A sub-division of oldpunks.com

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Let's Have A _______, So We Can All Die

Dr. Eric R. Pianka and an unidentified woman from the University of Texas at Arlington following a recent speech before the Texas Academy of Science in which Pianka endorsed airborne Ebola as an efficient means for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population. Pianka received an enthusiastic and prolonged standing ovation. Later he received more applause from a banquet hall filled with more than 400 people when the president of the Texas Academy of Science presented him with a plaque naming him 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ, that was a disturbing read.

Why do nutjobs like that who seem to worship death not just go right ahead and off themselves? If they believe that all (or most) of humanity deserves to die to save mother earth, then why are they still hanging around? That kind of genocidal elitism is the sort of thing that I used to associate only with James Bond villians.

Anonymous is unsettled!

8:25 PM

Anonymous Toddzilla6 said...

Gotta kill off everyone who doesn't love the planet as much as they do. Then they can have it allllll to themselves. I'd bet my butt that they complain about greedy people, too. Imagine that!

10:38 PM

Anonymous Ishabaka said...

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it here.
That student who reported the speech got one fact wrong - airborne ebola would NOT kill only people in Central Africa.
The reservoir for ebola is in Central Africa - i.e. there is some animal carrying it. People who come in contact with or eat the animal get sick and die. While they are sick they are contagious. The disease is so lethal so fast, and tends to occur in the countryside so there are no major epidemics. But ebola can thrive in other environements.
I believe I read about a patient who flew to Germany from Africa with incipient ebola who became sick shortly after arriving, one of the nurses caring for him came down with ebola - this would have been in the late 70's.
Meanwile the U.S.A. goes merrily about it's business while our government announces H5N1 flu will hit here in 2 weeks.
A friend of mine is a Colonel in the Army and when I mentioned it he said "Yeah, he had heard about it, the Army is going to do some drill...". I told him it would be here before they did the drills.
H5N1 at the moment is only transmissible from infected animals to humans - not from human to human like your regular flu.
The nightmare scenario is someone gets infected with regular flu AND H5N1 at the same sime and they exchange genetic material (viruses do this all the time) and the H5N1 gets a gene that makes it transmissible from human to human.
Since H5N1 is extremely virulent (kills a lot of people, including healthy young people unlike most flu and like the Spanish flu of 1918) projections are death of at least 20% of the world's population. Many more would be seriously ill. This about corresponds to the effects of a limited nuclear war. The 1918 flu spread to every area of the world, from remote Pacific Islands to Eskimos -
and there was no air travel then.
Too bad they didn't toast the Professor's award with Jim Jones Kool-Aid.
Anyone interested in this topic should read this book:

5:24 AM

Blogger Richard said...

AIDS is too slow? If we're talking on a geolocial timescale, what's another few decades? I'm also unclear as to just exactly what the mania regarding saving the earth by killing all the people revolves around. I can understand advocating population thinning measures as a means of our own survival; at least there's the motivation of self-interest (and again, of course, the person making the assertion would be one of the exalted few spared) but to wipe out humanity to save the earth (which isn't going anywhere anyway) is lunacy. To see a group of people sit around and giggle over the prospect of actually doing it reminds me of the cartoon goths I knew in highschool that sat around talking about crap like this in tones other people could hear for the shock value.

8:42 AM

Anonymous Ishabaka said...

Ironically the best way to control population would be to provide food, medical care and education for all humanity.
A subsistence farming family who lose infants to malaria, dysentery, measles etc. needs a lot of children.
Just about every "first world" country is experiencing population decline if you take out immigration. Japan, most of Europe, Canada, even the U.S.A. show this - in a first world country having a child means a huge economic burden instead of an asset (financially).
How about dropping food, medicine and books all over the impoverished world?

8:12 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home