Charles Manson times ten to the 9th?

Charles Manson times ten to the 9th?

Summary: Professor Pianka advocates the death of 5,000,000,000 people on this earth. The difference between the Piankians and Manson's "family" is that the Piankians work in the scientific field with access to potential weapons of mass destruction.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
43

While this isn't exactly a normal topic that I cover, I think this is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in technology, science, or humanity in general.

In a recent meeting at the Texas Academy of Science, Professor Eric R. Pianka was honored after he advocated the death of 5 billion people on the planet to save the Earth.  Dr. Shawn Carlson who is the Executive Editor and Founder of the Society for Amateur Scientists posted this compelling editorial on the dangers of what he described as a Charles Manson raised by nine orders of magnitude.  After speaking with Dr. Carlson on the phone, Carlson pointed out that Manson who isn't nearly as charismatic as Pianka had his followers killed around 7 people whereas a future "Piankian" would try and kill 5,000,000,000.  Dr. Carson also noted that Pianka like Manson technically never advocated anyone's death but that he merely would like to see it happen.  The difference between Piankians and Manson's "family" is that the Piankians work in the scientific field with access to potential weapons of mass destruction.

Dr. Carlson challenged the notion that there is any academic freedom worth protecting since Pianka's is only expressing his own political beliefs rather than science.  He even goes in to an in-depth analysis of Pianka's psychological condition noting Pianka's own obituary.  At the end of his editorial, Dr. Carlson includes contact information for the University of Texas and the Texas Academy of Science who unfortunately are lending credibility to Pianka.  It was interesting to note that during our brief conversation on the phone, Dr. Carlson told me that he had been bombarded with hate mail from environmentalists.

Topic: Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

43 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Academic freedom != Freedom of Speech

    I beleive that Dr. Pianka has no business being a "scientist". I feel that Dr. Carlson is correct is his statement that Pianka should be stripped of his priviledges and authorities as a member of the scientific community. Is Pianka dangerous? Possibly. Most of his danger comes from his status. Lose the status, lose the danger.

    Holocaust deniers are another group of dangerous "academics". Historians rightfully shun them, their works are not brought up in discussion, etc. Are they atill allowed to shoot their mouth off and publish books saying that the Holocaust never happened? They sure are (well, in the US at least; in Europe Holocaust denial is a crime). Are they actually a threat to society? Not really, because the only people who beleive them are like minded individuals who just like to have a "respected authority" lend a name to their brand of hate.

    What is appaling to me is not that Dr. Pianka holds these kids of views, but that significant numbers of scientists applaud and agree with him. Science should be working to benefit humanity, not daydreaming about its eradication.

    J.Ja
    Justin James
    • Even worse

      "What is appaling to me is not that Dr. Pianka holds these kids of views, but that significant numbers of scientists applaud and agree with him"

      Even worse, they presented him with an award.
      george_ou
    • I agree, strip him of his title

      That is the best way to deal with this. The worst way is to give him his wish and arrest him because that would almost elevate him to a martyr.
      george_ou
      • Strip him of his title and have him locked in an auditorium.

        Not a jail cell, but an auditorium. The only others allowed in are of course Police Officers to keep the peace, and survivors of the Holocaust. Families of the survivors. Let the man face the ones that have personally suffered through this HELL and then try to deny that it ever occurred! Have him hear the stories of the families that it has affected. That would change his mind.
        VenusVamp
    • Unfortunately, stupidity isn't a crime in this country

      or this "scientist" would be guilty as charged with no hope of appeal.
      Badgerfan2
  • What else should we expect from eugenicists? [nt]

    .
    Omch'Ar
    • Not eugenics.

      A significant number of people believe that the natural world is separate from people and under threat from them.

      Watch a nature documentary ending with the threat people represent to all the wonders just seen.

      Some people have announced their determination not to have children in order to reduce the human population encroaching on the natural world as much as possible.

      A number of the scientists pushing the idea global warming by human activities are opposed to industry and other accomplishments of civilization because they have more impact on the natural world. And, I'll assert, because people have longer and better lives.

      People in science who are opposed to human proliferation and satisfaction are not rare.
      Anton Philidor
      • You're right

        This is actually VERY common. I have hippie friends that are gleeful at the prospect of human extinction.

        As for humans disrupting the natural order, where did humans come from? (not actually asking you this since I know you weren't advocating humans aren't part of the natural order.)
        george_ou
        • Humans make conscious choices.

          And sometimes those choices are not the same as the ones that would be made by those who know better. This self-identified elite uses warnings based on facts or the semblance of facts to intimidate people into following the "right" course.

          This ability to make conscious choices, not to behave in predictable and controllable ways, is the key difference between people and animals for would-be dictators.

          Such freedom is a disqualification from the affections of the elite, and the source of their unyielding hostility.
          Anton Philidor
  • Really? You need to brush up on history

    Charles Manson technically didn't advocate anyone's death? He surely did! In fact, he flat out ordered his followers to kill Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger and her lover, Mr and Mrs LaBianca (whom he personally tied up before he went outside and told his accomplices (Tex Watson and two of the girls)to go in and kill them, which they then did. On top of this, he advocated the killing of all kinds of people, and boasted of having killed 25 or 30. Very likely the Family was responsible for more like 50, if you count all of the unsolved LA area murders in that time frame that bore striking similarities to the ones the Family could be tied to. For an excellent lesson on the Manson murders read the book by Bugliosi (the prosecutor). Btw, I do agree this person you mention is far more dangerous than Manson.
    Badgerfan2
    • Not explicitly

      Manson spoke in elaborate code. His procecutor was extremely effective in proving the meaning of that code to the jury. Manson *technically* never ordered anyone. Note that I'm not disagreeing with you here that Manson didn't indent to have people killed because he certainly did.
      george_ou
  • Charles Manson

    I am appalled by the audacity of this country when it comes to the treatment of Charles Manson. This is a man who willing ordered 7 people to perform a massacre. The other members of his cult even though they have changed their lives and become christians agree that they deserve the Death Penalty for their actions. Yet Charles Manson lives high on the hog so to speak on US dollars. He should be put to death just as others who have committed the same acts. He should not be able to keep appealing for 'insanity' and sit in a cell making Millions of dollars a year selling his artwork and his books. He is a cancer that the US Court system is nurturing. I feel it is time to obliterate this cancer from our society!
    VenusVamp
    • He was suppose to die a while ago

      This is what happens in California.

      As for cancer, Pianka is even worse and much more effective.
      george_ou
      • Charles Manson

        WAS sentenced to die. The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment and it become illegal to execute. His (and Sirhan Sirhan's) sentences were commuted to life.
        Roger Ramjet
        • Supreme Court and Capital Punishment

          I actually had no idea that Manson was actually sentenced to die at one point. I know that he has been rejected at every parole hearing he's ever had.

          That said, my understanding of that court ruling is that most of the majority opined that, while capital punishment was not in itself cruel and unusual, the manner in which it was enforced could be seen as such (e.g., a disproportionate number of death sentences given to certain socioeconomic groups). Some of the "majority" in the case did, however, hold that capital punishment was always cruel and unusual. However, the decision in the case (at least as I learned about it in political science) was based on the enforcement of the penalty, rather than the penalty itself.
          Third of Five
  • Typical Ecoterrorist

    This guy sounds like any other ecoterrorist I run into when in the People's Republic of CA. Maybe we should engage Rainbow Six? :)
    tshinder9
  • hearsay

    First of all, Dr. Carlson never went to that meeting--it was Mims. I've actually heard this talk before (at the university I go to in NY). And since everyone is so gung-ho about interpreting what Pianka said, I will give my own. IMO, he is saying that this earth is becoming so overpopulated that there will come a time when it can no longer sustain us. At that point, something's got to give. If anything, he is concerned about our welfare and asking us to open our eyes to the problem before us. He is NOT advocating killing off millions and millions of people. And as for Dr. Carlson "diagnosing" him with depression, I hope he's got a degree in psychiatry or clinical psychology and performed a clinical assessment to substantiate such claims. I've personally spoken to this man twice and he was quite pleasant to talk to.

    If there's anyone who's dangerous here, it would be Dr. Carlson and Mims. You do realize that members of the Texas Academy of Sciences and Pianka himself are getting death threats, right?
    meditrina
    • No, he's hoping for billions of deaths

      "He is NOT advocating killing off millions and millions of people"

      You're right, he's not advocating millions of deaths; he's hoping and potentially inspiring others to pull off billions of deaths.

      ?If there's anyone who's dangerous here, it would be Dr. Carlson and Mims. You do realize that members of the Texas Academy of Sciences and Pianka himself are getting death threats, right??

      Sorry, but you?ve lost all sense of humanity. Carlson and Mims only advocate responsible science. Mims did attend the meeting and his writing is linked in the blog.

      BTW, the last thing that should ever happen is for anyone to kill Pianka because that?s what he?s hoping for. It would make him a martyr.
      george_ou
      • potentially aspiring?

        If you get a chance, try to go to one of his talks. Also, I think he will be interviewed tonight at 11 pm on MSNBC. Listen to him talk and if your opinion of him still stands, so be it.

        As for me losing my humanity, that is pretty quick judgment, don't you think, especially since I did mention that I believed that Pianka was concerned about the human race. Not to mention that I'm Christian, the daughter of a pastor, and studying neuroscience to better understand the biology of psychopathology. And I am all for responsible science--let's just remember that the way we phrase our comments and the ways we make our opinions and perceptions sound like fact can definitely alter and skew what another person has said.
        meditrina
        • Why would you call Dr. Carlson and Dr. Mims 'dangerous'?

          "And I am all for responsible science--let's just remember that the way we phrase our comments and the ways we make our opinions and perceptions sound like fact can definitely alter and skew what another person has said"

          Now if you're saying that people should listen to him speak on MSNBC tonight, I'll accept that (and I'll listen to him speak tonight). I simply thought it was ludicrous of you to call Dr. Carlson and Dr. Mims "dangerous" when all they advocate is that the scientific community doesn?t continue lending any more credibility to Pianka.

          As for humanity, anyone that hopes for 5 billion people to die horribly of a disease that eats out their internal organs doesn't qualify for it. Since you're vigorously defending Pianka, you're supporting his premise.

          As for responsible science, there's nothing scientific about Pianka's position. The problem is that his personal beliefs -that humans are not part of the natural order but rather a malignancy within the natural order - are being elevated to the level of science.
          george_ou