Meeting Dr. Doom

[Celebration]

You guys gotta read this.....unreal

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

There is always something special about science meetings. The 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 2006 was especially exciting for me, because a student and his professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to them last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium distichum ) leaves we collected last summer and my tree ring photographs transformed into a first class scientific presentation that's nearly ready to submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken and Dr. Deanna McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country: Taxonomically Unique?" 109th Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science Program and Abstracts < PDF >, Poster P59, p. 84, 2006).

But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.

This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka's strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind. Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairman of its Environmental Science Section. Instead, I grabbed a notepad so I could take on the role of science reporter.

[AndyA]

1. I have a friend who believes homosexuality is God's way of controlling

the population, and that by suppressing Gay people, society has created this overpopulation problem...

God has an answer for everything.

It's something to think about...

[Redneck Socialist]

2. Unfortunately he's probably right

There are way too many of us and no end in sight.

[William Seger]

4. "Probably right"?

Um, I think there's a small typo in your post. I'm sure you meant to say "bug-fuckin' insane" didn't you?

Murdering 5 billion people with Ebola because "he's probably right"?

[Redneck Socialist]

5. He's probably right...

that overpopulation is he elephant in the room that few want to talk about. And I guess I missed the part in the article where he advocated deliberately infecting people with Ebola and/or doing nothing to halt its spread. Maybe you could point it out to me?

[rman]

10. Point it out? It's hard to miss

It's just a few lines of text, dude. Read it.

[Redneck Socialist]

26. Then perhaps you could do me the favor of quoting it? n/t

[rman]

28. "...standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated

the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola."

[Redneck Socialist]

33. Yeah, OK

:eyes: That's a quote from Mims, but nice try.

[rman]

9. If you want to improve the world like that, start with yourself.

For some reason people who promote killing tha majority of the world population never include themselves. What it comes down to is they want to kil the rest of us so they can have a better world. It's criminal i tell you.

[converted_democrat]

11. WTF? How could you even think, let alone type something like that?n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

27. Do you disagree...

that there are too many people on this planet to sustain our current lifestyles?

Our current way of life is simply unsustainable. The population will crash and a virus, or more likely several different viruses will in all probability cause widespread death. I'm not so sure what's so shocking about that scenario.

[bemildred]

3. Ebola? Airborne Ebola?

This appears suspicious to me. Perhaps this is some sort of "modest proposal"?

[bemildred]

12. Hello? Ebola is only transmitted by direct contact.

This guy is full of shit.

"None of the 78 household members who had no physical contact with the case during the clinical illness were infected (upper 95% CI, 4%). EHF is transmitted principally by direct physical contact with an ill person or their body fluids during the later stages of illness."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9988169&dopt=Abstract

[Celebration]

13. that's the point

I think he said he looked forward to something like this becoming airborne and 90% of the population getting wiped out.

There may be scientists out there that believe this and actually help it happen. Who knows?

[bemildred]

14. The man purports to be a scientist, on the biological side.

He would not select Ebola. Maybe flu or smallpox or typhus or something, but not Ebola. Even if the high mortality rate is the issue, there are better choices. The story smells.

I fully expect a crash in human population soon, but I doubt it will be instigated deliberately; and I really doubt that such perpetrators, should they exist, would go around discussing it this way.

[Celebration]

15. See #7

Apparently he discussed ebola, and the 90% figure in the classes he teaches. It is in a student evaluation at a UT site.

[bemildred]

17. I have.

The question is why should I believe it?

[Celebration]

18. We have three sources, sort of

Forrest Mims, the blog on the same meeting reported in #7, that says virtually the same thing, and the student evaluation on a UT website that makes reference to his classes. Generally three sources is enough.....Now, if we had the video of the meeting we could check it out. According to Mims, that was turned off.

If it is not true, I expect we will see some lawsuits for slander.

But I agree--if true, it boggles the mind. I certainly don't want to believe it. It is one thing to say the world is very overpopulated with people, and that a huge reduction is needed, and another to wish for airborne ebola virus to do away with 90% of us...

[bemildred]

20. I have heard similar sentiments before.

They are sort of obvious if you allow yourself to think about them, it's simply the association of historical events and observations from the natural world with modern humans and their situation. It's sort of taboo to think about humans as just like other animals, but for most purposes we are, and we are also very like our ancestors.

It is not that which boggles my mind, but the scenario here where he says it in public to an apparently unprepared audience, and the whole little skit with the camera, and of course the Ebola thing.

[benburch]

6. Forrest Mims is a nutcase.

He is a respected electronics book author, but is a devout creationist, and there has been NO confirmation of his story about Pianka's address to the Texas Academy of Science. And If this were true I ASSURE you somebody else would have talked. Even in Texas.

[William Seger]

7. Confirmation?

For all I know, Forrest Mims may be a "nutcase" (too), but that doesn't mean he's wrong about Pianka.

From a blog: http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/

"Dr. Pianka's talk at the TAS meeting was mostly of the problems humans are causing as we rapidly proliferate around the globe. While what he had to say is way too vast to remember it all, moreover to relay it here in this blog, the bulk of his talk was that he's waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope, if you can call it that, is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right."

From a student evaluation: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html

"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.

[Jim__]

22. A number of people who were there disagree with Mims account

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. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/texas_academy_of_science_getti.php#more)

Which seems to differ significantly from Mims account: But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. ...

[Celebration]

23. Why turn off the video?

If there was nothing to hide, then why turn off the video? If he is being misquoted it sure would help to have that video. And, if he is being misquoted, he should sue. But I never got the impression that he would want to unleash the virus, only that he relished it happening--sort of the same distinction between MIHOP and LIHOP. It doesn't seem like he would want to go out of the way to stop this from happening. I think it is real screwy to turn off the video cameras at a scientific conference (if that is what happened). That only invites trouble.

[Jim__]

24. If there was something to hide ....

why would he reveal it to a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science? Besides, did Pianka have anything to do with turning off the video? From Mims account:

Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.

It's a bit of a leap from that paragraph to the conclusion that Pianka had the video turned off so no one (except the conference attendees) would ever hear what he had to say.

Why would the other attendees lie about the speech? Why would the Texas Academy of Sciences give a standing ovation for a speech that enthusiastically advocated killing off 90% of humanity?

[Celebration]

25. Good questions

I'd like to hear the full tale about the video being turned off. That is the part that is upsetting me. I hate secrecy. It reminds me of Scalia not letting his speeches be recorded, and it reminds me of the talks at Bohemian Grove. I would like to know the truth, and the video would provide it.

[rman]

8. We can only guess how many politicians support that idea

The censorship incident is particularly interesting.
Maybe this article should be posted in GD as well.

[Mr.Green93]

16. If everybody would just kill one person

A lot of problems would be solved.

[nashville_brook]

19. checking out Pianka's website, reading the whole article, etc...

i wonder if something isn't getting lost in the translation. he's an evolutionary ecology. from the standpoint of evolutionary ecology such a scenario makes sense. from any other standpoint (say, human ecology or evolution) his framework is at odds.

i had plenty of profs who had to make radical statements in order to motivate an argument. it doesn't mean that they WISH to see the outcome. it's a tool of communication.

so what if this little lizard scientist in Texas thinks we'd be better off with 90 percent fewer humans? that's not a threat. it would be more threatening that he be 'shut down' just because he says something people find objectionable.

now -- if he were actually working toward his ebola 'solution' i'd be worried. otherwise, this is a free speech issue.

[Celebration]

21. you are correct

I don't think he should be fired over this or anything. But, I don't think he should get awards, either. It is a free speech issue, and this is not a threat. I would have much less problem with it if he had allowed the video to roll. We have the right to know, too. I have read the stuff too--I think he wishes it to happen. But it is a problem only if someone acts on it. Is he charismatic enough to send one of his biology students over the edge? That is a concern. If I were in that field though, I would certainly distance myself from him. And I would not ask him to speak at scientific meetings, particularly without videotape. It just seems a little Bohemian Groveish.

[Heidi]

29. Damn straight.

I believe he was speaking theoretically, as academics will do when speaking to other academics, and much of the inflamatory content of the Mims' original Citizen Scientist article was based on the Q & A portion of Dr. Pianka's speech.

[nashville_brook]

30. Town and Gown goes VIRAL --

university discourse is protected by things like TENURE in order for the "ACADEMY" to produce new intellectual growth. "Town and Gown" describes the natural conflict between a university and it's hometown. it's an historical fact that the two don't understand each other so well. this is a great example of that conflict -- gone VIRAL.

[Nihil]

31. Shhh!

You're being far too sensible, factual and realistic for this thread!

Don't you know you're supposed to believe any hype you read on the net
and react in the same rabid fashion as the next Fundamentalist anti-science
poster?

The resident ostriches seem to be more upset by a third-party opinion of
the speech and the fact that the hosting body shut down an unofficial
video of the event than the factual truth that there are too many people
on this planet for the species to remain viable. It is the human race
that is the destructive plague, not ebola or any other transient germ.

[Phoonzang]

32. Ignoring the ethical issues for a sec....

...isn't Pianka's approach just plain lazy? Instead of advocating the funding of science and technology to solve many of our problems and help future generations, you just wipe 90 percent of humanity out? It's like cutting your arm off because of a broken bone or an infection. Actually...it'd be more like cutting your head off to cure a headache.