|
Moshman
|
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....
...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. http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2...re1p/index.htmlYou 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! See? I told you guys that scientists are nuts. They have been for the past 4,000 years. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
scalliano
Elite
Posts: 1095
Yup, that's me
|
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 ...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
PSN ID: scalliano
The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kain-Xavier
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gathercole
|
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%20piankaPianka 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Mink
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
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
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2006-05-01, 01:34 by [KruzadeR] »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gathercole
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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:
Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy 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. Scroll down to the environmental services section. Also, I located Forrest M. Mims III's website, which shows his Biography and credentials. 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 in the article to Pianka's website has some pretty damning information at the end. Here's a 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 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] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gathercole
|
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.phpI 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? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
  
Posts: 3330
|
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, 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.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
McDeth
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2006-05-01, 13:42 by McDeth »
|
Logged
|
Beer? I'm down.
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
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? I can assure you if a prominent Christian figure actually said ?90% of all people deserve to be tortured? there would most certainly be uproar. ( Pat Robinson couldn't even get away with saying we should whack Hugo Chavez and hes a B list Christian figure) 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. Christianity cant get away with saying ? Sodomy is a sin? without an uproar let alone that 90% of people should be tortured. In fact you really cant say much of anything without an uproar these days no matter who you are. Get used to it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
UPRAWR!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Gathercole
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
~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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
