Like a lot of people here on ATS, I recently read an article where an ecologist recommended exterminating 90 per cent of the human population on
planet Earth, as he believed it would not survive without such ‘drastic measures.’ That is 5, 850, 000, 000 people. Almost six billion.
The method he recommended using to do this was ‘Ebola Reston,’ or Reston ebolavirus, which, as it turns out, is only fatal to monkeys.
A recent speech at the Texas Academy of Science during which Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90
percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner demonstrates exactly why this is such a fitting monkier for the ecologist. The
video cameras were turned off for Dr. Pianka's speech as the material wasn't 'fit for public consumption.'
. . . is favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly
lethal and it kills in days, instead of years.
Now, personally, I think this man is a sick, twisted fraud. If you read the whole article, you will notice that Pianka did not even have data to back
up his claim. The man is just sad.
But anyways, when I first read this, I immediately thought of an alternative to this horrible form of genocide. Read on, please.
In 2001, 54, 995, 665 people died in 227 countries (of 267 ‘administrative divisions’) worldwide, two and a half million in the U.S. alone. Going
by these numbers, in one century the earth will lose 5, 499, 566, 500 people. Compare this to the proposed extermination number: 5, 850, 000, 000. Not
much of a difference, huh?
Now, if the Earth is really not going to survive with the population as it is now, and with the growth rate as it is now, then how about this:
preventing births for the next hundred years.
What? I hear you think.
Prevent babies being born for a century? It’s inhumane!
Ahh, as inhumane as genocide with influenza? As inhumane as the deaths of the 322,437 who died in the atomic bombings? As the 50 million that died in
Soviet gulags from 1930 to 1950? As the estimated 50 – possibly as many as 100 – million that died from the Spanish flu in 1918/19? As the 62
million that died in World War 2? No, not as inhumane as those deaths. In fact, not inhumane at all. ‘Lacking pity or compassion’ is what that
word means. Preventing new births can hardly be called that. It would merely be thinking like the Japanese: thinking for the future.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By 2050 this planet will have approximately nine and a quarter billion inhabitants. Have a look at this graph:
As you can see, by the year 2100 this planet will have over 10 billion inhabitants, and by the time the mass baby-booming population gives up, our
little rock will have over 11
billion people. Now that is a
massive number. Think about the world strife we have now, with just 6.50
billion (a.o. Feb 24, 2006). Floods killing thousands in one of the most highly developed countries on earth, enough wars and nuclear weapons to give
every child one for their 9th birthday, and 5.26 million people dying horrible deaths from smoking and car-crashes each year, not even to mention the
millions of other sufferings humans have to go through in their daily lives, mostly in undeveloped countries, of which most are directly related to
population numbers, and their climb.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Actually preventing the births would be the hardest task, I believe. There will always be a few million people dodging the authorities just to have a
kid. Also, there is the problem of getting all countries world-wide to agree to this plan. These problems are on the operational side of this proposed
version of population control, and, I believe, should not be discussed here.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just read in the paper yesterday that bananas are going to cost $12 a kilogram, for God’s sake. This statistic is comparable to petroleum prices,
which are only going to get worse, at $1.30 a litre here (US$3.64388 per US gallon, I think after much calculation), as well as the cost of many, many
other everyday, household items.
Pollution is on the rise, with over a million people dying each year from airborne contaminants worldwide. The United States released 97, 441 tons of
carbon monoxide – yes,
monoxide, not dioxide – in 2002. Now that is just scary. With reference to carbon
dioxide, our atmosphere has
approx. 2, 940, 000, 000, 000 tonnes of it, of which about 1 per cent is what the earth contributes. The rest we humans put there.
Most of this CO2 is released from power plants, which supply the earth’s population
with electricity. A lower population theoretically means lower electricity needs, and thus less CO2 released annually. And how about nuclear power?
All we are doing is building more nuclear plants to supply the increasing amount of people that need electricity. Waste products from this process
amount to 12, 000 tonnes each year; and all we can do is seal it up, and hope that future generations will have either the know-how or the balls to
get rid of it. Reminds me a bit of cryogenics, actually.
In summary, I do not think that this planet will be able to sustain the human population for over 1, 000 years. And as usual, I do not claim to be an
expert on this – rather, I’ve been looking into it for about 2 hours now – but I find it obvious that drastic measures are needed, and soon.
The preventing of women giving birth will reduce the
projected population of 2100 by 49.996 per cent. Almost half,
and that number does not
take into account a reduced number of births.
All-in-all, I believe that simply stopping people being born for a while will solve many, many problems – and it is a solution that does not even
require the killing of one person, unlike any other ‘quick-fix’. It will actually work!
Now I know my little argument here hasn’t convinced Joe Smith, as I’ve only spent a few hours on it, but I hope that it has got you thinking, and
I hope that scientists on the board read this, and get thinking. And if you’re a boffin from some government, take this proposed method of
population control into consideration! Take it to the United Nations! I believe that it is worth the effort (of course, after you’ve spent 2 years,
6 million dollars, and sent 21, 000 pieces of paper through the govt. machine so that you can hire a car out to drive to the local university to
research it; wasteful idiots).
Yes, but, in general; everyone, think about this!
It is a feasible alternative to a dead planet!
I have no idea if this idea has been thought of before, none at all. I am very sorry if it has, and even more sorry if it has been discussed
here. Mods, please delete if so. All numbers I have quoted have been the minimum available. If you find them or any other information I have presented
here to be incorrect, U2U me or post.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
External source:
Atsnn.com
Image:
PRB.org
Spartacus.Schoolnet.co.uk
Wikipedia.org
Wikipedia.org
Wikipedia.org
Wikipedia.org
WashingtonPost.com
CDC.gov
Forum.AidWorkers.net
edit: spelign? wahts speling? Also title; no views.
[edit on 21/4/2006 by watch_the_rocks]