|
Title: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-04-02, 21:10 Quote Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said.... http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2...re1p/index.html (http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html)...Yet five hours later, the distinguished leaders of the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. When the banquet hall filled with more than 400 people responded with enthusiastic applause, I walked out in protest. You know, I hate being right. What was I just talking about some people in science behaving like a religion? I'd expect to hear something like this coming from some doomsday UFO cult! Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Kajet on 2006-04-02, 22:26 Whoa... psycho...
Okay the world is undoubtedly over populated by humans but damn... there is enough pain and suffering in the world as it is... /humor although after he's done there would be a lot less pain... not to mention he'd have to be among the 90% to suffer an agonizing death /end pathetic attempt at humor but yeah this guy is proposing genocide not envionmental conchiousness (misspelled i know bite me) there is not other possible term for his plan why the spork didn't someone bum rush the stage and bash his head in instead of applauding the sporknut? and one of his students say they worship him? WTF? Okay yeah i do have issues with humanity but sporkING MURDER?!? that shit isn't going to sporking work! But okay fine i'm over reacting so let this genious do his work... make him start with everyone he's ever loved or cared about,make them die in front of his eyes then see how attached to his eco friendly save the planet in one fell swoop plan he is, he does that and still wants his genocide he has no heart and should be killed in the most agonizing way possible, or just a bullet to the brain just to get his ass off my world that much faster. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Thomas Mink on 2006-04-02, 23:27 Why stop at 90%? I say go all the way and make it a full 100%.
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Kajet on 2006-04-03, 03:33 cause 10% can feed a lot of hungry animals?
(bad joke, increasingly horrible day) Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: scalliano on 2006-04-03, 15:08 Well, I disagree with anthropocentrism, but I fail to see this guy's point. "Right, let's show our lack of authority over the planet by poisoning nine tenths of it so that the survivors may live the plentiful life we, er, I mean, they deserve."
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-04-03, 15:27 Anyone here ever play Wing Commander IV? And no, this isn't offtopic...
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Kajet on 2006-04-03, 16:06 Quote from: Phoenix Anyone here ever play Wing Commander IV? And no, this isn't offtopic... yeah up to the part where biological warfare was introduced, but that was quite sometime ago. but why not mention syphon filter as well? or any other game that has a manufactured disease set to wipe out entire cultures? Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Lopson on 2006-04-03, 16:18 I like a good comedy show. Boy thit that made me laugh.
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-04-04, 02:50 Well the reason I bring up WCIV specifically is that you had the so-called "good guys" doing exactly what this scientist proposes - using a biological agent to destroy 90% of the population. The game's old so I won't worry about spoilers. Here's the end dialogue. Admiral Tolwyn, who is behind the bioweapons plot, is Blair's old commanding officer. Paladin heads the senatorial assembly, and is an old friend of Blair's. He's a former fighter pilot and special ops member. The assembly is about to vote for war with the Union of Border Worlds, whom they've been duped into believing are responsible for continued pirate attacks against Confederation space vessels when in reality it's Tolwyn's Black Lance forces that have been setting the stage for war. Blair enters the assembly to confront Tolwyn as he's giving a speech prior to the vote...
Quote Tolwyn: ?yes, a formal Declaration of War is a very terrible thing. It should not be undertaken unless all options have been exhausted. I?m afraid to report to you that that is the case. We did not fight the Kilrathi for decades just to have an infection hollow us out from the inside. If there is a cancer amongst us, we must cut it out now! I urge you to vote yes on this declaration. Thank you. Assembly: *applause* Blair: There is a cancer that needs to be cut out! Tolwyn: Seize that man! Blair: But it?s not on the frontiers of the galaxy, but right here before you! Tolwyn: Well, Colonel. This is the great hero of the Kilrathi war, who has betrayed the Confederation and now fights for the Union of Border Worlds. Blair: I fight as I always have, on the side of peace and honour. Please, Paladin, hear me out. Paladin: If any man has earned the right to a hearing, it is Colonel Blair. Let him speak. Blair: What price freedom, Admiral? I?ve come here to tell you the truth, the truth about what?s really happening on the outer fringes of civilisation. Tolwyn: Please, Colonel, you insult me as well as everyone else here. Do you really believe that this chamber is that ignorant? Blair: No, Admiral. I don?t believe anyone here is ignorant, least of all you. Tolwyn: Thank you. Blair: I simply seek to shed new light on events. Assembly: *murmurs* Blair: The Border Worlds have fallen victim to a plot which, if allowed to proceed, will make all of Humanity a victim. Tolwyn: Well, I suppose there is a strange logic in that. Well, um, please continue, Colonel. Blair: Admiral, do you believe in the concepts of law and order? Tolwyn: Of course. I?ve devoted my life to them. Haven?t we all? Blair: And you believe these concepts to be the foundation of a strong society? Tolwyn: Indeed. Without law and order, we are lost. Blair: Law and order. Control. Maintaining the status quo. That?s what this is all about. Harmony among men is a secondary issue. Tolwyn: Harmony is maintained through control. Blair: Was it harmony that made me, as a Confed pilot, party to the theft of a Border Worlds laboratory and the outright abduction of a Border Worlds bio-convergence chemist? Tolwyn: How you interpret operations, Colonel, is of no consequence. Your job as a soldier is to carry out orders without question. Blair: Without question? Have any of you questioned the Admiral about his Black Lance forces? Assembly: *murmurs* Paladin: Marshal, what are these Black Lance forces he?s referring to? Tolwyn: An elite force of men that I have assembled to protect our galactic interests. Blair: And these forces are stationed at a star base in the Axius System, isn?t that right? Tolwyn: Well, it is my duty to station forces where they may be needed. Blair: And the Black Lance has some extraordinary equipment at their disposal. Tolwyn: Effective soldiers require effective tools. Blair: Would you qualify the Gen-Select bio-weapon as an effective tool, Admiral? Paladin: This Assembly has never approved the development or use of a bio-tech weapon. Tolwyn: As with any experimental device, I would, of course, have brought it to your attention as soon as it neared readiness. Blair: I think the people of Telamon know just how ready it is. The few that are left can speak of a weapon that selectively kills anyone whose physical or, or mental attributes don?t measure up to someone?s predetermined standards. Tolwyn: Telamon?s tragedy is still under investigation, but I have no doubt it will prove to be the doing of the Border Worlds thugs. Blair: Yes, the skies are just full of criminals, aren?t they, Admiral? Tolwyn: It appears so. Blair: And the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost in pursuit of these? phantoms. Blair: Admiral, do you believe the strong always survive? Tolwyn: With every fibre of my being. Blair: Is that why the head of the Black Lance forces is a product of the Genetic Enhancement program? Assembly: *murmurs* Paladin: That program was cancelled years ago. Tolwyn: He is more of a warrior than you will ever be, Colonel. He is excellence personified. He is? Blair: He is dead. Tolwyn: He is symbolic of all that we will achieve in the future. Blair: What is the expense of these achievements, Admiral? The lives already lost to your Black Lance forces? The millions more who will die if this Assembly votes for war? Blair (to assembly): Space Marshal Tolwyn believes that our victory over the Kilrathi was a fluke. That we as a race need tinkering with. Engineering. If a few billion die along the way, well, they weren?t worthy anyway! Why can?t we be more like the Kilrathi? Addicted to conflict, the only meaning to life being found in death. Tell us all, Admiral! Is that the price of freedom? Tolwyn: Mankind was at his zenith when fighting the Kilrathi. Now our society is crumbling. We have no goals, no focus. We?ve grown complacent and confused. Who will protect us when the next race tries to dominate us? Who can tell where that threat will come from, and when? No. We must be prepared. Progress only comes through struggle. Fighting keeps us fit. Conflict ensures our readiness and our survival. The Kilrathi understood this. They endured for millions of years and so shall we, if we continue fighting. If we continue to perfect our methods of killing? Paladin: I think we?ve heard enough... What real difference is there between this scientist and someone like Tolwyn? Kill 90% of humanity, and those who don't survive didn't deserve life anyway. Are the motives so different? Both believe they preserve the species this way. Both think they're acting in the best interests of mankind. Pain, suffering, death... what does it matter so long as your objectives are met? I can understand science fiction having plots like this, but when it starts to become science fact its very disturbing, especially when you've seen it before. This is what happens when men lose their conscience. This is what happens when ideals override one's, dare I use the word, one's humanity. People like this man, who do not value every life, from infant to elder, should never be given power or authority, and those who cheer them should be brought down and humbled. These are dangerous men.[/color] Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Kajet on 2006-04-04, 03:26 Human and Humane are two completely different words that have two completely different meanings, I find the similarity between these words to be extremely vulgar, thanks to people like this maniac.
If you have to say the ends justify the means, they ususally don't. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: BiGRoB85 on 2006-04-04, 08:55 One thing I've thought of - his plan could very well backfire on him. He's proposing the killing of 90% of the world's population, or over 5 billion people. One result of this plan will be over 5 billion dead bodies, which will decompose, releasing large amounts of methane in the process. Methane is a greenhouse gas, if I'm not mistaken. This means that global warming will get worse after his plan is put into action, thus negating the whole intent of his plan. Even if some, or all, of the bodies were cremated, there would still be quite a bit of carbon dioxide released, which would also contribute to global warming.
So, not only are there great moral objections just to the killing of most of the world's population in and of itself, but the whole plan may have the exact opposite of the intended results! I could be wrong, though; it depends on how much methane gets released by the decomposition of the bodies and how quickly it is removed from the atmosphere. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: games keeper on 2006-04-04, 09:55 you send the dead bodies to space
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Angst on 2006-04-04, 11:40 Quote I could be wrong, though; it depends on how much methane gets released by the decomposition of the bodies and how quickly it is removed from the atmosphere. Quite a bit, actually, and let's not forget the resulting boom in flies/etc that will come with just such a culling, the overbreeding of small predators following that, etc etc etc. If history is any indication.. It'll cause a ripple effect where animals will swarm to fill the void left by humanity, and die off just as fast in the end in order to maintain equilibrium. The plants will follow, and then animal life will gradually grow back up again. In the mean time, humanity enters another Dark Age, as 10% of the population cannot maintain any semblance of the existing infrastructure. Evolution follows suit, and humans return to near-tribal hunter-gathering and start accelerated breeding with a far smaller genetic pool. So it's back to largely physical builds that academia has been so fond of mocking in recent years. This is a classic example of the disconnected elitist epidemic in higher education. What better way to improve the planet than by removing those eye sores that make life liveable for the intellectuals? As a general rule; academics do not build, they don't get their hands dirty. Quite simply, it's the old adage: Those who can, do; and those who won't, teach. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Kajet on 2006-04-04, 17:25 not to mention we've got some dangerous shit just laying around weapons, power plants, nuclear reactors stuff that if left unattended could spork up a lot of things.
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-04-04, 17:29 I'll describe the process. Chaos would ensue. Panic would drive people to mass exodus from infected regions. Martial law would be instituted. Highways would crowd with people trying to flee, and clashes would erupt between miltary/police and people trying to escape quaranteened regions. These choked highways would become killing fields as disease, starvation, and violence close in on stranded motorists. People everywhere would begin to die faster than medical workers could care for them. Hospitals and sick wards would become spawning grounds for infection. Bodies would lie where they were, with nobody to move or bury them. People not killed outright by the disease would die from secondary infections through lack of treatment. Those sick with other infirmities would die from lack of care.
Those who are physically infirm who were not killed by the pestilence would die from lack of infrastructure. There will be no running water, no heat, and no cooling as power and water plants break down. Fires from failing machinery, overloading electrical wiring, and arson would gut cities and leave things in ruin. Dams would burst from lack of maintenence, flooding areas downstream. Orphaned children would die from exposure and lack of survival skill. Many survivors would go insane. Many would commit suicide. Of the survivors, the violent would try to rule through force and intimidation, the non-violent will be forced to become violent and band together to survive against the warlords that will rule over the resultant decay. Remember, all that military hardware will still be lying around and most of it will be in working order. Of that 10% that survives the disease, well over half of that will die through subsequent disease from contaminated food and water, starvation, suicide, accident, and conflict. People will fight continually over diminishing resources. There will be no order at first. Eventually people would settle into tribal groups for mutual survival and protection from rival groups. People would be forced to either scavenge burned out cities, or work the land for food. People would migrate from the cities to rural areas in search of food and water. Those who remain in cities would begin to die off from isolation. People would begin forming communities in the rural areas and would be forced to learn how to work the land again. The most industrialized societies would suffer the most, being most dependent upon technology and infrastructure. Those who live closest to the land in more natural regions would be least affected by infrastructure collapse. Eventually, people would adapt to living this way and begin to rebuild from a more primitive level. I would say perhaps 1-2% of the earth's human population at best would remain at this point, approximately 50 to 100 years down the road. There is, of course, the "doomsday" option that might surface as a result of the initial outbreak. Paranoid governments may assume they have been attacked by a hostile regime. At that point a global thermonuclear war would be possible as panicked leaders act to retaliate against their enemies. If this were to occur, it would mean the extinction of mankind as the combination of nuclear war and all the other factors would work to kill any who might have otherwised survived the initial disease outbreak. That's one scenario these "geniuses" haven't figured into their equation. When people start dying in large numbers, people get very, very scared. Scared people act unpredictably, and do things they otherwise wouldn't do. In attempting to "save" the earth, these so-called scientists would cause more damage than those they are trying to protect it against would have if they had been left alone. In the process, they would have caused the indirect extinction of thousands of species, drastically altered the earth's ecology through nuclear annihilation, and killed off the human race completely. The earth would heal, life would go on, but it would be scarred for hundreds of years. The human race, if remembered by anyone else in the universe who might find the remnants of this tragedy or perhaps have seen it occur, would be remembered for this and this alone. Let us hope and pray a day like this never comes. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Lopson on 2006-04-04, 19:20 Actually, there was an anime with the almost exact same plot, only the difference is that one of the characters was a nurse. ODD. No offense to your plotting.
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: t0ts on 2006-04-04, 20:58 Evolution, or something like the strongest survive so everyone goes after that sporker and kills him and see if he can survive that and if he does he is allowed his wish to kill everyone :rules:
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: scalliano on 2006-04-05, 00:04 One thing I will add is that once a tool such as a bio-weapons is used, it's no longer natural selection, it's artificial selection, choosing who survives and who doesn't. Come to think about it, homo sapiens has been doing for thousands of years.
GK: That's space pollution. How would YOU like it if a million-year-old crate full of radioactive and/or disease-ridden alien carcasses crash-landed in YOUR back-yard? :P Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-04-05, 05:31 Well it looks like this so-called scientist has gotten some death threats (http://www.startribune.com/484/story/350003.html) and has done some backpeddling, trying to spin his remarks and do damage control. Sorry, but there's a big difference between saying disease will act as a population control on its own, and advocating the use of disease as means to control population. Never make bold claims unless you're willing to stand proudly behind them.
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Thomas Mink on 2006-04-06, 02:26 I stand proudly of my claim to go all the way and make it a full 100%. :rules:
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Moshman on 2006-04-06, 14:36 Quote from: Phoenix Quote Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said.... http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2...re1p/index.html (http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html)...Yet five hours later, the distinguished leaders of the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. When the banquet hall filled with more than 400 people responded with enthusiastic applause, I walked out in protest. You know, I hate being right. What was I just talking about some people in science behaving like a religion? I'd expect to hear something like this coming from some doomsday UFO cult! Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: scalliano on 2006-04-07, 18:02 Mankind is nuts. Scientists are merely a small portion of its insanity. As is the "religious right". As am I, come to think about it ...
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Lopson on 2006-04-08, 01:07 Well this is turning out to be quite an interesting episode of the forum's discussions. I tell you, this has made me laugh beyond bathrooms, and believe ME, that is very wrong... and rare!
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Kain-Xavier on 2006-04-10, 13:09 I don't like the human race either, but no one has the right to decide who dies and who lives. That's elitism, and I cannot stand elitism. I also rather like living nowadays.
What really worries me isn't just one man with a radical plan, it's the people who gave him a standing ovation. These people are potentially the leaders of tomorrow. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-04-10, 16:12 Quote from: Kain-Xavier What really worries me isn't just one man with a radical plan, it's the people who gave him a standing ovation. You win the prize, Kain. That's the part I was hoping someone would pick up on. Hitler was nothing without the throngs of people to cheer him, and the soldiers to loyally obey him. What separates a tyrant leader from just any other petty man is his followers.Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Gathercole on 2006-04-30, 22:29 By now there's been a lot of reporting on the source of this slander.
Eric Pianka did not call for killing anyone. These allegations, as Phoenix mentioned, come from Forrest Mims, a famous creationist, who does not have a science degree and teaches at an unaccredited college in Hawaii. But all that is ad hominem. You can see an interview with Eric Pianka himself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rarxToSfhPw...h=eric%20pianka (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rarxToSfhPw&search=eric%20pianka) Pianka is interviewed by Tucker Carlson, who obviously comes into the interview expecting Pianka to call for the extermination of 90% of the human race, and is surprised (and incredulous) when Pianka says he never said anything of the sort. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Thomas Mink on 2006-05-01, 00:31 I was laughing through that whole interview just about... the interviewer seemed pretty harsh throughout the interview even after Pianka called those who misinterpretted and mangled his words 'fools'.
Pianka's scenario sounded a bit more intelligent and less controversial (still controversial, don't get me wrong) than calling for the wiping out of 90% of the population. But hey, I still call for the wiping out of 100% of the human population... or maybe a few random cities at least. Humans need a firm kick in the rear to wake them up. Bring on the holy smiting and all that jazz. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Lopson on 2006-05-01, 01:23 Oh, so he cowered back eh? At least he prooved something: he's an idiot.
Yep. An idiot. Although he said something that is actually true: "If we don't control our population, micro-organisms will". New diseases appear in such a small span of time that I doubt that our body will be able to evolve against these new diseases. In a future, we might depend on chemical products for our own survival. Let's hope not Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Gathercole on 2006-05-01, 03:39 I'm not sure why finding out Pianka is not radical, and said something true, makes him an idiot.
The people who really scare me, though, are the ones who believe 90% of humans deserve to be tortured forever without mercy. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-05-01, 03:58 Quote from: Gathercole Eric Pianka did not call for killing anyone. These allegations, as Phoenix mentioned, come from Forrest Mims, a famous creationist, who does not have a science degree and teaches at an unaccredited college in Hawaii. An interesting first post. I suppose I should take the time to welcome you to our forums. I do wonder why you would choose this particular issue, in defense of this scientist, as your first post. I would certainly like to know a bit more about you.On to the discussion. Regarding Mims, I don't understand what you mean. According to the article in question: Quote Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy (http://www.texasacademyofscience.org/) and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist. This as told by Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., MacArthur Fellow, Founder and Executive Director, Society for Amateur Scientists. It's all right there in the article. I can also locate Forrest Mims' name in the list of Section Chairs (http://www.texasacademyofscience.org/section.aspx). Scroll down to the environmental services section. Also, I located Forrest M. Mims III's website (http://www.forrestmims.org/pages/8/index.htm), which shows his Biography and credentials. (http://www.forrestmims.org/pages/1/index.htm) If anything, he looks about as science as science can get. I don't see anything regarding Hawaii nor creationism here, so I would ask that you share your source of that information. I've shown you mine, now you show me yours. :) The fact that Forrest has both recused himself as stated above to avoid an interest conflict and protested the speech to the Texas Academy tells me that at least this portion of his testimony is genuine. I'm sure the Texas Academy has a record of his protest, and we certainly have record of Mims' membership with the Academy. Since the speech in question by Pianka is not on record we're left only with one person's word against another. How do we know Pianka did not call for killing people? We know what he's saying now, but people often backpeddle when the squeaze is put on them, especially after receiving death threats. There is one point in all of this that raises suspicion of Pianka, at least to me. First, since he obviously did give a speech, why was his part not recorded? Why turn the cameras off as Mims indicated? If it's no big deal, if he never said it, why was the rest of the conference video recorded, but this part was not? I don't see any obvious reason Mims would fabricate this, and one of the links (http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html) in the article to Pianka's website has some pretty damning information at the end. Here's a quote: Quote 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. Here's a link to a google cache (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:1w-kOh5LhaQJ:www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html+site:http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html+%22human+population+should+die+of+ebola%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) with the terms highlighted, incase it magically gets pulled in the course of this discussion. Now I would wonder, where would this student get this idea about Pianka preaching 90% extinction through ebola if he didn't actually do it? It's on Pianka's own website for crying out loud! This leads me to believe he said exactly what Mims reported that he did.[/color] Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-05-01, 03:59 Quote from: Gathercole The people who really scare me, though, are the ones who believe 90% of humans deserve to be tortured forever without mercy. You were posting while I was typing up my post, but this part really gets my attention. You wouldn't happen to be yet another incarnation of dev/null would you?Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Gathercole on 2006-05-01, 07:14 Thanks for welcoming me to the forums, Phoenix. I've actually posted here before under a different name to criticize the super nailgun in Generations. I've never posted as "dev/null." When I saw this topic, I felt like people were jumping all over this guy (Pianka), only knowing what one of his enemies said about him.
The last part of the speech is available here: http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006...script_dr_d.php (http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/04/transcript_dr_d.php) I disagree with Pianka, and I think he makes several mistaken assertions, like the idea that "money is debt." But it sounds from the transcript as though he's warning people about what he thinks will happen, while also pointing out that what human beings are doing to the Earth is bad for it, and that a reduction in our numbers would be good FOR THE EARTH, a point which is indisputable. Humans have destroyed, not just 90%, but 100%, of many species. Why do we have the right to do that, but they don't have the right to destroy 90% of us? As for Forrest Mims the Third, the university he teaches at (once or twice a year, according to his website) is the unaccredited University of the Nations in Hawaii. He doesn't have a science degree, and he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, whose recent defeat in Pennsylvania we are all familiar with. And like I said in my last post, I think it's weird that there's so much outcry over someone supposedly saying that 90% of humans should be killed, when some radical Christians believe that 90% (or more!) of humans deserve to be tortured. Where's the outcry over this? Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-05-01, 08:35 That appears to be a partial transcript, noting the lack of opening remarks. Still, that transcript so far is in accord with some of the points in the Citizen Scientist article. I really wish the first part of the transcript was available. If there is an audio or video transcript, that will clear up the whole matter for sure, but none has been produced thus far.
I do see the part in the Biography about teaching at the University of the Nations. I had missed that skimming it the first time. You're going to have to help me out with the Discovery Institute claim, I can't find that in his biography so a link will be helpful. In either case, I don't see any of this as a reason to categorically dismiss his testimony. Just because someone may be a Creationist does not make them a liar. Nor does teaching at an unaccredited university, nor does not holding a science degree. I don't really see what relevence that has to whether or not he's being truthful. You can hold 10 doctorates and lie through your teeth, or you can be a brick layer and be the most honest man in the world. All humans have the same capacity for truthfulness and fabrication. I see none of this as reason to accept or refute his claim. Only evidence can do that. There is still the question of what one of Pianka's students wrote on his website. I can't just ignore that. Regarding human population, yes I have problems with what mankind does. Anyone who doesn't see the detrimental impact of human activity is either blind or a fool. However, I will not advocate murder as a solution. What gives man the right to cause extinction? I cannot answer that, but I do know that I cannot judge man. What would give me that right? Only God can judge man for good or for bad. If God made man, and made him for a purpose, then I will not second guess God. If man somehow evolved naturally, then nature will take its course. If someone besides God engineered man, and man is unnatural, then they bear the burden of responsibility for the actions of their creation. No other blame can be implied or assigned, except that man govern himself better than he has done to date. Now to answer your question, I can't speak for those radical Christians you mention because I do not know who they are. I do know from my own Christian beliefs that God does not desire anyone to be tortured, but that everyone receive the Gospel and accept Jesus's gift of eternal life. John 3:16 is often quoted, but that is because it sums up the message of Christianity quite well, that God desire none to be lost, but that all accept his mercy. From my perspective, any so-called Christian that desires people to suffer eternally is severely misguided and should engage in self-examination before standing in judgement of others. As to why Pianka might be more dangerous, there's a simple reason. No man has the power to damn someone eternally. However, men do have the capacity to kill each other physically. The danger lies not with Pianka, who could be dismissed as just another loud-mouthed radical. The danger lies with those who listen and give standing ovations. If indeed he did say what was claimed in the article, then you have many people within the scientific community who are at worst accepting a doctrine of premeditated mass murder, or at best failing to oppose it. These are intellectuals, very smart people who might be severely lacking in ethics. That should scare the hell out of anyone because scientists are the people who work in labs and can bioengineer killer viruses. People without ethics and with knowledge of how to destroy are dangerous no matter where they come from. Regarding your last question, this is why I raised the question of your identity, of which I'm still not completely convinced; for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The person I mentioned tends to post accusations against Christianity in every thread he was involved in, and constantly led discussions off topic and destroyed any sense of civility on the boards. He managed to twist every discussion into a rant against Christians and how they're responsible for all the world's evils, etc, etc, ad nauseum. He's also posted under multiple names, and has shown a tendency toward obsessive behavior with this forum, trying to avoid bans on more than one occasion. I don't want to make any assumptions, and I think it fair to explain why I asked what I did so that you understand my caution. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Tabun on 2006-05-01, 11:01 While reading all this I simply have to keep a few things in mind. The first is that students come up with the weirdest conclusions. Before they dropped out, we had a few (otherwise bright) students that simply couldn't wrap their minds around the (meta-)physical worldviews that were presented to them. Especially in our ethics 101 class, this sometimes led to heated debate - while (to me at least) it was obvious that there was some core of truth to it. Some of those students later were noted by me and others to express assumptions about the professor's ideas about, I kid you not, Nazism. Things is, there was just something in the teachings of (for instance, treatment of Hobbesian or Ayn Rand's ethical theories) that didn't sit right with them (understandably, but unprofessionally) and apparently made them feel the urge to draw conclusions about teachers.
Pianka's treatment of virii in combination with his remarks on (over)population are bound to make some people jump to weird conclusions. Secondly, transcripts can be nasty things. I do agree that they can show very nicely what, literally, has been said (assuming no mistakes in typing it were made). What they don't reflect well is what is said jocularly. The thing is, I wasn't there so I don't know if Pianka likes to make (rude) jokes in serious lectures, but he looks extravagant enough to me to do so. You'll note that the Pianka lecture transcript is full of mentions of laughter, which indicates to me that there may well have been a good dose of facetiousness in the room. You will have noticed that the above are mostly speculative arguments, but my point is that speculation is exactly what we have seen. I'm not willing to accept any of the things I've seen as evidence. So far the only thing I'm sure of is that Pianka is an exceptional individual, with a distinct (but not at all uncommon) view of man as an evolutionary entity that works like a virus. The flashing lights on his site are the only thing that indicate to me that he might be a nutcase. I wouldn't be very much surprised if he did make bold statements in earnest, or that he does have scary ideas about population control, but I'm not convinced. (By the way, where are Pianka's 'final solution' statements on his website? I've been hunting for them a bit, but can't seem to locate them. Just this (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html), which shows nothing harmful. Nor does Mim's site show anything to indicate anything odd (other than his family ;)). I hate having to draw 'conclusions' on the basis of hearsay and journalism.) Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: McDeth on 2006-05-01, 13:41 Quote Thanks for welcoming me to the forums, Phoenix. I've actually posted here before under a different name to criticize the super nailgun in Generations. I've never posted as "dev/null." When I saw this topic, I felt like people were jumping all over this guy (Pianka), only knowing what one of his enemies said about him. We can dedeuce you are not Mojo because I can understand and read every word. Quote And like I said in my last post, I think it's weird that there's so much outcry over someone supposedly saying that 90% of humans should be killed, when some radical Christians believe that 90% (or more!) of humans deserve to be tortured. Where's the outcry over this? Here we go again. By people picking on Christians, they think it makes themselves look like intellects (damn yuppies). There are extremists from every religious sect that believe 90% (or more) of humanity must die. I would assume some Middle Eastern religions have a philosophy along those lines. A TRUE Christian does not believe nonsense like this. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-05-01, 15:38 Well that's an easy one Tab, either the statements were pulled or they never existed. The link you posted sounds rational enough on the surface. I can easily hear myself in those statements. That's a good reason why I won't give him the benefit of the doubt. I know how I can think if I let myself, and if this man thinks like I used to think than he's guilty of everything that's been leveled at him. I would hope that's not the case, but radicals come from all walks of life. Sometimes people get a little too comfortable among their peers and express things that, if heard by any sane person, would cause some nasty reactions. I suppose the only people who know for certain what he said and in what manner are those who were at the lecture. I'm not looking to crucify the man without just cause, though I will certainly never trust him. I would just like the truth, which seems to be rather slippery at this point.
This has certainly been a worthwhile discussion in any case. I know I'm enjoying it so far. :) Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Woodsman on 2006-05-01, 15:52 Quote from: Gathercole And like I said in my last post, I think it's weird that there's so much outcry over someone supposedly saying that 90% of humans should be killed, when some radical Christians believe that 90% (or more!) of humans deserve to be tortured. Where's the outcry over this? Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-05-01, 18:07 UPRAWR!! :D
Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Gathercole on 2006-05-01, 20:35 Quote from: Woodsman even if you make the assumption that all Christians believe non Christians go to hell ( which is not the case ) the math still dose not support your statement because of the 6 and a half billion people in the world 2 billion are Christian making the % of people tortured well below your 90% estimate. I suppose if you include as "Christians" people who don't believe in the New Testament, then you're right. But for those Christians who do believe in the New Testament, it doesn't get any clearer than when Jesus says:"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" -Mark 16:16 As for the exact percentage, it is actually much higher than 90%. You're forgetting that many Protestants don't believe Catholics will go to heaven, and vice versa. Also, human beings have been around for at least 100,000 years, 98,000 of those years without Jesus. Those people did not believe, and they were not baptized. For those Christians who believe Jesus was telling the truth in the New Testament, that means those people will be condemned. That's why it's the Controversy Corner... for the uprawr. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Lopson on 2006-05-01, 22:56 ~Heh, with that much of people in Hell, they can provoke a revolution and turn Hell into a new Heaven. "You can do whatever you want if you believe in it".
(OK, where the censorship button in my brain?) C'mon man, that's harsh. He who does not believe can be condemed to an eternity of computer gaming, it doesn't specify anything. Or maybye even cookies. Yeah, an eternity of eating cookies. Those babies sure are lucky. (OK, I lost the button. I'm screwed.) And this was a demonstration of how to go off-topic. Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: McDeth on 2006-05-01, 23:21 It's amazing how everything on this board can turn into a religious crusade. I mean anything.
McDeth: How are you Gathercole? Gathercole: I'm doing quite good, BUT ALL CHRISTIANS WANT ME TO FEEL BAD!!!!!!! Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Thomas Mink on 2006-05-02, 03:14 Gathercole actually has the same reasoning I do. I was raised a Catholic.. even went to Catholic school for 9 years. A lot of the things I was taught would send well over half of the world to Hell.. or at least Purgatory. Guess it's why I'm Agnostic.. I don't believe one way or the other.
But seriously... what does all of this have to do with the topic? I'll tell you... NOTHING Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Woodsman on 2006-05-02, 14:26 Quote from: ~SpAwN~ Guess it's why I'm Agnostic.. I don't believe one way or the other. I believe thats what catholic school is intended to do actually.Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Lopson on 2006-05-02, 19:10 Quote from: McDeth I'm doing quite good, BUT ALL CHRISTIANS WANT ME TO FEEL BAD!!!!!!! That reminds me of Half-Life 2. "ALL THE COMBINE MAKE ME FEEL BAD!" "Duh, they have masks!". Greatest-dialogue-ever!Title: Re: Kill 90% of all humans? Post by: Phoenix on 2006-05-02, 20:35 Gathercole, this is exactly the sort of thing dev/null got kicked off the boards for, which makes me even more convinced that you are indeed the same individual and that you lied to me above. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic, and furthermore I'm not going to sit here and let you preach what you think Christians believe. I am a Christian, and as a believer in Christ I'm not going to remain idle while you libel my faith. I'm sick and fed up with this whole idea that somehow Christians are out to hang people and the bible says God is just itching to send people to the pit of hell. We've all heard this trash before, it's completely false, and I don't care what excuse you try to use to justify pulling the thread off topic and into a "slam religion" session, it's not going to happen here. It ends now, or you're gone. I told you about what dev/null did in the past; you obviously didn't get the point.
Furthermore, don't try to retort about hypocrisy, censorship, etc. I've heard it all before, and it's not going to fly. Do not try to argue with me on this. I am a board admin, and my word is law. Obey the forum rules, or leave. I really don't give a damn how put out or indignant you may feel about this. Keep behaving like this and you'll not be welcome here. This is your first and only warning. |