Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

If we help those in need in developing countries by providing medicine and food, we will help many who would have surely perished to reach adulthood.

At this point we have several options.
Continue supporting them, or discontinue this support leaving this population to fend for themselves.

If we are to continue to support them the result would be a new generation of people who also would require support.

If we are to ignore them the result would be disasterous as this population will be dependant on outside help.

The truth of the matter is a large dense population is a destabilizing situation. A dense population allows for the faster emergence of diseases, and also allows more virulent diseases to exist(sustainability being a factor of communication which is a factor of host availability).

Yet to ignore countless individuals who are suffering will leave a pall of guilt over the more affluent societies.

The question should not be are lizards better than human beings, but are certain human beings better than other human beings. We in the United States consume a disproportionate share of natural resources. This isn't necessary for survival, it isn;t necessary at all. It is an excess.

Would you be willing to give up your creature comforts so that those who suffer can have a chance at life? August I am sure you reject Communism and Socialism. Yet at the same time I am sure you want to help those who are suffering.

But helping them at ones convenience does not solve any problems, Infact as described above it makes the situation worse. This is a luke-warm approach to this moral dillema.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The sad thing is this guy teaches at my college. He looks like a hippie as well.

[sandy_mcd]

He looks like a hippie as well.

? http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/moses.html

[bluesman]

The truth of the matter is a large dense population is a destabilizing situation. A dense population allows for the faster emergence of diseases,

True in a sense, but also other factors have an important play.
Take a place like New York , now that fairly dense, yet disease ther is not
destabilizing. Why? Money, standard of living, technology,climate, genetics, and so other factors.

We could also look at China, but its a mixed bag and we flu and SARS from there.

I believe the bible teaches that God has provided us with all that we need if we would live by his ways. I believe the cures for all disease is available, if we put in place the resources to find it.

Mike

[August]

Would you be willing to give up your creature comforts so that those who suffer can have a chance at life? August I am sure you reject Communism and Socialism. Yet at the same time I am sure you want to help those who are suffering.

But helping them at ones convenience does not solve any problems, Infact as described above it makes the situation worse. This is a luke-warm approach to this moral dillema.

You are right that it is a moral dilemma, and there are so many issues contained in this that one hardly knows where to start. I am from Africa, as you well know, and there you do not only face poverty and disease, but a cultural system that values children. The thinking in most of sub-Saharan Africa is that children are the retirement policy for their parents, the more children they have, the more wealth they are perceived to have, and also a higher likelyhood of being well taken care of when they get old. Also, in some of those cultured women are not allowed to refuse men, and that results in more children. Also, due to the huge disconnect between the political will and economic and social systems, the opportunities for improvement are small.

I did in some cases see the benefits of education, but obviously it is hard to break thousands of years worth of traditions. I afraid I don't have an elegant answer. Life expectancy in most SSA countries is below 40 due to AIDS, malaria, and TB, and not getting better.

I do have to point out one thing to you, the importation of communism and socialism in lieu of the traditional African tribal systems caused widespread havoc there. There simply is not enough resources to have governments assume the responsibility, and even when they do, corruption and theft almost certainly assures that the aid never reaches those who it was intended for. The hands-on work done by organizations such as Worldvision makes a small difference, and is probably the most effective way of helping those in need that I observed. The biggest mess I saw was the communist takeover of Mozambique, it decimated one of the most beautiful countries on earth. If I have to be totally politically incorrect, I would even venture to say that some places in Africa were better off under colonialism.

[bluesman]

August , Where in Africa did you say you was from?
What made you move to Texas?

I spent some months in West Africa. What I would say is that it would be best to get investment funds in the hands of local people. Its not easy but its best to bypass corrupt governments. I knew of local people that had great business ideas but no funds to carry it out.

Another thing I say was the ability of some to make beutiful clothes. The quality of clothing (as far as a persons best dress) was superior to what we have in the west.

As far as governments go I think there are trade barriers that need to be broken down.

Also I would say there is a lack of highly qualified volunteers from developed countries to implement programs to train locals to train themselves.

I know there is a shortage of ministers for the growing Christian population in some areas.

I would like to hear more of your story.

Mike
Bluesman

[August]

Mike, I'd rather not get into too much detail in a public forum, if you don't mind. I will say that I grew up, and have family in 3 Southern African countries. You have already seen that I have family in Mozambique. I also lived in Namibia and South Africa. I got to travel in many other African countries too, both big and small.

Leaving Africa was hard, but the right thing to do for my childrens future.

[sandy_mcd]

Sandy, I'm interested to know why you are defending Pianka.

This thread seems to have split into two. I will address the easy part now and do the other later.

The primary reason I am defending Pianka is that I dislike injustice and unfairness. As well as I can judge, all the evidence to date points to a deliberate and malicious attack by Mims against Pianka.
The minor reason is that it bothers me that reasonable people can come to such different conclusions.

Mims' writings have ignited a wave of disgust and concern about Pianka and science and scientists. It is one more issue fueling the polarization of the US and shows no sign of abating. The Governor of Texas has likened Pianka's views to Hitler's (Dembski). And as far as I can tell, Pianka's views are not significantly different in practice than yours (see your post about the situation in Africa in the recent poll) (the difference between his thoughts originating from an atheistic viewpoint and yours from a Christian one are part two).

Summary:
Mims claims that Pianka gleefully advocates the extermination of 90% of the earth's population, preferably by airborne Ebola.
Pianka claims he was just warning that something like that will happen unless we control our population and resources.

Who is telling the truth, or is closer to the truth?

1) Brenna McConnell (a liberal Christian based on blogs prior to the controversy at her now defunct site) supports Pianka's view point.

2) So does Kathyrn Perez, a scientist who attended writes Mims "has blantantly and dishonestly mischaracterized Dr. Pianka's statements".

3) The best evidence comes from Mims' own account:

a)"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 event is curious in retrospect only and we are fortunate that Mims witnessed it (assuming it occurred). The "animated conversation", "camera operator did not look pleased" as he "slowly walked away". This evokes a sense of forboding, as music does in movies. But it doesn't appear to make much sense.
Why is the cameraman upset? He wouldn't know that the next speech would create such a commotion. I imagine most cameramen would find the scientific proceedings boring and be thrilled to get a break to go out and get some fresh air or whatever. When filming, he would presumably concentrate on that rather than actually listen to the talk, so he would be a better witness without having to worry about doing his job. Even if he knew what he could have filmed, the tape would be the property of the TAS and not his so the only thing he could do would be to try to make an illegal copy (when?). (Much as Mims illegally recorded a private conversation without consent.)

b) Scientists are assumed to be inhuman. If Pianka had actually called for killing the bulk of the population, would almost the entire audience of 400 enthusiastically support such a proposal? "Immediately almost every scientist, professor and college student present stood to their feet and vigorously applauded the man who had enthusiastically endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population. Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern to extend greetings and ask questions." Doesn't this sound even the least bit incongruous?

4) If I had spent 20 or 30 years of my life studying something, say taxodium distichum, and someone else came up and said that they all ought to be burned as being utterly useless, I would be strongly tempted to say (instead of trying to explain why I felt otherwise), "And what precisely are you good for?" [You might be able to get more context from the transcript(s) of the talk, although the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise has deleted all trace of their coverage.] This seems to be just one more instance of Mims taking something out of context and making it sound sinister.

[August]

Sandy, I'm interested to know why you are defending Pianka.

This thread seems to have split into two. I will address the easy part now and do the other later.

The primary reason I am defending Pianka is that I dislike injustice and unfairness. As well as I can judge, all the evidence to date points to a deliberate and malicious attack by Mims against Pianka.
The minor reason is that it bothers me that reasonable people can come to such different conclusions.

Mims' writings have ignited a wave of disgust and concern about Pianka and science and scientists. It is one more issue fueling the polarization of the US and shows no sign of abating. The Governor of Texas has likened Pianka's views to Hitler's (Dembski). And as far as I can tell, Pianka's views are not significantly different in practice than yours (see your post about the situation in Africa in the recent poll) (the difference between his thoughts originating from an atheistic viewpoint and yours from a Christian one are part two).

I can assure you, my views and that of Pianka's are lightyears apart. I have never advocated that humans are worth the same as bacteria, I have never advocated that the world will be better off with 90% of humans dead and I certainly have never advocated men becoming gods. Please do not state that I am in any sort of agreement with him.

Feel free to defend those statements of Pianka, or is it unfair of me to read the context of his speech according to his worldview?

As for the rest of your argument, fair enough, it is your right to decide who you choose to believe. It is not only Mims from the scientific community who has taken issue with Pianka, there are quite a few. You choose to believe his supporters. Do you honestly think they will do anything but support him? It is interesting that you want to include Pianka with all of science and all scientists. I think that proves my earlier point, if you call out someone considered a mainstream evolutionary scientist on some immoral statements, you will suffer the indignation of the rest of the evolutionary scientific community.

Not one of us were present at the meeting, and there are no complete transcripts of what was said. I find it a little curious that if Mims is wrong and misrepresenting what Pianka said, why has not one of the 400 enthusiastic supporters there stepped forward with a precise account of what was said, or better yet, a transcript of his speech? Surely that will remove all doubt, and show Mims to be insincere and pushing an unfair agenda? Instead, there seems to be damage control and censorship going on

Even if he knew what he could have filmed, the tape would be the property of the TAS and not his so the only thing he could do would be to try to make an illegal copy (when?). (Much as Mims illegally recorded a private conversation without consent.)

If it turns out that Mims did misrepresent Pianka, then I will look like a doofus and feel like one too. I have not yet seen anything that convinces me that he did, even if you feel that he was trying to create a sinister atmosphere with his writing style.

[sandy_mcd]

I certainly have never advocated men becoming gods.
Feel free to defend those statements of Pianka, or is it unfair of me to read the context of his speech according to his worldview?

OK, let me pick one. First, please provide some evidence that Pianka advocated men becoming gods and also define what you mean by "god" in this context.

As for the rest of your argument, fair enough, it is your right to decide who you choose to believe.

I'm not "choosing", I am trying to look at the facts available and figure out what happened.

I find it a little curious that if Mims is wrong and misrepresenting what Pianka said, why has not one of the 400 enthusiastic supporters there stepped forward with a precise account of what was said, or better yet, a transcript of his speech?

Perez for one has commented; see my last post. As far as why none of the 400 has a transcript, are you serious? What percentage of talks which you have attended as an audience member have you generated a transcript for? Actually many scientists do not seem even to be aware of this controversy. [None that I asked around here had ever even heard of Pianka.] Also my brother hasn't and he is about as right-wing a Catholic as you can find. [And do you think most people would care anyhow what some other scientist said?] Pianka may enjoy expressing things outrageously, but I don't think most scientists would be happy being a lightning rod for public indignation.

I have not yet seen anything that convinces me that he did, even if you feel that he was trying to create a sinister atmosphere with his writing style.

Since you didn't specifically comment, I am assuming you think the cameraman scenario sounds perfectly logical and most scientists agree with killing off the majority of humanity.

[sandy_mcd]

It is not only Mims from the scientific community who has taken issue with Pianka, there are quite a few.

Who? [Other than Dembski and the DI (they're not even part of the scientific community).] And do they agree Pianka wants Ebola to kill most people?

[sandy_mcd]

It is not only Mims from the scientific community who has taken issue with Pianka, there are quite a few.

Who? [Other than Dembski and the DI (they're not even part of the scientific community).] And do they agree Pianka wants Ebola to kill most people?

Sorry, let me rephrase that. What member(s) of the scientific community, defined howsoever you like, has taken issue with Pianka, based on something other than Mims' report?

[August]

OK, let me pick one. First, please provide some evidence that Pianka advocated men becoming gods and also define what you mean by "god" in this context.

Pianka hopes this experience does just that. "We could be gods," he said. "We could be such great stewards of the Earth."

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/n ... IANKA.html

Why do I need to define what "gods" are in this context? It is clear that he advocates humans as having absolute control over life and death.

I'm not "choosing", I am trying to look at the facts available and figure out what happened.

Right, but so far you have quoted from his supporters only. How is that just looking at the facts? I have quoted him extensively, and quoted from his student feedback pages.

Perez for one has commented; see my last post. As far as why none of the 400 has a transcript, are you serious? What percentage of talks which you have attended as an audience member have you generated a transcript for? Actually many scientists do not seem even to be aware of this controversy. [None that I asked around here had ever even heard of Pianka.] Also my brother hasn't and he is about as right-wing a Catholic as you can find. [And do you think most people would care anyhow what some other scientist said?] Pianka may enjoy expressing things outrageously, but I don't think most scientists would be happy being a lightning rod for public indignation.

I could not determine whether Perez was actually at the talk or not. Thte fact that she generated the petition letter does not mean she was there. Even if she was, her petition letter is nothing more than an attack on Mims, as opposed to explaining what was actually said.

In general, every professional conference that I attend make available a copy of the proceedings. I would think there are abstracts and transcripts available of all lectures given at the TAS conference, including that of the "Distinguished Scientist", it is one of the mechanisms for peer review.

Like this:

Morton, K., Coats, T., Walter, R.B., and J.H. Stuy (1991) "The predicted amino acid sequence of Heamophilus influenzae mutB1 gene suggests it codes for a DNA helicase". In: Proceedings of the Texas Academy of Science, D. Lokke (ed.), P.O. Box 835288, Richardson, TX. 75083.

Since you didn't specifically comment, I am assuming you think the cameraman scenario sounds perfectly logical and most scientists agree with killing off the majority of humanity.

Well, there you go again in lumping Pianka with "all scientists". If you are going to keep on ascribing silly things to me, I see no need to continue the conversation.

Is there a video of the acceptance speech of the Distinguished Scientist or not? If so, where is it, and why has it not been released to vindicate Pianka? If there is not, was Mims right or not?

[August]

OK, let me pick one. First, please provide some evidence that Pianka advocated men becoming gods and also define what you mean by "god" in this context.

Pianka hopes this experience does just that. "We could be gods," he said. "We could be such great stewards of the Earth."

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/n ... IANKA.html

Why do I need to define what "gods" are in this context? It is clear that he advocates humans as having absolute control over life and death.

I'm not "choosing", I am trying to look at the facts available and figure out what happened.

Right, but so far you have quoted from his supporters only. How is that just looking at the facts? I have quoted him extensively, and quoted from his student feedback pages.

Perez for one has commented; see my last post. As far as why none of the 400 has a transcript, are you serious? What percentage of talks which you have attended as an audience member have you generated a transcript for? Actually many scientists do not seem even to be aware of this controversy. [None that I asked around here had ever even heard of Pianka.] Also my brother hasn't and he is about as right-wing a Catholic as you can find. [And do you think most people would care anyhow what some other scientist said?] Pianka may enjoy expressing things outrageously, but I don't think most scientists would be happy being a lightning rod for public indignation.

I could not determine whether Perez was actually at the talk or not. Thte fact that she generated the petition letter does not mean she was there. Even if she was, her petition letter is nothing more than an attack on Mims, as opposed to explaining what was actually said.

In general, every professional conference that I attend make available a copy of the proceedings. I would think there are abstracts and transcripts available of all lectures given at the TAS conference, including that of the "Distinguished Scientist", it is one of the mechanisms for peer review.

Like this:

Morton, K., Coats, T., Walter, R.B., and J.H. Stuy (1991) "The predicted amino acid sequence of Heamophilus influenzae mutB1 gene suggests it codes for a DNA helicase". In: Proceedings of the Texas Academy of Science, D. Lokke (ed.), P.O. Box 835288, Richardson, TX. 75083.

Since you didn't specifically comment, I am assuming you think the cameraman scenario sounds perfectly logical and most scientists agree with killing off the majority of humanity.

Well, there you go again in lumping Pianka with "all scientists". If you are going to keep on ascribing silly things to me, I see no need to continue the conversation.

Is there a video of the acceptance speech of the Distinguished Scientist or not? If so, where is it, and why has it not been released to vindicate Pianka? If there is not, was Mims right or not?

[sandy_mcd]

This seems to be diffusing out so I will comment on the questions August raises but I will put just one point in my next post. These are supporting details but not the main issue. No response is expected unless anyone wants to continue; all questions are rhetorical.

Pianka hopes this experience does just that. "We could be gods," he said. "We could be such great stewards of the Earth." ... Why do I need to define what "gods" are in this context? It is clear that he advocates humans as having absolute control over life and death.

[Stewards of the earth? I've read that before.] Let's drop the "absolute". Seen many passenger pigeons lately? Whooping cranes? Dodos? Genetically modified foods? Humans pretty much have control over what many non-microscopic animals/plants get to live on the Earth, through our decisions (and doing nothing is a decision). In that sense we are "gods" - not almighty gods but certainly more powerful than penates, for example.

Right, but so far you have quoted from his supporters only. How is that just looking at the facts? I have quoted him extensively, and quoted from his student feedback pages.

I have tried to see what people who were there had to say. I can't find any quotes from you about his feedback (so what if some of his students think of him as a "god" - I doubt they mean that literally).

I could not determine whether Perez was actually at the talk or not.
Thte fact that she generated the petition letter does not mean she was there. Even if she was, her petition letter is nothing more than an attack on Mims, as opposed to explaining what was actually said.

People I have looked at:
1) Brenna McConnell - student referenced by Mims, had blog, was there, disagrees.
2) Kathryn Perez - a look at the program shows she was scheduled for a talk that morning (it kept locking up my computer the last few days). She has started a petition to censure Mims and is gathering signatures, although I have no idea what the status is (Dembski). She pretty clearly said she disagrees with Mims' account.

In general, every professional conference that I attend make available a copy of the
proceedings. I would think there are abstracts and transcripts available of all lectures given at the TAS conference, including that of the "Distinguished Scientist", it is one of the mechanisms for peer review.

August has no doubt attended more conferences than I, but I disagree with this. [I don't have time to verify all of these statements.]What do the proceedings contain? In the sciences, it is not standard to publish all the talks given. And how much later do proceedings get published? Surely not within a month. Perhaps now if people use powerpoint there may be more of this, but I doubt it. The abstracts are published in advance and may not correspond with what actually is presented. (Perez' is available online.) There is no abstract for Pianka; presumably because his talk was not a standard speech but an award acceptance and he did not have to apply with an abstract. There were several parallel sessions under different fields, but no opposing talks to Pianka - all sessions listed him as speaker. Abstracts and transcripts as mechanisms for peer review? Listening to the talks and asking questions may be, but scanning abstracts or proceedings is not. If anyone cares, I can check with some people who go to conferences if I am told what to ask them. It sounds like things are a lot more organized in August's field. A friend of mine is a secretary for someone who literally (and I do mean this literally) has been known to be scribbling on overheads while he is being introduced as a speaker.
3) Mims - I quoted him mostly.
4) James Pitts - no evidence he was there (not in program), too common a name for me to find out anything, his comments weren't all that significant.
5) Jamie Mobley - I didn't realize the reporter was there, but he mostly let Mims and Pianka speak for themselves.

I am assuming you think ... most scientists agree with killing off the majority of humanity.

Well, there you go again in lumping Pianka with "all scientists". If you are going to keep on ascribing silly things to me, I see no need to continue the conversation.

I apologize if I have offended August. Believe me, as someone who cannot type and doesn't think clearly and spends lots of time going over the same material, I wouldn't be wasting my time doing this if all I wanted to do was insult August. [I don't even know what part he thinks is silly.] [By the way, I wrote "most scientists" referring to the bulk of the audience at Pianka's talk.]

Is there a video of the acceptance speech of the Distinguished Scientist or not? If so, where is it, and why has it not been released to vindicate Pianka? If there is not, was Mims right or not?

No clue. No idea. I doubt he is.

I was asked why I only quoted from Pianka's supporters. Anyhow, here are some remarks from a couple of websites which criticize Pianka (obviously not chosen at random): [Sections in italics are cut and pasted; normal text are my comments.]

1) http://atlantarofters.blogspot.com/2006 ... hropy.html
Atlanta ROFTERS Being the reactions of a reader of the conservative Catholic journal First Things to the many fine articles to be found therein. SOCIALISM IS THE RELIGION PEOPLE GET WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR RELIGION I am ... a frequent commenter at several blogs, mostly on the right-wing side of the blogosphere.
Academic Misanthropy Second-hand word of mouth, aka this fine piece of improptu citizen journalism, has it that a prominent scientist wished for the extermination of most of humanity by means of the Ebola virus. ...
Update, page has been edited to include:
README: I have received satisfactory proof that the events that this post treats are not supported by facts. Read the updates at the bottom first. I'm leaving the post up as a standing caution to myself and like-minded passersby. Thanks to commenter The Polite Liberal for the links. What a waste of perfectly serviceable purple prose...
Well, I must confess that I had a hand in spreading this wild rumor, on my own blog, because it didn't seem so wild at first glance to me. I've heard as bad if not worse from academics—but I was wrong in this case, and I admit it.
Ah, Catholics aren't really Christians anyway.

2) http://telicthoughts.com/?p=633 Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.
Pianka apparently adopts a metaphysical view of reality that is hostile to human existence, arguing, “We're no better than bacteria!” According to Mims, Pianka advocates sterilization and complains about smarter people having fewer kids. These are eugenicist arguments (you can them see documented here. ). But what is most disturbing is that Pianka actually expresses glee at the thought of my children (and your children) dying from a torturous infectious disease (while preaching about “uncaring” people). What's more, it looks like Pianka actually got a standing ovation from the scientific community after advocating his anti-human views.
Well, I'd say it's Decree time. The scientific community has shown an eagerness and willingness to publicly dissociate themselves from such dangerous radicals as Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe. If the faculty at University of Texas do not write up and sign off on a decree that dissociates themselves from Pianka and his views, doesn't the justification for the anti-ID decrees kick in? That is, shouldn't we assume that most faculty at the University of Texas support Pianka's anti-human views?
Oops, I did it again.
A Promise
by MikeGene
What a difference a week makes. Last week, when the Forrest Mims's story about Dr. Pianka's speech to the Texas Academy of Science broke, some of us at Telic Thoughts were among the many bloggers who commented on it with insufficient skepticism. Although we did not repeat or defend the accusation that Dr. Pianka advocated genocide, we did say that he expressed glee at the thought of 90% of humanity dying of Ebola. Although there was independent evidence that supported this interpretation at the time, hindsight tells us that we should have demanded much stronger evidence given the nature of the accusations.
Since then, a partial transcript of the speech has come out. While the transcript does support some of Mims's account, and shows that Dr. Pianka's speech was a mixture of some rather extreme ideology and science, it fails to support the most egregious accusation. Because of this, and because of the nature of the accusation, we feel forced to conclude that Mims's report is premised on a terrible misunderstanding and misjudgment.
We do feel sympathy for Dr. Pianka for all the stress, accusations, and vicious labels he has had to endure because of this story. It's hard to imagine what it would feel like to have thousands of people accusing you of advocating genocide. We do not feel any sympathy for those who reported Dr. Pianka to the Department for Homeland Security or those who sent him death threats.
The next time the media circulates an accusation that has the potential to do serious real-world harm to a person's reputation, we promise to treat such accounts with extreme skepticism and caution. We invite our readers, both friendly and unfriendly, to hold us to this promise.