NEWS: Ecologist advocates use of Ebola to exterminate 90% of Earth's Population

Originally posted by soficrow
Most organisms do NOT do that.

All organisms attempt it. None acheiveit because they are competetively inhibited by all the other organisms that are attempting it too.

Life has an observable tendency to seek harmony and balance, and interdependence with other lifeforms.

Everything seeks dominance, this results in harmony and balance of powers and forces. Apply force to an object from all directions, and it will not move.

truthseeka, you should invite him to come here and share his ideas! Or email the link to this atsnn article to him! That'd be great if he signed up and explained his ideas in some more details. I get the impression that we're getting a distorted story from the media, which is pretty inept at reporting on science.

Like others have noted, these elitists never volunteer to be the first to go.


I wonder too if the elitists, once having wiped out 90% of humankind realize that they will have to be doing the tough jobs like farming, harvesting, repairing autos and aircraft . . . the list goes on.


I remember reading years ago about the elite who are on the list for entry into Chevyenne Mountain I think it was.
With their families as well.

Along with the food and supplies they would take a contingent of bodyguards, servants et al.

And . . . nine billion dollars in cash.

How much good will nine billion dollars in cash do if the earth is scourged with nuclear weapons?

As well as, how many bodyguards are going to stay true to the elite once it happens.

The only good the nine billion will do will be to stoke the campfires....


(Edited to correct tense.)

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Desert Dawg]

Long, long ago, when folk were warning that the meaning behind things like the Georgia Guidestones, was that soon this mindset would be taught, and accepted, as RIGHT, we were fobbed off as fear mongers, blah, blah...

That's the thing about warnings, they'er best the sooner you get them. If you keep waiting for 'proof,' like everyone else, you'll get caught in the stampeed to save yourself, too late.

There's alot of talk about, Eugenics, Mercy Killings, Euthenasia, Abortion, Killing Sick Babies, Population Control, Forced Sterilization, etc., and alot of support for all of it.

There is a book; Defiant Birth; well worth reading before forming any sort of opinion on who's lives are worth living. If folk are going to be debating this topic, it would be good to hear the stories of those who society thought better off not born.

He's too late. Manitobans have saved the world. Again. )

www.nature.com...

TD

Originally posted by Nygdan
Everything seeks dominance, this results in harmony and balance of powers and forces. Apply force to an object from all directions, and it will not move.

That was the point that I was trying to make though, we're not in balance and as a result we are running the risk of destroying society and everything for everything. If we keep the trend up of breeding, producing more and more the resources will fall even quicker. This in turn will mean more people starve, die are killed through our own idiocy.

This guys views are a bit extreme, but a program of breeding where parents only have one child might be the option. Breed until we have the number of people that we can keep in balance with society. Otherwise we more than likely will run the risk of us all dying. Which is the worse option? All dying or us working to a system where we are in harmony?

Hummm...Could I argue that; all who can in anyway, advocate the destruction of any member of the species, is a danger to the species, and therefore should be the first to be destroyed, to ultimately protect the species from breeding up on those who would destroy it.

We would be left with those who protect life in all ways including providing a safe, clean enviroment, achieved by providing needs, not wants...well, you get my drift.

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
Like others have noted, these elitists never volunteer to be the first to go.

Professor Eric R. Pianka is apparently ready to go, he as an obituary up already:
uts.cc.utexas.edu...

Ebola has no preferences, it would be survival of the fittest.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by soficrow
Most organisms do NOT do that.

All organisms attempt it. None acheiveit because they are competetively inhibited by all the other organisms that are attempting it too.

Life has an observable tendency to seek harmony and balance, and interdependence with other lifeforms.

Everything seeks dominance, this results in harmony and balance of powers and forces. Apply force to an object from all directions, and it will not move.

Organisms both cooperate and compete in ecosystems (i.e., parasitism and symbiosis).

IMO - it is pure macho cant to focus on the competition - scientific dogma, but dogma nonetheless.

Organisms do not live in isolation but in ecosystems - and in interdependence with other organisms. Interdependence is far more often the norm than shark-like competition.

The "everything is a competition" and "only the fit survive" world-view is scientifically inaccurate, out-dated and destructive.

Is the Doctor trying to tell us that Ebola was an engineered disease tested out by the Illuminati? That chemtrials are the training runs for the implementation of the also human created Ebola virus?

This is one sick bird, he and his buddies must believe that they are one of the elites and will survive this shyte.

I guess they will bunk down in the underground bases while the rest of the 11/12th's of us are dying up here.

I am in no way advocating violence, but It would not bother me if a gang of thugs broke down his door and repetedly stomped on his balls with a steel towed boots.I would prefer it if there was a video camera involved.

What kind of world do we live in?
Is it not illegal to advocate genocide on a global scale?

But I guess I could deal with it if my Daughter survived, happy and healthy. Even if everyone I know and myself died.

/I guess I shouldnt post when im tired

Wow, this guy really needs serious mental help. O_o I mean you can think that, but you don't say it, expecially as if you were going to do it. He sounds insane.

Folk you really need to get out more.
Respected and influential "thinkers" have been pushing this mindset, and many mass social changes to encourage justification for it's support, for a long time now.

It's those who won't entertain such "solutions", who are now being treated as the "selfish", "dangerous" thinkers.

Gee, remind you of another key time in living memoury?

I don't believe any of this is even realistically practical, for several reasons.

First off, if the "elitists" were truly interested in 1) reducing the world population while 2) maintaining their wealth, there is a much more efficient and less fatal plan than that. Simply send the people to outer space to colonize other worlds. This leads to my second point.

We would be in prime real-estate for flourishing business ventures in space and on other planets, as there are infinite reserves of untapped resources that could be mined for a nominal fee by the people that went. To me, it makes no sense at all to just kill the people off. Why not spend that time more productively, and get the human race off of this silly rock and into space where the money's REALLY at?? I'm still trying to figure out why no one seems eager to get out of here. I mean it's not like we couldn't make a killing off of it, pardon the pun,

Also, we must take into consideration that this "scientist" could just have been completely wacko, and made these statements to inflame a conversation, such as the one we're having right now. I Just don't believe anyone could condone the mass slaughter of humans, as that's counterproductive to the people in power, since without those people to run things, those in power would have to do it themselves. So much for a life of privilage.

TheBorg

umm first post here on this forum....This man is on the edge of insanity i believe...but intelligence is intelligence in any form.

I've been thinking this scientist sounds very foolish and lacks the proper imagination for advocating the death of so many. We need large populations to generate the large wealth effect in the global economy to produce the rapid technology and learning curve of knowledge we are currently on. He also lacks imagination of the universe and the resources available. There could be several billion planets within this galaxy alone and if the entire population of Earth was scattered across the galaxy to mine each planet, that would leave one person for every two planets if say there were 14 billion planets in this galaxy. That number does not include moons, asteroids etc. etc. which vastly outnumber the planets based on our own solar system. If you're thinking expansion on big scales, you can easily see that the human population is like a small family compared to what it could be millions of years from now if we still exist as a species. I suppose this particular scientist may just have a general hatred of humanity in general or enjoy thinking about making others suffer and die on massive scales. It can be hard to understand the mind of a mad scientist though.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by orionthehunter]

I spent over an hour this morning going over publications the so called Dr. Doom authored/co-authored (he is certainly a prolific writer) and I couldn't find one word advocating anything like what has been reported. I did find many rave reviews for his works and for the man himself however. Further, other than the lead-off article of this thread, I could find no reference to anyone, anywhere referring to him as Doctor Doom. I'm not saying the article is a lie, but it sure seems inconsistent with everything else I've discovered about the man.

Futhermore, the person allegedly reporting on this conference is a highly respected electronics writer himself and the report is a third hand report.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I spent over an hour this morning going over publications the so called Dr. Doom authored/co-authored (he is certainly a prolific writer) and I couldn't find one word advocating anything like what has been reported. I did find many rave reviews for his works and for the man himself however. Further, other than the lead-off article of this thread, I could find no reference to anyone, anywhere referring to him as Doctor Doom. I'm not saying the article is a lie, but it sure seems inconsistant with everything else I've discovered about the man.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Astronomer68]

Now we have one poster, who claims to have had this man teach this idea in his classes, which I don't find a far stretch, for 'rabid ecologists'.

But who wrote these rave reviews and what papers/ideas of his were they raving about? More, "Save the Planet, Stop Breeding" propaganda?

This is the point I tried to raise about a generation of New Age Greenie Garbage, being force fed to the world through every outlet, untill it looks like 'common' sence, that supports more genicidal, Eugenics streamed poison.

Google up his name and see some of the things he has written for yourself. While you're at it google up "Doctor Doom" and any other descriptive phrase you can think of and see if you can find any association between the two because it is certainly possible that I missed them.

If he really did give a talk as reported in this article then he deserves to be tarred & feathered and ridden out of town on a rail, but let's be sure he is guilty first.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Astronomer68]

I smell a Rovian plan on the loose behind Pianka's speech.



University of Texas is Karl Rove's old alma matter and he even taught there.

Karl Rove -Wiki
Rove attended University of Texas at Austin (1977+).

From 1981-1999, Rove taught graduate students part-time at the University of Texas at Austin, as an instructor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and in the Department of Journalism.

Eric Pianka -Wiki
Since 1968 he has been on the faculty of the University of Texas at Austin.

Ebola, Spanish flu or avian flu? Rove throws money wrench in Bioshield.

Germ Boys and Yes Men
"Bioshield was a disaster," says Hauer. "It was done half-assed.... Instead of doing it right, they rushed to get it done so that they could announce it in the State of the Union." Hauer alleges that while Bioshield was being developed, the White House political office, led by Karl Rove, was seeking to undermine his authority.

Eric R. Pianka

Any bets that Rove like lizards too?
uts.cc.utexas.edu...



Either that or I smell an April's fool's joke considering the article was published March 31st.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

I attended school there myself, but it was about 20 years prior to Mr. Rove.