Jewish Scientist Calls For Death of Humanity

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jewish_scientist_eric_pianka_calls_for_death_of_all_humanity/
Jewish Scientist Eric Pianka Calls For Death of all Humanity, minus Jews of Course

Information I hope is of interest to our community.

SCIENCE: Scientist calls for death to humanity
by John Ballantyne

A Texas scientist advocates killing nine-tenths of the world’s population by an airborne Ebola virus, writes John Ballantyne.

An award-winning Texas scientist was given a standing ovation after he advocated the extermination of 90 per cent of the Earth’s population by an airborne Ebola virus.

The University of Texas evolutionary ecologist, Dr Eric R. Pianka, was addressing the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont , Texas , in early March, after the academy had named him 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

Present at Pianka’s speech was Forrest M. Mim III, a popular science writer and editor of the bi-weekly journal, The Citizen Scientist. He reported:

“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 ... I grabbed a notepad ...” ("Meeting Doctor Doom”, The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006).

Pianka began his speech by condemning anthropocentrism, or the idea that the human race occupies a privileged position in nature. He exclaimed, “We’re no better than bacteria!”

He argued that the sharp increase in the human population since the onset of industrialisation was destroying the planet. He warned that Earth would not survive unless its human population was reduced to a tenth of its present number. Read the rest HERE

[...]

What is really needed is a kind of rotating, randomized moratorium on human conception, lasting several years.  I had this idea long before Children of Men.  It must rotate in some fashion, so as to give people hope, and it must be randomized in such a way that the human gene pool remains sufficiently diverse.

Reading "the vanishing book of life on earth" is interesting in a few ways, first, for its incredibly childish prose and layout, and secondly, for its diametrically contradictory stance on how humans ought to conceive of their environment.  Drawing on Deep Ecology (in order to save the environment, humans must see intrinsic value in other species and even in the earth itself, rather than simply being motivated to "save the environment" in order to save themselves- this opposing concept is called Instrumentalism), Pianka

But what is the underlying motivation for Pianka's call to reduce the human population?  Is it an intrinsic respect for other species?  No.  In one place, Pianka juxtaposes a crowded Chinese apartment building, and a lone chair on top of a hill.  "I'd rather be in the chair, wouldn't you?"  In another place, Pianka is at pains to stress that he is not "against" the human race.

The apartment/chair metaphor is where Pianka gets it right, precisely because he is honestly motivated by what he wants.  He fantasizes (as we ought) of a "spread out earth", with a lower, stable population.  All the time, at the back of his argument, he wishes to carve a comfortable space for the human species - the most important known object in existence, while shrouding this conceit in admittedly plausible doomsday scenarios.  We have a choice between two axioms (which scientists and historians are free to argue may be established rather than assumed). One, (to reiterate): the human race is the most important known object in existence.  The other, that we need to conceive of something outside of ourselves, in a very proscribed way, in order to effect "good conduct".  The former could be cast as atheistic, the latter as theistic.  Being atheistic, the former is to be preferred.

Species egoism is the only intellectually consistent approach.  The ultimate point of reducing the human population is to benefit the human population.  "Respecting the earth" is nothing more than incidental, as a result of fewer humans losing fewer plastic bags in the wind.

Feel free to end the last sentence of the first paragraph any way you want.

This would be a lot easier with

a) legalizing infanticide to age 2 (maybe lower, depending on when humans develop sentience)
b) 1 child policy, like China
c) tax breaks only for 0 children, instead of breaks for every child

>>5
Does anyone really doubt that 2-year olds are sentient?
You'd want some safety margin, and IMO you can't get it without setting a cutoff way before birth.

Some safety margin is reasonable, but no need to place it before birth.  Even after birth, they're less sentient than a dog (which is edible).  When's the last time you heard of a newborn that did something other than curling into a ball and crying/drinking milk/dying?

>>7
Humans are born with underdeveloped brains compared to most other animals, but the newborns learn faces and mimic facial expressions and hand movement in short order.
Not sure about how the progress goes from there, but IIRC memory sets in at around 6 months.

I probably wouldn't kill and eat a human that appeared to be about as sentient as a dog unless I was really hungry.

* Possibly Jewish Scientist Eric Pianka Calls For Death of all Humanity

<a href="http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=45623">AIR CANADA</a>
<a href="http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=42189">SpaceShipTwo</a>
<a href="http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=47215">aircraft</a>
<a href="http://kayanegypt.com/forum/t1691.html">Cairo demonstrations</a>

I like how he comes out at first condemning anthropocentrism which is an egotistical point of view that humans are central and most significant entities to everything in the universe which I don't have a problem with, but then begins adamantly stating that the elimination of 9/10 of the human population of the earth is necessary to save the earth from destruction. That's unethical which is also egotistical in nature to think he knows what's best for us and earth.

Wouldn't you consider this pseudo-scientist to have double standards? I think so.

i know people make these arguments more often than realized.
all retarded, tho.
Even if you forget ethics, WTF is the point of a better world if most people, and probably you, will not be around to enjoy it?
Hell yeah I'm anthropocentric, I'm a human, I like humans, I have the tendency to want to survive in competition with other species. It's part of being human.
Also, the thing that makes human civilization great is adapting to changes rapidly. It's what drives progress. If we shut ourselves up in our homes, and stop doing everything dangerous, we would stagnate and the human spirit would shrivel and die. The need for resources will drive us forward, and innovation will improve us. As if the only conclusion to lack of resources is kill everyone until there is no longer too little to go around all.

One child policy should be institutionalized in all countries, it is a necessity.

Other than this, the man is borderline insane.

>>13
not necessarily.
it should depend on how many resources used per capita in your state.

The only thing that I can do is tend to my own ego, it's up to the rest of humanity to choose whether to do the same or not.

he should lead by example.