Close Topic Options

Kill Billions And Save World: Ecologist

EBOLA VIRUS BEST WAY TO KILL BILLIONS AND SAVE WORLD: ECOLOGIST

A respected Texas scientist says the best way to kill 90 per cent of the people on the planet and save the world is the Ebola virus.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2...ola-060404.html

Ecologist World Save Billions Kill

So, what exactly is he proposing to save the word FOR? After all, he apparently does not consider humans to have an important place in the world.

I can't read the article, as the server must be down. But this sounds like all the other environmentalist junk that is going around. You know, a rat is as important (if not moreso) than a little boy. Or, the popular saying, "save the baby seals - kill the baby humans".

Kill Billions And Save World: Ecologist History & Civil Business Politics

I agree with Nighthawk; this is utterly ludicrous! I couldn't access the article myself, but I can't imagine what reasoning could be presented in it that would make the first statement mean anything useful. If 90% of the world's population were to be wiped out, I can't even imagine the chaos that would create.

Ecologist World Save Billions Kill

For the news report: Click Here (you have to do what News says above each post)

Well he is claiming:

I have a feeling the link was changed because it seems like the outcry may have caused the mass media to have linked to the article thus weighing down the server.

Ecologist World Save Billions Kill

You are all missing the entire point of the statements he is making. He not saying lets just kill 90% of the population to save the planet. What he is saying is that we are destroying our world at such a rate that we will kill ourselves and make our planet uninhabitable to anyone. By killing 90% of the population, it would ensure the ability of our planet to recover and be usable for the remaining 10%. With no more war, biological and nuclear weapons, few cars and less trash, the remaining survivors would be able to live on a planet that would become a variable utopia compared to now. Less pollution, less disease, less death (after the original death). The body would recover from decades of being fed antibiotics and learn to adapt and save itself again. Its not a good solution, or one I would ever endorse, but neither does he. His comments were taken out of context, simply showing that because of our current behavior, that would be one of the few things that can save us before long, and it would serve us right creating so many bad things to kill others.

Kill Billions And Save World: Ecologist

What he said was,

He didn't say he wanted to use Ebola to arrange a major die-off, but that Ebola was the only known virus strong enough to do so.

Yes, he does have population issues, and he used to be a hermit living in the desert, but he's not advocating killing us all off.

Funny how people get all riled up over stuff.

Kill Billions Save World Ecologist

I am amazed that this scientist's remarks have received so much media attention and scorn. What ever happened to healthy debate about new ideas?

Personally, I think what he says has merit. It's only a luxury of the rich to place so much value on human life. In poor countries, at least two thirds of the world, population growth is a massive issue. It needs to be controlled otherwise it is impossble for these countries to progress.

The value of life differs greatly in poorer countries than it does in my society or other first world countries. This is because most of the "haves" in this world won't get serious about eradicating poverty. Token gestures to show people you give a darn means nothing to the starving Ethiopian.

Look at the culture developed in places like India and China where overpopulation has led to a desire to have male children.

I don't believe Pianka is saying the world would be a better place if there was less people in a literal sense. What he is saying is that we would have far less problems, including the potential spread of epidemics, if population growth was better managed.

And on that point, I agree.