Redstate

between the modern conservation ecology movement and the eugenics crap from the 1930's and 1940's. Both movements were fostered by leftist elitism, and saw global terror as a useful tool to accomplish their goals (in one case, the thinning of the herd, in the other, the eradication of it).

Let's hope this bunch is not as successful that the other one was.  

Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about a nutcase scenario like this?  I can't remember the name of it, but I remember that the scientists used homeless people in the US, that they kidnapped, to test their superbug (a derivitive of Ebola) on.

I think the most telling passage in the obituary was this:

He is survived by one of his two brothers, his sister, two daughters, two grand daughters, two ex-wives, and a small herd of American bison.

Pianka spent nearly 10 years of his life living in the desert, often alone, and he liked to think of himself as a hermit and a desert rat. He spent 6 full years down under and at times, he was at one with the bushfly. He spent the last half of his life living in the Texas hill country in a "shack on Flat Creek," where he became known as "Tatonka Pianka."

A "hermit," "desert rat," and "one with the bushfly"? Two failed marriages. This is the classic portraite of a man estranged from humanity. It's hardly any wonder he's going over the deep end.

he would volunteer to join the effort himself. I think he wants to be one of the survivors.

This madness has been going on for close to forty years.  Recall the Paul Erlich/Jules Simon wager on natural resources and food supply.  Doomsday Erlich lost the wager and Simon continued to punch holes in the environmental death wish.  The post is a reminder of the connection between enviros and socialism, blind hatred, and death fixation.  Some are just more outspoken than others but none will set an individual example of population reduction.  After you sir !

A classic political mass movement in its infancy.  You have the ambitious man who is not limited by the usual moral constraints of normal people.  You have a dogma that appeals to some people because it advocates some sort of (twisted) altruism.  In this case allegedly to non-human life.  And you have the followers, the insecure personality types who attach themselves zealously to lose themselves in a "self-less" mass movement.

MacArthur Fellow, Shawn Carlson, also has an editorial about "Doctor Doom", and he makes it clear that he thinks this man is a danger:

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

He provides two email addresses for public feedback:

UT Board of Regents:

  bor@utsystem.edu

President of the Texas Acad. of Science:

 David.Marsh@usafa.af.mil

"Hopefully, none of the students impressed by Dr. Pianka's ideas will try to act on those ideas."

If you believe in something strongly enough, then there will be somebody who tries to carry it out.  How do you think we got the Palestinian terrorists killing innocent women and children?  It's the same scenario... preach a radical idea long enough that it begins to make sense in the delusional minds of your followers, and eventually they will carry it out to its logical conclusion.

naturally believe that they deserve to be among the remaining 10% --- the enlightened one don't you know.

"it's selfish to want to live"

or something to that effect, WOW. He may be correct, the virus may just mutate, as so many tend to do, along with millions of other ones, that human's have adjusted to. The plague in Europe, left tens of thousands of people with a genetic immunity to it. That genetic marking has spread and has been reproduced in other human beings by the millions. This same marking means that the subject, (if they have both markers) is basically completely immune to AIDS as well, With one marker, the subject(s) are highly resistant, along with Ebola.

The same affect will occure again and again throughout the remainder of human existance. Additionally, it seems that the planet may have survived a massive cosmic event that it's survived, several times, and life along with it.

If the planet no longer wants us, it'll get rid of us, or that which made it, will get rid of us. It's history shows that it does this sort of thing, if you believe in earth's geological history. I see no need to speed things along so he can feel good that people are going with him.

I'll write the University, as I am a graduate of the system. I will tell them what I think. Our family is a huge contributor. I also know the Dean of one of the Texas colleges in the system, she is my aunt. I'll pass along the message to her as well.

I'd like to see how the idea was presented, just to make sure this wasn't some, "wink, wink" scenerio, but that he actually advocates this.

If so, then he's through at Texas. A buy out of his tenure is also an option.

This one should be on the front page.  Rush is talking about this on his show today according to what I heard at the beginning of the show.

I agree with the comment that the line in Nick's story that grabs you the most is "Hopefully, none of the students impressed by Dr. Pianka's ideas will try to act on those ideas."  That, of course, is exactly what Dr. Pianka is trying to make sure happens.  If you read his web page at the university, and especially that self-obit he has up, he seems obsessed not only with death but also with influencing students and leaving a movement behind him.  He talks about the graduate students he has supervised and the fact that they are teaching at other schools now and one of his "Ten Commandments" for students is that they will "honor" their professors even after the profs are dead.

Scary guy.  And he seems dead serious.

This is not a one-time talk he just gave at the Texas Academy meeting.  He gives this doomsday talk a lot.  He's like a guest preacher of death.  And students are apparently eating it up and this is becoming something like a cult.

"I worship Dr. Pianka."  That phrase grabs me also.  How many true believers like this are being pushed over the edge by this nutcase and how many of them are actually going to end up where they can get their hands on something deadly?

Shouldn't some Texas legislators be contacted about this too?  This could be an important political issue down there in some of the races if handled properly.

do well to independently verify the truth of this story.  It would take a monumental idiot to stand before the public advocating such terrorist tactics.  It sounds to me like the professor was claiming that the planet earth is due for some sort of mass plague (like the bubonic plague) and that we would do well to plan for it, not that he was promoting such a plague.

Check the articles cited on Drudge.  First, the initial report was given by Forrest Mims III, who is not exactly a nobody.  

Second, an article in a Seguin newspaper gave an independent account of the doomsday talks given by the professor on other occasions.  

Third, the online course evaluations of the professor's courses contain comments from students questioning his advocating Ebola as a means of reducing the world's population.

This guy is not just saying that humanity is so dense on the planet that we are set up for a major plague, he is talking about how we need to radically reduce the human population by 90% as quickly as possible in order to save the planet and which diseases would be best to do the job.

Remember, the stories say that they turned off the video before he started talking at the Academy and he started by saying that the public wasn't ready to hear what he was saying.  This guy is preaching a death cult.

This guy is a monumental idiot.  He is also a very dangerous man to be in that kind of a position of influence and authority.

Exactly.  This man has enormous influence over young people and is doing the exact same thing to them that the Islamic schools financed by Saudi Arabia is doing to Islamic youth throughout the world.

This is part of the culture of death.

How many of these students will leave the classes and lectures of Prof. Pianka and believe that it is their duty to bring about his bioterrorist end of the world?  How many of our university labs have very dangerous microbes and viruses for research purposes and very lax security?  This is a frightening combination.

Imagine a situation in which one of these students who "worship" Pianka, or think that his courses are the closest thing to religion offered by the school, decides to give his or her all for the cause.  Self-infection with something might be pretty easy in some cases, and all it takes then is to go about your business at the college spreading it to other students.

This is the kind of education Texas tax dollars pay for?

I agree.  There have been several independent reports now about what this man has said in both his doomsday lectures and also in his classes at the college.

He also has some of the material posted on his university web site.  You can't get more independent than that.

This isn't simply a matter of free speech and academic freedom when the man is teaching this kind of idiocy in his classes.  This is insanity.

Everyone who lives in Texas ought to be contacting the governor, and their local and national representatives and senators, about this man and what he is advocating.  This is a prime example of why national security is and should remain the main theme of every election now.

I was thinking that this was the equivolent of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater... but now it appears to be worse.  Scary.  Time to contact my legislator.

Yes, there does seem to be a strong parallel with the eugenics movement back in the 30's, and that's a good point about both coming from a leftist elite -- a group that sees itself as superior to everyone else.

If you've read The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe (the Generations authors), their thesis is that we're back to the same generational cycle that gave rise to eugenics.  They had some comments about how dangerous all of our genetic knowledge and abilty to manipulate genes could be if a eugenics mind-set resurfaced.  Killing 90% of the human race is a little more extreme than they talked about though.

The web page with student evaluations of his recent classes with a student questioning his teaching that Ebola should be used to kill 90% of all humans alive now seems to have been taken down:

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html%20

However, thanks to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine ;-)  the page is still accessible at this address:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050304073851/http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/
bio357/357evaluations.html

Scroll down all the way to the bottom of the archived page and you'll find the student comment mentioned in Nick's story.  You might want to save a copy and share it with others since there seems to be a coverup starting.

Also, here is a link to a Seguin, TX, newspaper article talking about the doomsday lectures Pianka presents to students (not U of TX students. This is the one that quotes a Texas Lutheran University student):

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

And, a link to an eyewitness account by Forrest Mims III of the Citizen Scientist and a member of the Academy.  If you've ever done any hobby electronics work, you should known Mims.

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

UT will not be on my list of approved institutes of higher learning as long as Dr. Ebola is around.  Better tell the kids to start looking at A&M, if they want to go to a Texas school.:>)

What a KOOK!

The web page with the student comments showing that Pianka is teaching in his university classes that Ebola should be used to cut the human population by 90% is gone.  It appears to have been removed today after all of the uproar started.

The Internet Web Archive, however, means that this attempt at tidying up loose ends and sweeping things under the rug isn't going to work.  Here is the page as saved:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050304073851/http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/
bio357/357evaluations.html

I'm not sure if the university can request that the web archive be purged, so you might want to read it (and save it) while it is still there.

You might want to check into what is being taught at Texas A&M before making any hasty decisions.  I see no reason to believe that Dr. Ebola is the only kook with tenure and a lot of power over a lot of young people.

Contrast the attitude expressed by Ronald Reagan in the signature of your post with the attitude found among most liberal academics.  This is how the eugenics madness started back in the 1930's.  And that led directly to the Concentration Camps and the ovens.

People tend to forget that Hitler was a fascist, and that fascism comes from the left wing of the political spectrum.  The superior Ubermensch elitist idea is never far from the minds of a group who know so much better than the masses what is good for all of us.

What difference does it make if you kill off 90% of the unwashed masses as far as these folks are concerned?  As long as the 10% who survive have the "correct" ideas and will be good environmental stewards of the earth from then on.

Remember that Pianka's call for mass genocide got a standing ovation from the assembled scientists and he was later awarded a plaque honoring him as Texas Scientist of the year.  This isn't just a case of one, single kook.

about 30 years ago. It ended with monkies playing in the US capitol building. Sort of like if the lefties take over now.

What is truly entertaining about this 'teacher' is how he parallels the cheap lines of the over-computer in the Matrix.

So think of the Matrix without any of the cool special effects or 'acting' by Keneau Reeves.

What a hoot.

is the class reviews written by dozens of this man's students, filled with glowing praise, and thanks for getting their heads focused.

Are these kids the "DOOM" generation?  The products of the violent video-game-babysitter?  

Are they the desensitized children so many have been warning us about, who are not even phased by the suggestion that billions of humans should be exterminated?

And don't take this the wrong way, as I am a University of Houston Student. But the Austin campus has always struck me as a hotbed of crazy leftiness.

  This guy should be refuted by other professors on the basis of philosophy, morality and integrity. He should be publicly humiliated by his peers and if they don't do it, then they should be censured for that failure.

   Universities can have all sorts of Ideas, but some are not really worthy of anything but scorn.

Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy.

This fellow seems a bit too enamored with the whole idea of death to strike me as a survivor.

I find myself agreeing with Nick's comment in his story that I hope somebody is watching Pianka's travel plans and itineraries.  I have the feeling that if an airborne strain of Ebola was reported in Africa or anywhere else in the world, this loony professor would be on a jet as quickly as he could manage it and heading over in hopes of catching the infection and getting up close and personal with the Grim Reaper.

I'm afraid that his tenured professorial salary, grants, and money squirreled away from living in a "shack" all these years just might fund a round-the-world trip after he touches base in Africa.  I'm hoping that he shuffles off his mortal coil from old age before nature provides him the Ebola strain he's looking for.

I found a link to the blog of the Lutheran student I mentioned in this story who listened to one of Dr. Pianka's doomsday talks.  When I wrote the original article, all I had was quotes from other sources about what she said.  Her actual words are more disturbing than what has been previously reported.

She appears to be a full convert.

Here are some excerpts from what she posted after listening to Pianka.  Remember--this is a senior university student at Texas Lutheran University, so his influence is spreading like...a virus.

Listen to the words of a true believer:

"Humans are far too populous. We've used up our resources, and we're destroying the Earth at an accelerated pace. The more technology we create, the more damage we're capable of doing."

That, in itself, just seems to be more of the usually environmentalist/liberal party line.  Read on, however.

"It's the harsh reality that many people alive right now should be dead. And even harsher to think that the world would be better off with them dead too."

This is a lot more troublesome.  To say that this statement devalues human life is an understatement.

It gets worse.  Much worse.

"My grandparents, who I love dearly and am so incredibly thankful to know, are honestly being kept alive only through the technology that we have created via medicine. The same goes for the millions of other old folk alive and kicking and will continue to do so for another 5-10 years, using up more resources. Or think of all the babies being born every hour with abnormalities that 50 years ago would have kept them from living."

It is nice to know that the generation coming out of our universities now are being firmly indoctrinated in how unfair it is to keep the elderly alive.  That ought to stretch the Social Security entitlements, shouldn't it?  When these young people are voting, we should see some really interesting changes in Social Security and Medicare law.

Is this part of the new liberal agenda?  A creative way to make sure that the budget isn't broken now that people are living longer?  Kill the elderly who are "using up resources" without contributing?

Also, it seems that simple abortion on demand isn't enough anymore.  Now, we should actually start killing "substandard" babies after they are born.  Of course, that does seem a "logical" progression after partial-birth abortions.

Plus, if you think that all Pianka is suggesting is that  nature will take its course and a virus will come along to naturally reduce human population, this quote should change your mind:

"Now that we've killed off the majority of all top predators, we now must take on the duty of keeping populations in check and at the same time, allowing other species a fair chance at reproduction."

I almost get an image of the earth teeming with humanity as a giant garden gone wild and unmanaged for too long.  Pianka's true believer followers are the humble gardeners.  They must weed and prune harshly so that the desired and desirable may flourish while the undesirables--undesirable through sheer numbers--pass away.

After all, it is only fair.

This is a very warped view of life.  If this young woman attending a church-related university had a religious upbringing, it certainly does not show in what she has written.

"A virus is probably the fairest method of extermination (though still not completely fair, I admit) because it's nondiscriminatory as to whom it targets. Rich, poor, black, white, brown, nice, mean, religious, agnostic - we'd all be targeted equally. The only difference is who can afford medicine and even then, if it's a mutated virus that strikes fast, humans would have only the tiniest of a chance to find a cure in time so money wouldn't matter."

Fairness again.  A virus--unlike evil humanity--does not discriminate.  Discrimination, of course, if the greatest evil of all so viruses must be good.  Especially when they can help save the planet.

And perhaps most chilling of all:

"An insightful observation was made during the talk that education should be the key to learning how to take care of the Earth, but the problem is that the educated have fewer children and the uneducated have many children. So eventually, the uneducated will take over the Earth. It may have already happened."

The amazing arrogance and elitism of liberalism rears its head in full splendor.  Read it all for yourself, in full context, in her own words:

http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html

Prof. Pianka is a lot more dangerous than I thought before I read this post by a student "converted" to his way of thinking.  How many has he converted?  How many true believers are there who believe that most of us should die?

Up until now, I thought that radical Islam was the greatest threat facing the West.

The mullahs are pikers by comparison.

If this young woman's post doesn't give you chills, nothing will.

And it was so good it became a movie, 'Wrath of Khan'.

The guy is a psycho and needs to be far away from teaching.

the planet is not overcrowded. There may be people trying to live in unsuitable lands because of war, oppression or stupidity but there are always surpluses of the world's major food staples. The Ukraine still hasn't fully realized how to export their crops through a modern distribution model, for just one example of how it could be even better.

today on the Frank Beckmann show. The doctor claimed that he had been mis-quoted, his words taken out of context by "a couple of right wing writers."

He claimed that he never said we needed to have 90% of the world population killed, but that he thinks we are due for a pandemic that will do just that. He said he used ebola merely as an example, and the 90% figure came from the fact that ebola has a 90% death rate.

He was very rational and his explanations made perfect sense.

Then Frank started questioning him. It seems that he thinks it is terrible that MAN now inhabits more than 50% of the earth. When Frank suggested that MAN might be a superior species, he disagreed. Not superior, merely "more clever" than other animals.

Once he got going, and Frank did a marvelous job of bringing him out, he reiterated that man is "no better than bacteria."  We ARE a bacteria, the way we just keep reproducing...we refuse to do anything to reduce our reproduction.

he sounded REAL sane!

due for another insane professor eruption!

I met and interviewed him 2 yrs ago. He had a famous conservative epiphany. Read his Radical Son and Left Illusions.

He and Peter Collier also created the literary genre of tragic dynasty with their books on the Kennedys, Roosevelts and Rockefellers I think. The Kennedys book is great.

Basically the same thing was being said by Erlich back in the 1970s, save that I only recall him suggesting birth control methods, not explicitly calling for a forced 90% reduction.  This raises a few questions that I'd love the professor to answer, of course.

Who should be killed?

Who should do the killing?

What methods are acceptable?

What do you do if someone refuses to die?  If a large number unite to resist the culling efforts?

How do you prevent the culling operation from turning into a policy of genocide?

What limits are you going to set for population levels?

How would you prevent future population levels from surpassing those limits?

As some technologies will still be needed to sustain the remaining 10% of the population (that'd still put it in the hundreds of millions), which of these would be acceptable in the post-culling world?

Instead, it seems like this professor is just tossing out the "Let's kill 'em off!" statement and giving a vague possibility of a biological terror campaign being the way to do it.  This must be his way of making students think about the problem, but it comes across like it's being delivered with a sledgehammer.  And I've usually read comicbooks with a villain coming to these sorts of conclusions.

It's thing like this which makes me want to just shut off all universities except a select few and outlaw the practice of tenure for the remaining.  How's that for "population control"?

4 billion!  What do we have today? 6.5 billion?  OOps! his bad!

environmentalist movement is not all it appears to be and their real motives are not terribly obvious if you only focus on their PR releases.

Their anti-technology anti-capitalist bent stems from a deep hatered of the thinking, achieving, creating human beings. The mystification of the poor and abused Mother Nature is part of the agenda that leads towards the conclusion that humanity is nothing better than evil bacteria trying to destroy what is holy and good. Many of their wacko supporters bought into the whole scheme with a religious fervor. Environmentalist movement and it's offshoots, like animal rights, seek to further devalue humanity and propose that our technological and industrial achievements are the reason for the destruction of the ecology.

In the process of devaluing humanity it is not a huge leap to what this professor is advocating. Some of them are no better than the suicide bombers in the strength of their resolve to achieve a final solution to Mother Earth's problems.

I hope with all my heart that the hidden players behind the Environmentalist movement are being watched if we really care about things like Bird Flu and Smallpox.

You have to go to the final two entries to get the reference to 90%.  However, one student's comment intrigued me---

"I pretty much share your sentiments on a lot of issues concerning the environment and such. It's just that your class is really hard. So much material, and the concepts are pretty far fetched sometimes. Of course, it'd be great if you could omit the math and all those charts, but I guess you can't. I loved the stories and the simple theories that you can explained in words. Anything beyond that is useless to me."

Looks like even a blonde can recognize far-fetched concepts.

into Malthus, but realized it would be time wasted.  The guy may be a fantastice teacher, but it sounds like what he's teaching is non-academic.

If he really believes this c**p, I certainly hope he also teaches that only certain segments of the Whole Earth Population need be exterminated.  After all, some segments, like the majority found in North America, are not contributing to the proliferation of mankind on Earth, but are seeing their numbers reduced by non-replacement reproduction rates.

BTW, don't be offended by my words.  They are merely posted to show how offensive his words should be taken to be.

UT should be considering how to stop a professor who is tenured but crazy.  He must have watched Soylent Green one time too many.

for my daughter in about nine years.  Maybe George Mason is some competition for Hillsdale, too.  It's still too early to start the research.

its right down the road from me. beautiful campus...I know several of the profs there...do you get Imprimis?

nine years away.  Also, I have plenty to read.  We visited the Hillsdale campus for an outing one weekend, back when we lived in Michigan.

Elsewhere you mentioned Frank Beckman's show.  I used to be a daily listener to David Newman.  He was the best talk show host/interviewer I've ever heard.  Did he ever recover at all from his stroke?

We can probably expect a movie based loosely on this nut's ideas, though of course the villains will be racist, xenophobic, homophobic, white supremacist, evangelical Christians.  And Republicans too...I almost forgot that.

Ironic that I am currently reading David Horowitz's book and this story comes out.

I'm only up to the E's so far, so I don't know if Pianka is in the book. If not, he doggone well ought to be.

Dr. Eric Pianka is responding to the furor created over his doomsday speeches advocating mass human extinction.  His claim?  That he is the target of a smear campaign by a jealous scientific rival.

"He's an avowed enemy, and he's made this very clear that he's going to get me and take me down," said Pianka.

In this way, he is attempting to dismiss several independent reports of his speeches, as well as the reports of students in his UT classes recorded in course evaluations publically posted on his university web page:

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html

Search for "90" on the page and you will see that the "smear campaign" by on jealous scientific rival simply does not fit the facts.

Pianka, so far, has the full support of the University of Texas.  University spokesman Don Hale said:

"We have a lot of different points of view on the University of Texas at Austin campus. And we certainly support our faculty in saying what they think."

The ideas expressed by Dr. Pianka are not simply radical personal opinions that justifiably deserve First Amendment protection.  Pianka makes them an integral part of his university classes.

Texas tax dollars are paying for this man to indoctrinate students with the idea that the world would be better off if most humans were dead.

Texas tax dollars are also paying for this man to indoctrinate students at other colleges with ideas such as those expressed in the blog posting of this Texas Lutheran University senior student:

"It'd be nice if humans could learn to manage our population as successively(sic) as we've learned to manage the population of literally every other species on this planet with whom we share. We're very skilled when it comes to killing off deer, snakes, rabbits, and fish for population control. But we're a stupid species when it comes to managing ourselves."

..."Life has a built-in mechanism that keeps species from becoming too overpopulated, and it wasn't until humans started messing with the system that it went out of whack. Now that we've killed off the majority of all top predators, we now must take on the duty of keeping populations in check and at the same time, allowing other species a fair chance at reproduction."

"...It's the harsh reality that many people alive right now should be dead. And even harsher to think that the world would be better off with them dead too. My grandparents, who I love dearly and am so incredibly thankful to know, are honestly being kept alive only through the technology that we have created via medicine. The same goes for the millions of other old folk alive and kicking and will continue to do so for another 5-10 years, using up more resources. Or think of all the babies being born every hour with abnormalities that 50 years ago would have kept them from living. Now, those lives can be saved, and we pat ourselves on the backs at how smart and charitable we are as a species that we can create and sustain life. For those against cloning, etc because it's "playing God," how is this any different??"

An interesting contrast with this post, made after hearing one of Pianka's doomsday speeches, is this post made by the same student before she listened to a Pianka doomsday talk.  This post was made on February 28 of this year and is titled, Happy Fat Tuesday, everyone!:

"I have been thinking about spirituality on and off this year and the past few. It comes and goes with certain conversations I have, books I read, wishes I hope to fulfill. I want my Lenten offering to God this year to be to pray.

I've more or less forgotten to pray in my everyday life. When I do think about it and begin to pray, I've noticed that when my mouth shuts up, my brain goes into hyperactivity and I begin to daydream right in the middle of it. Don't know how it happens, but I always find myself talking to myself in the end rather than to God. Why is praying so difficult?

I think now, the only time I really have a conversation with God anymore is when I go through one of those random jolts of insecurity after asking one too many existential questions like, why are we all here, what am I supposed to be doing, what is my purpose, what happens after death, etc. It's not like everyone has trouble praying. I've seen lots of people feel pretty calm and refreshed after a quick prayer so either they're good fakers or they're on to something that I don't know about yet."

Pianka appears to be a very compelling preacher of doom and death.

I see no reason, based on the available accounts, to believe Dr. Pianka's cover story and protestations of innocence.  If this is simply a smear campaign orchestrated by one jealous, scientific rival...then that single jealous rival has an awful lot of help from former students of Pianka, attendees at his public lectures, and reporters at newspapers in Texas.

Rush Limbaugh was going to feature this story on his show, but only mentioned it in passing yesterday.  Today, all the talk is about Tom Delay.  My personal belief is that the Delay matter, while flashy, has a lot less long-term significance for Texas and for the rest of the world than what is being taught in Texas universities to our children and grandchildren.

If you have the time, you might want to fax or call in to the Rush Limbaugh show and express your opinion about Dr. Pianka, his preaching of genocide, and whether or not you think Texas tax dollars ought to be supporting this kind of "education."

The fax line for Rush is 1-212-445-3963

The call-in phone line for the show is 1-800-282-2882

Dr. Pianka should be a prominent issue in every local campaign in Texas during this election cycle.  It is an issue of how your tax dollars are being spent.  It is an issue of national security.

It matters.

I agree.  The resignation of Tom Delay isn't going to have the sort of long-lasting consequences that Pianka and other nutty professors teaching in our universities is going to have.

The  blog postings of that Lutheran student before and after hearing Pianka's talk advocating mass killing of humans to save the planet are frightening.  This is like listening to someone brainwashed by a cult.

What he is teaching in his classes isn't science.  It is a quasi-religious doctrine.  How exactly is this protected speech and personal opinion?  What if a professor at UT suggested that abortion was bad for the species because it disproportionately skewed the gene pool?  Would that be protected speech as well?

We appear to have the equivalent of the radical Islamic Wahhabi madrassas in the Texas university system.

This is a situation that needs to be highlighted and not lost in the news cycle.  I've faxed Limbaugh, and I urge others to do the same as well as try to call in to the show today, tomorrow and throughout the week.  We need more publicity on what is happening in Texas.

The fax line for Rush is 1-212-445-3963

The call-in phone line for the show is 1-800-282-2882

I think Hannity and others ought to be called as well.  Call Hannity between 3 and 6 eastern time at 1-800-941-7326.

Anyone have a fax line for Hannity?  Any other action suggestions?

Tom Delay's resignation announcement couldn't have come at a worse time.  It is certain to consume most of the talk on talk shows and in blogs.

Ultimately, Tom Delay's resignation is a very small matter in the future of this country.

He was marginalized and essentially neutralized before.  Stepping down and allowing someone to run as an incumbent (and preventing himself from becoming a major issue in the upcoming elections nationally) is good for the republican party.  You can tell the truth of that statement from the howls of protest coming from the Left.

Dr. Ebola and the corruption of our American university system is a far more important story.  That is being swept aside because of the Delay matter.  When you read the words of that student quoted above, the Tom Delay matter shrinks in significance.  After listening to a single doomsday lecture by Dr. Pianka, she advocates:

• Killing 90% of the human race deliberately through airborne Ebola
• Killing the elderly since they are merely a drain on the planet's resources
• Killing "defective" babies who would also be a drain on the planet's resources--not through abortion, but after birth when their "defects" are discovered

The pre-Pianka post quoted above and made by the same student in which she talks about prayer and spirituality quoted above is a frightening indictment both of the man's views and of his danger.

This is not only the most important political story coming out of Texas, it is the most important political story in the country.

Limbaugh just brought up Dr. Ebola--but only a brief mention.

Let's try faxing and calling about the Lutheran student and the student evaluations that call Pianka a "god" and how they "worship" him.

This is too important a story to get buried.

Bill O'Reilly on Fox News likes to beat up on loony-left professors like Ward Churchill and Sami al-Arian--he'd probably enjoy beating up on Dr. Ebola.

I haven't found a fax number for Sean Hannity, but I do have an email address for his program director:

      phil.boyce@abc.com

From what I understand, this is the best email address to use to contact the show.

to this dude's arguments, if he followed his own agenda and removed himself first.

I'm all for Pianka putting his ideas to use on himself first.

Here is the email address given out for O'Reilly:

      oreilly@foxnews.com

I haven't found a direct fax number for him, but the general fax number for Fox News is:

      (212) 852-7145

Anyone have any more contact info?

 the environmental movement was located in Texas.  Vaccine for the members -- death for the rest of the world.  Since the survivors would inherent the world's wealth.  It was clear that this is simply a method of larceny on a grand scale.  This professor's position is more proof that the environmental movement is not based on "science".

Here is info on the how to contact Michael Savage, the Savage Nation, including his fax number:

      Fax:  1-415-339-9383

      Email: michaelsavage@paulreveresociety.com

Except more dangerous.

Several of the fringe movements that have migrated to mainstream have deep anti-human undertones.

This 'Prof.' is simply showing some of this more plainly than others.

ashamed of this diary and the manner in which Dr. Pianka is being treated by the right.  Given what I've read by and about Pianka, it is clear to me that he was claiming that we are on the verge of a bio-catastrophe and was not, in any way, advocating genocide.  There is a vast difference between claiming that population is a problem and calling for the death of 90% of the human race.  He cited 90% because, were ebola to mutate, this would be the death rate.  Moreover, it's a simple matter of common sense that no university professor would stand up and advocate such an evil and horrific call for terrorist acts.  It's even more improbable that other scientists would stand up and applaud him for suggesting such a thing if he did suggest such a thing or that students would so glowingly defend him.  People just aren't so easily brainwashed.  I find it telling that no one has seen fit to ask what Pianka's actual views are on the matter, but have simply rushed to judgment.  I'm thoroughly disgusted by the willingness to believe something so improbable and unlikely.  I may disagree with Pianka's belief that we should make greater efforts to control population through obvious means such as birth control, but I, in no way, believe he was calling for outright murder.

Just take the ending "%20" off of your link - that's an extra space character that is causing the error.

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html

Have you read the feedback section on the UT website where his students comment about his classes?

Have you read the student comment on that page that says, and I quote:  "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."

The quote is a link to the page of student comments that anyone can check for themselves.  

Combine that with this eyewitness account published by Forrest Mims III of the Texas Academy of Science Lecture where he says that Pianka advocated quick intervention to save the planet by radically reducing the number of humans.  Mims does not say that Pianka said he hoped a plague would strike soon -- Mims says that Pianka talking about the best ways to cause the death of 90% of the human race.  If Mims is lying, then surely someone from the Texas Academy of Science would have officially condemned his words as wrong at best, libel and slander at worst.

Instead, David Marsh, president of the Texas Academy of Science, has not returned telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment on Pianka's speech from various news organizations.  Mims says in his report that officials of the Texas Academy ordered recording of the speech halted before Pianka started to talk.  They apparently knew what he was going to say and did not want an official record.

An article by Corpus Christi, TX, television station KRIS that appears on their website includes this fascinating bit of information:

No recording or transcript of either that speech (the Texas Academy of Science speech) or another delivered last Friday at St. Edward's University in Austin was available for review by the AP. The Gazette-Enterprise said it reviewed a transcript of the original speech, which was provided on the condition that it not be distributed.

Allan Hook, a St. Edward's biology professor who heard both speeches, said Pianka "wasn't so perhaps adamant in his own personal views of what he thinks might happen" in his second lecture.

But Hook declined to elaborate on what Pianka said in the earlier speech, which Pianka delivered while being honored as the academy's 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

No one who heard Dr. Pianka's speech is coming forward to deny that he called for the deliberate murder of 9 out of every ten humans alive through an airborne strain of Ebola for the good of the planet.

No one.

The fact that you believe that "no university professor would stand up and advocate such an evil and horrific call for terrorist acts" does not make your unsupported belief correct.  The facts suggest that this is precisely what Dr. Pianka did, and has done on many occasions--both in speeches to university student groups and in his official UT classes.

Have you read the chilling blog entry by a Texas Lutheran University student in which she claims to be a convert to Dr. Pianka's ideas?  A blog entry in which she says that the elderly and "defective" babies are a drain on the planet's resources and should not be allowed to live?  In which she talks about how humans need to learn how to "manage" human population in the same way that we have managed other populations:

"We're very skilled when it comes to killing off deer, snakes, rabbits, and fish for population control. But we're a stupid species when it comes to managing ourselves."

She equates management of population with killing off members of the population being managed.  She isn't talking about natural management such as diseases.  She is very direct and hard to misunderstand.  She is also rather frightening.

She is quite specific that she got her ideas from listening to, and being persuaded by, one of Dr. Pianka's doomsday talks that she attended.  Again, have you actually looked at the evidence here?

Have you read the article by Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., MacArthur Fellow, talking about Dr. Pianka's beliefs and how he feels they represent mental illness?

Have you read the Seguin, Texas, newspaper article talking about Dr. Pianka and his doomsday lectures?

You may not believe that Dr. Pianka has called for outright murder, but the evidence of numerous eyewitnesses -- not all of whom could credibly be involved in some arcane plot to discredit an elderly herpetologist and ecologist -- indicates that your unsupported belief is wrong.

I am much more ashamed of the attitude I see on the Left with regard to this man.

Academic freedom?  Freedom of speech?  First amendment rights?

This man is, according to numerous credible witnesses none of whom have been refuted or even answered advocating that airborn Ebola be used to wipe out most of humanity.  That makes the old saw about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" pale in comparison.

This man is molding the minds of young people and convincing them that many must die so that a few may live in proper harmony with the earth.  He is loosely basing what he is saying on science, but the majority of it is more religious or philosophical belief than hard science.  He even uses the term "preaching to the converted" when he speaks about his talks and his students talk about his classes being closer to religion than anything else they have taken at UT.

One describes him as "a God."  Another talks says that he or she "worships Dr. Pianka."  Read the student evaluations http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html

Read the articles linked to in posts above that contain eyewitness accounts.  Stop burying your head in the sand and saying, with no evidence whatsoever, that a scientist could not possibly say or believe such things.

There were a lot of scientists and medical doctors who did some pretty unbelievable things in Nazi Germany and in the old Soviet Union.  There have been enough scientific scandals in the U.S. to disprove the idea that scientists are better, more noble, or less likely to believe and do bad things than any other human being.

Dr. Pianka is a very dangerous man.  At the very least, he seems to be mentally ill and in need of treatment.  At worst, he is outright evil.

Where exactly is a shred of evidence to the contrary that anyone has come forward with to disprove these allegations?  With the number of people who have heard him speak, it should be trivial to find witnesses to say that Pianka has been misquoted.

Unless what has been reported is true, of course.

lost his job for teaching these sorts of things and students aren't mindless drones who simply advocate whatever their professors say.  If he really was going about calling for the death of 90% of humans I find it incredibly unlikely that he would have received such glowing course evaluations...  Especially in Texas of all places.  Finally, how am I to know whether that website really came from a student or whether it was instead written up in the last few days as this controversy has emerged by some enterprising computer hack with an axe to grind?  No doubt you'll point to the fact that the entries are dated.  But I can write any date I like for an entry on a webpage and give the illusion that comments were written days or years ago.  Dig up some of his articles where he argues the alleged points.  Present a recorded speech where he's actually saying these things.  As it stands, all of this is based on hearsay and dubious electronic references and the alleged claims are so improbable and unlikely as to be thoroughly unbelievable by anyone except those who already want to believe or have an axe to grind. I mean really, he would have been dragged off by homeland security way before now given that the buildup before the Iraq war revolved around bioterrorism and the anthrax scare.  You honestly don't think, in the wake of 9-11, that students (Texas students!!!) wouldn't have had a lightbulb go off and say to themselves "ebola = deadly biological disease, anthrax attacks = terrorism = biological weapons, this guy is a terrorist"?  I teach Texas students and they most definitely don't swallow everything they hear and are more than willing to stand up for their beliefs and know terrorism when they hear it.  The chances of this guy being able to stand up and call for such things in Texas in a post-9-11 environment without bringing down the wrath of the administration and the student body are as likely as Bush suddenly claiming that he hates Christianity or a liberal giving a viable national security plan.  That is, they are next to nil.  Use some common sense, this is absurd.  If it's not, dig up some hard evidence based on the peer reviewed journals he's published and some public recordings of him saying these things.

evidence, I'm just not buying it.  The whole thing is incredibly improbable.

Except for this.

Especially in Texas of all places.

C'mon, man. This is Austin. You know, where we stick the liberals, politicians, and other undesirables so they're all in one, easy to pick off ... er, I mean, love location.

Hard evidence?

Did you read the linked articles?

Has Dr. Pianka released the text of his Texas Academy speech -- or any of his doomsday speeches?

No.

Why not?

Why has the president of the Texas Academy and anyone else defending the man talked only in generalities and said "no comment" when asked if he really said these things?  You cannot seriously be saying that Dr. Pianka did not advocate killing 90% of the human race deliberately for the good of the planet simply because a scientist would not say something like that, can you?  The answer to why he has not been fired, according to a UT spokesman, is that the university supports free speech and Dr. Pianka has that magic quality of tenure.

Evidence is given in all of the links above.  Evidence is given in the profound silence from anyone who could come forward and call the charges ridiculous.

You are not in need of "hard evidence."  The evidence is compelling and presented in this entire thread.  You are in need of conversion from academic elitism.

There is an active and lively thread on Dr. Pianka and the uproar over his call for virtual extermination of humanity over at DKos

The thread makes fascinating reading, since it includes a number of self-identified scientists and academics.  The gist of most of the posts focus on Pianka's accusation that he has gotten a death threat (which has blossomed into "death threats" over there), and that this is part of a right-wing assault on academic freedom in response to David Horowitz's book The Professors.

There is an awful lot of denial of the story as well, saying that no scientist or professor would ever publically say such things.  Again, no facts, just denials and attacks on Forrest Mims and others who have "outed" Pianka as Dr. Ebola.

They seem, for the most part, to be worried that this checking into what is being taught on college campuses could become a trend . . .

that could speak to these matters or sought to interview the professor directly?  As for academic elitism...  I'm simply pointing out the realities that would follow from making such henious claims.  He would have been fired long ago.

There was a movie in 1995 called "The Twelve Monkeys".  It was about a time traveler from a future frighteningly similar to what this nutbag is calling for.

Too bad the name "Doctor Death" is already taken.

I'm in North Texas and can't speak to the political environment of Austin.  On the other hand, while I understand that Austin is often described as being a liberal environment, I'm skeptical of the possibility that it's a liberal enclave like Berkeley or San Francisco.  Even in those places these allegations would be absurd.  Then again...  Ward Churchill in Colorado.  But even he wasn't, to my understanding, advocating the obliteration of the United States or mass genocide.

Perhaps you ought to apply a little Sherlock Holmes here.

Try actually reading the linked eyewitness accounts, student evaluations and news stories from MSM sources such as local newspapers and TV stations in Texas.  This is not just a blogosphere story.  Like everyone else defending Dr. Pianka, you are offering nothing specific, concrete or "hard" in evidence that he did not say what he has been quoted as saying.

This is not a case of being "guilty until proven innocent."  This is a case of not answering or responding to some very serious charges made by multiple eyewitnesses.  It is a case of not responding to enquiries from news media, and simply saying "I was misquoted" without offering a tape or transcript to back up that claim.

If he did not call for the deliberate death of 90% of humanity, people who have heard him speak should be lining up to at least say that he has been misquoted even if they don't have tapes or videos to back up their claims of support.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was someone charged with advocating creationism, an anti-abortion sentiment, or anything else "right-wing" in university classes paid for at taxpayer expense, would you or anyone else give the person a free pass based on their unsupported word?

Of course not.  This is pure, unadulterated bunk.

After doing your homework, and eliminating the impossibility of all of those reports being part of a conspiracy by individuals jealous of Pianka, or of them being from people who couldn't understand what Pianka really meant, or of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to chain the universities, or any other nonsense, you are left with what you consider to be "improbable."

Pianka is actually calling for the death of most of the human race.  And he is doing it in university classes.  And no one at UT has stopped him up to now because of tenure and academic freedom to say just about anything, no matter how outrageous, as long as you have tenure.

Saying it is "improbable" does not make it false.





               ..."How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

                                                                                                                                                                                      The Sign of Four (1890)

Dr. Death advocated killing only one person at a time.

Dr. Doom, as a comic-book villain, was interested in dominating humans, not in simply killing them.

Dr. Ebola seems to fit best of all.

How exactly would one seek out people that could speak to these matters (I assume by that you mean people who could refute the claims of those linked to above.)?

As I mentioned, everyone in a position to defend Dr. Pianka is refusing to comment.

I checked out the thread at Daily Kos linked to in a post below and the buzz over there is that professors and scientists who are members of the Texas Academy are being flooded with email about this situation and want it stopped.  None of them has taken the simple step of issuing a statement saying that Dr. Pianka did not say what he has been quoted as saying.

None of them.

The president of the Academy refuses to issue a statement.

The University of Texas implies, in its statement, that Dr. Pianka has indeed said what is reported and that they stand behind him on the basis of freedom of speech and academic freedom.  No one officially connected with UT has come forward and said that the stories and reports are absurd, false or misrepresentations.  They seem to support the truth of the allegations.

Dr. Pianka has said that he was misunderstood and misquoted.  He has offered nothing to support that claim.  No one else has supported his claim.

Also, are you claiming that a tenured professor who has taught at UT Austin for 30 years would be easily fired in a situation like this?  And that the administration would even have known what he was saying before an uproar like this erupted?

thank you.  And as we know from how reporting has gone with the war in Iraq, simply because things are reported a particular way does not mean that they are true or accurate.  Even tenure has its limits.  Practice a little common sense and begin looking for sources in which the professor defends himself directly.  As I recall, we do not advocate the crucification of people based on hearsay.

I do not advocate the crucification of anyone at all.

That was the episode where Kirk was abducted to provide a virus to wipe out most of the population of an over-populated planet:

Kirk learns from Odona that Gideon is severely overpopulated, with crowds of people everywhere and no privacy. To her, the privilege of being alone, even for a moment, is a dream come true. Kirk thinks Odona's beauty is a dream come true, and the two share a passionate kiss. Neither notice the strange ghostly image of a dozen faces appearing on the bridge monitor behind them.

As Kirk and Odona leave the bridge, Kirk hears a strange sound outside the ship. He goes to a viewport and catches a glimpse of a crowd of people dressed in tight fitting body suits. The scene quickly fades to a view of normal space and he realizes something is very wrong. Kirk confronts Odona about what is going on, but she denies knowing what is happening. She then quickly falls ill, fainting to the floor.

Kirk carries her to sickbay where he encounters Ambassador Hodan. Hodan explains that Kirk is part of a secret experiment. Odona is his daughter, and Kirk has just infected her with Vegan choreomeningitis, a potentially lethal virus that Kirk carries in his blood but has an immunity to. Hodan's plan is to infect his people with the virus in an attempt to "control" the overpopulation problem caused by the people's long lifespans in a germ-free environment.

Kirk is angered that he has been an unwitting pawn in their hideous plan, and questions why the Gideons haven't tried sterilization or birth control regulations. Hodan explains that the Gideon people have regenerative abilities that have foiled sterilization attempts, and that their people hold love and the ability to create life sacred.

Kirk is also horrified to learn that he must remain behind to supply the virus as needed, however Kirk believes that Odona can fulfill that role now that she has been infected. Hodan explains that Odona must die from the virus so that she will become a "role-model" for the youth of the world, who will step forward and give up their lives for the benefit of the population.

Meanwhile, Spock becomes anxious to learn what happened to his Captain. When he discovers that Kirk's coordinates and the coordinates given to test the transporter do not match, he goes against Starfleet orders and beams down to Kirk's original coordinates. Once there, he finds a false Enterprise set built around him.

Spock overpowers some guards and finds Kirk and Odona. Hodan tries to stop Spock, but Spock warns him not to interfere since he has just disobeyed Starfleet orders and must now return to resolve the matter. Kirk, Spock and Odona return to the real Enterprise where Dr. McCoy saves Odona's life. Odona still carries the virus but is now immune to it as Kirk is. Odona is returned to Gideon and Hodan is told she can now supply the virus as needed.

Is that what you are saying?  If Dr. Pianka says, with no evidence whatsoever and in the face of numerous eyewitness accounts, and without any corroborating witnesses, that he did not say what he is reported to have said, then we have to believe Dr. Pianka?

Why?

You are also attempting to apply a legal term ("hearsay") in a way that is inappropriate to the term and the specific situation.  The hearsay rule only applies, generally, to actual criminal trials.  Hearsay is admissible as evidence in many other judicial proceedings, such as grand jury deliberations, probation hearings, parole revocation hearings, and proceedings before administrative bodies.

I am also not interested in crucifying Pianka.  I am interested in seeing if we can get him a psychiatric evaluation and some of the help he apparently needs if these reports are accurate.  He doesn't strike me as stable.

Many of the links posted in this thread are eyewitness accounts, and cannot in any legal or logical sense be considered hearsay.  I do not see where your point applies.

You say that the news media is unreliable because of reporting of the war in Iraq.  I do not accept your thesis, especially since you are dragging in a completely unrelated and highly charged issue when you mention the war.  I think this weakens your argument, but let's not go down that side trail.

You have not commented on the student evaluation page on the professor's web site.  You have not commented on the blog by the Texas Lutheran student and the ideas she says that she got from listening to Dr. Pianka.  You have not commented on Mims eyewitness account, unless you lump him in with the "news media," which would make little sense.  Is everyone engaged in some sort of conspiracy to bring down one professor at a shall we say "low profile" university in Texas?

Why?

I would love to rely on sources where the professor defends himself directly.  Unfortunately, the only things Pianka has said in interviews is that he has been misunderstood and misquoted.  He has offered no evidence of his claim, and no one has come forward to corroborate his protestations of innocence.

Why?

Are they afraid of being similarly targeted?  Are they afraid of the veiled allegation of a death threat -- again, an unsubstantiated claim for which we have to accept Dr. Pianka's word? Afraid of a vast right-wing conspiracy that is cracking down on academic freedom?

We have only Pianka's unsupported word to fall back on when it comes to the professor defending himself directly.  To return to your legal analogy, his unsupported word would not hold much weight in the same court of law in which the "hearsay" rule would apply.

Where is the evidence supporting Pianka?

Show me any evidence offered by Pianka in the form of a tape, a video, or a transcript of one of his doomsday talks or his speech to the Texas Academy.  Show me one witness who hear Dr. Pianka speak and offers a defense or any form of corroboration of Pianka's claim that he was misrepresented.  Surely that should not be hard to do if he actually did not call for mass murder.

The silence speaks volumes.

An argument from silence alone would be weak.  However, when added to several eyewitness accounts that show that Pianka did indeed say things as outrageous as claimed, the evidence is against Pianka.

Common sense indeed.

I mentioned that I am doubtful as to its authenticity.  As I mentioned in a previous post, how are we to know that the blog is not simply the work of some enterprising person wanting to undermine the professor?  As for the student course evaluations, I am working under the charitable interpretation that the student misinterpreted what the professor was claiming.  I suspect that the professor was ironically or sarcastically claiming that the ebola virus would solve our population problems, not advocating wholesale mass genocide.  Someone suggested that I was an "academic elitist" for wanting hard proof that the professor is actually advocating these positions in the form of published articles or recorded speeches.  I don't think this is elitist at all.  Frankly, I have not been particularly convinced of the integrity or honesty of those at the forefront of the ID movement.  Many reports I've heard indicate that they outrightly obfuscate and twist issues, as came out in the Dover case.  The person who first brought forward these issues regarding Pianka (Mims) is a heavy-hitter in this whole movement.  

So here I'm faced with a choice:  Do I trust the credibility of a biologist who's published hundreds of articles, teaches at a major university, and has glowing student reviews, or a person who belongs to a movement that has continuously twisted debate to their own advantage?  I say the former.  Until I have Pianka's words in black and white claiming that he advocated these positions (that is a recorded speech or a printed article in a peer reviewed journal) I'm inclined to think that this is a political smear job not unlike the sort of political smear jobs we've seen the left level at the right.  I'm simply not willing to accept the bastion that the universities are this crazy.  Yes, I'd fully agree that there is a liberal bent to the universities, but never in my career as a professor have I encountered a professor advocating lunatic ideas like this.  Sorry if I just don't buy your proof.  Too much of the material coming out of the "culture wars" and "science wars" has made me cynical as to its validity.  If you really believe that respected scientists would stand up and clap after someone gave a speech like the one described, than you have an incredibly warped view of what goes on in the colleges and should perhaps seek medication (or maybe reflect on how your assumptions have severely warped your vision of the world).

Since you call such ideas "crazy" and you use the word "lunatic," then I take it, TXProf, that if it were proven that the good professor DID say that he thought it would be a good thing if the Ebola virus wiped out 90% of humankind, that you would join in the call for his resignation/firing?

In other words, you would be as outraged as the rest of us, if it were true; but you just don't think it's true.  Correct?

if you could give me credible proof in the form of recorded speeches or articles that Pianka himself actually wrote I would be right with you and calling for resignation.  Hearsay, however, does not constitute such proof in my mind.  For instance, on occasion I teach ethics which gives me the opportunity to teach the ethical position of utilitarianism.  Utilitarianism claims that right and wrong is determined by that action that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.  In raising questions about this consequentialist ethical doctrine, I sometimes ask my students why we don't kill everyone over the age of 35 (as in the film Logans Run) to solve problems of poverty and overpopulation.  After all, this would solve a number of problems such as job scarcity, overpopulation, congenital diseases associated with age, bad drivers, etc.  If I were quoted out of context it would be easy to portray me as actually advocating this position, when the intention of asking these absurd questions lies precisely in underlining that we have other values that transcend mere utility and efficiency.  This comes out in subsequent lectures and in the class where I pose these questions themselves.  However, if a student had it out for me it would be very easy to twist my words when I ask these horrific questions.  

How do we know that Painka wasn't speaking ironically in this way to get his students to think?  Pianka believes that we are on the verge of catastrophe due to overpopulation and that when there are many host bodies for diseases this increases the possibility of plagues due to increased human contact and opportunities for viruses to spread.  Now how do we know that if Pianka actually said "the ebola virus would solve the problem by killing off 90% of the human species" he wasn't speaking ironically or sarcastically to say "that would solve the problem, but certainly responsible population control such as the use of contraceptives would be a better solution"?  I don't agree with Pianka's view that we are on the verge of such a catastrophe due to overpopulation, but I also recognize that his position as I've described it is perfectly legitimate and contains no dark genocidal conspiracy behind it.  If I was wrong in this I would be more than happy to call for a psychiatric evaluation and job termination, as such a person is clearly unfit to teach.  But I have seen no credible evidence that would lead me to renounce other confirmed beliefs I have as to how the universities work and I have even seen quotes from Pianka actively rejecting this interpretation of his claims on the grounds that he has grand-daughters and is concerned for their quality of life in the future.  To my thinking, this should have all been common sense from the beginning, and I cannot help but believe that people bent out of shape about this already wanted to believe that the universities would advocate such absurd beliefs.  Maybe people should spend a bit more time talking to actual university professors.

It would be purdent to see some investigation into these charges.  Either Pianka said some terrible things, or Mims and Carlson have stepped over the line into serious academic slander.  The issue is being politicized wildly now.

"City on the Edge of Forever" was probably the best. Harlan Ellison sure could write!

</threadjack>

I think our first clue should have been that we were relying on one person's account of what happened and his characterization of the events. Professor Pinaka claims that the guy has an axe to grind:

UT Ecology Professor Dr. Eric Pianka does not want everyone on Earth dead.

"I don't bear any ill will towards anybody," Pianka said.

But many bear ill will towards this soft spoken University of Texas ecologist.

"I got a really great death threat," Pianka said.

He's getting death threats such as threatening the slaughter of his family after recent speeches pushing for population control.

"If we don't control our population, microbes will. Why do we have these lethal microbes that kill us in the first place? The answer is, there's too many of us," Pianka said.

Pianka says he would never advocate genocide or extermination like some suggest he does.

"I've got two granddaughters, man. I'm putting money in a college fund for my granddaughters. I'm worried about them," Pianka said.

He said he believes criticism of his theory about an inevitable plague on mankind comes from a rival jealous about his distinguished scientist award from the Texas Academy of Science.

"He's an avowed enemy, and he's made this very clear that he's going to get me and take me down," Pianka said.

<snip>

After 50 years of ecological study and writing nearly 20 books, Pianka said he thinks the world's in trouble and wants everyone to know.

"We're taking over this Earth and not leaving anything for anything else on this Earth," Pianka said.

We tried to contact the guy Pianka says is behind this smear campaign. He did not get back to us.

I think it's telling that when you go to Professor Pianka's faculty page, you can see that he has written about this very topic:

I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it.

Population crashes caused by disease have happened many times in the past. In the 1330s bubonic plague killed one third of the people in Europe's crowded cities. Smallpox and measles decimated Native Americans when Europeans transported them to the new world. HIV is a relatively new disease wreaking havoc in Africa and Asia. Another population crash is inevitable, but the next one will probably be world-wide.

Based on what the guy has written, it seems clear that he believes that overpopulation increases the likelihood that we might suffer from another epidemic in some of our crowded areas.  The only comparison he makes between people and bacteria is a tendency to grow until we exhaust the resources in an area.  While I think that there are some flaws in his assumptions (e.g. population growth is expected to level off and decline as societies advance, we have at least a limited capacity to increase resources by finding new ways to use them), I can understand that there is a pretty significant difference between someone who thinks that overpopulation is bad and we should try to control it (and there are a lot of methods for doing so) versus someone who thinks that people are bad.

We should soon know if this is simply one jealous person out to smear Pianka or if he really has advocated mass human extinction.

The FBI are investigating and are interviewing Pianka:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/5PIANKA.html

I still find it disturbing that someone who so loudly proclaims his innocence on something reported by multiple witnesses -- not just the word of one person -- cannot produce a single tape, video, lecture transcript or one corroborating witness to back up his claim that he is being smeared.  I also find this bit of info from the article, if not troublesome, at the very least bizzare:

"On his desk, he keeps a stuffed likeness of the Ebola virus that was sent to him by students who enjoyed his speeches."

Does this strike you as a rational desk ornament for a scientist in his field and his position?  I think the professor is far too fascinated with Ebola for an ecologist and herpetologist.

If the FBI are looking into the matter, I think we can be certain they will be interviewing Mims and others who have heard Pianka's lectures as well.  Time will tell what the truth of the matter is.

This goes way beyond the definition of "eccentric" as far as I'm concerned:

On his desk, he keeps a stuffed likeness of the Ebola virus that was sent to him by students who enjoyed his speeches."

He claims that he is only pointing out that with so many humans, an epidemic is inevitable, yet he keeps a stuffed model of the Ebola virus on his desk?  Why?  As a reminder of the danger?

I'm finding it very hard not to believe the reports that he is looking forward to a "cleansing" of the earth from all of us unnecessary humans who are, in the professor's words, no better than bacteria.  This is nutty.

I am very glad that the FBI is taking this seriously enough to look into.

. . . that someone has started a business to make plushie versions of microbes.  Here's the ebola one BTW.  No doubt the student who sent it to him as a gift did so because s/he appreciated the professor's concern with the issue of pandemic disease and overpopulation rather than intended as a sign of support for wiping out 90 percent of the human race.

As far as the FBI investigating, so what?  Post-9/11 they pretty much have to "investigate" any such allegation including the ones that turn out to be bogus.  Oh and as far as this bit goes:

I still find it disturbing that someone who so loudly proclaims his innocence on something reported by multiple witnesses -- not just the word of one person -- cannot produce a single tape, video, lecture transcript or one corroborating witness to back up his claim that he is being smeared.  

Yes, we're certain that you're "disturbed."  So much so that you apparently missed the bit where it's only one guy with an axe to grind claiming that Pianka called for wiping out 90 percent of the human race while the other attendees are rallying behind Pianka.  

By all means, please keep grasping as straws.

Thanks for sinking to the level of name-calling, first off.  Your clever re-use of my term, "disturbed" to insult me certainly advances the discussion of a serious subject that you are trivializing.

Nothing proves a point like that kind of cold, to-the-point logic.

You also cleverly skipped over my point that this report is not based on just one person making these claims.  The "one jealous person out to get me" claim is what Pianka has said.  That doesn't make it true.

Very clever avoidance of the true issue.

Just to make it explicit, Mims is not the only person saying this.  In addition to Mims, Dr. Shawn Carlson, a MacArthur Fellow, has spoken out against Pianka.  You may suspect that Carlson is "in it" with Mims, since he writes at the same Citizen Scientist website as Mims -- despite the fact that making these kinds of charges, if untrue, could land the both of them in an awful lot of legal trouble from civil suits up through Federal trouble because of the obvious national security implications.

Fine, perhaps these two guys are nutty enough, and jealous enough, of a perfectly innocent scientist to not give a hoot whether they are sued and/or land in prison over this.  Maybe, you can claim, this is just two nutcases out to smear an innocent man.

What about Dr. James Pitts, who received his Ph.D. in physics from UT-Austin and also heard Pianka's talk?  He has publicly condemned Pianka for what he said and has filed a complaint with the UT board of regents.  Pitts has said:

"Pianka's message does not fall within the realm of his professional competence as a biologist, because it is a normative claim, not a descriptive one. Pianka is encouraged to use his ecological expertise to predict the likely consequences of certain technological and reproductive strategies, but to evaluate some as good, bad, or worthy of prevention by genocide is the realm of philosophy or political science, not science. His message falls no more within his professional competence than it would for a physicist to teach religion in class or a musician to encourage racism."

Is Pitts part of some arcane "conspiracy" against Pianka as well?

What about the Texas Lutheran University senior biology student who blogged some pretty disturbing things after hearing one of Pianka's doomsday talks in Seguin.  Her blog has now disappeared, but I have a copy of it and I'm sure many other people do as well.  Including, in all probability, the FBI as part of their investigation.  If the student is part of some "plot" as some have claimed, just a "religious nut" and friend of Mims posting false statements in an attempt to get Pianka in trouble, I have no doubt that the authorities will bring that to light.

If she is not, however, she also seems to support quite clearly that Pianka has actually been saying these kinds of things:

"...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."

That was posted on March 8, 2006 in the vanished blog.  Previous posts in her blog sounded very typical of a senior college student.  There is nothing political posted there.  There is nothing fundamentalist posted there -- not that you would expect a lot of fundamentalism at TLC.  The ELCA Lutherans are quite liberal, and more likely to agree with Pianka's views.

She is reported, by Mims, to have said that she is now willing to personally die to save the world from the disaster Pianka spoke about.  I find that disturbing as well, especially since one of her other blog posts spoke of her depression at being rejected for graduate school, her turning away from her friends, and her desire to not think about the future.

Pianka appears to have gotten her thinking about the future in decidely unhealthy ways.

Dr. Pianka's rather bizzare doomsday speech ideas were also reported by a newspaper in Seguin along with excerpts from a completely different speech than the one given to the Texas Academy that Mims reported on.

Here are some excerpts of what the article reported that Dr. Pianka said:

..."[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity," Pianka said. "We're looking forward to a huge collapse."

"...we're going to be hunters and gatherers again real soon."

"This is gonna happen in your lifetime.  Do you wanna go there? We've already gone there. We waited too long."

"Humans are so dense (in population) that they constitute a perfect substrate for an epidemic."

"Although [Ebola Zaire] Kills 9 out of 10 people, outbreaks have so far been unable to become epidemics because they are currently spread only by direct physical contact with infected blood. However, a closely-related virus that kills monkeys, Ebola Reston, is airborne, and it is only a matter of time until Ebola Zaire evolves the capacity to be airborne."

"Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston (sic) and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people."

Is this newspaper simply some hick, small-town rag that doesn't understand the consequences of printing false statements and misrepresenting someone in print.  Did they forget to check into the meaning of the term "libel" before printing three stories about Pianka's talks and posting an mp3 excerpt of part of a post-talk Q&A session on their website?

If so, I imagine that we will hear about it pretty soon.  Lawsuits should be filed and people should be springing up supporting Pianka and saying that he said no such thing in any of his lectures.

Instead, the silence is deafening.  The most common statement coming out of universities and the Texas Academy of Sciene where he has delivered his self-named "doomsday talks" is that they believe in free speech and academic freedom.  The school or organization does not necessarily believe in what Dr. Pianka has said, but they fully support his right to say it.

When questioned about what he actually said and if the reports are true?  "No comment."

That doesn't sound like a smear campaign to me.  That sounds like proof of exactly what Dr. Pianka is reported to have said several times in his doomsday talks:  "The public is not yet ready to hear what I am saying."

Now that is a very strange statement to make if all Pianka is saying is that we are overpopulated, over-using our resources, and that humanity is heading for a natural collapse.  I have been hearing that message for the last thirty years, and it wasn't new then.

What exactly about what Dr. Pianka's statements, then, is the general public not ready to hear?

Thanks for sinking to the level of name-calling, first off.  Your clever re-use of my term, "disturbed" to insult me certainly advances the discussion of a serious subject that you are trivializing.

Actually the discussion was pretty much "trivialized" when you and others decided to jump the gun without bothering to do any cursory fact-checking to find out what was actually said rather than one person's characterization of it.  

Just to make it explicit, Mims is not the only person saying this.  In addition to Mims, Dr. Shawn Carlson, a MacArthur Fellow, has spoken out against Pianka.

You may want to go back and reread the link you posted and note that Dr. Carlson wasn't at the event and is not responding to anything that he actually heard Dr. Pinaka actually say.  On the other hand most of the other attendees (with the sole exception of Mims) - you know the people who were actually there and know the speaker - have stood behind Pianka.

What about Dr. James Pitts, who received his Ph.D. in physics from UT-Austin and also heard Pianka's talk?

Please provide a source showing that Pitts was at the talk or even claims to have been at the talk.  The Human Events editorial that you're quoting from without linking to doesn't establish that at all.

As far as the newspaper account, after printing Mims' remarks and attributing them as coming from him (which would pretty much protect them from a libel charge unless someone can show that they did knowing that they were false), the Sequin Gazette did a follow-up which included transcript of Dr. Pianka's remarks which show that the excerpts you've posted were pretty clearly taken out of context.  The audio file they've provided of Pianka responding to a question about Ebola has him clearly saying "I don't advocate killing anybody."

So basically what we are left with is a transcript and an audio file that contradict Mims' characterization of what was said (including calling into question Mims' claim that no recording devices were allowed as his motivation for writing about it).  We have pretty much everyone who attended with the exception of Mims that has gone on the record as supporting the speaker and the only people to support Mims are people who weren't at the event

As mentioned above, the blog by the Texas Lutheran University student has disappeared from Blogger now.  Whether she took it down herself, or whether Blogger removed it for inappropriate material is anybody's guess.

In the interest of this discussion, I am including a complete quote of the post in question here so that everyone can see what she wrote in full context.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Dr. Eric R. Pianka, University of Texas at Austin:

"There's a place called Three Trees. One night, some cold, poor fellow went out and cut down those trees to build a fire. The trees are gone now, but we still call the place Three Trees. And that's how we do things."

"Snakes behind glass are like words in a book out of context. They have no habitat, no reality, no context. The snake may as well be dead."

"Technology has only gotten us out even further on thin ice."

"We've made wild animals very valuable and humans very cheap."

Dr. Pianka was named the 2006 Distinguished Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science. He's an ecologist, a "doomsday ecologist" as he puts it, with a CV several pages long and results that have changed the way ecologists think, forever. And d*** is he ever entertaining to listen to.

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.

Humans are far too populous. We've used up our resources, and we're destroying the Earth at an accelerated pace. The more technology we create, the more damage we're capable of doing. We now consider keeping the forest natural to save a species of catepillar more important that using that space for humans to live and till. And I'm in complete agreement with that. It's the harsh reality that many people alive right now should be dead. And even harsher to think that the world would be better off with them dead too. My grandparents, who I love dearly and am so incredibly thankful to know, are honestly being kept alive only through the technology that we have created via medicine. The same goes for the millions of other old folk alive and kicking and will continue to do so for another 5-10 years, using up more resources. Or think of all the babies being born every hour with abnormalities that 50 years ago would have kept them from living. Now, those lives can be saved, and we pat ourselves on the backs at how smart and charitable we are as a species that we can create and sustain life. For those against cloning, etc because it's "playing God," how is this any different?? Life has a built-in mechanism that keeps species from becoming too overpopulated, and it wasn't until humans started messing with the system that it went out of whack. Now that we've killed off the majority of all top predators, we now must take on the duty of keeping populations in check and at the same time, allowing other species a fair chance at reproduction.

It wouldn't have been so bad 15-20 years ago when we reached that threshold of sustainability if we as humans would have learned to control our population size then. But instead, we saw the Earth's resources as unlimited and our authority over them exclusive, and we continued to reproduce when we should've stop. Dr. Pianka made a very profound comment during his presentation; he said that China has the right idea by limiting reproduction at 1. We're past the point of replacement reproduction as a species. We're too many for the number we're at now! We need to decline in population. A virus is probably the fairest method of extermination (though still not completely fair, I admit) because it's nondiscriminatory as to whom it targets. Rich, poor, black, white, brown, nice, mean, religious, agnostic - we'd all be targeted equally. The only difference is who can afford medicine and even then, if it's a mutated virus that strikes fast, humans would have only the tiniest of a chance to find a cure in time so money wouldn't matter.

It'd be nice if humans could learn to manage our population as successively as we've learned to manage the population of literally every other species on this planet with whom we share. We're very skilled when it comes to killing off deer, snakes, rabbits, and fish for population control. But we're a stupid species when it comes to managing ourselves. An insightful observation was made during the talk that education should be the key to learning how to take care of the Earth, but the problem is that the educated have fewer children and the uneducated have many children. So eventually, the uneducated will take over the Earth. It may have already happened.

posted by brenna at 11:09 AM

The post is exactly as she posted it except for one edit to comply with the no-profanity rule here.