tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post114432099069347784..comments2024-03-28T03:19:40.014-04:00Comments on The Y Files: Speaking of fanatics...Cathy Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09688616617444359647noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1795307973539811752011-08-09T06:22:50.277-04:002011-08-09T06:22:50.277-04:00nICE POST
Games ISOnICE POST <br /><a href="http://gamersiso.com" rel="nofollow">Games ISO</a>atomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06806516709368597788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-21289229503899843232011-05-17T22:45:57.048-04:002011-05-17T22:45:57.048-04:00nice share thanks a lot :)
download free pc gam...nice share thanks a lot :) <br /><br /><a href="http://www.ourpcgame.net" rel="nofollow"> download free pc games </a><br /><a href="http://www.affiliatesrating.com" rel="nofollow"> affiliate review</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16217946196345356227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-52226884187771737332010-01-12T19:52:24.788-05:002010-01-12T19:52:24.788-05:00Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the...Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the athletic shoes. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap puma shoes</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap sport shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">discount puma shoes</a><br />It has the advantages of durable, skipproof, flexible, elastic, extensive, stable and proper hardness. <br />But the rubber is weighty and easy to be frosting, nonrecoverable.<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox torch</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike tn dollar</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike shox</a><br />PU. PU is a kind of macromolecule polyurethane materials <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike shox shoes</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox r4</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma mens shoes</a><br />Sometimes, it is also used in the outsole of casual shoes. <br />PU is durable, strong hardness, upstanding flexbility and more important, <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike max</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">discount nike shox</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap puma ferrari shoes</a><br />The disadvantage is also outstanding. Strong hydroscopic property, go yellow easily,<br /> EVA. Ethylene –Vinyl Acetate Copolymer<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike mens shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox nz</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">discount nike running shoes</a> <br />which is usually used in the midsole of the running shoes and casual shoes. <br />EVA is quite lightweight, elastic, flexible and suitable to a variety of climates. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">discount nike shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shox shoes</a><br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">cheap nike shoes</a> <br />Just as the rubber, it is also nonrecoverable and go dirty easily. <br />PHYLON. Phylon is the product of the EVA after the second processing. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike sports shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma running shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma sneakers</a> <br />The midsole of running shoes, tennis shoes and basketball shoes in the world is made of the PHYLON. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike air max tn</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma cat</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">puma shoes</a> <br />The upstanding hardness, density, traction and extension make it favorite by the manufacture. <br />Besides, the lightweight and good flexibility could prolong the life of the shoes. <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike running shoes </a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">wholesale nike shoes</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shoes</a> <br />Just as a coin has two sides, Phylon is nonrecoverable and easily shrink under high temperature.<br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike shoes kids</a> <br /><a href="http://www.shoxsport.com" rel="nofollow">nike women shoes </a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144725344135441922006-04-10T23:15:00.000-04:002006-04-10T23:15:00.000-04:00Presumably other than the part of the environment ...<I>Presumably other than the part of the environment that's inside your veins, since that's an area that benfited immensely from the CAA's phase-out of leaded gasoline.</I><BR/><BR/>The phase-out of leaded gasoline was, to the best of my knowledge, carried out by EPA directives, with the Clean Air Act only getting involved in its 1990s revision (at which point virtually nobody was using leaded gasoline anymore anyway). Plus, of course, the threat posed by the elevated lead levels was dramatically exaggerated in the first place -- European countries were slow to ban leaded gasoline but aren't measurably unhealthier than Americans are.<BR/><BR/><I>As for the CWA, its reduction of point-source water discharges by +/- 90% was attended by a doubling of the amount of America's waters that are fishable / swimmable.</I><BR/><BR/>Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?<BR/><BR/>You're erring right off the bat in giving the CWA credit for the reduction in point-source pollution (not sure where the 90% figure comes from either). In most cases the reductions were the result of even tougher local state regulations. In states that lacked the will to pass such legislation the CWA itself (which relies on state enforcement in all but a handful of states) was widely ignored.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144712847823096432006-04-10T19:47:00.000-04:002006-04-10T19:47:00.000-04:00Revenant: "There is little evidence that either o...Revenant: <BR/><BR/>"There is little evidence that either of those Acts had any positive impact on the environment."<BR/><BR/>Presumably other than the part of the environment that's inside your veins, since that's an area that benfited immensely from the CAA's phase-out of leaded gasoline. <BR/><BR/>As for the CWA, its reduction of point-source water discharges by +/- 90% was attended by a doubling of the amount of America's waters that are fishable / swimmable. <BR/><BR/>C'mon, dude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144705239152077392006-04-10T17:40:00.000-04:002006-04-10T17:40:00.000-04:00Oh, and, Revenant? American air and water quality ...<I>Oh, and, Revenant? American air and water quality did not "get better" as our population grew. Our environmental quality was MADE better</I><BR/><BR/>That's useless semantic quibbling. The environment got better because humans used technology to improve the environment. My claim that the environment improved even while population and energy use grew remains entirely true. <BR/><BR/><I>through government regulation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. </I><BR/><BR/>There is little evidence that either of those Acts had any positive impact on the environment. You are correct that the environment improved because people took actions to improve it, but that just demonstrates my point -- that humans don't inevitably make the world around them worse for themselves. There is no need for a large majority of humans to die in order to preserve the environment; Pianka is nuts on that point.<BR/><BR/><I>Which the usual suspects fought tooth and nail, swearing in their own right-wing Luddite manner that the new rules would bankrupt our economy and have us all living in caves again.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, according to the environmentalists of a generation ago we were supposed to already be living packed in like sardines in a poison-choked world depleted of all natural resources by now. The lesson to be drawn from this is that both environmentalists and "right-wing Luddites" are almost never right about anything, and sensible people ignore the lot of you.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144697255198053222006-04-10T15:27:00.000-04:002006-04-10T15:27:00.000-04:00There you go, Cathy. When Richard Bennett and Ampe...There you go, Cathy. When Richard Bennett and Ampersand agree on an issue, you probably don't want to be on the other side.<BR/><BR/>(Not that I don't have the highest respect for my former neighbor, mind you, but the number of times we've agreed on anything is about small as the number of creationists with Ph. D.s in evolutionary biology.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144686805004073072006-04-10T12:33:00.000-04:002006-04-10T12:33:00.000-04:00Cathy, I think there's a more than reasonable doub...Cathy, I think there's a more than reasonable doubt as to whether or not the characterizations of Pianka's speech you've relied on are reliable.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/forrest_mims_a_wannabe_bully.php" REL="nofollow">According to Pharyngula</A>, 35 people who attended the speech in question have signed on to a statement saying "Mim's has dishonestly mischaracterized Dr. Pianka's statements. Dr. Pianka in no way advocated billions of deaths from Ebola or said anything that would lead a reasonable person to think he was doing so."<BR/><BR/>Nor do the transcripts that are available so far support the more extreme charges leveled against Pianka. <BR/><BR/>I don't think you can reasonably dismiss the possibility that you've been taken in by (and then helped to spread) lies, or at least malicious misinterpretations, about Pianka.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://telicthoughts.com/?p=633" REL="nofollow">At least one blogger</A> has done the right thing and retracted his (her?) support of the accusations against Pianka. IMO, you should consider doing the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144640295425980252006-04-09T23:38:00.000-04:002006-04-09T23:38:00.000-04:00It sure looks to me like Pianka is being "O'Reilly...It sure looks to me like Pianka is being "O'Reilly-ed." There's a lot of hysteria over practically no observable source of what he allegedly said. <BR/><BR/>Here's the full text of *a* speech, though perhaps not *the* speech, that Pianka made:<BR/><BR/>http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html<BR/><BR/>Where is the vicious misanthropy? Where is the justification for the death-threats? Where is the vindication for Mims' scarlet letter tactic? I see nothing. Pianka is using real and demonstrated scientific findings, most notably the fact that epidemic disease is a density-dependent limiting factor of human population, in order to cast an admittedly gloomy projection of our future. <BR/><BR/>Saying that he is in favor of human mass extinction is like saying George W. Bush was in favor of 9/11, because he talked about that a lot too. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and, Revenant? American air and water quality did not "get better" as our population grew. Our environmental quality was MADE better, through government regulation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Which the usual suspects fought tooth and nail, swearing in their own right-wing Luddite manner that the new rules would bankrupt our economy and have us all living in caves again. That is the true environmental alarmism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144638494206264982006-04-09T23:08:00.000-04:002006-04-09T23:08:00.000-04:00While talk of viral pandemics is certainly sensati...While talk of viral pandemics is certainly sensational stuff, I'm surprised that more people haven't commented on his praise for China's population control. It's one thing to think that we might be facing a population problem. It is quite another to support human rights violations as a remedy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144616519156092462006-04-09T17:01:00.000-04:002006-04-09T17:01:00.000-04:00Revvie: You make a very interesting claim: Things ...Revvie: You make a very interesting claim: <I>Things are, on a worldwide scale, getting better and better with each passing year.</I> And then you go on to denounce <I>me</I> for not being scientific. That's heavy.<BR/><BR/>Do I agree with Pianka? No, not really, but I think he should be able to speak without being labelled a terrorist or a religionist, and I think we may be close to the Earth's limits, assuming an American standard of living in Asia. But we'll see.<BR/><BR/>And BTW, did I say "natibiotics?" Dear me, I obviously meant "antivirals" such as Tamiflu, which is still being used widely in hopes of stopping the flu, which of course it won't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144582775247708562006-04-09T07:39:00.000-04:002006-04-09T07:39:00.000-04:00I've labeled you a creationist for holding this po...<I>I've labeled you a creationist for holding this point of view and you're offended.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm no more "offended" that you've called me a creationist than I would be if you called me an oak tree. It is a simple fact that I am not a creationist, and only a person completely ignorant of my beliefs and/or the meaning of "creationism" would suggest I was one. And indeed, your admission that you called me a "creationist" for not believing that population growth would be harmful proves that you yourself haven't the foggiest idea what the word "creationist" actually means. I would suggest that you beat a hasty retreat from this thread before you humiliate yourself further.<BR/><BR/><I>Pianka expressed a point of view on this subject that differs from yours in both method and conclusion (his is based on evidence)</I><BR/><BR/>No, his belief is based on the religious idea that humanity is doomed. The actual evidence is that the world can easily support a far large population than it currently has or is projected to ever have. Which is why, for example, both the quality of the environment in the United States and the health and longevity of its inhabitants has been steadily improving for decades, even as our population and population density grow.<BR/><BR/>Religious people such as yourself and Pianka have been predicting the imminent destruction of humanity for thousands of years. You have no new ideas, you have no new theories, and you have no new evidence. You just have the same tired belief that if you keep shrieking hysterical warnings for long enough you'll eventually find an audience willing to listen to you. The problem you face, of course, is that there's no evidence of this impending apocalypse. Things are, on a worldwide scale, getting better and better with each passing year. This means that you have no hope of convincing anyone other than the ignorant, and can only hope to keep them convinced for so long as they *remain* ignorant. This is, ironically, the same problem faced by actual creationists. :)<BR/><BR/>I confess to being amused by your bird-flu conspiracy theory, though. Especially the part about a "super-resistant" flu being developed as a result of antibiotic usage -- antibiotics don't kill viruses in the first place! That's why doctors don't treat normal human influenza with antibiotics.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144518820418812292006-04-08T13:53:00.000-04:002006-04-08T13:53:00.000-04:00This is horse... feathers (I am too lazy to check ...This is horse... feathers (I am too lazy to check for a comment policy so I'll keep it clean).<BR/><BR/>I read the transcript as Mims saw it and it sounds no different from any of the biologists, ecologists, bacteriologists, epidemiologists, and virologists who get giddy when discussing the details and implications of what they are studying.<BR/><BR/>Brenna McConnell (according to the description) is an undergrad and she seems to have taken down her account and the blog it was posted on and one of the principle papers who pursued the "Mad Scientist" angle has <A HREF="http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-on-seguin-gazette-enterprise.html" REL="nofollow"> taken down its story without offering a retraction</A>. Seems like no one is willing to stand by their stories.<BR/><BR/>It sounds like the reason the audience was smiling and laughing was because they understood that he was using gallows's humor and was not in fact gleeful about the prospect. People like Mims are notorious for missing the point of things whether it is a scientific paper, a logical argument or a joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144514494727162002006-04-08T12:41:00.000-04:002006-04-08T12:41:00.000-04:00Anonymous -If you reread Cathy's post, you will fi...Anonymous -<BR/><BR/>If you reread Cathy's post, you will find Brenna McConnell's account quoted at length - it broadly substantiates Mims' quotes (if not his interpretation of them). <BR/><BR/>Mims is a creationist crank, to be sure, but Pianka sounds like a card-carrying member of the 1960's Erlich/<I>Limits to Growth</I> school, with its fixation on neo-Malthusian thought and utter ignorance of human technological advances. If you check the Club of Rome's predictions from 1969, by now we should be out of oil, coal and copper, drowning in our own wastes and covering every square inch of the planet. The 60's activists also failed to note that economic development goes hand-in-hand with declining birthrates and the desire to preserve habitats. This means that the Third World needs to do much more than simply create "sustainable" subsistence economies to achieve true population control as well as acquire the discretionary wealth necessary for real environmental protection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144509006007957352006-04-08T11:10:00.000-04:002006-04-08T11:10:00.000-04:00Cathy, I was intrigued by your comment that viruse...Cathy, <BR/><BR/>I was intrigued by your comment that viruses are "discrimintory." You alluded to one reason -- their location of origin makes it more likely that the people/animals who live in that region will be infected. But it goes much much further than that. The Plague that swept across Europe 500 years ago killed almost everybody it infected. Some people didn't get infected, however. These people had a mutation in a protein cell receptor that the virus had to bind to in order to infect the cell and replicate (and kill the host). Most people of European decent who are alive today carry this mutation. So, viruses by virtue of what conditions they need in order to replicate are inherantly discriminatory. This means that at least in part, the casualties from a viral epidemic are NOT random. <BR/><BR/>My other comment was that Ebola is not a likely candidate for viruses that will turn into a pandemic. It kills its host VERY quickly, and in an obvious, revolting way. This is why it typically dies out before it kills more than 300 or so people in a village. 1. It's easy to tell who has it, and 2. Viruses do best when their hosts live long enough to transmit it to a lot of people. <BR/><BR/>Really interesting post, though. This guy sounds a big wacko! I guess I'm not surprised he's an academic!OMDGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17937425894428802591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144504729662374862006-04-08T09:58:00.000-04:002006-04-08T09:58:00.000-04:00I am willing to admit from what Pianka has stated ...I am willing to admit from what Pianka has stated outside this speech that he is an alarmist. However, a lot seems to have been made about this speech based on Forrest Mims recollection of the it. Pianka claims, and is supported by the university in this, that he is not in favor of mass death and was misinterpreted. It has also been suggested that these two (Pianka and Mims) have an antagonistic history. What other evidence (besides a creationist site transcript) is there to decide that we should believe Mims and not Pianka? Between a "sky-is-falling" environmentalist and an Intelligent Design crackpot, I would be cautious of taking sides. <BR/><BR/>If Mims was at the speech it could not have been closed to all but the extreme environmental crowd. Surely someone else should be able to corroborate Mims version of events. Where are they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144457451270111862006-04-07T20:50:00.000-04:002006-04-07T20:50:00.000-04:00Thanks for proving my point, revenant. You've expr...Thanks for proving my point, revenant. You've expressed an opinion about the effects of human population growth on the planetary ecosystem, to the effect that there isn't one. I've labeled you a creationist for holding this point of view and you're offended.<BR/><BR/>Pianka expressed a point of view on this subject that differs from yours in both method and conclusion (his is based on evidence) and for that you and Cathy Young have labeled him a wacky religionist.<BR/><BR/>I find that offensive as well. It could very well be the case that Pianka is wrong, and it could very well be the case that the Discovery Institute is wrong on this subject. I submit that we don't get very far in the discussion of the pros and cons if all we do is label the speakers.<BR/><BR/>Revenant and the Discovery Institute take the position that any consequences of over-population can be mitigated by technology. This is a fanciful position because the inappropriate use of technology is one of the factors driving environmental destruction. The current outbreak of bird flu was caused in large part by the practice of using antibiotics engineered for human populations on chickens in order to increase productivity and feed a burgeoning population in China. As that practice was endorsed by the gov't and discouraged by the UN, the PRC kept it secret. Ultimately a super-resistant strain of flu was created, and it's now finding its way around the world.<BR/><BR/>This situation was caused by a growing population, the expectation of affluence, and the application of technology to yield a short-term fix. But it's no problem, and anybody who says so is a crazy religionist.<BR/><BR/>Right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144445658342543462006-04-07T17:34:00.000-04:002006-04-07T17:34:00.000-04:00even though our population density and per-capita ...<I>even though our population density and per-capita energy usage are steadily improving.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, that should be "steadily INCREASING", not "improving".Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144445582001362472006-04-07T17:33:00.000-04:002006-04-07T17:33:00.000-04:00You creationists should calibrate your sensors bef...<I>You creationists should calibrate your sensors before going off like that.</I><BR/><BR/>The fact that you're labelling us all "creationists" confirms my suspicion that your grasp of the facts in this matter is nonexistant.<BR/><BR/><I>China and India are home to 2 billion people who would like to live as comfortably as we do in the West. What happens to the planet Earth when they do?</I><BR/><BR/>Probably nothing much. If the resources they demand turn out to be limited, prices for those resources will rise and the result will be that the western standard of living declines, while the Eastern standard rises, until some new equilibrium is reached.<BR/><BR/><I>In your answer, focus specifically on air and water pollution</I><BR/><BR/>The effect of bringing India and China up to an American standard of living would be a much cleaner planet. The air and water quality of the United States have been steadily improving for quite a while, even though our population density and per-capita energy usage are steadily improving.<BR/><BR/><I>for extra credit discuss the origin and development of Avian Flu.</I><BR/><BR/>H5N1 influenza spreads from birds to humans in environments where humans live in close proximity to lots of infected birds, i.e. third-world nations. As is so frequently the case, the problem wouldn't exist if the people in question enjoyed a western quality of life. <BR/><BR/>As for the "development" of the flue, well, so far there hasn't been any. Humans can get the disease from birds in rare circumstances, but thus far human-to-human transmission has proven to be virtually impossible. Should that change, the worst-case scenario has around 3% of the world's population dying, almost all of that (of course) in the undeveloped world.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144439015132649722006-04-07T15:43:00.000-04:002006-04-07T15:43:00.000-04:00The O'Reillification of Prof. Pianka is truly amaz...The O'Reillification of Prof. Pianka is truly amazing. Yes, the man says that human population growth is a potential threat to the global ecosystem, and no, he doesn't say governments should start exterminating people in order to avoid it. You creationists should calibrate your sensors before going off like that.<BR/><BR/>As far as the Unabomber goes, a lot of what he said about civilization happened to be true, the problem wasn't the ideas it was the methods. I don't see Pianka planting bombs anytime soon, but if was to blow up the creationist Forrest Mims I wouldn't shed any tears.<BR/><BR/>For those of you who have to get outraged any time somebody suggests we might be facing some trouble in the future, consider this: China and India are home to 2 billion people who would like to live as comfortably as we do in the West.<BR/><BR/>What happens to the planet Earth when they do? In your answer, focus specifically on air and water pollution, and for extra credit discuss the origin and development of Avian Flu.<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144424034751869522006-04-07T11:33:00.000-04:002006-04-07T11:33:00.000-04:00Can somebody post a link to some articles or paper...Can somebody post a link to some articles or papers that are in line with the one that argues human population will reach 15 billion then level off?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144423868036127762006-04-07T11:31:00.000-04:002006-04-07T11:31:00.000-04:00Ravenant: I would label Pianka as a radical ideolo...Ravenant: I would label Pianka as a radical ideologue and zealot, but not a "psychopath." Just as zoologists might make poor demographers, anybody but his shrink would be unqualified to apply that label.sierrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10711996695204401808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144386230034954142006-04-07T01:03:00.000-04:002006-04-07T01:03:00.000-04:00Is Pianka a credentialed scientist in the field of...<I>Is Pianka a credentialed scientist in the field of population biology</I><BR/><BR/>No, he's a zoologist known for his work with lizards.<BR/><BR/><I>or is he some wacko who lives in the woods?</I><BR/><BR/>The Unabomber had a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Michigan and had worked for years as a researcher. So he, too was a "credentialed scientist". He was certainly a wacko as well, but Pianka's comments appear to qualify him for that label as well.<BR/><BR/><I>Is it reasonable to suggest that the planet has a finite capacity for supporting life in general and human life in particular?</I><BR/><BR/>Only in the sense that there is a physical limit to how many humans you can stick on the surface of the Earth. For example, at a population density equal to that of, say, North Carolina, the Earth could hold around 30 billion people (assuming we only live on the land).<BR/><BR/><I>Is suggesting that there is a finite limit necessarily the same as advocating a program of mass extermination</I><BR/><BR/>He's accused of significantly more than "suggesting that there is a finite limit".<BR/><BR/><I>Is it responsible to ignore the fact that population growth beyond some theoretical limit is a danger to us all?</I><BR/><BR/>You mean "the hypothesis that population growth beyond some theoretical limit is a danger to us all". And the answer is that it is reasonable to ignore any hypothesis until convincing evidence is offered in support of it. That's how science works -- scientists don't credulously buy in to every crackpot theory advanced by everyone who happens along. They wait for supporting evidence before they believe.<BR/><BR/>The best evidence we have is that the Earth is entirely capable of comfortably supporting a population much larger than the one we currently have and much larger than we have any reason to believe we will ever have (since the Earth's population is on track to cap at around 10-20 billion).Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144383038549386322006-04-07T00:10:00.000-04:002006-04-07T00:10:00.000-04:00"1. Is Pianka a credentialed scientist in the fiel..."1. Is Pianka a credentialed scientist in the field of population biology or is he some wacko who lives in the woods?"<BR/><BR/>Actually the issue, as revenant points out, that Pianka seems to be a wacko in the field of "population biology" and that the dichotomy you propse is false. The point I made above was that his credentials and the expertise they document may actually decrease his abiltiy to say anything accurate of useful in the discussion. "Population biology" as a filed is hardly equipped to describe or analyze economic and sociological behavior. The man is just not competent to make predictions when it comes to the breeding behavior of human populations. They/we behave differently from bactieria or rabbits when it comes to reproduction. How useful are Pianka's methods going to be in the discussion on male and female reprductive rights we had in the thread on the last posting?<BR/><BR/>The scientific method is necessarily amoral. That is not a criticism of it, that is praise. What is to be criticized is any attempt at making moral judgments using the scientific method.<BR/><BR/>"3. Is suggesting that there is a finite limit necessarily the same as advocating a program of mass extermination?"<BR/><BR/>We were discussing what Pianka actually said, not some hypothetical "necessarily", and when he gloats about the prospect of a 90% die-off of humans, that sounds like advocating or at least wishing for mass extermination.<BR/><BR/>"4. Is it responsible to ignore the fact that population growth beyond some theoretical limit is a danger to us all?"<BR/><BR/>Is it responsible to ignore the historically documented potential for genocidal evil that such a proposal entails? Or is this just another example of the incomptence of people trained in the hard sciences to comment on the truly cmplex and difficult questions that their particular disciplines do not equip them to handle?<BR/><BR/>Pianka is not somehow validated by his opposition to the Discovery Institute ideologues. You can say that the human population is too large for the earth - I happen to think so - and also say that he is just indulging in doom-mongering wish fulfillment. In fact his tone is identical to that of the End Times fanatics - gloating over the destruction of the wicked. Not a very scientific viewpoint, is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11306845.post-1144382148991314162006-04-06T23:55:00.000-04:002006-04-06T23:55:00.000-04:00To try to be more concise...Voluntary negative fer...To try to be more concise...<BR/><BR/>Voluntary negative fertility rates are associated with wealth, education, and medical care.<BR/><BR/>A huge die off would mean no wealth, no education and no medical care.<BR/><BR/>By the time the stink of decaying bodies faded away it would be replaced by the wailing of human infants.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.com