A highly regarded figure in the science community, Pianka is no stranger to crowded rooms and eager listeners. With 38 years of teaching, writing and speaking about his extensive research, there’s little wonder why.

“I’m up to my eyeballs in reporters,” he said, referring to public outcry in wake of what he calls his “doomsday talk” — a lecture in which Pianka confidently predicts 90 percent of humanity is on an irreversible path to death in the not-so-distant future.

http://www.seguingazette.com/story.lasso?ewcd=bb5a122cfbeab898&page=all

In his estimation, "We've grown fat, apathetic and miserable," all the while leaving the planet parched.

The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html

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.

Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it's too late.

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

[ This is all obvious: for us to have a nice quality of life, we need a half billion people on the planet. No one wanted to stop the profit from new people though, because our economy is a giant Ponzi scheme dependent on new mouths. So we overgrew, and now, we've created a taboo about discussing this issue because we fear instability. All lies, and until we fix it, our doom is assured. ]

Ok, let's start with the Scientist! Then move on the the state of Texas!!!

He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it's too late.

Is this guy an idiot? This is the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist? Damn. But then again, that state is home to the Bush clan. What can you expect?

A highly regarded figure in the science community, Pianka is no stranger to crowded rooms and eager listeners. With 38 years of teaching, writing and speaking about his extensive research, there’s little wonder why.

Journalism: 'extensive research'...let's translate that in reality
Let's Pubmed his name:
Pianka ER, Sweet SS. Integrative biology of sticky feet in geckos.
Bioessays. 2005 Jun;27(6):647-52.

2: Vitt LJ, Pianka ER. Deep history impacts present-day ecology and biodiversity.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 31;102(22):7877-81. Epub 2005 May 2.

3: Jennings WB, Pianka ER, Donnellan S. Systematics of the lizard family pygopodidae with implications for the diversification of Australian temperate biotas.
Syst Biol. 2003 Dec;52(6):757-80.

4: Vitt LJ, Pianka ER, Cooper WE Jr, Schwenk K. History and the global ecology of squamate reptiles.
Am Nat. 2003 Jul;162(1):44-60. Epub 2003 Jun 27.

5: Huey RB, Pianka ER. Natural selection for juvenile lizards mimicking noxious beetles.
Science. 1977 Jan 14;195(4274):201-3.

6: Pianka ER.
Niche overlap and diffuse competition.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 May;71(5):2141-5. No abstract available.
PMID: 4525324

----
Isi Web of Knowledge search:
19 articles on lizards

So the guy knows his lizards.

I think he really may be a masked lizard that plans to take over the world,
but that requires to get rid of enough humans, so that lizards can finish off the rest.

p.s. I too think that if anything we should start with that scientists.

David Icke's in the houuuuse! hehe

I'm sure he thinks he should be spared.... :rolleyes:

Can someone please point me to some scientific evidence that proves or defines a "population limit" for planet Earth? Weren't people yelling at the top of their lungs that as soon as the world's population reached 1,000,000,000 we would not be able to produce enough food and the majority of the population would die off?

I think scientists aren't taking Human ingenuity and the resiliency of the Earth into account when drawing up these "population limits".

Has anyone seen twelve monkeys? This kind of wacko is exactly what wiped out most of human life on earth in that movie.

David Icke's in the houuuuse! hehe
You beat me to it duendy.:cool:

Has anyone seen twelve monkeys? This kind of wacko is exactly what wiped out most of human life on earth in that movie.
Cool movie.... :cool:

Had we been at the lecture, I'm sure we would have seen he was being ironic or something.

I'm sure he thinks he should be spared.... :rolleyes:

Well taken.

Has anyone seen twelve monkeys? This kind of wacko is exactly what wiped out most of human life on earth in that movie.

Isn't that a...(drumroll) MOVIE?????

a prophetic message it is, 12 monkeys.. terrrrible, terrrible curse
all monkeys must be killed immediatley
aaaaghr!! there's one!!!!! kill 'im, kill 'im, let none monkey escape this thread!!!
containment unit is on the way

pah, typical :rolleyes:

Sure, the earth's population does need to be reduced quite a lot, but I don't think airborne ebola is the way to do it :p

The way to do it is of course to give out free condoms to everyone in Africa and South America, and introduce some social security or old folks homes.

I'm from South America but I'm in Canada. Shouldn't I be given free condoms too!? :D
I'm 22 and already have a kid. Watchout! :p

He's making sense. However, there's no need to make this happen on purpose. Nature, or human nature, will take care of it soon enough.

Can someone please point me to some scientific evidence that proves or defines a "population limit" for planet Earth? Weren't people yelling at the top of their lungs that as soon as the world's population reached 1,000,000,000 we would not be able to produce enough food and the majority of the population would die off?

I think scientists aren't taking Human ingenuity and the resiliency of the Earth into account when drawing up these "population limits".

The Earth has a biological load limit. We cannot control our population, we breed like rats. We develop infertility drugs that produce litters....

is this human ingenuity?

The Earth has a biological load limit.
How much is the limit?

We cannot control our population, we breed like rats.
Birth rates are down in western countries. Seems that the birth rate can be controlled.

We develop infertility drugs that produce litters....
In countries in which the birth rate is below the replenishing rate.
is this human ingenuity?
Should it be?

spuriousmonkey,

How much is the (biological load) limit?

not sure, but it is determined by a balance between byproducts of organic material(ie. cocky) and the earths ability to sustain itself.

It's got nothing to do with the Earth's ability to sustain large numbers of animals. It's the unique and disfunctional behavior of humans and the fact that we have chosen to live outside of local ecosystems that is the problem. It's pollution, deforestation, industrial scale agriculture and fishing, wars, ect...

It's got nothing to do with the Earth's ability to sustain large numbers of animals. It's the unique and disfunctional behavior of humans and the fact that we have chosen to live outside of local ecosystems that is the problem. It's pollution, deforestation, industrial scale agriculture and fishing, wars, ect...

i was referring to humans. our civilization took the concept of anything that works to get to where we are and it did work but these methods are not sustainable and are stopgap solutions.

to do things right and to elevate us to "type one" civilization is going to take incredible ingenuity which tbh may be beyond our capabilities. i see no other alternatives.

how advanced are we? are we much further along than the industrial revolution?

Sure, the earth's population does need to be reduced quite a lot, but I don't think airborne ebola is the way to do it :p

We got the means, jellybean... :cool: Who's ready for a gamma ray suntan ???!!!
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/titan-2-missile2.jpg

*Gets out towels, suncream and deckchair*

And still, no one has been able to provide any substantiated scientific studies of any kind that defines or even dictates a population limit.

Until that time, this thread, and all the people who support the idea of a "population limit", are nothing but religious freaks basing their opinions on faith.

It's not population numbers, as I said, but the behavior of that population. In America, the great plains used to support buffalo as far as you could see, and they are huge.

How much is the (biological load) limit?

Good living = .5 billion

OK living = 2 billion

World poverty nightmare + environmental holocaust = 9 billion

For .5 billion good living individuals you need at least another 5 billion that live crappy lives

True. At least in the present system...

Good living = .5 billion

OK living = 2 billion

World poverty nightmare + environmental holocaust = 9 billion

Pretty much, I read that it would take 5 earths to give everyone the standard of living found in developed countries. I agree with the ideal population being 500 million. Large enough for us to become a type I civilization, but low enough to be ecologically sustainable.

What are the types again...?

What are the types again...?

Type I: Climate control, fusion, nanotechnology, post-fossil fuel economy, solar system colonization, world dominated by EU-type economic zones.

Type II: Think Star Trek, beginings of interstellar collonization, Dyson Spheres.

Type III: Read Asimov's Foundation novels, galactic civilization

huuum...

I think we needed to grow this big to eventually become a Type I...
Remember this... you cannot make a chick without hatching an egg....

I'm not saying that we should destroy the planet, but we should also remember that it takes a lot to become a Type I civilization. That's the biggest leap...

I agree with the ideal population being 500 million. Large enough for us to become a type I civilization, but low enough to be ecologically sustainable.
There are three hundred million in the US alone, and it's mostly empty! You want five hundred million on the entire earth? I doubt that's enough to support the development of the ultra high tech you would like to see to make us a "type one" civilization.

I think you're putting the horse before the cart. AFTER we develop the technologies you speak of, we can establish colonies on other planets and move most dirty industries off planet. Until then, we need all the people we can get. Otherwise, who's going to develop your nanotech and colonize the solar system?

Exactly

Good living = .5 billion

OK living = 2 billion

World poverty nightmare + environmental holocaust = 9 billion


Lies.

This is an urban legend in the making. Pianka did not actually say the things he is being reviled for. He was quoted out of context, sentences were torn apart and the pieces put together, and most of what has been printed about him is commentary by people who claim to have been there rather than actual quotes. There are a lot of crazy people in Texas or we wouldn't have had Presidents Johnson, Bush, and Bush, but they're not crazy enough to give an award to the fictitious person that was made up in these reports.

Pianka simply thinks that humanity will not be able to stop destroying the earth--its own habitat--and therefore will end up destroying itself. That is hardly a remarkable opinion.

But it is wrong. The second derivative of the population curve has already gone negative: the aggregate world birth rate is falling. The first derivative is predicted to go negative before the end of this century. The earth's population may never actually reach ten billion.

Prosperity always correlates with smaller family size. Virtually every people on earth--even the most abjectly poor ones--are becoming less poor. Places where people used to have twelve children are having eight. Where they used to have eight they're now having six. Etc.

The birth rate has already fallen below replacement level in "The West." The only thing that's propping up our bankrupt social security systems is the immigration of people who are still having larger families.

But that leaves me a poor dink. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The birth rate has already fallen below replacement level in "The West." The only thing that's propping up our bankrupt social security systems is the immigration of people who are still having larger families.
Lemmings... :rolleyes:


LOL! :D

Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it's too late.

"There is always One who presides over the infliction death. He who
would inflict death in the room of him who so presides over it may be
described as hewing wood instead of a great carpenter. Seldom is it
that he who undertakes the hewing, instead of the great carpenter,
does not cut his own hands!"
Tao Te Ching


I hope Pianka, or any one else for that matter, would not seriously think that he may be "the One" ;).

Honestly, I am amazed and shocked with similar "scientific" arrogance clearly showing what an abyss there is sometimes between modern researchers and truly wise men.

Right. Because all scientists are like Pianka.

Even if nobody else thinks like Pianka, it's within his resources to actually follow through with what he said.

Plus, it is in the best interests of major world leaders to reduce their populations, so why shouldn't they do it?

It is? Then they can't field huge armies...

It is? Then they can't field huge armies...

Don't need it the way technology seems to be heading with nukes, missiles, unmanned land and air vehicles. ;)

- N

Don't need it the way technology seems to be heading with nukes, missiles, unmanned land and air vehicles. ;)

- N
Those things are expensive. You need a large economy to afford them and to continue to fund the research and development necesary to stay one step ahead of the competition.

Those things are expensive. You need a large economy to afford them and to continue to fund the research and development necesary to stay one step ahead of the competition.

Well, we won't have to worry about expenses with a small population. And we also won't have to worry about staying one step ahead of the competition as after we plague the population and most die off, we'll just steal all the scientists like we did after WWII.

And besides, the less people we have to send into battle due to robots, the more free time we'll have to put towards other things such as research or productivity.

- N

Well, we won't have to worry about expenses with a small population. And we also won't have to worry about staying one step ahead of the competition as after we plague the population and most die off, we'll just steal all the scientists like we did after WWII.

And besides, the less people we have to send into battle due to robots, the more free time we'll have to put towards other things such as research or productivity.

- N
Things still cost what they cost regardless of the number of people. If anything, a smaller population would cause things to be even more expensive as you lose the economy of scale. Furthermore, rather than freeing up people to do research, a small population would simply mean a smaller pool of talent. Why do small highschools rarely win state championships? Less funding and a smaller talent pool. The same principle applies.

Wait a second...................

Are you saying they won't kill 90% of the population because...................

they would rather field large human armies because robots cost money?

Terrible. Also, I see you regard intelligent people as "talented".

Furthermore, rather than freeing up people to do research, a small population would simply mean a smaller pool of talent. Why do small highschools rarely win state championships? Less funding and a smaller talent pool. The same principle applies.

Not if we pick and choose which groups of people we want to exterminate. If we decide to keep Israel, Japan, and other frequent brainiac types of people, odds are they'll produce similar offspring so there won't be a need for such a large random pool.

And yes, smaller schools rarely win state championships because of a smaller talent pool, but that's also because that town in general doesn't have much talent in it, period. I betcha if there were a city where lots of people are fed real well, are pretty large and whatnot, that small town would do damned well.

It all depends on what the society is. The only reason why we need a large society to find smart people or well-built people is because the majority of our population is quite average. Look at the large Scandinavians, the smart interbred Jews, the pure bred Aryans, the disciplined Japanese, etc etc.

There's a reason why America first started their eugenics program in the early 1900's to filter out the crippled, mentally ill, non-successful people, etc etc. If we filtered who and what our population consisted of, we'd do pretty darned good.

- N

Has he ever heard of space exploration as a possible fix? This dude is like hitler but less discriminatory.

Has he ever heard of space exploration as a possible fix? This dude is like hitler but less discriminatory.
Ack, stop taking things out of context!

And still, no one has been able to provide any substantiated scientific studies of any kind that defines or even dictates a population limit.

Until that time, this thread, and all the people who support the idea of a "population limit", are nothing but religious freaks basing their opinions on faith.

Just because we don't know what the number is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you proposing that the Earth can sustain an infinite number of humans? How about 50 billion people? How about 50 trillion people? 500 trillion?

Obviously, there is a point where there are too many people. There is a finite amount of space and resources - that cannot be used to support an infinite amount of people. That's not faith, it's logic.

As an example of population limits on a smaller scale, one only has to look at Easter Island.

because robots cost money?
Yes, yes, robots are expensive. Have you tried buying one recently? Even a bottom of the range battlemech doesn't come cheap...

Anyway, I think there are more humane ways to reduce population than killing people. China's one child policy comes to mind. Of course, some refinements are in order, e.g. subsiding families with girls to stop them from aborting females in favour of males...

As an example of population limits on a smaller scale, one only has to look at Easter Island.
What happened there?

What happened there?

They depleted their resources and were fucked.

edit:
wikipedia -
The civilization of Easter Island was long believed to have degenerated drastically during the 100 years before the arrival of the Dutch, as a result of overpopulation, deforestation and exploitation of an extremely isolated island with limited natural resources. Evidence to support this sudden collapse is that the oral traditions of the islanders are obsessed with cannibalism. To severely insult an enemy one would say: "The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth". This suggests that the food supply of the people ultimately ran out. (Diamond 2005:109)

All that can be said is that there was a massive, anthropogenic alteration of the ecosystem, and subsequently a cultural transition while a conclusion cannot be drawn for a catastrophic event. By the mid-19th century the population had recovered to about 4,000. Then in a mere 20 years, deportation via slave traders to Peru and diseases brought by Westerners almost exterminated the whole population - only 110 inhabitants were left on the island in 1877.

Hmm...maybe it is more complex than I thought. Someone needs to do some research or maybe someone knowledgable can enlighten us?

They cut all their trees down...?
No way we'd be stupid enough to do that knowing how important forests are in maintaining the balance of our eco system....

We might cut down all the actual forests, but we will still have an assload of treefarms and orchards.
Unlike the Easter Islanders, we had an agricultural revolution.

deforestation rapidly leads to ove farming and desertification already happening in every continent

Just because we don't know what the number is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you proposing that the Earth can sustain an infinite number of humans? How about 50 billion people? How about 50 trillion people? 500 trillion?

There is no definitive limit, and when taking technological advancement and Human ingenuity into account there could very well be no limit.

Obviously, there is a point where there are too many people. There is a finite amount of space and resources - that cannot be used to support an infinite amount of people. That's not faith, it's logic.

No, it is not obvious, and it is not logical. With no evidence of any limit, you could not logically posit an arbitrary number. Hence, a belief based purely on faith.

As an example of population limits on a smaller scale, one only has to look at Easter Island.

A very different time in Human history, more specifically a time without technology.

Well, the earth is just a big island. Space travel could solve that problem, but shouldn't we make sure we don't run out of resources before we learn how to build huge spacecruisers? Because spacecruisers take resources too...

So QuarkMoon, you think there is an infinite number of people that could live on Earth? We could live standing on top of one another 5 high and packed in like sardines? There is a definitive limit in the idea of available land alone.

An interseting thing to research would be Forester's World Model. I couldn't find much info about it on the internet, but I learned about it from my architecture professor this past semester. It predicts that unless major population changes occur, there will not be enough oxygen to support human life by the 2020's or so.

Technology can increase the amount of people an ecosystem can support, but there are still limits. The Easter Islanders created several clever methods of gardening to increase yeilds, but they still needed fuel, and the soil was poor. In addition their culture required outdoing each other with elaborate statues. I think there are parallels with our culture. We are also unaware of how fragile our ecosystem is, and we also produce loads of impractical and inedible consumer goods the production of which is damaging to the environment.

The Jared Diamond book "Collapse", (which I'm reading now) is especially pertinent to this question.