It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Ecologist advocates use of Ebola to exterminate 90% of Earth's Population

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
About global/solar warming, Mauddib and grover are both correct regarding their own claims. They are both incorrect regarding each others claims. Solar warming is real and it is unfortunate we are contributing to the global part thereof. Now gentlemen, take ten paces and fire!




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Muaddib you are just too easy...getting your goat is like taking candy from a baby.

You can rant and rave about your "facts" all you like but you still haven't proven anything either... except that you have an active imagination.



Wow.... no facts to provide grover?.... the rant obviously does not come from me.

So, according to you providing information which destroys your argument is "having an active imagination"?....


You are not worth the effort.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Based on reports in the Times today, should current breeding habits continue,The population of the planet is likely to double by the year 2044.

It seems obvious that certain aspects of life would become unsustainable if that were to happen, we experience mass starvation now, 38 years from now that can only get worse unless something radical changes how we sustain ourselves or to the population.

I would assume that "Something" will have to change in our habits or life styles to make that number sustainable.

Killing off 90% of the world population would significantly improve the sustainability of that 10 % but running the world based on a life style the west is acoustomed to would take greater numbers.

Even if it would increase the likelyhood of the human race "surviving" it would still mean that we would have to change.

When considering what that change should be I suppose mass murder is an option, but it's only one.

Another might be to formalise the "underclass" situation we already utalize into a more productive business plan.

The creation of a worker class kept on the poverty line, used for work, food, fuel and basic fodder would allow us to sustain our life style without loss of life. It would also solve the problems of famine in thirld world nations whilst still providing the more affluent countries with an acceptable life style.

Not, I suspect, a very Humanitarian way of running an expanding population but compared to the alternative of massive world wide change It certainly makes an appealing possibility.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I have said repeatedly that you have not provided any facts that disprove anything....you have strung a series of disparate bits of information together and claim they disprove something that they simply do not.

Go buy some dandruff shampoo will ya.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by grover]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
The other 10% would make sure that they survived it after wiping everybody else off the face of the planet.

They are not scientists. They are no different than any other world leader who has committed genocide.

In this case; it isn't genocide of a people of ethnic background or religion etc like the holocaust, but genocide of 90% of the human race.

THE HUMAN RACE, which means regardless of who you are, or where you live, you are expendable and your life doesn't matter.

Besides what gives these people the right to decide to committ mass murder on a large scale.

They are terrorists of a different sort and they should all be slammed up in prison as such. They should be held under the terrorist act.

They have no right to choose who lives and who dies. Just because they are scientists doesn't make them gods to do take life, as they please.

I hope they infect themselves before they infect anybody else. At least, it will be in a contained environment.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I suggest everyone who is upset about this read what the World Health Organization has to say about Ebola Reston.

WHO

From what I read, Ebola Reston (the strain of ebola in question) in not fatal in humans.


Although highly pathogenic for nonhuman primates, the Reston strain has not to date caused illness in humans.



I do suggest you all read what the WHO has to say about this. There are a lot of Red Flag details that makes me wonder if this was not man made to begin with. For instance, they could pin point what area this originated from, but they can not find the source.

Read it, you'll see what I mean.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by mrsdudara]

[edit on 10-8-2006 by mrsdudara]

[edit on 10-8-2006 by mrsdudara]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I am beginning to think this guy is just looking for the silver lining...


Weaponized Ebola: Bioterrorism? Or Mother Nature?



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I have said repeatedly that you have not provided any facts that disprove anything....you have strung a series of disparate bits of information together and claim they disprove something that they simply do not.


Disparate?.... Really?... I guess you are too old to understand the following...


Title:
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics

Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, DEUTERIUM, HYDROGEN ATOMS, INTERSTELLAR GAS, SOLAR SYSTEM, ABUNDANCE, EARLY STARS, GAS DENSITY, INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION
DOI:
10.1086/156294
Bibliographic Code:
1978ApJ...223..589V

Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Those scientists predicted back in 1978 that "in the near future" the interstellar cloud would possibly change the climate of the solar system, and this interstellar cloud might have a drastic influence on the terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

And what is it happening as we speak on the whole solar system, and not only what grover want people to believe is happening to Earth alone?.......

I guess we should all listen to grover the wise, because "he knows and he doesn't have to present any proof for anything".....



Originally posted by grover
Go buy some dandruff shampoo will ya.


Go ahead and send the shampoo, at least i have hair to use it on...


Perhaps you should buy yourself a tupee, it might make you happy and it will make up for most of the intelligence you apparently lost with your hair.


I apologize to the other members. I couldn't control myself anymore everyone...

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Toby, one of the problems with providing real evidence about what Pianka said, such as recordings of the speech, is that apparently the cameras were turned off, as requested by Pianka, and no recordings were allowed, however, I have talked to a friend of mine and he says that part of the speech was recorded. I am not certain if this information is accurate, but i will try to see if i can find part of that recording.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Well, that didn't take very long. Apparently what I was told is true.


31 March 2006
Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker's remarks.

If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the conscience of science.

Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist. Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal publication schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter.

Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.,
MacArthur Fellow,
Founder and Executive Director,
Society for Amateur Scientists

www.sas.org...

i will do some more research and see if there is any real evidence to suport the statement made above by Shawn Carlson.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I really wonder why Pianka asked for video cameras to be off during his speech...but of course to the public he claims..


“I don’t mean any ill will toward humanity,” says Pianka, “but I do think that we need to decrease our population in order to live more sustainably on this Earth. We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don’t, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours, and they won’t be much fun.”

www.utexas.edu...

He is obviously saying in the above statement, that "we need to decrease the population of Earth", or Earth itself will do it. It seems that "he wants to decide who dies and who stays alive"....

---edited to correct statement---

There are other ways in which a problem such as overpopulation can be solved, and killing millions of people is not, and should not be one of those options, but this man apparently thinks differently.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I found another statement made by Pianka, in his own website. Some people will try to claim that "his statements are taken out of context".... Mr. Forrest's claim is that Pianka wants diseases to kill 90% of humans, some people say that's not what Pianka wants...but in Pianka's own words, and I quote:


I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us. Simply stopping the destruction of rainforests would help mediate some current planetary ills, including the release of previously unknown pathogens. The ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind -- we are living in one of the most interesting times humans have ever experienced. For example, consider the manifold effects of global warming. We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that.

uts.cc.utexas.edu...

But of course, he makes the above statements public, it appears that even in these public statements, we can see that he does want to eliminate a portion of humanity.... Yet for some reason he didn't want the public to know about his speech, which was directed to other environmentalist.

Obviously the statements which come directly from Pianka, show that Mr. Forrest claims are not off mark. Pianka is advocating to get rid of a large portion of the population on Earth.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Ah, found what my friend told me about the partial recording.


nfortunately, during the March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka, audio and video recording devices were ordered to be turned off. Hence, as of the date of this writing, no recording of the full March 3, 2006 lecture is known to publicly exist. An audio recording apparently was made of part of this lecture, but it apparently only caught the ending of it. For a transcript of this partial recording, see "Dr. 'Doom' Pianka Speaks: Transcript From the Speech That Started It All," Pearcey Report, April 6, 2006

www.pearceyreport.com...

I will try to find some other link to corroborate what is stated above.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
at least it isn't 91%.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I found a very interesting blog made by one of Pianka's students... She states in her own blog some of the things Pianka is advocating.


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.

www.geocities.com...

and the worse thing is that she agrees with him...

So what do you think, was Mr. Forrest statements off mark?.... I don't think so.


[edit on 11-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Humm, this Pianka is not very good at covering his tracks. Even though many students appear to agree with him, these are the statements from two students evaluating Pianka's class in the fall of 2004...very interesting...


I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet.


Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.

uts.cc.utexas.edu...

So it is true that Pianka is advocating "that 90% of the population of the Earth should die of ebola" and "rooting for an ebola type disease to kill 90% of humanity"
What a demented bastard..and of course for some reason many of his students agree with him...which is a shocker... and then some people around here claim that "professors talking about radical ideas in class does no indoctrinate "intelligent students"...obviously we can see that's not the case.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
... and then some people around here claim that "professors talking about radical ideas in class does no indoctrinate "intelligent students"...obviously we can see that's not the case.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Muaddib]


Remember, if you will, that another very popular case of this exact thing happened a very long time ago. There was the case of Socrates, who was accused of "corrupting the minds of the youth".

This is a very old concept. As a matter of fact, it's happened all too frequently throughout history. Mentors are looked up to by their students since they're role-models. Those role-models can influence what their students think of them since they believe what he/she tells them. It's as simple as that. From there, you can see how the people have become so "indoctrinated" and "brainwashed" by the media. They've been taught to "believe what they're told, because the media knows what they're talking about", when most likely, they're just telling us what they know we want to hear.

It's always been about how to control human thought.

Sorry for ranting, and going in several different directions with this, but one can see how easy it is to make those jumps. Thanks for listening to me ramble.

TheBorg



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
It seems to me that if the solar system was entering an interstellar cloud it would have the exact opposite effect... i,e, that the particles of that cloud would deflect the solar winds and actually lead to a cool down, not a warming, exactly like what happens when a fog rolls in. Remember I suggested that we were exiting one as a possible reason why we were warming. I am not opposed to there being other reasons for global warming besides human activity, I just think that it is the height of foolishness to do nothing about it, when it is actually in our power to do so. And I also tend to think that the scientists studying this issue know more than muaddib.


I have a good head of hair too thank you very much.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by grover]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
It seems to me that if the solar system was entering an interstellar cloud it would have the exact opposite effect... i,e, that the particles of that cloud would deflect the solar winds and actually lead to a cool down, not a warming, exactly like what happens when a fog rolls in.


Grover, what do you think an interstellar cloud is? An interstellar cloud is not just a regular cloud composed only out of dust... Interstellar clouds are made out of excited particles from gallaxies which haven't fully formed or were destroyed, or drawn out of forming gallaxies, they are not composed out of dust only. There are excited particles in interstellar clouds such as ions, there is also gas, plasma, and yes there is dust too, but they are not just regular dust... they do cause chemical reactions when passing through solar systems. There are difuse interstellar clouds and dense molecular interstellar clouds. You need to understand a bit more about interstellar clouds before you make any claims about them.


Originally posted by grover
Remember I suggested that we were exiting one as a possible reason why we were warming. I am not opposed to there being other reasons for global warming besides human activity, I just think that it is the height of foolishness to do nothing about it, when it is actually in our power to do so. And I also tend to think that the scientists studying this issue know more than muaddib.


Well your suggestion is wrong, we have been entering an interstellar cloud, not leaving one, as several articles I have posted have explained.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
yes mister know-it-all...I bow down to your superior knowledge... now would you please contact the academy of science and inform them about how wrong they all are and how right you are.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join