Apparently some scientists are taking their theories to some extremely logical conclusions.

Meeting Doctor Doom .

Assuming its not a prank, its an interesting proposal and makes sense from a certain point of view I'm sure, but it would seem to me that there may be a few other solutions that should be considered before mass exterminations of humans in an effort to "save the planet".

Still, I'm always intrigued by "End of the World" scenarios and plague seems to be one of my favorites. I suppose that's because the Earth for the most part is pretty much left alone (compared to a nuclear war) and the survivors are basically booted back to colonial times. And of course, I always assume I'm one of the survivors who has to play a role in carving out a new society. I'm always curious about what parts of our culture would survive and what parts would fade into history.

With the headlines are they are with the avian flu and terrorism (and now fanatical scientists), I suppose its becoming a real possibility. So what sort of world would you expect if it hit?

Interesting article. It certainly is discretely debated in higher spheres, and will most likely happen at one point or another. Perhaps it's already happening in some places, most likely in Africa where nation-states are too weak for counter-intelligence and potential retaliation, and where Ebola epidemic occurs episodically, not to mention some cases of willful cases of inoculation.

It certainly is valid from an eugenicist point of view. For rich and powerful people wielding influence, the lower-to-middle class is rabble, manpower and canon fodder.

The unconscious (i.e. We're wired for it) proliferation of the human race has always been a cause of concern. China has been enforcing a 1-child policy for a long time now.

I'm in the camp that see the problem not as overpopulation, but as environmental footprint.

Furthermore I believe those thinking overpopulation is the source of all ills are in part inadmissibly motivated by wishing the removal of others will allow them to continue to enjoy their own current lifestyle without changing anything.

There are still many parts of the world that has been living the relatively same way for centuries and with absolutely low eco-footprint.

I'm not saying overpopulation is not a problem, but I'm certain you all know the following:
1- a nation hits what is call the 'developing nation' stage leading it to experience a population boom. Usually it occurs when a certain economic standard is reached and certain sanitary conditions are met (hospitals, running water, better sewage, etc.). Happened in the 60's in North America, and is currently happening in the Middle East.
2- after a generation a nation becomes 'developed' the baby boom stops and population stabilizes
3- when a nation reach advanced development it's actually the reverse that occurs: population starts to decline.

Canada (where I live) and the US have of course very high footprints... Some of the highest. This cannot be stressed enough I think: problem is not people, but how big is their eco-footprint.

I speak from experience since over the years I changed several lifestyle habits in order to reduce my footprint.

Currently reading The Weathermakers' by Tom Flannery... Riveting!

If you like thinking about the post-apocalyptic scenario, one of my favorite book series is The Phoenix Saga by M. K. Wren. Takes place about 1000 years after The Pandemics hits the earth. Individual books are The Sword of the Lamb, Shadow of the Swan, and House of the Wolf. Doesn't address the apocalypse directly, but has several "historical flashbacks" describing them. Old books, but good.

PS - Oh, and if you're into RPGs at all, there's always the old standbys: Twilight 2000, Gamma World, Morrow Project, etc.

Last edited: Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 9:55:28 PM

Just read the article. Perhaps Bruce Willis will jump back in time to try to save us all...

That scares me... Now I will be frightened the rest of my life.

My brain tells me -with no sentimentality or emotion attached- that for the good of the human race he's right.

I believe at the minute, it is getting to the point where for the human race to survive we NEED something like this...

...i just never want to see it implimented, I believe it is natural to put our own selves first, meaning we WOULDN'T put our lives on the line for the sake of future generations which we will probably die before we even see.

WHY would we put ourselves through that for someone we couldn't or wouldn't ever meet or have any emotional attachment to?... Despite the fact that its the most rational thing to do for human survival - they ARE "extremely logical conclusions".

Edit:

...actually, what IS human survival?

Is it the survival of the human race... Or is it the survival of the individual?

(sorry, getting a bit philosophical there)

Last edited: Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 10:48:41 PM

I'll do my part. *Loads shotgun*

But seriousely, that guy is whacked out of his gourd. I'm very sure he doesn't want to die a slow and painful death, so why should we?

Forrest M. Mims? But... I know this guy... He works at RadioShack... :S
*looks nervously at RadioShack electronics kit deilcately assembled as a multi-function synth*
*WHAM* DIE, YOU EVIL UNDERCOVER KILLING MACHINE! DIIIIIEEEE!!! *WHAM*
But seriously, what's he thinking, anyways? Sure, extermination would help in some aspects, but a slow and painful death for everyone? It would be another Holocaust- times about 850! Personally, I'm not really afraid of dying as much as how I'll die.
PS: Yeah, I know it's his son who works at RadioShack, not him.

Pretty much what bloop said.....

As for the survival comment, put them in a pit and have a group fight to the death, the one who survive obviously wanted to survive badly enough :P and the others didn't.

And for this job we should bring hitler back :P

Last edited: Sunday, April 02, 2006 at 11:31:20 PM

It's like the bumber sticker: 'Save the world, Kill yourself'.
Let's inoculate the guy with Ebola. Maybe those who applauded his speech will follow the lead?

What if something goes wrong and 100% of the population dies?

Oops!

Or is it the survival of the IDEA of the human race? There could be only one human left, but he could still refer to himdelf as the last of his race, OR he/she could refer to themselves the last of the peticular species, cansidering the races within the human race have all dissapeared but one...

100% of the population dies a different way nathan.

But what is the population crisis? Is it food?... No wait we have more than enough food... Is it really fossil fuels running out? Oh wait... People survived without those.... Oh yeah tons of people still do.

Well what is it?

ROGUE's Sterilization Campaign :P

I have several books by mister mims. This is no prank.

Always suspect a "scientist" that proposed radical reaction with no documentation.

First off Ebola is like the avian flu not airborne. Unlike the avian flu there is very little chance that it can become airborne (about as much as HIV). So spraying it out of an airplane would absolutely not kill off 90% and probably not a single person. If your proposing killing everyone off at least chose a way that will actually work.

Second environmental scientists have been calling for a massive reduction in the world population since the 1970's. And although their core idea that "we cannot keep expanding at the current rate of population growth" is correct, their completely inaccurate forcastes of doom have left everyone thinking that they are morons. (which a large majority are).

@ Hugo

Excellent argument with graphs and actual data (unlike the proponents of massive homicide). I like the statement that the environmental footprint has more effect than the actual population.Very logical.

The Chinese have taken a very interesting approach to population control. Basically they found that preindustrialization they had many more people than the resources could allow. If they allowed their population to grow unchecked there country would literally fall apart in an alarming short time. Massive starvation has that effect on a country. So they took a radical solution and convinced their citizens that it was necessary (pretty amazing if you ask me). I don't think any other nation could even attempt to do that. I would love to see it tried in the U.S. I think Utah would declare independence.

I just skipped a few _^(most) posts and I think its just another thing that will destroy the world why bother sooner or later som1 will have nuclear weapons or a doomsday device (I saw 1 in a game of future war world war and I thought it was pretty neat) so I say we're going to die either way. Because of either natural or just stupidity.

_{^{I regreat nothing! Just wanted to say that.}}

^

I think someone already has those.

P.s learn to spell!

Good post huggy. Its clear because of the size of our footprint here in the US, we need new citizens like we need more coal-fired electricity plants. When it comes to consumers and consumption, less is more.

Doesn't mean we need exterminated though.

Wait so why does he want to kill 90% of the population ?

And Stinkyfingers coal is still a fossil fuel so it wouldnt be very much more effecient

No shit?
bizarre

Make your words soft and sweet because I might make you eat them later XO

Did you have trouble understanding my post? Tell you what, instead of posting non-sequitors and making threats, why not take the time to read the posts?

I think the 90% comes from the lethality of Ebola, which kills 90% of its victims. However, as Nathan points out it could be 100% since there won't be a lot of medical help as the disease progresses.

The article mentions Ebola Reston, which is an airborne strain of Ebola. The Reston refers to Reston, VA. I read the book, The Hotzone by Richard Preston which is "The dramatic and chilling story of an Ebola virus outbreak in a surburban Washington, D.C. Laboratory, with descriptions of frightening historical epidemics of rare and lethal viruses." which you can find on Amazon.com. It was a good book and detailed how the virus became airborne and started traveling throughout the facility, jumping from monkey to monkey. They were able to neutralize the virus, but imagine if it had gotten out into the Metro area. It could have gotten pretty nasty since DC is an international hub.

I guess the other thing I wanted to mention is the professor is a good example of where logic and reason alone will take us. Its also interesting to see that most responses have been generally accepting of the professor's view. Where's the moral outrage?

Honestly, soulless is correct, this IS a job for Hitler. In this senario, the reason is different, but I'd say the motivation is the same. Kill the inferior to save the planet. Really, Ebola is going to hit poorer countries much harder than others and even then, the rich will have better access to treatment than the poor. The Fuhrer would be proud. ;)

You should be a politician rabban,

It is POSSIBLE that it would kill 100%, but massively unlikely, if I understand correctly those who survived the ebola (10%?) wouldn't be able to catch it again, and would effectively be inoculated against it as their immune systems would have learned how to fight it? Is this correct?

And also what IS the inferior? Is it inferior intellects? Inferior physical prowess? A mixture of the two? Inferior looks?

...because all it really boils down to is an inferior immune system (which may not be the best way to judge a population)

If you want to kill 90% of the population, a manufactured war on an unheard of scale I think is a better option... Did I actually just say that??

But unfortunately that means the last throes of capitalism would have a distinct advantage... Who IS superior and who IS inferior? Is it west against the world?... Although in a massive war on the scale im talking about most people would die of starvation?? Hmm...

-spends day pondering the best (most selective) way to kill 90% of the population-

Last edited: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 at 3:34:30 PM

"is a good example of where logic and reason alone will take us."
well, logic, reason and an unhealthy dose of misanthropy...

I suppose you are saying that he is untempered by a kind of biblical restraint?

If so, please open your good book to the part where it speaks of the apocolypse. Or of that flood that killed well over 90% of the population....

Remember that?

Cheap shot over.
insert smiley here >

But seriously, there appear to be two sides to this coin (imagine that!). Here's an article:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=state&id=4051760

I dunno, maybe he does want most humans to die. It seems possible that elements of the right are really hopping on this, trying to get folks upset. I'm not sure about all of the dr.'s conclusions, but it seems obvious to me that there are way too many of us here on planet earth, and not only that, but many of us seem to operate as though we're entitled to as much as we can carry off. The more you take for yourself, the more you take away from someone else. Isn't that obvious? And the more folks you have following this model (as we do here in the US -- see huggy's graph), the more over all consumption this leads to. Its a no brainer that we are having a serious impact on other life forms.

Yet we just keep on keeping on, as though we are entitled to do what ever we like, consequences be damned. Out here in the west, I am living through an example of a sort of "before and after" scenario. Maybe you folks in more settled regions aren't seeing the same sort of environmental changes. Here in oregon, they are obvious.

@ stink - as you read, "reason and logic alone", you knew I meant to imply that those attributes alone cannot guide our decisions. Some decisions we make may seem very logical and reasonable, but are morally unacceptable. That's probably why Grandpa Sluggy can look forward to years of living in a nursing home rather than being sent down the river on a raft (but as I think about it, maybe that's not the best comparison). And perhaps you are making a point without knowing it. Sure, I'm gonna say God rightly judges and destroys people for the better of the whole, so couldn't Dr. Doom be onto something with his idea? Would it in fact be better for the human race to allow Ebola to weed out the weak, purge the gene pool and give us a fresh start. So maybe he is making a moral decision after all without saying so, but then I guess we have to agree that his brand of self developed morality (like yours) is fitting for all of us.

@ bloop - I was thinking in terms of the poor, but you make a good point. Mostly likely the survivors will be the genetically superior, those able to survive the pandemic. Surely the professor thought of this, but whenever we talk about the end of the world by plague, we always imagine ourselves and our loved ones surviving, but there's no telling who would or would not make it. There's also no telling who would try to cheat by avoiding civilization or using an antidote.

Rabbit: yar, but I'm not sure the doc was making that point exactly. The article you linked was presented from the perspective of an attendee, so I'm not sure if what we are getting is a true representation of the doc's thoughts on the subject, or a sensationalized version. I'd like to read the doc's version, if such is accesible.

I'm pretty sure though that making the world a better place for humans isn't his top priority. Perhaps morality doesn't enter the picture. Instead of advocating the demise of 90% of humans, perhaps he is predicting the demise, and then concluding that it would be the best thing for the other inhabitants of the earth if that was the case.

Well, taking the perspective of the other inhabitants, you'd have to agree with that, right? I mean, given our obvious impact upon them...

By extension, I suppose he'd say that it's fair to conclude that the surviving 10% would in most cases be better off with the drop in competition.

I suppose though, that seeing the earth from a perspective outside of our own -- with us not at the center -- is counter intuitive and really sort of unnatural...not just from a religious standpoint, but from a biological one as well. Of course we are interested in propagating, as all living things are...but perhaps here the cliche "enough is enough" applies...without having any natural predators to help keep our population in check (except perhaps for things like ebola) we seem to want to over-run our earthly host. Like a parasite...interesting that humans living in abject poverty continue to procreate.

Last edited: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 at 6:39:56 PM

The link is not as causal as it seems. China has been having a HUGE population for centuries without impacting that much on natural resources or habitat destruction. However now that China (and India and Brazil, etc.) economies are going bongo, they climb in the graph and it indeed only mean bad news. It's not the people, it's the economic model that's flawed.

The shortsightedness of the prof is astounding in that it does not address the lifestyle issue. It's like, his thought seems in its infancy or something. How did he miss on that? He's a big dinosaur in my book, but one that plays well in the hands of Big Business. He's basically saying 'the problem is not the system, the problem is people'. Very dangerous thinking.

Man's predator is... Man! Here in N.A. The population density is very low, but as density grow the 'rules of the game' change in subtle manners. The more humans there are and the more life become cheap and taken for granted.

For instance, how many movies/games/book talk very cheaply about mass death? In our culture now, death and mass deaths elicits yawns. We feel there's no need to worry since 'there are so many of us'.

Count on the human race to go crazy at one point or another to initiate a nasty war of some sort. When there's too many of us we start killing ourselves. 'Intra-species killing', to cull the excess. Sad but true.

*

I remember seeing Anais Nin on CBC talking with the host, a guy I despised. The hist was castigating China on its human rights record. She replied 'you cannot compare China in Canada. Tomorrow we'll ship you 50 millions chinese to deal with, and we'll see how your human rights are doing'. The guy was mum for a while, his expression was priceless.

Also it's obvious with all the pandemics talk that something evil is brewing in a lab somewhere... If nothing else some pharmacorps stock options.

They are in fact the most likely to procreate. As you go up in social class (lower, middle, higher) the number of kids per family diminishes. Rich folks won't have 12 kids.

Last edited: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 at 7:34:18 PM

I remember watching a grainy movie at school in the seventh grade or so, and I remember them making a point about rats in confinement with limited resources. They said that there is a point at which rats will instinctively quit procreating...

I don't know if that was true or bad science, but I always think about that example when I'm reading about folks in bad situations who continue to reproduce...

Verily, it does

BUT WAIT A DAMN MINUTE RABBIT! Your lead post is unraveling...turns out to be gross missrepresentation at the hands of creationists! Mimms is a ID fella fired for his wackiness!

More in a few, I've got work to do in the real world.

I'm wondering where you found that link rabby. Who sent it to you? Apparently there's a sort of misinformation campaign building around this issue, being fomented by ID folks and other creationists

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=4720390

More on mims: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/mims.htm

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/forrest_mims_cr.html#more

Have a look at one of pianka's enemies...this guy reported him to Homeland Security!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/984
scanning down the page I noticed this graphic

sound like axe grinding to you? Intellectual axe grinding? In the service of whom...er...Whom...i wonder?

And then there's this:

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/beam/

Death threats and wingnuts! Misrepresentation and character assasination! The war on science marches on!

Stinkification....not...quite....complete....must....keep....trying!

Last edited: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 at 9:15:02 PM

Hey stink! Back off man!

I picked up the article I posted from the Drudge Report and I thought it was a interesting article that would inspire some cool discussion. For the latest, read Academy of Science responds to critics which is apparently from a local paper. The article also promises to publish the entire transcript of the talk, then we can all see what was really said and draw our own conclusions.

But you have to admit, Dr. Pianka is going to backtrack a little since he has gotten some national media attention now. We all know professors say things in class that they might not say on the evening news. Sure, there may be some hype in what Mims reported, but it doesn't seem like this is the first time Pianka has had this idea or discussion.

So before you start in with the "Evil Rabban Plan", please continue to be reasonable and let the story unfold.

Easy partner!

I do think this has been an interesting discussion. But I felt that we're crucifying this guy without hearing the whole story. It turns out, many of the folks attacking this fella have personal, religious reasons for doing so and it appears that they have distorted the truth.

When am I ever "unreasonable?" insert irony < there.

We should crucify Rabban instead. He's closer to us and easier to grab. X/

^ You say that as if it hasn't already happened. ;)

True! Rabbit's been skewered a couple times! More than a couple...sometimes by his own hand too! I'm thinking of that off-brand joke about colored girls! Snicker snicker!

Yeah, the ole "playing master, slave" scenario, but in a way, it was rather Jeffersonian. ;)

Death to 90% of Rabban!

Back on track, eh?

Here's a link to Pianka interview audio .

He does bring up a good point, that terrorists aren't sophisticated enough to deliver an Ebola-type of virus in a terrorist attack. However, I would tend to disagree since the only level of sophistication one needs is the ability to contract the virus and hop on a airliner to a Western city. From there his best bet it to probably visit as many hookers as possible until he can't function any more and die in some hidden alley. Since Ebola is mostly transmitted through physical contact and bodily fluids, sex would be a good way to go. But I think it may be harder to find a volunteer than you might think. Ebola is a slow, painful death while a homicide-bombing is over very quickly for a terrorist and I don't think they have the nerve for that. The whole hooker scenario may be though too since I would think it would go against their faith, but then some of the 9-11 hijackers partied it up before their flight, so maybe they could find someone to take a few of the cause.

Last edited: Thursday, April 06, 2006 at 2:15:13 PM