Meeting Dr. Doom: Scientist wants to kill 90% of human population(sas.org)
sas.org
Meeting Dr. Doom: Scientist wants to kill 90% of human population
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
7 comments
Is it just me, or his response to criticism on the Wikipedia page is not reassuring at all, to say the least ?
For what its worth, most claims seem to be that Forrest Mims has taken his words out of context.
Pianka has stated that Mims took his statements out of context and that Pianka was stating what would happen from biological principles alone if present human population trends continue, and that he was not in any way advocating that it happen.
Pianka is an AAAS fellow, Senior fulbright scholar, and overall respected ecologist.
Mims is associated with the discovery institute, believes in intelligent design, and doesn't believe in global warming.
I know where I'd place my bets.
Pianka has stated that Mims took his statements out of context and that Pianka was stating what would happen from biological principles alone if present human population trends continue, and that he was not in any way advocating that it happen.
Pianka is an AAAS fellow, Senior fulbright scholar, and overall respected ecologist.
Mims is associated with the discovery institute, believes in intelligent design, and doesn't believe in global warming.
I know where I'd place my bets.
No. He very obviously means what he says.
The problem is that overpopulation is indeed harming a lot of things. And the only easy feasible solution is "send them to space," only we don't have any planets we could possibly colonize.
The problem is that overpopulation is indeed harming a lot of things. And the only easy feasible solution is "send them to space," only we don't have any planets we could possibly colonize.
sending them into space is not actually feasible unless space travel becomes as ubiquitous as dinghies. Think about how fast you could off-planet people. Even a million at a time is peanuts.
edit: I went and looked at the numbers: to maintain a static population would require blasting 75 million people into space annually.
edit: I went and looked at the numbers: to maintain a static population would require blasting 75 million people into space annually.
Easy and feasible meaning "It's easily understood and sounds good." Space travel doesn't work for a variety of reasons, first and foremost being expense.
'travel'? send!
[deleted]
He really says:
the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us [1]
There are varying degrees of mendacity involved in making the above statement. The most honest thing to say would have been, "I want my share of natural resources to be higher than it is, therefore I want fewer people." It becomes more and more dishonest to say, "I fear for the planet/environment, etc". But what is this "the world"? Is it the trees? That would be an interesting thing, to be an herbal supremacist. It goes FAR beyond the typical yuppy habit of paying 80 dollars for a pound of Darjeeling. But, really, by "the world" he means "the people", thus
the people WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us
And who is "us". Who else could "us" be besides "the people". Therefore,
the people WOULD clearly be much better off without so many people
Clearly, we are dealing with an idiot. Even if the roundaboutedness of the above statement were accepted, his prophecies of apocolypse should be self-correcting by killing off most of us anyway. His is a college-level equivalent of the grade school bestseller "Ishmael".
But...he's not really an idiot, as I've deliberately misinterpreted him in the very manner that he wants to be misinterpreted. The correct translation is this:
my group WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of your group
I agree that this is a rational thing to say. It indisputably results in a value true for all inputs "my" and "your". This attitude is very common as a result, and even if he never honestly advocated the genocide of x billion people, clearly it "WOULD" be a nice thing.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy#Respons...
the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us [1]
There are varying degrees of mendacity involved in making the above statement. The most honest thing to say would have been, "I want my share of natural resources to be higher than it is, therefore I want fewer people." It becomes more and more dishonest to say, "I fear for the planet/environment, etc". But what is this "the world"? Is it the trees? That would be an interesting thing, to be an herbal supremacist. It goes FAR beyond the typical yuppy habit of paying 80 dollars for a pound of Darjeeling. But, really, by "the world" he means "the people", thus
the people WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us
And who is "us". Who else could "us" be besides "the people". Therefore,
the people WOULD clearly be much better off without so many people
Clearly, we are dealing with an idiot. Even if the roundaboutedness of the above statement were accepted, his prophecies of apocolypse should be self-correcting by killing off most of us anyway. His is a college-level equivalent of the grade school bestseller "Ishmael".
But...he's not really an idiot, as I've deliberately misinterpreted him in the very manner that he wants to be misinterpreted. The correct translation is this:
my group WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of your group
I agree that this is a rational thing to say. It indisputably results in a value true for all inputs "my" and "your". This attitude is very common as a result, and even if he never honestly advocated the genocide of x billion people, clearly it "WOULD" be a nice thing.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy#Respons...
I disagree that it has to be one group vs another as you seem to have concluded.
I think it's more like if you're in a traffic jam. Everyone in that traffic jam would probably believe that the traffic would flow better without so much traffic. This is a reasonably assertion, and turns it more into your second assertion:
the people WOULD clearly be much better off without so many people
That's not a "roundabout" statement. The meanings of "people" are slightly different in the two positions. More accurately:
humanity would clearly be much better off if the population were lower
I think it's more like if you're in a traffic jam. Everyone in that traffic jam would probably believe that the traffic would flow better without so much traffic. This is a reasonably assertion, and turns it more into your second assertion:
the people WOULD clearly be much better off without so many people
That's not a "roundabout" statement. The meanings of "people" are slightly different in the two positions. More accurately:
humanity would clearly be much better off if the population were lower
Seriously? What's with spreading stupid shit like this?
Oh, but he delivered that speech on April Fool's day!
Indeed, there will always be some pretty evil people in the world with designs like these. Let's hope that he doesn't have the specifics nailed down...
Indeed, there will always be some pretty evil people in the world with designs like these. Let's hope that he doesn't have the specifics nailed down...
Apparently, scientist crowds are not smarter than average people crowds.
This Pianka is a shame for science and ecology. We can find smarter solutions than this.
Am i wrong?
This Pianka is a shame for science and ecology. We can find smarter solutions than this.
Am i wrong?
Reminds me of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six...
Yep. Almost exactly the same situation was described in the book. I'd bet Pianka has read "Rainbow Six".
Clancy's "Debt of Honor" had a former Japanese WWII pilot hijack a 747 and fly it into the Capitol during the President's State of the Union address, destroying 2 of the 3 branches of the U.S. government.
It spooks me that the bad guys probably read Clancy's (and others such as Pianka) works for ideas.
Pianka claims that his words were misconstrued: that he merely stated that, due to wayward policies, we were headed for a pandemic and consequent population collapse and that an airborne form of Ebola could be a possible cause of such events. See the links provided by other posts.
Clancy's "Debt of Honor" had a former Japanese WWII pilot hijack a 747 and fly it into the Capitol during the President's State of the Union address, destroying 2 of the 3 branches of the U.S. government.
It spooks me that the bad guys probably read Clancy's (and others such as Pianka) works for ideas.
Pianka claims that his words were misconstrued: that he merely stated that, due to wayward policies, we were headed for a pandemic and consequent population collapse and that an airborne form of Ebola could be a possible cause of such events. See the links provided by other posts.
Although I tend to doubt that this is what he advocated, it would be a terrible idea in any case.
Killing 90% of the human population would actually cause greater ecological catastrophe in the long run. Society is, albeit slowly and unevenly, modernizing and becoming wealthier. This means that population is projected to peak around 9-10 billion (UN figures) and begin declining before the beginning of the 21st century. As technology improves, we might eventually reach a point of relative stability, where we can satisfy nearly all material desires (I believe they are finite, though immense) with a stable population, and I'd imagine that this is likely within a few centuries. This, of course, requires that we don't destroy ourselves or the earth first, but I'd give us a better than 50% chance. All bets are off, though, if we conquer death and aging and still have the desire to procreate-- then we pretty much have to colonize other planets-- but I'm not terribly worried about that one.
Killing 90% of the earth's population in such a way would result in a cycle of chaos and turmoil that would leave humanity in an utterly wrecked state, especially after the revenge wars that would ensue against those responsible (or blamed) for the plague. The state of humanity would be set far back, and we'd have to go through these ecologically net-negative phases of development again.
Killing 90% of the human population would actually cause greater ecological catastrophe in the long run. Society is, albeit slowly and unevenly, modernizing and becoming wealthier. This means that population is projected to peak around 9-10 billion (UN figures) and begin declining before the beginning of the 21st century. As technology improves, we might eventually reach a point of relative stability, where we can satisfy nearly all material desires (I believe they are finite, though immense) with a stable population, and I'd imagine that this is likely within a few centuries. This, of course, requires that we don't destroy ourselves or the earth first, but I'd give us a better than 50% chance. All bets are off, though, if we conquer death and aging and still have the desire to procreate-- then we pretty much have to colonize other planets-- but I'm not terribly worried about that one.
Killing 90% of the earth's population in such a way would result in a cycle of chaos and turmoil that would leave humanity in an utterly wrecked state, especially after the revenge wars that would ensue against those responsible (or blamed) for the plague. The state of humanity would be set far back, and we'd have to go through these ecologically net-negative phases of development again.
His page on the speech: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Controversy.html
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy