UT professor criticized over comments about impending pandemic

Star-Telegram ^ | April 4, 2006 | LIZ AUSTIN

[beaversmom]

AUSTIN - A University of Texas biology professor has been targeted by talk radio, bloggers and vitriolic e-mails - including a death threat - after a published report that he advocated death for most of the population as a means of saving the Earth.

But Eric Pianka said Monday his remarks about what he believes is an impending pandemic were taken out of context.

"What we really need to do is start thinking about controlling our population before it's too late," he said. "It's already too late, but we're not even thinking about it. We're just mindlessly rushing ahead breeding our brains out."

The public furor began when The Gazette-Enterprise of Seguin, Texas, reported Sunday on two speeches Pianka made last month to groups of scientists and students about vanishing animal habitats and the explosion of the human population.

The newspaper's Jamie Mobley attended one of those speeches and also interviewed Forrest Mims, an amateur scientist and author who heard Pianka speak early last month before the Texas Academy of Science.

After the newspaper's report appeared, it was circulated widely and posted on "The Drudge Report." It quickly became talk radio fodder.

The Gazette-Enterprise quoted Pianka as saying disease "will control the scourge of humanity. We're looking forward to a huge collapse."

Pianka said he was only trying to warn his audience that disease epidemics have happened before and will happen again if the human population growth isn't contained.

He said he believes the Earth would be better off if the human population were smaller because fewer natural resources would be consumed and humans wouldn't continue to destroy animal habitats. But he said that doesn't mean he wants most humans to die.

But Mims, chairman of the academy's environmental science section, told The Associated Press there was no mistaking Pianka's disdain for humans and desire for their elimination.

"He wishes for it. He hopes for it. He laughs about it. He jokes about it," Mims said. "It's got to happen because we are the scourge of humanity."

David Marsh, president of the Texas Academy of Science, did not return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment. No recording or transcript of either that speech or another delivered last Friday at St. Edward's University in Austin was available for review by the AP. The Gazette-Enterprise said it reviewed a transcript of the original speech, which was provided on the condition that it not be distributed.

Allan Hook, a St. Edward's biology professor who heard both speeches, said Pianka "wasn't so perhaps adamant in his own personal views of what he thinks might happen" in his second lecture.

But Hook declined to elaborate on what Pianka said in the earlier speech, which Pianka delivered while being honored as the academy's 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

University of Texas officials don't plan to take any action against Pianka, university spokesman Don Hale said.

"Dr. Pianka has First Amendment rights to express his point of view," Hale said. "We have plenty of faculty with a lot of different points of view and they have the right to express that point of view, but they're expressing their personal point of view."

ON THE NET

Prof. Eric Pianka's UT Web site, http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/varanus/eric.html

Texas Academy of Science, http://www.texasacademyofscience.org/

Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, http://www.seguingazette.com/

[Shimmer128]

Yeah, too bad his parents weren't more worried about breeding their brains out. They could have nipped him right in the bud, so to speak.

[wizardoz]

Well, if only the socialists died, it WOULD be a good thing...

[Tench_Coxe]

Sounds like a fellow traveller named Paul Mirecki. Wonder how long it will be before 'two white hicks in a pickup truck' suddenly give him two dubiously black eyes?

[stinkerpot65]

Figures.

[AZ_Cowboy]

I'm not angry so much as I am amused by the fact that this sort of thinking is still around.

Well, at least we have it from the horse's mouth. Then again, many elitists have always had a soft spot for population control. A smaller population is a more easily controlled population.

[stinkerpot65]

Typical of what you will find in Austin.

[BookmanTheJanitor]

A University of Texas biology professor has been targeted by talk radio, bloggers and vitriolic e-mails - including a death threat

Okay, I'm confused is the professor viewing the death threat as a good or bad thing? :o)

[AZ_Cowboy]

That all depends on whether or not his job is placed on the line...

[AZ_Cowboy]

I know it all too well. Austin is hardly an anomaly for that sort of thing, though.

[beethovenfan]

Well, we white folks aren't breeding our brains out.
All the white women are having abortions.

[babygene]

"We're just mindlessly rushing ahead breeding our brains out"

Oh we are, are we? Seems to me that we barely have a birth rate high enough to sustain our (U.S) civilization. Are we going to keep things up by importing under achievers from third world countries. (ever wonder why these countries are "third world"?)

[Onelifetogive]

"What we really need to do is start thinking about controlling our population before it's too late," he said.

"I'm all for population control Prof. Pianka.....you go first..."

[babygene]

"All the white women are having abortions."

That's not really accurate. A disproportionate number of abortions are by black women.

White women are not having as many babies due to birth control and careers.

Black women comprise 14% of the population and have 40% of the abortions. I'm not condemning them any more than I would anyone else. Since most of the black kids are born to single mothers, I would probably be more understanding.

[AuburnMan]

This false economic theory is generally attributed (originally) to Thomas Malthus and is often referred to as Malthusian Economics. His predecessors predicted global apocalypse in the 1970s, due to overpopulation and resource depletion. I'd be curious to hear him explain why the U.S. food supply has tremendous surpluses while the number of farmers has sharply decreasing since the 1950s.

Consider the following excerpts from an article entitled "The Malthusian Trap," from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (the premiere center for the Austrian School of economics). I highly recommend this as a short and informative article on a subject that is more pervasive in liberal thought than most people know (even many liberals who espouse these ideas don't fully understand them). This article may be found at: http://www.mises.org/story/1675

"Any numbskull can find statistics to show that if the resource base stays the same and population increases then all hell will break loose. This is the Malthusian mirage. Based on this sophisticated doctrine, believers go around telling people that we should desist from further folly, for the impending threat of doom is ever looming. And government, of course, is our only hope. Another silly use of this method is finding out that the population of Italy is decreasing, hence, they project that after a while there will be no Italians left."

"It is true that if the American continent had never been populated many millions of miles of square forest would remain intact. But so what? Which are more important, people or trees? For if a flourishing conservation lobby in 1600 had insisted that the existing wilderness would remain intact, the American continent would not have had room for more than a handful of fur trappers. If man had not been allowed to use these forests, then these resources would have been truly wasted, because they could not be used. What good are resources if man is barred from using them to achieve his ends?

Then there is the common argument that at any time a natural resource is used, any time a tree is chopped down, we are depriving future generations of its use. And yet this argument proves far too much. For if we are to be prohibited from felling a tree because some future generation is deprived of doing so, then this future generation, when it becomes "present," also cannot use the tree for fear of its future generations, and so on to prove that the resource can never be used by man at all—surely a profoundly "anti-human" thesis, since man in general is kept in subservience to a resource which he can never use."

[Dave Olson]

"We're just mindlessly rushing ahead breeding our brains out."

Ben Wattenberg wrote The Birth Dearth in which he says that the opposite is happening. According to him, although the world's population is growing, the world wide average birth rate is about half of what it was 50 years ago. And IIRC, he said that if that rate continues to drop like it has, the world's population will start to shrink around mid-century.

[Fruit of the Spirit]

"But he said that doesn't mean he wants most humans to die. "

That's not what I read! And, mind you, he wouldn't allow any taping of any kind while he gave his 'death knell' speech.

[Bonaparte]

You want population control, Professor Pianka? Then why don't you set a good example and start the ball rolling? Don't worry about us. We'll somehow get by without you.

[Wilhelm Tell]

Methinks this Doctor is a "Little Eichmann." Funny how when there is a true Little Eichmann in their presence, the leftists will always praise him.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I predict that if the earth's population is not immediately reduced to a handful of tenured professors, the giant dragon-gods will get angry and swallow the sun. The many so-called solar eclipses are proof of this. And I predict that this will happen before 1970. Now I expect to be worshipped as a prophet and be given a nice, tenured professorship.

[stands2reason]

I imagine that "death threat" was something like "you first."

[beaversmom]

Okay, I'm confused is the professor viewing the death threat as a good or bad thing? :o)

LOL!

[beaversmom]

ping

[ReignOfError]

Malthus' basic premise was and is correct -- if you keep people from starving without increasing the overall food supply, you're headed for disaster.

But Mathus didn't -- and in his time, couldn't -- predict the massive improvements in agricultural efficiency and birth control. We've gotten so good at growing food that the likelihood is now that potable water will run out before food does, something unimaginable in Malthus' day.

Let's get one thing straight: In the modern world, starvation is entirely a geopolitical problem. There is enough grain -- never mind other crops -- produced on Earth to give every person a loaf of bread per day. The problem isn't a lack of capacity, but the political barriers to getting food to people who need it, and the lack of opportunity for people to earn the money to buy it.

People were starving in Ethiopia in the '80s not because of the drought -- which was a serious crisis, no question -- but because the regime in charge used food as a weapon and as a means of social control.

The well-meaning but naive folks behind Live Aid sent a massive amount of food to Ethiopia, most of which rotted on the docks or was blown up in transit before it could get to the hungry. I cannot think of a clearer example of tyranny literally meaning death and peace and freedom literally meaning life.

That changes the value of the variables, but doesn't change the overall equation. If population grows unchecked, it will eventually slam into a hard ceiling of resources. I think we're a long way from that point, but it isn't too soon to start thinking about it.

In this, as in so many other areas, we risk being victims of our successes. The last couple of centuries have brought radical success in death control -- smallpox is non-existent, polio reduced to small pockets, and malaria, cholera, yellow fever ... the list of diseases that used to routinely decimate populations and are now an occasional worry goes on and on.

But that success in death control has not been matched by a parallel success in birth control.

Note that when I say "birth control" I'm not just talking about chemical or barrier contraception, but about needed changes in attitude and culture. A century ago, parents -- even in the US -- would have 8 or 10 children in the hopes that 4 or 5 would be alive, healthy and able to support them in their dotage.

The new reality is that a family with 2 or 3 kids will probably see 2 or 3 kids live to see their own grandchildren. In the West, the culture has caught up with that reality, with a vengeance. In much of the rest of the world, it hasn't yet. A large family is still seen as a source of financial security, of a means of carrying on the family name, and as proof of the father's virility.

It's funny that Malthusian economics has now become a "liberal" idea at least in some minds; it was once berated as the exemplar of how heartless conservatives are.

Malthus' thesis was that it was pointless to help the poor, because that would just make more of them, postponing the inevitable collapse. "Malthusian" became a synonym for cold, calculating and utterly without empathy, the stereotype of conservatism that led to the catch-phrase "compassionate conservatism" as a counterpoint.

[ReignOfError]

I forgot to tack on this point. Whether he was earnest in his arguments or just stirring the sh--, Prof. Pianka has succeeded in getting people talking about the issue.

[Euro-American Scum]

Appears to be a cross between Paul Ehrlich and Peter Singer. All three should be dangling from a rope.

[beaversmom]

Austin

[VxH]

I dunno, I've been watching Big Love and am considering shopping around for a second and third wife... just to even things out.

/humor?

[AuburnMan]

With respect, I disagree with some of what you said. Since your response was somewhat lengthy, I will do my best to address everything at issue here.

Malthus' basic principle was both incorrect and illogical. Succinctly stated, his idea was that an unregulated population grows at an exponential rate (i.e., 2,4,8,16) whereas the food supply grows at an arithmetic rate (i.e., 1,2,3,4). Thus, an inevitable catastrophe occurs when there are more persons that food to sustain them. I do not think that this can be defended on any level.

Recent research and empirical evidence show Malthus' predictions to be flawed. For example, the population has continued to grow, yet the prices of resources and foods relative to wages has decreased, indicating the supply of food (and resources) has grown relative to population size. This paradox can be easily resolved because Malthus made two assumptions which are, to one degree or another, flawed.

First, it is widely acknowledged that population growth is almost never exponential, but instead influenced by so many factors that no simple mathematical model can describe it. Demography since Malthus's time show that population growth rates flatten and then invert as a function of economic prosperity. Malthus lived in the time when England went through a geometric growth before birth rates flattened, and he failed to study the large populations in Asia which existed over multiple millennia where such flattening of birth rates has been evident.

Second, the growth of food production has never been restricted to the rudimentary processes Malthus described. Never. Twentieth-century researchers have provided thorough documentation of the process of agricultural intensification (pioneered by economist Ester Boserup) by which production is raised in response to population increases and market demands. Production has also been expanded greatly by societal and technological advances in agriculture. As such, the food supply has outgrown population and is expected to continue doing so. Even though this growth has been based heavily on a finite resource, petrochemicals, and may yet prove unsustainable, the market economy is responsible for great increases in productivity, and is internally sustainable.

Also, Malthus clearly underestimated the power of the human capacity to increase the means of human subsistence on Earth. For example, Malthus did not fully understand the additional leeway built into the agricultural system - diets composed of different kinds of foods can have a wide range of different land-use efficiencies.

You referenced this last part in passing, and seemed to imply that his lack of foreknowledge about increasing technology somehow justifies this gaping hole in his long dismissed theory. This proves my point. His very foundations were flawed. Ignoring somewhat basic economic principles in his research (i.e., subjective individualism; uncertainty of the future; impossibility of quantification of human action; etc.) is no small potatoes. Malthus thought that he had a crystal ball, and was willing to hinge his economic opus on it. He was wrong. It seems to me impossible to defend a premise that is unquestionably flawed by justifying the flaws.

As for the politics causing starvation, I agree for the most part, although the physical landscape in places like Africa play a large role as well.

But, then you get to then fun stuff when you again mention the flawed principles of Malthusian Economics. If, you are standing for the strictly theoretical principle that "we" will eventually run out of nonrenewable natural resources, then I agree. I think it's fair to say that that is undisputed (by anyone really). But, if you extend this to depletion to relate in any way to the population, as you seem to do, I, and every PhD Economist that I know, reject your analysis.

You even seem to advocate "zero-population growth," or at minimum you give it a favorable review. This is an old bird with a new walk. This is one of the latest Malthusian fads. Zero-population growth is the idea that every married couple should try and have only two kids; theoretically to replace themselves in the human race. Thus, no growth. Since this is Malthus all over again, this idea is defeated by the same arguments laid out above (and the MANY not listed).

If your problem is with depleting "resources," then contemplate the notion that the best way to get more trees is to cut down trees. We then use them, plant more, and we have twice as much as we originally began with.

If your notion is with a depleting food supply, then your problem is with the data. Facts are stubborn. The fact here is that the US has the least amount of Farmers in our history, and yet some of the largest food surpluses in our history.

[okiecon]

It is a culture problem within the black community. Unfortunately, everyone is scared of talking about it because it would be "racist." Since when did the facts become racist?

[ReignOfError]

First, it is widely acknowledged that population growth is almost never exponential, but instead influenced by so many factors that no simple mathematical model can describe it. Demography since Malthus's time show that population growth rates flatten and then invert as a function of economic prosperity.

That is the historic record, but not the current state of affairs. The most prosperous regions of the world, Western Europe and the US/Canada, have negative native population growth (offset by immigration), while the third world has accelerating growth due to effective death control and no effective birth control.

It took 25 years for the world's population to go from 3 to 4 billion. 12 years to go from 4 to 5 billion, and about 12 to go from 5 to six billion, and 6 to 7 billion, according to the Census Bureau's estimates. The rate of growth is slowing, but the notion that global population will level off of its own accord is not supported by the facts.

Malthus lived in the time when England went through a geometric growth before birth rates flattened, and he failed to study the large populations in Asia which existed over multiple millennia where such flattening of birth rates has been evident.

India's at about a billion people today, expected to hit 1.3 billion in the next 20 years. They're expected to surpass China, because of the brutal means of population control in the latter country. Tell me all about that flattening of birth rates going back millennia.

But, then you get to then fun stuff when you again mention the flawed principles of Malthusian Economics. If, you are standing for the strictly theoretical principle that "we" will eventually run out of nonrenewable natural resources, then I agree. I think it's fair to say that that is undisputed (by anyone really). But, if you extend this to depletion to relate in any way to the population, as you seem to do, I, and every PhD Economist that I know, reject your analysis.

I don't understand how resource scarcity can conceivably be unrelated to population. Too many people, too little food. Fewer people, no problem. more food, no problem. I don't see how those two numbers are unrelated. The amount of available arable land will not expand to meet an expanding population, and land for housing will continue to cut into it.

You even seem to advocate "zero-population growth," or at minimum you give it a favorable review. This is an old bird with a new walk. This is one of the latest Malthusian fads. Zero-population growth is the idea that every married couple should try and have only two kids; theoretically to replace themselves in the human race. Thus, no growth. Since this is Malthus all over again, this idea is defeated by the same arguments laid out above (and the MANY not listed).

Arable land is finite. The amount of food that can be grown on it is finite, no matter how efficient the crops or how smart the technology. If the population continues to grow unchecked, it will hit that limit sooner or later. It might be at 10 billion, or 20, or 30, but it will happen. We have eliminated most of the epidemics that used to check population growth; maintaining the balance between the population and the available resources will depend on whether birth control catches up with death control. The trends in that direction are promising, but could use some help.

If your problem is with depleting "resources," then contemplate the notion that the best way to get more trees is to cut down trees. We then use them, plant more, and we have twice as much as we originally began with.

That's a net benefit only if you assume that all trees are equal. Cutting down a 100-foot Sequoia and replacing it with two pine seedlings hardly keeps things in balance.

If your notion is with a depleting food supply, then your problem is with the data. Facts are stubborn. The fact here is that the US has the least amount of Farmers in our history, and yet some of the largest food surpluses in our history.

Extrapolating that trend line out the the horizon, all we need to do is get to zero farmers, and we'll have infinite food!

As I said in my last post, we are not at or near the crisis point. I merely advanced the radical notion that we ought to consider controlling the population before it becomes a crisis.

[TXBubba]

Thanks for the ping. I heard the story but didn't realize it was one of our own UT professors. This part really confuses me: "We have plenty of faculty with a lot of different points of view

That is real news to me!