U of Texas Professor Eric Pianka Predicted a Disease Would Control Population, Ebola?

originally posted by: quirkygirl
a reply to: butcherguy


I agree. He states people are not different than a bug or lizard. He's quite the character but smart and still a professor.

Being a professor doesn't automatically make you "smart." It just means that you put up with being in school and training your mind to think inside the academic box far longer than most other people.

It isn't the letters you put after your name that matters; it's what you end up doing with it. If all you can do with it is tell people they are a scourge on the planet and should die, then I'd argue that you might not be all that smart.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: quirkygirl

I've often wondered if it might not be the case that there's some critical mass of human population that once reached, would result in a naturally occurring plague that will emerge to cull the herd. By this I mean that perhaps its the case that if and when you cram too much population onto the planet, some naturally occurring virus or perhaps even a bacteria will arise and then, because of the "mass" of the host, (numbers of people), the virus mutates over and over again to become more effective, more easily spread and more difficult to control or counter.

I've never thought, based upon my research, that Ebola would be that virus, for a number of reasons I think everyone knows about. But then recently, I've read that there are 5 or 6 different strains of Ebola operating in Africa in distinct geographic regions of the continent. That suggests to me that there is some degree of mutation going on with the Ebola virus.

Another worry I've developed is these so-called Ebola vaccines. Considering the numerous failures of Virologists efforts of late, I'm concerned its more likely than not that the idiots will inadvertently create a vaccine that horribly backfires.

That's happened in the past. It's called population density. Start cramming people together into smaller and smaller buildings, and they literally start to rebreath each others air. Combine that with poor nutrition and air pollution (overloading the lungs and immune system), overcrowded apartments (entire families living to one smoky/humid room), and that is ripe breeding grounds for pneumonia, tuberculosis, asthma, bronchitis and every other respiratory disease you can think of. Add in some asbestos for insulation or workplace employment, and you get mesothelioma.

We've had plagues in Britain, because nobody put their foot down and enforced planning and sanitation regulations to guarantee right to light, green space, living space and fresh air. Try to protest in the UK these days and you will be labeled a moaning minnie, then they wonder why everyone has emigrated.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Ok the figures the professor is quoted as saying are greatly exaggerating the facts

I just went to www.geohive.com...

which has population charts and past % growth and projected % growth based on current trends beginning in 1950

In 1989 there were 5.230,452,409 humans
In 2014 there are 7,243,784,121

A percentage change of 32.2798

So the population has not increased 85% as was quoted in the OP, but rather 32%

Also, the chart showed a gradual and continual slowdown in % growth beginning in 1988
which continues to this day

The world is projected to hit negative growth around the year 2101 at which point the population will begin to decline as quickly as it has risen the past 25 years if current birth/death rates continue as they are today.

This does not account for the many scientists who project a much much faster decline in human population if current birth rates continue at their current dropping rates.

If he exaggerated about this, and he could easily of checked these numbers himself, then I would question all other statements coming forth from the man.

Population growth is linked to technological innovation more than anything else.
lh4.ggpht.com...

so forget any predictions one way or the other the best we can hope for is a pause

a reply to: quirkygirl
The biggest problem I have with the population control folks is their hypocrites they want to limit the world from having children when they themselves continue to have children.

Just be clear it I possible to belief that the planet is overpopulated and we should be taking active steps to reduce the population without being in favour of mass extermination.
Countries with better health and social provisions have lower birth rates.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Just be clear it I possible to belief that the planet is overpopulated and we should be taking active steps to reduce the population without being in favour of mass extermination.
Countries with better health and social provisions have lower birth rates.

Your last sentence is correct,

However,

there is NO overpopulation problem

, that is a myth

the entire world is in the middle of self correction when it comes to population,

See my post on the bottom of page 1, just read the highlights for a quick overview of what is truly happening

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: quirkygirl
The biggest problem I have with the population control folks is their hypocrites they want to limit the world from having children when they themselves continue to have children.

Another HUGE problem we are having due to the myth of overpopulation.

Educated people have way less than replacement level children, on average just barely more than 1 child. As a result, we are seeing the average intelligence of human beings drop overall.

When smart people stop having babies, and only the people who don't understand the cost (physical, monetarily, emotionally) of having a large family are the ones having babies,
then the entire population sees an overall large drop in IQ

Also, another result, the intelligent may be getting more intelligent as some studies suggest
but the majority are getting less intelligent as a whole
Creating a greater than ever class division.

a reply to: grandmakdw
Sorry but you see to ge confusing two separate problems. Overpopulation and demographics of population. Rate of child birth is largely determined by economics. Problem we cant at current technology levels support the full population at the highest standard of living.
You are right that westernised countries need some migration but only 20 countries in the world have a negative birth rate. The extinction of humanity from falling birth rates is just nit going to happen.
You also seem a bit confused about how IQ works.
Must of you post is taken from out of context stats or pseudoscience.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: grandmakdw
Sorry but you see to ge confusing two separate problems. Overpopulation and demographics of population. Rate of child birth is largely determined by economics. Problem we cant at current technology levels support the full population at the highest standard of living.
You are right that westernised countries need some migration but only 20 countries in the world have a negative birth rate. The extinction of humanity from falling birth rates is just nit going to happen.
You also seem a bit confused about how IQ works.
Must of you post is taken from out of context stats or pseudoscience.

I taught in State University and one quite prestigious private University for many years. My subject - Psychology and Human Development. I recently retired and still keep up my journal readings as I volunteer teaching Parenting classes locally.

I disagree with your assertions.

a reply to: grandmakdw
Not disputing your education or intelligence just your choice of facts to believe.
You are right that there is a demographic issue with age of population. However even if we could perfectly stabilise world population we would still have that issue. The problem with total population isn't can we support the population ( we can or we wouldn't have that population that much is obvious) but can we support the population at anything even resembling western consumption rates.
Personally I would rather see a work population of a couple of billion with good standard of living rather than ten billion most of whom are in abject poverty.
As a final point with the background you say you have I think you should be a bit more careful with you description of how IQ works.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: grandmakdw
Not disputing your education or intelligence just your choice of facts to believe.
You are right that there is a demographic issue with age of population. However even if we could perfectly stabilise world population we would still have that issue. The problem with total population isn't can we support the population ( we can or we wouldn't have that population that much is obvious) but can we support the population at anything even resembling western consumption rates.
Personally I would rather see a work population of a couple of billion with good standard of living rather than ten billion most of whom are in abject poverty.
As a final point with the background you say you have I think you should be a bit more careful with you description of how IQ works.

There has been a reluctance on the part of academics to publicly state the true facts regarding IQ, because of all the potential charges of this or that "ism". But look at it like dog breeding, you want a smart dog, breed two of the smartest dogs you can find, take their offspring, look for 2 unrelated but extremely smart dogs and breed them and so forth. And you end up with a very intelligent breed. Nothing to do with "isms" just straight forward biology. I am no longer constrained by the PC fear of "isms" and am now free to just speak the truth since I retired.
Can't deal with the truth because it is not PC, not my problem.

I never said a lower population was not a good thing. Reread the bottom of page 1, I simply said that it will create great hardship for the young people for several generations or require euthanasia of non-productive citizens. I prefer great hardship for the young and healthy, but then I am old and in good health now, but definitely in the non-productive stage.


P.S. The first paragraph has nothing to do with race as I think you were implying and "warning" me about. Statistically the more intelligent a person is the more likely they are to marry outside their race compared to others of the same race. This also makes the offspring of the interracial highly intelligent couple more likely to be genetically hardy and genetically more stable than mono-racial people.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Population growth models/opinions based on economics that leave out environmental and psychological concerns is only a portion of a more holistic approach that more closely models reality.

Sure, the older masses are in trouble due to not having younger commodities (I mean people) to support them... and thus growth is good in that mindset... AND we could support more people with tech and better (or more efficient, anyway) use of available land... but quality of life should be addressed, too.