I assume like George C. Scott at the end of "Dr. Strangelove", Dr. Pianka already has the underground bunker laid out for himself and the others who are to be among the surviving 10 percent (though I'm not sure if he'd prefer the same male-female ratio laid out at the end of that movie).

Which is why there cannot be a conservative environmentalism.

You don't have to hate Man to respect Creation. In fact, you have to hate God to disrespect Creation.

Which is why there cannot be a conservative environmentalism, a movement that hates Man and elevates Creation above him.

Man can be separated from Creation. Dominion imposes responsibilities, rather than just granting benefits.

Perhaps the good professor will achieve the greater good by leading the way with his own extermination.

This really is the scientific version of George Felos, now isn't it?

Everybody else must get out of the way (for ME)! Or, ME and my lizards. Nobody else.

But would he kill Peter Singer?

John R:

To adopt one of the Left's favorite charges:

Chickenscientist!

Of course not. Like Margaret Sanger before him, the good professor only advocates the extermination of inferior peoples. Nobody he knows personally would be affected. (Well, maybe those Christers down the street with three or five kids, but they have it coming to 'em, you see.)

Albigensians. We did the Albigensians for this kind of treason to humanity.

When I was a kid, 40 years ago, people like this were often depicted in the movies, on TV and in the popular fictional publications. They were known as the "mad scientist", and they were thwarted by the various superheros of the day. Now, if a nutbag professor advocates killing off 90 percent of the human population, he gets awards, gushing student adolation and warm write-ups from the MSM. Where's a caped crusader when you need one?

It's one of the reasons Americans hate scientists.

Well we're all learning new ones, Jim of Chicago. Professor Pianko is a huge piece of Pelosi in my book. Where's James Bond when we need him?

Holy ebolee Batman ... it's the Lizard man.

Welcome to the world of 12 Monkeys.

Would certainly solve that pesky global warming problem, though.

Yes it would. There'd be 90% fewer eruptions of hot air from scientists like this.

Never mind whether or not he will volunteer or not to be killed. The sheer evil of his goal dwarfs any evil in his probable hypocrisy.

Not to mention the fact that saving the planet "as we know it" is unscientific; the only thing constant is change. The "balance of nature" is an anthropomorphic norm--nature certainly doesn't care whether the world is filled with mammals, bacteria, or nothing.

I'm sure that Karl Rove is working on a way to get Al Gore to endorse this guy, or get him to endorse Gore.

You might have waited a day or two before posting on this.

It is beginning to appear that Mims doctored his account a bit - Pianka is certainly guilty of being an ecological alarmist, and unfortunately one with an active sense of humor that is easily misinterpreted by audience members without their irony filters on. But by most accounts he is not advocating the extermination of 90% of the human race via an Ebola-like virus, but rather warning that this will happen at some point as an inevitable consequence of overpopulation. There is every indication that he views fewer humans as a good thing; there is little evidence, other than Mims' apparent mischaracterization, that he advocates genocide to bring this about.

All of which makes him a doomsday crank and a global misanthrope, which is bad enough. But word has it that William Dembski has reported him to the Dept. of Homeland Security. At that rate, Pat Robertson should have been reported a long time ago.

In addition, Mims, while a respected engineer and popular science writer, is also a young-earth creationist, and so may have his own axes to grind with ecologists warning of a coming apocalypse that differs from his own preferred brand.

M:

Irony? This is standard issue for the deep ecology crowd.

"This" meaning what? Their belief that the planet would be better off with fewer humans on it, or the idea that we should engage in genocide to accomplish the goal? Because one is, regrettably, "standard issue." The other is libel.

Both. Ehrich calls for the planet to be depopulated too. They just don't usually offer such specific plans.

"They just don't usually offer such specific plans."

Which makes you complicit in the ongoing defamation. Whatever his other faults, Pianka isn't offering plans, but a warning. He's a crank, not a criminal.

Twice in one week, you jumped the gun and criticized someone before you knew the facts.

First, you criticized Jill Carroll for her comments while in Iraq. Instead of counselling patience until she left the country, you immediately jumped on the bandwagon and stated that she was in with her kidnappers. You were wrong.

Now you criticize Professor Pianka based on ONE PERSON'S recollection. No investigation. No attempt to interview the professor. Now this man and his colleagues are receiving death threats for statements that were apparently not made or at the least, were misunderstood.

You have a platform with this blog. You have a responsibility to the public at large to use it responsibly.

Barry:

No, not quite. I said before Ms Carroll was released that we should expect her to be released unharmed because her profile seemed similar to that of the others who were released. She was and ought to explain why.

Similarly, Dr,. Pianka is damned by his own views that there ought to be less humans.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html

But no one takes seriously the ravings of such people, until they take power that is.

M:

He hates humankind. That's all population control ever amounts to. Fortunately, he's in the wrong country to ever get to put his ideas into effect.

I don't see any difference between what Mims reported and Dr. Pianka's own explanation. What's amazing is that what he writes is so amazingly shallow. I was particularly taken with this statement, from the essay OJ noted: Per capita shares of all the things that really matter (air, food, soil, and water) are continuously falling. That is breath-takingly dumb. And, of course, on his own terms we should note that the rate of fall is smaller now that it's ever been. Of course, the rate of fall was at it's highest when Eve was created and it the per capita environment fell by half.