DR DOOM RETURNS

"What disease are these ecolunatics trying to prevent that could be worse than the 'cure?' Humanity?"

Last year a scientist became mocked by many for his radical statements on global warming and overpopulation, suggesting that biological weapons could ease the problem. Dr Eric Pianka of the University of Texas (2006's Distinguished Scientist award winner) said that overpopulation was a huge problem, that we are no better than bacteria, and that we're destroying the planet. His solution was simple: “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans.” He later gave his prescription: “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”

Now there's been another call by an Australian Neuroscientist named Dr. John Reid, who proposes this:

The population of the world must be very quickly reduced to 5 billion (that is, if 6 billions equals 120% of capacity, then 5 billions equals 100%). And then, as the average level of affluence rises, fairly quickly reduced further to, say, 2 to 3 billion.

The urgent discussion then becomes, how do we achieve these targets? Leaving aside uncontrollable natural events, such as a collision with a large asteroid or comet, or the eruption of a super-volcano, there is only a limited number of ways population decrease can be achieved. These ways are all painful, and most are brutally painful in their effect...

War, Pestilence, and Famine, three of the horsemen of the apocalypse, can bring about a reduction in the human population. But these kill on a scale of tens of millions, which is not enough to solve the problem of over-population. And they are most brutal in the ways they kill. Consequently, let us consider the alternative...

The next most human way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile. Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception.

The world's most affluent populations should be targeted first.

These being defined as United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia. China, a huge violator of the planet and polluter, not to mention the country with the biggest slice of the world's population, mysteriously escapes this list, as does Russia who is infamous for pollution and ill treatment of their land. Or perhaps not so mysteriously, when you look at his source: the 2006 Living Planet Report. His entire thesis and all his references come from the World Wildlife Federation, which claims that we need 3 planets worth of biosphere simply to sustain our population.

You'd think that we'd be dying by 2/3rds of our population out of starvation and lack of resources were this true, but oddly enough the very nations they list are prospering and the population is growing.

When confronted with the need for proof to support his claims, the good doctor responds in this way:

But how do you explain a self-evident fact?

Well if it's so self evident, you'd think it would be pretty easy to support with evidence and prove. At least scientifically, right? Unfortunately, he has no such proof or evidence, simply assertions that it must be so. Some have asked him the logical question "if you reduce the number of young people, who will take care of the old?"

Dealing with a healthy aged population would be manageable. If all the world's aged were like the 80- to 90-year-old Okinawans, we could probably manage quite well. But dealing with an ageing population beset by the consequences of over-eating the wrong food and under-exercising will be an order of magnitude more difficult. Societies will not be able to provide the healthcare services needed to keep large numbers of unhealthy old people alive.

A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go to those who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet. Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortable deaths. Not every problem is solveable.

Let them die, painfully if they must, they don't contribute sufficiently to the long term viability of the planet. The hell with them. Maybe we could even have a lottery where people who are 30 years old or older are taken to somewhere, perhaps a Carousel, where they are killed.

Tim Blair highlighted this story, suggesting perhaps they consider Zyklon B as an agent for population control, it has worked for similar thinkers in the past, after all. Commenters there responded:

His argument is something like trying to prevent another World War I by putting the youth of each country into trenches and having them shoot at each other.
-by Mike G.


Good heavens - is this bloke for real? This must be satire?

Meat will be rationed to no more than, say, 200 grams per person per week.

That would be one quarter pounder with cheese only per week and no other meat?

If he IS serious I’d suggest immediate treatment before he kills off his neighbours, friends and family
-by aussiemagpie


George Brandis was exactly right. Greenism and Nazism spring are of the same seed.
-by murph


We’ve only just begun, to borrow from a song title. Science and academic types think they may have discovered a “conservative gene”. Just try connecting some of those dots. Miranda Divide types with the crucible of life in their hands.
-by yojimbo


There is a fascinating chapter in Walker Percy’s novel, The Thanatos Syndrome, in which a priest describes why he entered the priesthood. The decision to do so came about as a result of the man’s experiences as a GI in WWII and his visit to (or perhaps liberation of, I can’t quite recall) one of the death camps. The death camp episode is tied back to a time before the war, when the man had been a youngster visiting relatives (or friends) of his father living in Germany, who were all intellectuals and scientists. The stark contrast between the light-hearted gaiety and humane refinement of these scientists before the war, and the brutal participation by these same scientists in the “final solution” during the Nazi era is, I think, illustrative of the sometimes very thin line that separates the humane from the diabolical. This is one reason why scientists should not necessarily be given a lot of credence outside their fields of expertise, and why a fine mind unguided by a loving heart is such a potentially deadly peril.
-by paco


Read “Rainbow Six.” It’s one of Clancy’s better works, and has a happy ending where the eco-freaks die hubristic deaths! :)
-by Fatmouse

He's right, the book is about exactly this kind of person, who believe things are so very dire that they need to cleanse the planet of 2/3rds of its population. They almost manage to plant a biological weapon they create with US government funds in the Australian Olympics, and are stopped by the anti-terrorist group Rainbow Six. It would be a great movie (or a better miniseries) - one that will never be made.

So, in order to solve the world’s population crisis, we basically eliminate the United States(SURPRISE!), representing 5% of the planet’s population and a leading contender to produce scientific solutions to some of these problems, and we leave the high-breeding,non-productive 95% remaining to, what,eat each other?
-by melk


Wow, where does one begin?

Dr John Reid:
Communist (redistribution of wealth) - check

Fascist(Nazis were very keen conservationists and founders of the modern environmental movement) - check

Eugenics Supporter (supports genocide of Anglo Saxons and Asians) - check

Misanthrope (Human beings are self-deluders) - check

Religious Nutter (Pantheist of a sort: ‘The precepts of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam represent the quintessential perversion of the human mind. They must be abandoned and the notion of the sanctity of human life must be subjugated to the greater sanctity of all life on Earth.’) - check

He’s not only a paranoid psychotic, but he is also given a serious form on the ABC. This guy needs to be exposed for the lunatic he is.

Here is his profile.

My God I’ve just discovered how he plans to reduce the world’s population - all his work on reducing trauma car crashes must be a furphy - he wants people to die.

The Federal Government has given him grants in pursuit of reducing car accidents, but Nick and I know through a professional association that the man’s work in this field is flawed.

Now we know why.

This guy is straight out of the Science and The Swastika series that aired on pay TV a short time ago.
-by Nora


Why do dinosaur leftist academics treat the laughbly discredited Paul Ehrlich as if he were some sort of Messiah? The Population Bomb is NOT f-ckin’ scripture. It couldn’t have possibly turned out any more wrong than it was. Wake up, you ninnies!
-by Spiny Norman


Can’t the Lancet do a study, prove that a couple billion of us died already this year, and shut these guys up?
-by Moptop

There were several science fiction movies in the 1970s where the dire dangers of overpopulation were shown such as Soylent Green and Silent Running. People were the problem, too many people and we all suffer for it! The trees were all dead! The problem is, that never happened. Let's do a little experiment with population, to show the size of the planet.

Lyon, France has a population density of 9,720/km². That's pretty tight, but its clearly livable, people thrive in Lyon. The State of Texas in the USA has an area of 678051 km², it's a pretty big place, but on the entirety of Earth (510,065,600 km², of that 148,939,100 km² is land) it's pretty insignificant. The total population of the planet is about six and a half billion (6,528,089,562 estimated). So we take the total population of the earth and stick it into Texas, dividing the area by the population total, and we get 9628/km².

In other words if we took every single man, woman, and child on the face of the planet, stuck them into Texas, they'd have more room and less population density than Lyon, France. This would leave the rest of the entire planet Earth totally unpopulated by any humanity whatsoever. As in nobody.

Why did I use Lyon? Because Paris has a population density of 24,672/km²: far, far more dense than Lyon. I used Wikipedia's selected cities list for this information.

Scientists ought to know this, it's pretty simple math and geography. Then again, being a scientist doesn't make you smarter or more logical than anyone else. And it doesn't make you immune to your ideology and political leaning overwhelming all rational thought. And sometimes that can lead to horrible, evil places.

Science, Extremism