…and this is a 
Texas Academy of Science getting death threats over Pianka
Category: Politics • Science
Posted on: April 3, 2006 12:24 PM, by PZ Myers
The Pianka situation is getting very, very ugly. I've been chatting with a member of the Texas Academy of Science, and people there are getting death threats over it. Here's one example of the kind of email they're getting:
While Heinrich Himmler's "final solution" was limited to exterminating the Jews, Dr. Eric R. Pianka promotes a FINAL SOLUTION for 90% of earth's population. In accepting the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award, Heir Pianka was interrupted with applause and received a standing ovation.
"Soylent Green is people." And the way cinema's futurist society dealt with over population was through the "Renewal Ceremony", where the inductees were secretly turned into FOOD for the remaining citizens.
AT LEAST THEY WERE TURNED INTO FOOD! Unleashing the Ebola virus on humanity, as publicly advocated by reptilian advocate Dr. Pianka, would result in billions of excruciating deaths and rotting corpses in the streets. Does such a position increase the esteem of the Texas Academy of Science? Is the Academy deem such a colleague as a visionary, exemplar, & eloquent
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! For a scientific community, however provincial, to recognize Dr. Pianka sublimates wholesale genocide. His advocacy of the extermination of most human life on the earth flies in the face of natural selection, and is so patently absurd as to defy logical challenge. The Texas Academy of Science, her directors, fellows, and members, is DIMINISHED through close association with, and its elevation of, Dr. Eric R. Pianka.
If the Academy is to maintain public and professional credibility, it must censure Dr. Pianka and rescind his "Distinguished" status. Please use your personal and professional influence toward that immediate end.
Sincerely,
Keith M. Arnett
Keller, TX
The accounts from people who were there agree that Pianka was not encouraging the "unleashing" of viruses on people, but was warning of a likely natural result (and apparently, mentioning that this would be a great thing for the biosphere as a whole, despite its dire consequences for us). This is becoming a right-wing cause célèbre, however, and the leadership of the Texas Academy are facing a lot of hate and heat from the ignorant. If you've got a moment, you might want to contact a member or two of the Academy and mention your support.
Comments
Any chance of suing Mims for defamation?
Posted by: lt.kizhe | April 3, 2006 12:27 PM
Heh, the "rotary motor" t-shirt they're hawking on the web site is pretty cool.
Posted by: Randy! | April 3, 2006 12:40 PM
We are but fleas agitating the hide of a far greater organism.
Posted by: Thomas Ware | April 3, 2006 12:43 PM
Further proof that the anti-science mob can't comprehend simple sentences, whether written or spoken. And the Texas anti-science mobs are trying to prove their old claim that everything is bigger in Texas -- idiocy certainly is. Sensible Texans should be rounding these goofballs up and force them to go back to junior high for some remedial reading/listening.
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 3, 2006 12:46 PM
Sensible Texans should be rounding these goofballs up and force them to go back to junior high for some remedial reading/listening.
I try, but I must confess I haven't been practicing with my lasso, and my horse has seen better days, so I'm not all that effective.
Posted by: BronzeDog | April 3, 2006 1:02 PM
Hot diggity! I knew I made the right choice by choosing this college; all the fun is down here at UT these days. First Paul Nelson stops by to get schooled, then Dr. Pianka gets accused of terrorism. Any chance this is the DI's way of insinuating that that our biology department is evil, just because Dr. Sarkar owned Nelson?
Posted by: Biggs | April 3, 2006 1:05 PM
This is the fourth time in a month I've posted slightly different versions of this --
Watch'em.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 3, 2006 1:11 PM
he modern right wing id method....shoot the messenger. kinda like their attack on that pesky press that keeps on reporting bad news from iraq.
clap louder.
Posted by: dread pirate roberts | April 3, 2006 1:11 PM
Aren't the same people decrying Pianka's "promotion of genocide" themselves promoters of genocide, in regards to the Rapture?
Posted by: gophuckyourself | April 3, 2006 1:17 PM
In years past, the University of Texas and other fine institutions in "flyover country" had some pretty good success poaching top-notch talent from California universities.
However, if things continue to get crazier out there in "wingnut land", maybe we'll be able to convince some of those talented folks who abandoned us to overlook our crazy housing prices, traffic, smog, earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, etc... and come back to California!
(On second thought, scratch the wildfires -- California's got nothing on Texas and Oklahoma in the wildfire dept. as the past few months have shown.)
Posted by: caerbannog | April 3, 2006 1:18 PM
Perhaps the Texas Academy of Science could post Dr. Pianka's lecture/talk online. That way his remarks could be read in context and not so easily distorted.
Posted by: socinius | April 3, 2006 1:28 PM
"In accepting the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist award, Heir Pianka ..."
Doesn't this guy realize how these things work? Upon accepting the DTS award, Pianka ceases to be the heir and becomes the actual title holder. Geez!
Posted by: CousinoMacul | April 3, 2006 1:32 PM
The question is, did he in fact advocate billions of deaths by ebola, or was he just playing the "irrascible curmudgeon", as many academics like to do?
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | April 3, 2006 1:34 PM
How would people here feel about a humane form of genocide?
For example, instead of using a bioweapon to kill people we create a bioweapon that attacks women's egg cells (and maybe male sperm too) or the lining of the womb the egg cells must attach to so that most (but not all) women (and maybe men too) exposed to it become sterile?
Then you could unleash it in the mideast and vacinate selected parts of your own population against it.
America would probably get blamed for it -- but I suspect China might do it if it could.
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 3, 2006 1:50 PM
"How would people here feel about a humane form of genocide?"
It would be a crime against humanity, just like Josef Mengele's forced sterlizations.
Next question?
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | April 3, 2006 1:55 PM
the talk wasn't recorded and I'm not sure if it was transcribed so it might not be possible for TAS to post the full speech although that would be nice just so people could realize how out of context things have been taken.
Dr. Pianka in no way advocated billions of deaths from Ebola or said anything that would lead a reasonable person to think he was doing so. - playing the "irrascible curmudgeon" - is about the strongest honest statement you could make about what was said. He showed a slide of an Ebola virus and mentioned Ebola Reston and said that it wouldn't take much for Ebola to be an airborne disease and at our current levels of overpopulation it would be deadly. Populations of any organism that exceed their carrying capacity are susceptible to population reduction from disease through several routes including stress due to overcrowding and the overcrowding itself leading to disease transmission and that is the only point he was making, is that we are doing this to ourselves.
Posted by: Kathryn Perez | April 3, 2006 1:57 PM
Reminds me of that little brouhaha over some comics a couple months ago...
Posted by: Rey | April 3, 2006 2:00 PM
Note that Ron Bailey, Reason.com's "science correspondent"/village idiot, uncritically picked up Mim's version of events.
Posted by: Tom Scudder | April 3, 2006 2:00 PM
I just emailed the presidents and secretaries of the TAS a letter supporting their choice of Pianka as a distinguished member and got an immediate reply thanking me. It sounds like they need to hear some kind words.
Posted by: Matt Read | April 3, 2006 2:04 PM
How is that email a death threat, exactly?
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 3, 2006 2:08 PM
I try, but I must confess I haven't been practicing with my lasso, and my horse has seen better days, so I'm not all that effective.
Use an ATV like a real cowboy!
Posted by: QrazyQat | April 3, 2006 2:09 PM
Good grief. They should just retitle "drudge report" as "who to send death threats to today."
Posted by: plunge | April 3, 2006 2:09 PM
The death threats were not contained in that posted email. Those have been emailed individually to members of the TAS board including the current President of TAS.
Posted by: Kathryn Perez | April 3, 2006 2:15 PM
Perhaps then P shouldn't make the following statement:
"...people there are getting death threats over it. Here's one example of the kind of email they're getting"
I can't take criticism seriously from another who can't get a story straight.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 3, 2006 2:20 PM
I just sent a brief message of support to the officers. It's not much, but hopefully it will cancel out one nutbag's rantings.
Posted by: Liz Tracey | April 3, 2006 2:21 PM
... Heir Pianka was interrupted with applause and received a standing ovation.
Nitpick: If you're going to make Nazi analogies, at least get the spelling right. It's "Herr".
The funny thing is: this fundie writes better than most.
Posted by: IAMB | April 3, 2006 2:27 PM
Maybe college is taking its toll on ignorance.
Well, one can hope.
Posted by: John M. Price | April 3, 2006 2:34 PM
While I don't support Mims' leap from "Pianka's wishes" to "Pianka's plots," I do find it unscientific and inappropriate for an honoree of a scientific body to take glee in the thought of wiping out 90% of humanity through whatever means. And there hasn't been much commentary on Pianka's alleged support of China's one-child policy (which is a clear violation of human rights), which should also garner him censure.
Pianka is an ass. So may Mims be, but this time he got some of it right. Pianka is in no way deserving of honor or admiration.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 3, 2006 2:38 PM
I've tried to write this comment in a polite, explanatory way about 6 different times, but I can't really do it. Elizabeth, your comment is just really, really dumb. What exactly amounts to not getting the story straight?
Posted by: JBL | April 3, 2006 2:44 PM
"Aren't the same people decrying Pianka's "promotion of genocide" themselves promoters of genocide, in regards to the Rapture?"
Yup.
All sorts of kooks have genocidal fantasies. Pianka merely shows us the secular version. Forgive us nature, for we have sinned! But soon armageddon and judgement will come!
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | April 3, 2006 2:49 PM
Elizabeth,
Did you attend Pianka's talk? If so, please tell us in what way he took glee in the thought of wiping out 90% of humanity. Please be detailed as so far you have not been.
If you didn't attend the talk, for which there apparently is no video or even transcript, from what are you drawing your statements? See, "I can't take criticism seriously from another who can't get a story straight" and I'm not convinced you have any actual data from which to get the story straight.
Posted by: Jeff Boatright | April 3, 2006 2:49 PM
To clarify: my previous post referred to Elizabeth's post which preceded mine by 24 minutes, not the one directly preceding it.
Posted by: JBL | April 3, 2006 2:54 PM
'Wiping out' is a phrase in the active voice. 'Being wiped out' is passive.
While I suspect very few people would actually take pleasure in the thought of 90% of humanity dying (and the ones who would mostly aren't thinking about or don't care about the consequences to themselves, which are likely to be highly unpleasant either way), there IS a difference between taking pleasure at the thought of wiping out humanity as opposed to humanity being wiped out. The first requires that the person spoken of actively take part, and the second does not.
For the record, I'm firmly on the side of Sturgeon's Law on this matter, but I don't think airborne Ebola would be good for anyone or anything. Except possibly the environment, and taking the *very* long view. Human beings are not innately precious snowflakes that are more valuable than any non-human things, but suffering is suffering.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 3, 2006 3:00 PM
I'm not surprised to learn who are Pianka's shrillest critics.
If you're the kind of person whose worldview includes such moral imperatives as abortion is murder, climate change is bunk, economic growth at any cost, etc., you, too, would be outraged by Pianka. He is, after all, accusing you of destroying the natural conditions for life on this planet. Guilty as charged.
Posted by: Paris Hilton | April 3, 2006 3:02 PM
"Scientists, academics, and other vocal ID critics should expect to eventually be demonized as dishonest, anti-Christian, and anti-American."
I'm half-expecting a Cultural Revolution, U.S.-style, in another decade or two . . .
Unless Ebola gets us first, that is . . .
-Dan S.
Posted by: Dan S. | April 3, 2006 3:07 PM
"Human beings are not... more valuable than any non-human things"
Yes, we are.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | April 3, 2006 3:08 PM
How would people here feel about a humane form of genocide?
Go read 'The Screwfly Solution' by James Tiptree. That's exactly what it's about.
Posted by: P J Evans | April 3, 2006 3:11 PM
"Human beings are not innately precious snowflakes that are more valuable than any non-human things, but suffering is suffering."
I've always been fascinated by this perspective...
*You* are human, right? You are the valuer, right? So why not choose to value yourself? You exist in symbiosis with lots of other human beings, so why not choose to value them too?
Nihilism is a stage in recovery from Platonism and religion. You've abandoned the concept of a supernatural super-valuer but have not learned how to substitute your own values in it's place. Some people never pass through this phase, and they get caught up in secular versions of apocalyptic religious ideology or even dumber traps.
I wasn't present for Pianka's talk, so I can't really say anything with authority. However, I have heard people say things like what Mims *claims* that he said before, so I don't find it that hard to believe.
Even if Mims is a creationist, I do have some respect for him due to his other accomplishments. I recall enjoying his writings on electronics when I was younger. He doesn't seem like that much of a raging lunatic.
BTW, how do you know Mims is a creationist? He doesn't feature any creationist/ID rhetoric prominently on his site, and he'd be the first creationist or IDer I have *ever* seen who doesn't do so. Usually those guys are a walking anti-evolution klaxon. Maybe he's just in the "shrug... seems plausible to me..." ID camp. Lots of engineers are, for reasons that have been written about at length around here.
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | April 3, 2006 3:15 PM
"Yes, we are."
No, we aren't.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Seriously, though, what makes you say that? I'd be happy to hear an argument for the inherent specialness of humankind, but "Yes, we are" certainly isn't it.
Posted by: JBL | April 3, 2006 3:17 PM
Science can't prove it one way or the other because science can't determine value - but philosophy can.
The great historical philosophers thought humans are more valuable and so does 99.9% of the worldwide population (today and historically). If you think you're right then it's up to you to convice the rest of the world you are right.
Even with your best philosophical armor on I think you'll have a long, hard battle ahead of you - a losing one at that.
Posted by: Lurker | April 3, 2006 3:31 PM
"*You* are human, right?"
Maybe. If I'm not, why should I value humans more than snowflakes, ebola viruses, or rock wallabies?
Posted by: Dianne | April 3, 2006 3:38 PM
Gee, why haven't these people been reporting George Carlin to the Feds?
(Quote stolen from here, which stole it from George.)
Posted by: just john | April 3, 2006 3:47 PM
Lurker wrote:
The great historical philosophers thought humans are more valuable and so does 99.9% of the worldwide population (today and historically).
If they really believed that, then why would anyone start a war? Why would we fight a war pre-emptively with someone who didn't attack us.
What people say they value and what their actions show they value are two different things.
Do I sound like a monster when I say I don't value any one elses life as much as my own? And not just my life -- the quality of that life. Threaten my life and your life will have negative value to me.
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 3, 2006 3:48 PM
I think humans are the most important, but I freely admit that it's entirely due to self-interest. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: Rey | April 3, 2006 3:51 PM
Norman,
Are we more valueable than OTHER species? That's the question at hand. Of course there's infighting among humans. So what?
Posted by: Lurker | April 3, 2006 3:51 PM
Sorry, but where is the death threat in that letter? And what is the source of that letter? And why was the video camera turned off? And where are these other accounts? All I can find is an account by one of the Academy's own members! That's pretty dang reliable in my book. (Perhaps you should start smearing Forrest Mims.)
Posted by: If You Hate Humans So Much, Please Just Kill Yourself | April 3, 2006 3:51 PM
Ah, that's what I get for reading Bloglines in reverse chronological order. You already HAVE smeared Mims. My bad.
Posted by: If You Hate Humans So Much, Please Just Kill Yourself | April 3, 2006 4:00 PM
P J Evans wrote:
Go read 'The Screwfly Solution' by James Tiptree. That's exactly what it's about.
It is? I've read her stories before -- I remember one where a scientist is travelling around the world with his diseased birds... that wasn't what I later suggested (making at least women sterile with a bioweapon) it was a killer.
If Alice Sheldon wrote about a sterilization bioweapon -- I'd like to read it.
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 3, 2006 4:00 PM
Lurker wrote:
Are we more valueable than OTHER species? That's the question at hand. Of course there's infighting among humans. So what?
Which would you rather live without:
1) Cows
2) Arabs
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 3, 2006 4:04 PM
@Katherine Perez: From your comments, it seems like you were in attendance at the speech and you are in contact with members of the Texas Academy. I also see from your CV that you've presented papers at prior meetings and received a number of Student Awards. A full account from you and from any other attendees you know of would go a long way to quelling this controversy and discrediting Mr. Mimms' account. A press release from the Academy would also be helpful. Any chance of action?
Posted by: evano | April 3, 2006 4:08 PM
If you didn't attend the talk, for which there apparently is no video or even transcript, from what are you drawing your statements?
From comments in this blog and other places by former students of Pianka's who recall him often stating that he was looking forward to most of humanity being wiped out by disease.
Since the speech wasn't taped - whether by accident or intent - it's likely that we'll never know the tone in which the speech was delivered, even if we do see an actual or cleaned-up transcript. But prior statements seems to indicate that he in fact anticipates with pleasure the day that 90% of the population is wiped out by disease. (I don't know why he keeps using Ebola as an example, though - it's not a likely candidate.)
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 3, 2006 4:09 PM
I've tried to write this comment in a polite, explanatory way about 6 different times, but I can't really do it. Elizabeth, your comment is just really, really dumb. What exactly amounts to not getting the story straight?
Apologies; my comment was unclear. P has accused Mims of making unsupported allegations. P did the same - he claimed that death threats had been sent, and supported that statement with an email that contained no death threats. Seems both sensational and hypocritical.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 3, 2006 4:11 PM
"How would people here feel about a humane form of genocide?"
It would be a crime against humanity, just like Josef Mengele's forced sterlizations.
Next question?
-jcr
JCR - What about Pianka's alleged support for China's one-child policy? Does that qualify as a crime against humanity?
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 3, 2006 4:14 PM
I'd rather keep both, but if one must go then fire up the BBQ! Let me guess, you can't see any difference??
Posted by: Lurker | April 3, 2006 4:19 PM
Elizabeth wrote:
PZ wrote:
Which to me doesn't imply it contained support for the claim of the death threats.
Posted by: haliaeetus | April 3, 2006 4:21 PM
Lurker, instead of being flip, I'll address your point honestly -- I think your formulation of the values problem is over-simplistic. Both other species and other humans contribute greatly to the quality of my life. Cows make great steaks and hamburgers, other humans remove my trash and build my cars. The question is when do more humans start having negative value -- I suspect we are at that point where it will have a negative impact on the quality of our lives.
We should be more intelligent about how we breed... but people won't listen to that.
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 3, 2006 4:22 PM
Re: Is humanity special?
Of course most of humanity thinks it's more special than other animals. I would imagine that dogs, were they capable of such philosophical ruminating, would think they're more special too.
But just because most parents think their offspring are the world's smartest babies ever, does not make it so. And I would say that science - and as this is a a science blog, it seems to me that science trumps philosophy - does not indicate that humans are particularly special.
Maybe when we've outlasted cockroaches and sharks, we can make such a claim. Maybe.
Posted by: Former Jose | April 3, 2006 4:24 PM
China's one-child policy is an extreme solution for an extreme problem. But the crime is less about parents being allowed only one child and more about boys being favored over girls and the resulting atrocities that promotes.
Posted by: Matt Read | April 3, 2006 4:26 PM
I should probably add that while I find Mims and Dembski and drudge destestable for hyping this into something it isn't, I also think Pianka's ideas about human carrying capacity and the value of ecology over human life are darn right crackpot. There's no good evidence that humans are headed for a crash or are overpopulated (and no clear sense as to what they word would even mean in terms of human beings). Pianka is just spreading more silly eco-hysteria. There are many problems we face that we caused for ourselves and the ecology, but hopefully also that we can solve. But there is no intrinsic "comeuppance" in nature, and we don't deserve any particular kind of natural response.
Posted by: plunge | April 3, 2006 4:27 PM
I have a question: Does Brenna McConnell's blog exist? It isn't mentioned on technorati or Google blog search and the general Google web search didn't have anything bloggish on Brenna McConnell.
I expressed some skepticism about the accuracy of unverifiable anecdotes on the alleged self-censorship of Arkansas biology teachers a few days ago and I think similar skepticism is warranted here.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | April 3, 2006 4:27 PM
Norman: If Alice Sheldon wrote about a sterilization bioweapon -- I'd like to read it.
It's on line -- just googled it -- at SciFi.com. The author is listed as Racoona Sheldon. It's a bioweapon all right. Just not from one of the usual suspects. (I read it in Analog, years ago. It isn't one you really forget.)
Posted by: P J Evans | April 3, 2006 4:28 PM
I have copies of other email which I did not have permission to post. DarkSyde, I think, was tracking down some of the sources and may be posting more info on Daily Kos.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 3, 2006 4:30 PM
"We should be more intelligent about how we breed... but people won't listen to that."
If you tell people not to breed, they are not going to listen. Any that do will leave no offspring. They have 4.5 billion years of history telling them otherwise.
Now, if you mean that people should have fewer children but invest more in them, you might get some traction with that. This is the general tendency in most modern countries. Some even have reproduction rates that are below replacement level and may actually suffer from underpopulation in a generation or two.
BTW, I wonder if the comment about Pianka supporting the Chinese one child program is true? This program is, as others have pointed out, a gross violation of human rights and contributes to child abuse, abuse of women, and the slave trade. I'd have to doubt the ethics of anyone who advocated such a program.
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | April 3, 2006 4:30 PM
While I'm on the topic of skepticism, I might mention that predictions of an imminent overpopulation disaster have been just as much of a failure as predictions of an imminent Rapture.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | April 3, 2006 4:33 PM
The author of the letter seems to be confusing Soylent Green and Logan's Run. It was very difficult to keep reading after such an egregious error.
Posted by: PaulC | April 3, 2006 4:39 PM
The great historical [human] philosophers thought humans are more valuable and so does 99.9% of the worldwide [human] population (today and historically).
Sure. Humans Are The Best! All Humans Agree!
Actually, I don't agree that humans value all humans above all non-humans. Human individuals seem to value self and 'family' above all others, including 'others' of the human variety. For many, a little bit of human life is worth sacrificing for other, more valuable objects. Not that this really addresses the issue of "are humans better than everything else".
Even if you really believed that the human species were 'more valuable' than other species, it doesn't follow that you want human populations to multiply infinitely, filling every possible nook and cranny of the universe with human flesh. It's just an admission of reality to say that humans cannot reproduce exponentially for long, and that in order to survive we must be able to maintain an environment that is capable of supporting human life (which includes many other 'valuable' organisms).
Posted by: Charles Winder | April 3, 2006 4:42 PM
With exponential population growth though eventually a prediction will be correct. You can't say the same for The Rapture.
Posted by: Matt Read | April 3, 2006 4:44 PM
From the virus' point of view, going airborn wouldn't be the best thing for ebola. It'd kill too many hosts too quickly and the remainder might be so resistent to infection that it could die out. What ebola needs is to become less virulent so that its hosts survive long enough to reproduce so it can sustain itself over the long run. The ideal virus is entirely integrated with the host and causes no problems for it. Whatever that means to this argument.
Posted by: Dianne | April 3, 2006 4:47 PM
Adam Ierymenko wrote:
... if you mean that people should have fewer children but invest more in them, you might get some traction with that. This is the general tendency in most modern countries. Some even have reproduction rates that are below replacement level and may actually suffer from underpopulation in a generation or two.
Yes, less children, more invested and the solution to underpopulation is immigration. Immigration with some rules about who you let in since Europe is having problems with its muslim immigrants.
And as far as the Chinese one child program it brought to my mind an episode of Star Trek (original series) where a leader had to make a choice something like "Kill off half the population, or everyone dies." Which choice do you make? The leader chose to kill half the population and was considered a monster by most. Only his few immediate friends and his daughter considered him the savior of the other half. And even after making the most rational choice he could he spent the rest of his life haunted by guilt as an actor playing MacBeth.
Yes, you do have to doubt the ethics of anyone who advocated such a program, but doubt isn't certainty. If ethics are linked to values, then all our ethics are selfish -- based on what we value.
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 3, 2006 4:48 PM
This is just another example of Swift-boating from the right if you think about it.
Nice to see the moral majority taking the moral highground as usual.
Posted by: Robert S. | April 3, 2006 4:53 PM
Well, hey, if somebody kills him it would be a great thing for the biosphere as a whole, despite its dire consequences for him personally, right? ;)
Posted by: Brainster | April 3, 2006 5:08 PM
For those who want to read Alice Sheldon's "The Screwfly Solution", it is available online at http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheldon/sheldon1.html.
A great read, using some nasty biology.
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | April 3, 2006 5:08 PM
Isn't this whole brouhaha just another example of magical thinking?
How on earth does Pianka's misanthropic attitude constitute a threat to the world's population? Does he have the Evil Eye? Is he a houngan calling down Papa Legba? If that's the case, why the death threats? Can't we just defeat him by clapping real loud and saying, "I believe in fairies!" Then Tinkerbell will come back to life on the third day to help Peter defeat the evil Captain Pianka and his giant crocodile.
Or perhaps he possesses super-secret Hollywood-style Mad Scientist technology? You see, once he perfects his race of Atomic Super-Men, immune to Ebola and dengue fever (everybody always forgets dengue fever -- that's what makes it dangerous), no one can stop his plan to unleash the Ebola-Ray on the world. All he needs is the spinal fluid of a beautiful woman to inject into his Radium-Gorilla.
Either that, or he's a cranky, misanthropic old Malthusian, a species which is more commonly found at the end of the bar at 10:00 AM nursing a small beer.
Posted by: HP | April 3, 2006 5:08 PM
Thomas: Sci-Fi apparently doesn't like direct links; it comes up 404. Try this: http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheldon/
And then click the link for the story.
Posted by: HP | April 3, 2006 5:13 PM
A philosophical statement claiming that science trumps philosophy? That's a good one. How exactly can science tell me what is special and what is not?
Posted by: Lurker | April 3, 2006 5:19 PM
Elizabeth,
The one-child policy is one of many crimes perpetrated against the Chinese people by the Red Dynasty. I'm not familiar with Pianka's stand on the matter, but if he endorses it, then he's wrong, of course.
China has two alternatives to choose from to avert mass starvation. One is to enforce draconian population-control laws, and the other is to free the peasants to farm as they see fit, and let them buy and sell land, and benefit individually from their labor. Capitalism and (relatively) free markets are why the USA no longer needs 80% of our population to work on farms just to feed us (and much of the rest of the world.) As China's standard of living increases, their birthrates will decline, just as they have in the west.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | April 3, 2006 5:25 PM
Matt Read:
There's a potential for a soft landing, though it would require people to act a lot more rationally than we might expect them to. Anyway, exponential growth rates are only good approximations in some circumstances. Populations can be at an equilibrium, just by reproducing at replacement rate. Already, birthrates seem to be on the decline in more affluent societies.
I would say that it is not the sheer number of people but our resource consumption that is most likely to be our undoing. Even in that case, it's just possible that we could gradually scale back on wasteful behavior without experiencing sudden, catastrophic hardship. Many of the things we associate with quality of life are based on cultural norms that could easily change. Standard of living metrics based on pushing around large quantities of matter are bound to decrease. We can't all have 3/4 acres and a Hummer. On the other hand, we could in principle be richer in culture and information. We could even live longer, healthier lives--with appropriate birthrate adjustments.
There are also plenty of off-world resources, but the emigration of already-existing humans into space looks like a total fantasy based on energy requirements. You could, however, have autonomous self-replicating machines to extract materials from elsewhere in the solar system and send these or even finished products back to earth. You could also conceivably have an expanding human population, off-world though that would not do much good for those who happened to remain on earth, which I suspect would remain densely populated (since I doubt they'll take my advice to turn it into park after we colonize Mars).
Do I think that's a realistic scenario? Actually, I think it's probably less likely than a "singularity" scenario in which the dominant earth-centric intelligent life form consists of nanotech entities that far surpass us in powers of cognition and also don't need to push as much matter around to accomplish simple things. I'm not sure what will happen to biological humans. Maybe we'll still be here while our mind-children ask silly questions like "If we evolved from humans, then why are there still humans?"
Posted by: PaulC | April 3, 2006 5:27 PM
jcr:
It doesn't hurt that we in the US have an awful lot of arable land per capita. Have you ever seen China from an airplane? No doubt the Chinese could produce food more efficiently, and I'm agnostic as to whether agricultural market reform is the ticket. I think GM crops might have a bigger impact. Either way, there's still a limit of how much food China can produce and no magic formula that will allow its population to grow indefinitely.
Posted by: PaulC | April 3, 2006 5:34 PM
The whole moral argument for anthropocentrism has always interested me... I would argue (though I don't fully believe it in my heart, I haven't found a logical reason to reject it) that we do not have an inherent moral obligation towards nature - nature is much, much stronger than us. We will render the planet uninhabitable for ourselves long before we destroy life; on a geologic timescale our effect, even at it's worst, will be relatively minor. Are we causing a mass extinction? Unquestionably. Should we try to stop? Absolutely - but not because the Spotted Owl (or the Barton Creek Salamander, or the what have you) must be preserved - remember that extinction is the rule. The only way for me to justify saving the environment is from an anthropocentric perspective; that we must save these things because it's the only chance we have for saving ourselves. Others are comfortable arguing moral conservationism from a religeous perspective (Cal DeWitt, for instance; with great success, I might add)- I'm an athiest. I'm not.
That said, nature, and the world, won't miss us if we fail. Nature will find a new balance, relatively quickly. If we're ok with not being there than we may as well carry on as we are - if not, we should think seriously about how to stop it.
So I would argue that humans are special - not to the world, not to nature, not to the universe, but to ourselves. To the rest of it, we're a blip; no more interesting than an ant, or a tree, or a dinosaur.
In a different direction, I have to say the fact that anyone seriously believes a group of scientists would give someone arguing for genocide a standing ovation demonstrates still further how far the general public is from understanding and trusting science. Which is sad.
Posted by: Evan Murdock | April 3, 2006 5:34 PM
And what would happen if some pre-millenialists began to wax lyrical over the billions who would die during the version of the Apocalypse they're so fond of? Nothing of course. It's already happened, and it's a best-selling series.
Posted by: Is this car unmanned? | April 3, 2006 5:35 PM
"Capitalism and (relatively) free markets are why the USA no longer needs 80% of our population to work on farms just to feed us (and much of the rest of the world.)"
That's amazingly simplistic. Don't forget about our fabulously fertile soils and great climate. Farming isn't quite as easy everywhere as it is here, free markets or not.
Posted by: Carlie | April 3, 2006 5:37 PM
The only reason humans are "more special" than the rest of the grand tapestry of life on Earth is because none of the rest of Gawd's Critters have developed the ability to tell us an opinion otherwise. Except maybe cats. Human beings are only special to human beings (and even then, it's a case-by-case situation); the rest of the universe could give a damn.
Posted by: Matt T. | April 3, 2006 5:38 PM
"stronger than we" I should say.
I have a moral obligation to use good grammar.
Posted by: Evan Murdock | April 3, 2006 5:38 PM
Ah, Paul beat me to it.
Posted by: Carlie | April 3, 2006 5:40 PM
Joseph Hertzinger
Brenna' blog? http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html
Posted by: Fred Gray | April 3, 2006 5:44 PM
For the high value types... Which would you prefer, the death of all plankton or the death of a few million humans? Note: this is a trick question, since 90% of the oxygen we breath comes from plankton...
While I place human life highest on the list of valuable creatures, I do it with a "presumption" that what other life form might die instead "isn't" going to turn out to be critical to the survival of what I hold in high value. The problem some people seem to be missing is that you can't just magically assume that humans are going to be hear forever or that we can do anything we want without consequences. I don't entirely agree with the assessment that humans can't benefit the ecology and that Ebola might help it because of that. That view is held by a lot of nuts, but they are no more or less nuts than the morons that insist that the damage we can and do cause is irrelevant, since it only hurts some random less important animals. As usual, both sides of the fence are completely off their rockers. Even if they do sometimes have valid points, such as in this case.
Posted by: Kagehi | April 3, 2006 5:46 PM