Too many humans

[quinton]

betsy:

Africans go extinct without Western aid?

I doubt it.

I liked your last post, but just be careful to back up your statements with good reason or fact.

[quinton]

I decided to spread the news and started a topic on this similar forum:

http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14533

There were some interesting comments there.

Check it out.

[geoffrey]

So how do we eliminate 90% of the population quinton?

[quinton]

I said that we'd all be better off if 90% of us somehow died off.

This would allow us to avert the tragic mistake of more species extinctions.

This is also what Dr. Eric Pianka has said in his article.

I did not say I had a good way of reducing the human population to 10% of present levels.

There is no good way until the public recognizes the need.

There could be economic incentives. There could be government programs for voluntary sterilization that would pay you big money to get sterilized.

There could be a stop to immigration so that third world countries could not continue to overbreed and export their stock to the consumptive nations.

None of this will work at present because the public is too enthralled in the economy, working 40+ hours a week, watching professional sports, entertaining themselves, shopping at the mall, etc.

The public would have to recognize the problem.

Humans have a history of not recognizing a problem until its already too late.

I stand firm that the problem of overpopulation and its continued growth caused by the counter-productive goal of every country on earth: (economic growth) is the biggest, worst, most serious problem in the world.

This problem should be on the minds of everyone and solutions should be debated and presented daily on the news and all possible means of communication.

The best we can do is tell all of our friends and family why we are losing so much wilderness, why we are losing so many species to extinction, why our climate is changing, and what we can do to educate others.

The problem lies in the goal of economic growth which entails having more people to consume more resources.

This is a very dangerous goal, as resources per capita gradually approaches zero.

[betsy]

betsy:

Africans go extinct without Western aid?

I doubt it.

I liked your last post, but just be careful to back up your statements with good reason or fact.

Why do you doubt it? Without western intervention, they do their own cleansing. And those who survive the cleansing, or who materialize as the dominant tribe...well, diseases and AIDS...and starvation will cull the rest. Of course their wild-life will go first.

Can you please explain why that is not a possibility...without any intervention whatsoever from other nations?

[betsy]

I said that we'd all be better off if 90% of us somehow died off.

This would allow us to avert the tragic mistake of more species extinctions.

This is also what Dr. Eric Pianka has said in his article.

I did not say I had a good way of reducing the human population to 10% of present levels.

There is no good way until the public recognizes the need.

90%.....

You have no good way right now, but what happens if we have a public convinced, and panicked to the point of fanaticism over this theory of Pianka...don't you think "good ways" for the "good of the world" will be found?

So whom should we eliminate?

Do we start with those whom we don't count as productive...those whom we find to be "liabilities" and "burdens" of mankind?

The mentally/physically retarded...the handicapped, the elderlies....children with any genetic defects, etc.

Then we target nations. Big, rich, powerful countires pow-wow together to decide which countires to let go adrift on their own? Or worse.

I don't know, Quinton. But given the choice of supporting the stark hidden implication on what Pianka is saying (reminds me of Soylent Green or any horror-driven sci-fi)...I'd rather see the whole world die off on its own. I cannot say "let nature takes its course"...since nature has no firm grasp on this anymore. So let mankind face its own consequence....let it reap its own just reward.

[quinton]

betsy, I feel like I'm having to repeat myself.

I never said the solution was to kill any of the living.

There should never be a cull of humans in my opinion.

I think humans should be given money as an incentive to get sterilized so that they cannot breed.

If the money is great enough, then enough people will do it and the world's problems can be solved.

The people who must procreate will have to work much harder.

I also think immigration should be stopped in most cases.

[betsy]

I googled Eric Pianka...never heard of him actually til you mentioned him. I got two link here...one from his own website...and a feedback from one of those who'd read about him.

WHAT NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR, BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW

Eric R. Pianka

I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html

------------------------------

April 2, 2006

ERIC PIANKA: THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY NEEDS TO INTERVIEW YOU

I blogged yesterday about UTAustin professor Eric Pianka (aka “Dr. Doom”) and his advocacy of killing 90% of the world’s human population with airborne Ebola. Could Pianka be charged with terrorism/conspiracy to commit a terrorist act? What happens if a student actually takes his suggestion to heart and kills a bunch of people? Why shouldn’t we think that Dr. Doom himself would commit the act of human destruction he is advocating? How is what he is saying any different from somebody at an airport saying that he plans to plant a bomb there. Note: This is not a matter of saying he actually has planted a bomb but saying that he plans to plant one — that surely would be enough in the current climate to get him arrested. So what about Pianka? At what point do his remarks advocating human destruction constitute a terrorist threat that get him arrested? And if not arrested, how about committed?

As soon as this is posted, I’m going to have a chat with the Department of Homeland Security. [Called them — They are aware of it; it will be interesting to see if they do anything about it.] For your information, I’ve posted an article below by a reporter who was there at Pianka’s remarks (AP refused to pick up the story, so the page is presently overloaded).

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/984

[betsy]

betsy, I feel like I'm having to repeat myself.

I never said the solution was to kill any of the living.

There should never be a cull of humans in my opinion.

I think humans should be given money as an incentive to get sterilized so that they cannot breed.

If the money is great enough, then enough people will do it and the world's problems can be solved.

The people who must procreate will have to work much harder.

I also think immigration should be stopped in most cases.

But in the mean-time, what do we do with the rest we've got???

[quinton]

Educate them, teach them to not reproduce. Teach them about loss of biodiversity.