i cant believe the guy was all ready and willing to be first to go.
you do get some odd scientists.

i dont buy into this idea the earth is 'overpopulated'
i think its only overpopulated if you have desires to try to control everyone on the planet.

Originally posted by Phre0nBurn

How do people like him make it through life??

No doubt. Most of us have to and feel compelled to, toe the line and behave like caring human beings. This guy thinks we are the equivalent of bacteria. Problem is, we don't know if he includes himself in that description. It smacks of Anunnaki/Fallen Angel thinking. He's advocating Armaggedon, apparently as some type of wake up call. Anyone with the ability to extrapolate would know what the rest of that end game would be: Total annihiliation. A handful of people who have no idea what they are doing, running the world? Or even a handful of people who know what they are doing: they would kill each other in battles over control of the remaining wealth of the planet.

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Nygdan
Everything seeks dominance, this results in harmony and balance of powers and forces. Apply force to an object from all directions, and it will not move.

That was the point that I was trying to make though, we're not in balance and as a result we are running the risk of destroying society and everything for everything. If we keep the trend up of breeding, producing more and more the resources will fall even quicker. This in turn will mean more people starve, die are killed through our own idiocy.

This guys views are a bit extreme, but a program of breeding where parents only have one child might be the option. Breed until we have the number of people that we can keep in balance with society. Otherwise we more than likely will run the risk of us all dying. Which is the worse option? All dying or us working to a system where we are in harmony?

Breeding programs invariably result in female genocide.

Originally posted by undo
Breeding programs invariably result in female genocide.

Talking of the Beijing Effect, I assume? That's more due to the problem with the Society and the Culture, women are seen as "Less" than their male counterparts. With a shift in society, we should see a different trend and I'd say that is very culture dependent. However, we do as a society have to begin to work out a way to stabalise the population.

We need to work out how many people our World can hold and begin to sort it out, once we gain a level that is within that number society will be all for the better. The largest problem's we have is either Large rises or declines in population. If they're stable society will be also. We already see what over-farming has done to places like Africa, Middle East, Dustbowl in the U.S. and now parts of Europe. If we're not careful we will run the risk of killing a lot more people of through lack of resources.

wow. This just goes to show you something about scientists. I've been to a conference here and there and most of the time it consists of scientists bickering like little children over who's the smartest.

They won't need ebola. The world is heading for a major war that will thin out a few billion here and there. They should be more then happy afterwards. Jerks.

Edit: Crass remark removed. Please, this is the News Network.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by intrepid]

Don't know if this was covered earlier, but it's worth bringing up again anyway.

Didn't this herpetologist guy say he hoped this terrible slaughter would happen naturally, rather than be brought about by some human agency? If so, he's just another member of the "world would be a better place with fewer humans in it" brigade, a contingent I've occasionally considered joining myself. I've always ended up thinking the better of it, though, since the idea of seeing nine out of ten of my relatives, friends, neighbours, correspondents, business associates, lovers, exemplars, heroes, favourite artists, scientists, philosophers, etc. bite the wormwood is more than I can honestly stomach.

Or are we going to be picky about who survives? Then who's going to do the picking? The Rapture promoters have an answer to that one, but it's not an answer I can bring myself to believe in or approve of. And certainly no human being has the right to decide; if the history of the twentieth century has taught us nothing else, it's taught us that.

I'm sure the world would be a better place with fewer people in it, but that would only be true for the ones who survived. What about all those who would have to be sacrificed to bring about the Millennium? Would you want to live in an earthly paradise that owed its existence to the murder of 5,500,000,000 (plus change) people? Get real.

One life -- one human life -- is worth more than all the snakes on the planet. And -- pace what I've suggested in a different thread here -- the human race is worth the planet and more. Like Neil Young said, maybe the whole thing is just an egg, you know. Would you abort the chicken just to save the egg, and send humanity off to join the dinosaurs? Not me.

sounds like he is a little bit worried about dieing all of a sudden.

I hope it doesnt run out that Forest Mims made stuff up. But i dont think so somehow. Its unlikely anyone would make something like that up.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by AdamJ]

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by undo
Breeding programs invariably result in female genocide.

Talking of the Beijing Effect, I assume?

This planet is mostly patriarchal. Any society in which the children are limited to 1 or 2, will invariably result in the extermination of female unborns in order to carry on the family name, or bypass high dowries, or control the population (women have babies). In places like India and China, it results in the extermination of born and unborn females. In fact, they predict by the year 2012, there will be something like 100,000,000 men without women, wives, daughters, sisters, girlfriends in China and India. The last time this happened, it resulted in the downfall of the Chinese Empire, but with advances in weapons, it'll result in the extermination of the nearly all male citizenry. Think "Tianamen Square" (not sure I spelled that correctly)? Humanism to the extreme, becomes something other than human.

I hope it doesnt run out that Forest Mims made stuff up. But i dont think so somehow. Its unlikely anyone would make something like that up.

I don't think that Mims made it up... he could have 'selectively emphasized' certain portions however.

Our own truthseeka, more or less confirmed what Mims was saying. Perhaps he'll comment here.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned? But someone should let this "scientist" know that Ebola Reston is NOT fatal to humans. It's only fatal to non-human primates. If he wants to get rid of 90% he might want to look elsewhere.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by MC113]

[edit on 4-4-2006 by MC113]

Mattison0922,
Thanks for the link.

Pianka, is actually coming out and saying that he's been misrepresented... so the controversy isn't over.

That and the info about the author of the first article fills in the blanks.
Sounds more like a turf war with both sides exagerating to make their points.


[edit on 4-4-2006 by Blaine91555]

Undo, I know what you're talking about. It's a large problem, but doesn't it go to show the point that this article made? Also, in many Nation's with a declining population and low birth rates, this isn't happening. The reason China/India has it, is the culture - which is changing. Much of the problems you speak of is mostly in the rural areas because women have no rights their compared to in the City. AS the culture changes and the society does, these problems will be gone.

This person can not be call human. He is pond scum! I can see where he is coming from by saying this but if human population is too much to sustain nature will sort it out. Look in nature if there is too much of one Species in an area they die off into a sustanable level. So if humans are to unsustainable then nature will sort it out not Humans or nut jobs like him!