Page 4 of 4
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:16 am
by sandy_mcd
First of all, I am not claiming that Pianka's remarks are true. I am just trying to show that Mims seriously misrepresented them.
August wrote:Dr Eric Pianka call for mass murder
Mims wrote:When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
What logical conclusions can be drawn from the above?
1) The vast majority of the scientists present (~400) are in favor of mass murder (and don't care who knows it).
2) Mims' account is not accurate.
3) Or?
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:32 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
I find this thread humerous. I need a good laugh now and then. Thank you Forrest Mims.
It seems that the blunt manor of speaking by some can be misinterpreted by others quite incorrectly. lol
Obviously Pianka wasn't advocating wiping out the human race. And his quote about bacteria wasn't meant to mean human beings are worthless little bugs, he was referring to the fact that our populations grows unfetterred.
You see in a petri dish bacteria will grow untill there are no resources left and then the entire population dies.
This is a warning, like a petri dish our Earth is finite, and if we do nothing we will eventually run out of resources and face a similar fate.
And if not our large populations will be the perfect breeding ground for a super bug. A large population allows for higher rates of transmission for diseases. This allows a more virulent form which would have a smaller window of transmission due to incubation period to be more viable.
For example ebola. An infection in the countryside would not go far as Ebola kills its victims within a week. There is only a 3-4 day window in which transmission can likely occur. Following which is a smaller window in which transmission can occur with the handling of the sick victim. In a crouded situation this picture changes dramatically. Add the mobility of the modern world to the picture and you have a situation where practically everyone in the modern world will succumb to this disease within weeks.
This is the situation about which Pianka spoke of. Then he went on to say that if nothing is done this is an eventuality. Some may see this as advocating the exterminitaion of the human race. But that is an incorrect interprertation made by those who are too concrete in their thoughts.
He is only stating that population control measures are in the interest of the human race as a whole. In the language of academia there is a greater emphasis on exactness of language than there is on being politically correct. It's quite silly to lash out at him because he wasn't more delicate in his explanation.
August you may have dissimilar beliefs and a different approach to this problem. However this should not matter. Approach and philosophy is not something to be argued about here. As I am sure you agree with him on the main point that humanity would be better off if there were a more sustainable population.
It's like refusing to build irrigation ditches because your a Republican but your partner is a Communist. Just build the ditch and everyone would be better off.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:51 am
by Canuckster1127
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I find this thread humerous. I need a good laugh now and then.
Obviously Pianka wasn't advocating wiping out the human race. And his quote about bacteria wasn't meant to mean human beings are worthless little bugs, he was referring to the fact that our populations grows unfetterred.
You see in a petri dish bacteria will grow untill there are no resources left and then the entire population dies.
This is a warning, like a petri dish our Earth is finite, and if we do nothing we will eventually run out of resources and face a similar fate.
August you may have dissimilar beliefs and a different approach to this problem. However this should not matter. Approach and philosophy is not something to be argued about here. As I am sure you agree with him on the main point that humanity would be better off if there were a more sustainable population.
It's like refusing to build irrigation ditches because your a Republican but your partner is a Communist. Just build the ditch and everyone would be better off.
I think there is some serious spinning going on here and that Pianka's statements are being taken to their worst extreme.
That being said, I think there are some disturbing elements to what he said and what it reflects in terms of a value system. There's no question that there are legitimate concerns to be raised in terms of mankind's susceptability to some form of plague.
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:50 pm
by August
No doubt everyone has seen this:
Subj:Petition
Date:4/10/2006
Time: 1:49:37 PM CST
To: President and Board of Directors of the Texas Academy of Science
Attached is a response I sent to Dr. Kathryn Perez regarding the allegation that Forrest Mims misrepresented the content of the keynote address at the recent TAS meeting. A lot of the cc's listed in Dr. Perez's original message failed to get through, so I am resending.
Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the contents of the keynote address, and should be commended for openly expressing his concerns - many of us out here feel exactly the same way.
Hope these comments are helpful.
Dr. Kenneth R. Summy
Department of Biology
University of Texas, Pan American
Dear Dr. Perez:
I attended the presentation given by Dr. Eric Pianka at the recent TAS meeting in Beaumont. While academic freedom is fine, distinguished scientists delivering keynote addresses at scientific meetings have a responsibility to their audience (and the society they are representing) to do so in a manner that is not unduly offensive to anyone present. My overall impression of Dr. Pianka's presentation was a “doomsday” message that life on earth is about to end, and the sooner the human population crashes the better. I hope he was joking or being sarcastic when he stated that a pandemic of ebola virus would be great for the earth ? no sane person would really believe that. Also, at least two statements made during the presentation essentially constituted a direct attack on a major religious leader (the Pope), which was completely uncalled for. Dr. Pianka chose to deliver an inflammatory message in his keynote address, so he should not be surprised to be the recipient of a lot of criticism from TAS membership.
Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the presentation. I heard these statements myself, and would be willing to bet that most of the audience attending the presentation got the same impression that I did. In my opinion, the message contained in the keynote address detracted from what was otherwise an excellent meeting.
Thanks for your time.
Dr. Kenneth R. Summy
Department of Biology
University of Texas, Pan American
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:06 pm
by sandy_mcd
No, I hadn't seen this; thanks for posting.
August quoting Summy wrote:Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the presentation. ... I ... would be willing to bet that most of the audience attending the presentation got the same impression that I did.
August wrote:Dr Eric Pianka call for mass murder
Mims wrote:When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
Why such a response? This makes even less sense now.
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:50 pm
by August
sandy_mcd wrote:No, I hadn't seen this; thanks for posting.
August quoting Summy wrote:Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the presentation. ... I ... would be willing to bet that most of the audience attending the presentation got the same impression that I did.
August wrote:Dr Eric Pianka call for mass murder
Mims wrote:When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
Why such a response? This makes even less sense now.
I guess my only answer is that we were not there, so what are the options?
1. Mims misrepresented what was said, or I misrepresented Mims conclusion
2. Mims is right, and those who applauded agree with Pianka, and his conclusions
3. There is some truth in both, with both sides playing the extreme
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:15 pm
by Canuckster1127
August wrote:sandy_mcd wrote:No, I hadn't seen this; thanks for posting.
August quoting Summy wrote:Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the presentation. ... I ... would be willing to bet that most of the audience attending the presentation got the same impression that I did.
August wrote:Dr Eric Pianka call for mass murder
Mims wrote:When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
Why such a response? This makes even less sense now.
I guess my only answer is that we were not there, so what are the options?
1. Mims misrepresented what was said, or I misrepresented Mims conclusion
2. Mims is right, and those who applauded agree with Pianka, and his conclusions
3. There is some truth in both, with both sides playing the extreme
Well. I've made clear where I stand and I certainly don't agree with Pianka.
I suspect, as is common with college professors, especially those who are cynics and trying to appeal to their profession and students as avant garde, there was a pretty significant tongue in cheek element to what he was saying and those present were able to pick up on it better than those hearing it second hand and it would perhaps be lost as well in a transcript.
Doesn't excuse it necessarily, but it may help explain it.
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:32 pm
by August
Canuckster1127 wrote:August wrote:sandy_mcd wrote:No, I hadn't seen this; thanks for posting.
August quoting Summy wrote:Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the presentation. ... I ... would be willing to bet that most of the audience attending the presentation got the same impression that I did.
August wrote:Dr Eric Pianka call for mass murder
Mims wrote:When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
Why such a response? This makes even less sense now.
I guess my only answer is that we were not there, so what are the options?
1. Mims misrepresented what was said, or I misrepresented Mims conclusion
2. Mims is right, and those who applauded agree with Pianka, and his conclusions
3. There is some truth in both, with both sides playing the extreme
Well. I've made clear where I stand and I certainly don't agree with Pianka.
I suspect, as is common with college professors, especially those who are cynics and trying to appeal to their profession and students as avant garde, there was a pretty significant tongue in cheek element to what he was saying and those present were able to pick up on it better than those hearing it second hand and it would perhaps be lost as well in a transcript.
Doesn't excuse it necessarily, but it may help explain it.
Yes, but I still believe my original point to be valid, if you believe, like Pianka, that all life on earth is the result of purely naturalistic processes, then Pianka's remarks are consistent with that worldview. What should be under discussion is the validity of Pianka's worldview, not the somewhat sensational conclusions, and for me, that is what is missing from the debate.
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:05 pm
by sandy_mcd
August wrote:Yes, but I still believe my original point to be valid, if you believe, like Pianka, that all life on earth is the result of purely naturalistic processes, then Pianka's remarks are consistent with that worldview. What should be under discussion is the validity of Pianka's worldview, not the somewhat sensational conclusions, and for me, that is what is missing from the debate.
True, but I suspect that would be an even more fruitless discussion. [And the style of Pianka's remarks and the subsequent furor have gone a long way to making such a discussion difficult.]
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:09 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:Yes, but I still believe my original point to be valid, if you believe, like Pianka, that all life on earth is the result of purely naturalistic processes, then Pianka's remarks are consistent with that worldview. What should be under discussion is the validity of Pianka's worldview, not the somewhat sensational conclusions, and for me, that is what is missing from the debate.
There are good people and immoral people regardless of ideology.
Re: Dr. Doom, or the logical moral consequence of evolution?
Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:09 pm
by August
sandy_mcd wrote:True, but I suspect that would be an even more fruitless discussion. [And the style of Pianka's remarks and the subsequent furor have gone a long way to making such a discussion difficult.]
Why do you think that would be a fruitless discussion?
Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:21 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
http://www.geocities.com/tetrahedronome ... -mims.html
Since it has been claimed that Pianka's views were misrepresented by his opponents...are we now going to say that his supporters misrepresent his views as well?
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.
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:17 pm
by Totoro
AttentionKMart Ive been readin through your posts and you remind me of something this guy once told me.
You either think like me or your evil or confused.
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:05 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Totoro wrote:
AttentionKMart Ive been readin through your posts and you remind me of something this guy once told me.
You either think like me or your evil or confused.
Totoro, you're such a sweet talker. But I'm uncomfortable when people flirt with me online, please don't do it.
Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:21 pm
by Totoro
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Totoro wrote:
AttentionKMart Ive been readin through your posts and you remind me of something this guy once told me.
You either think like me or your evil or confused.
Don't flatter yourself.
Totoro, you're such a sweet talker. But I'm uncomfortable when people flirt with me online, please don't do it.