's got to protect those nice juicy grants.

If anyone still has doubts that Mr. Pianka is dreaming about the extermination of 90% of humanity using ebola, see my blog

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/eric-pianka-saving-earth-by-killing-58.html

where I demonstrate it using his own web pages and evaluations of his own course.

Moses said: cannot accept the evidence that you are wrong and he said no such thing.

Mims says Pianka advocated for the deaths of 90% of the human population via Ebola. Brenna said the said the same thing, three weeks before the Mims editorial. And in the fall of 2004, two of the comments in the student evaluation of his course suggest that this same topic, his desire for the death of 90% of humanity via Ebola, was a part of the course he taught, something his students were required to regurgitate in order to pass his course.

On the other hand we have Pianka's denial after the shit has hit the fan. You expect any reasonable person to believe him? You call that evidence?

Sir Toejam: oh, and do feel free to sue me for libel.

You didn't write anything libelous. Gwangung was getting close though.

However, I would like for even one of the people who is arguing with me to provide me with any evidence that Pianka's speech was about something other than what Mims and Brenna say it was. Any evidence at all. A URL to a transcript of the speech would be wonderful. A URL to a video of the speech would be even better.

Pianka's belated denials do not constitute evidence; instead they appear more like a 67 year old man afraid of losing tenure. A denial is by no means a "debunking", contrary to Nick Matzke's wishful thinking in the original post.

Hopefully a proper epidemiologist will tell us more [...]

Pianka's scenario of a disease killing off ~90% of the population seems to be more like the introduction of smallpox, measles and other Old World infectious diseases into the New World in the 16th century. I have seen estimates of up to 95% and whole villages and towns being completely wiped out. Sources show that it took only a few years for this to happen in the southeastern North America and the same in Moesoamerica once dominated by the Aztecs.

I'm just a humble philosopher, but surely the advances in medical knowledge and technology will give us an edge over the victims of the bubonic plague? I sure as hell hope so.

Some cretin wrote
If you moonbats really believe all this overpopulation Chicken Little nonsense, then why don't you kill yourselves? Why is it that nobody with a "Save the earth, Kill yourself" bumpersticker does it?
What for? To leave the Earth alone and unprotected for morons like you to despoil?

I would guess that the damage due to the classic bacterial plagues in Europe was limited because of previous waves of similar plagues, over many thousands of years, leaving a population with some degree of immunity. Truly novel diseases could be worse.

Pianka is not saying anything that is not in the journals. A quick search of the Journal of Epidemiology online for the last year.
Although a certain amount hyperbole is to be expected, the epidemologists do think about these problems, model potential effects, and are warning governments.

"Although another influenza pandemic in humans is inevitable, we cannot predict when it will occur. In the meantime, we must do everything in our power to avert this threat, which means improving our responsiveness to a pandemic alert through implementation of all possible preventive strategies."

Here is a SARS transmission model, and this discusses Ebola but considers SARS more likely as a bioterrorist weapon.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

My understanding is that over the last few decades, it's become apparent that the population of the New World was several times higher than previously thought. Diseases introduced by the early European explorers spread ahead of the later explorers, killing off most people and pretty well destroying many native societies.

— Paul W.

Pianka's belated denials do not constitute evidence; instead they appear more like a 67 year old man afraid of losing tenure.

— Ed Minchau

Then how come "novel diseases" weren't carried from the new world to the old to wipe out Europe? Yeah, I know, syphilis, but it didn't kill 90%. An interesting notion has recently come to light WRT the current bird flu scare. It seems that the difference may have been the European penchant for living in close proximity to domesticated animals, and all the viruses that migrated from them to humans, gave them much more robust immune systems. Native Americans, OTOH, did not have nearly so great a variety of domesticated animals, and thus didn't have nearly the viral immunity of Europeans.

Regarding the peopling of the world, including the Americas, I am sure you will enjoy S. Oppenheimer's "Out of Eden", Constable & Robertson, 2003. I have some disagreements with the details of the peopling of the Americas in his account, but what has been posted previously is basically in accord with Oppenheimer's story.

With regard to the great plagues of Europe, did much the same happen in South Asia or East Asia? I have never read anything either way...

While the human race battles itself ... the advantage moves to the microbes' court. They are our predators and they will be victorious ...

Dembski is now offering $1000 for a recording of Pianka's talk. That's after reporting him to Homeland Security on the basis of a secondhand account of the talk. Just when you thought Dembski couldn't stoop any lower he manages to pull a stunt like this.

As I pointed out earlier, someone should remind Dembski that his own sugar daddy, Howie Ahmanson, was, for 20 years, the chief cheerleader and cash cow for Christian Reconstructionist Rousas Rushdooney, who, amongst other things, advocated the execution (by stoning) of gays, heretics and infidels. I'm pretty sure that would account for at least half, and probably more, of the US population.

Moreover, Rushdooney and Ahmanson and their crew of nutters specifically and clearly called for the dissolution of the US Constitution and instead placing the US directly under "Biblical Law". So not only are the Reconstructionists homicidal maniacs, but they are also traitors.

I don't recall hearing a single word of complaint or disassociation from anybody at DI. Ever.

I am wondering when Dembski plans to report the traitorous mass-murderer-wanna-be's to the Federales.

"Rather he's pointed out that we're way over-populated. That we're ripe for a major population control disease vector to decimate our population. That, in fact, as far as the world's species (through bio-diversity) are concerned, the planet would be better off with a drastically reduced human population."

Well, doesn't that effectively amount to a desire to see the world's population decimated by an infectious disease?

What's coming across from the comments here isn't that Forrest Mims was wrong in his basic description of Pianka's presentation; what's coming across is that most of the people here agree with Pianka to a greater or lesser extent.

Also, stop slinging shit at Mims because of his religious beliefs. This has strictly nothing to do with Creationism vs. Darwinism. How old are you people anyways? You're behaving like a bunch of fucking retards.

Igor admonishes all PT commenter's to "stop slinging shit at Mims because of his religious beliefs."

"Rather he's pointed out that we're way over-populated. That we're ripe for a major population control disease vector to decimate our population. That, in fact, as far as the world's species (through bio-diversity) are concerned, the planet would be better off with a drastically reduced human population."

Well, doesn't that effectively amount to a desire to see the world's population decimated by an infectious disease?

Um, no.

Here is a transcript of an Eric Pianka lecture. I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but I believe it clears up some of the misconceptions about Pianka's beliefs. It's fairly long and the "controversial" statements are only a small part of the presentation.

I think these two quotes basically say it all:

"The microbes are going to get us. We are, we are a great big immerging substrate just waiting for microbes to grow on us."

"(T)hings are gonna get better after the collapse because we won't be able to decimate the earth so much. And, I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left."

It seems obvious that his "controversial" idea is that the current human population is unsustainable and will eventually be diminished, probably, by a disease.

You're behaving like a bunch of fucking retards.

Who is Pianka advocating genocide to? Virii, apparently, since they are the agents of those deaths. It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that Pianka has not urged anyone to kill anyone -- a critical element of "advocating genocide".

Dominionist sickos like Ed Minchau and Luboš Motl are like someone who smokes like a chimney and sees anyone who comments on the effect of this on the smoker and others as a fascist interfering with the smoker's God-given right to the pursuit of happiness -- they are supremely selfish people. And the next step after making the morally bankrupt libertarian argument is to actually deny the facts -- the height of intellectual dishonesty -- as Motl does with the plan of some of the leading environmentalists who fight against the so-called "global warming", including those in the Time magazine, was to erase 90 percent of the GDP of the civilized world. which asserts the non-real and denies the real. That's the power of self-serving ideology.

Also, stop slinging shit at Mims because of his religious beliefs. This has strictly nothing to do with Creationism vs. Darwinism.

And, I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left."

I wonder if Ed Minchau will now reconsider his thought processes that lead him never to doubt his creationist sources?

Will he come here to admit his error?

doubtful.

Just to have some fun, I'm gonna say it:

ED:

I told you so.

Ed,

Perez's comment is at
http://austringer.net/wp/?p=254#comment-16473

It's been there all along.

Ed,

Perez's comment is at
http://austringer.net/wp/?p=254#comment-16473

It's been there all along.

Oh, that would have taken a little work (how hard is it to do an cmd-F for Perez on a web page, ya know?).

Creationists and their ilk seem congenitally unable to do even the simplest research.

Oh. Wait. Am I going to sued for that comment?

Oh. Wait. Am I going to sued for that comment?

Why does no footage of Pianka's speech exist, then?

Why does no footage of Pianka's speech exist, then?

I have for many years been greatly concerned by the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. More recently I have been equally frightened by Christian fundamentalist dogma, seemingly endemic across middle USA. Perhaps the rise of the two is causally linked. In the "Pianka furore" we seem to be seeing here another example of blind dogma being used to rebut sound scientific observation and theory.

From a reasonably in-depth analysis of issues like peak oil, human ecological footprint and intergenerational fairness, I believe that you will find little expectation of anything other than the collapse in life as we know it, probably within 50 to 100 years. There is so much information around on these and related topics. If you have children, you owe to them and their children to make sustainability something other than a platitude.

"To spell it out for simpletons, advocating the reduction of the world's population by 90% does NOT mean it has be be done ALL AT ONCE. People do die naturally, through old age, accident, etc."

Human nature being as it is, I do not believe it is possible for such a reduction to occur in a time frame meaningful to the alleviation of the "plague" Pianka advocates as being otherwise inevitable, without the massacre of billions being undertaken. Within those constraints, there is no difference between the two concepts.

"Population control to reduce the population by 90%" and "genocide" are synonymous in reality.

It would behoove Mr. Pianka to say which mechanism of population control he prefers, the plague or genocide, since his "preferred" method of volutary reduction is not possible.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp