quaist

Controversial UT professor warns of Earth's end

AUSTIN - When classes resume at the University of Texas at Austin this week, 90 impressionable undergrads will file into an ecology class taught by a chatty zoology professor known — not always out of earshot — as Dr. Doom.

His real name is Eric Pianka, and students enrolled in his Ecology, Evolution and Society course will hear a sad synopsis of Earth's vanishing species and habitats — coupled with an apocalyptic warning about humans racing obliviously toward the edge of a high cliff.

If he models his lectures on previous ones, Pianka may remark that the planet would be better off without 90 percent of the humans who now populate it — no offense to anyone in particular.

"We should have done something about our population 25 or 30 years ago," the Denton A. Cooley Centennial Professor of Zoology said during a recent interview at his university office.

"Now we're going to have to go into a collapse. It's going to be very painful. The death rate is going to have to exceed the birth rate, we're going to have famines, civilizations are going to fall apart."

Such views have turned Pianka, a 67-year-old lizard expert, into one of UT's biggest public relations headaches.

What do you think about it - just another conspiracy theory or the painful truth?

goodnightboy

Well it's true that the Earth is going towards serious problems if we don't try to fix things now, but it's precisely that - if we don't do anything - I don't think it's ever too late to embark on environmental issues and the like.

If anything, governments pay too little attention to the environment and, through economic progress and the like, are more likely to hasten the Earth to its demise than to save it. It's quite funny if you think about it - what's the point of being the world's most developed country if there is no world to be a country in?

quaist

I'm not so sure about this, since some nations are not willing to act. Read f.e.:

The position of the U.S.A in the Kyoto protocol

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is mostly symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[7], which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations [8]. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

MickeyJr3000

I like Dr. Doom, though he's missing an important point.
It's not the population necessarily that puts the world in danger. Well, in a way, it is.

It is the nature of the species that is overpopulated.

If we would all just stop being energy-wasting, carnivorous, greedy hogs who expend major efforts to increase 'efficiency' and 'leisure' in our lives at the expense of anyone or anything that gets in the way of that, the world would be a better place.

This new civilization, unlike the one just 200 years ago, gets by in life by burning things, and tearing down natural enviroments in order to have air conditioning, bigger homes, a 4-car garage, a computer in every bedroom, etc. And then, three days later (or three months, whatever) we throw out the 'outdated' machinary which either fills our garbage dumps or releases dozens of chemicals in the air to be recycled, which pollutes the streams and the forests, etc.

We should all take a hike, a literal hike and take ourselves back a century or two when we didn't take advantage of the world. You know, I bet most people have no idea how much work goes into the food they get at the grocery store these days...and what has to happen to get it.

I am seeing farmland being stripped away north of where I live, as well as a marine which used to be home to many animals. The land is being taken to build houses, the usual, two-story, two-car garage with wide streets, kind.

Eventually there will be a huge shortage of food. I wonder why?

Screwy society we live in. You know what kind of society would not reak major damage? The tribes of Survivor who live as primitives. Too bad people think that's more farce and entertainment than a reasonable thought. There was once a time when camping involved tents and a bonfire. A portable mini home for vacation. I hear less of this and more of 'cottage' country as the best vacation spot.

Hm. Maybe the problem is not overpopulation, but it is that people are exploiting their advantages and wealth. Owning 2 or 3 properties, for example...I doubt that was the norm 100 years ago.

If we were primitive there wouldn't be a problem. Let's go back to the basics and shmooze with the apes.

quaist

Sounds like a paradise on earth.

But the reality is, that nobody wants to live withouth all those comfortable things.

Raonaild

Oddly enough, it's the developed "first" world countries that have the lowest population growth, and the majority of their growth is due to immigration. There are some European countries that would have a negative population growth were it not for immigration. It's the least developed countries in Asia and Africa that have highest birth rates, where they tend to have more children due to higher mortality rates, lack of female empowerment and contraception use, and so forth. So improving the standard of living in these developing countries is more likely to decrease human population growth, rather than lowering the standard of living in developed countries.

The problem of course is that the earth cannot support every person living to a North American or European standard with the way we currently do things. But I don't believe regressing back to a pre-industrial revolution world is the answer, nor is it realistic. This guy's rhetoric is useless, it makes the problem too big to manage, and the solutions he suggests are impossible to achieve, so why bother even trying if it's all hopeless as he says? I believe humans are smart, and we have come very far very quickly in this century. Now we need to apply that intelligence to the problem of the damage we've done to get to this stage. And we should be helping the developing world to improve their standard of living, and help them to learn from our mistakes.

quaist

You're right - humans are smart, but they are selfish, too.

Your ideas also sound very optimistic, but the problem is that not many people care about the "Third World". If mankind would stick together more for environmental purposes as such, those issues wouldn't be a problem. But I'm afraid this isn't the case (anymore?) in a capitalistic world.

Raonaild

It is worse than not caring. In some ways, it's in the interests of capitolism keep the standard of living low in other countries, because it means cheap labour and cheap imports. I'm not saying it's easy - besides economics, there are plenty of other political issues that get in the way of the environment. But it's not impossible ... look at the ozone layer and the success of the Montreal Protocol.

sum1

Humans are smart? Humans are dumb as hell. Overpopulation is way out of hand and will just get worse. The environment is screwed. Natural resources are running out. Yeah humanity is screwed and it's taking the planet with it.

Lain

No offense but it seems that every hundred or 1,000 years, someone attempts to predict Judgement Day, or Armageddon, or the world will end with Y2K. Now no one really knows when the world would really end and maybe global warming might contribute to that. But the thing is, you can't always trust someone when they declare the world is going to end.

Y2K (the year 2000) was supposed to mark the end of the world. 6 years later, we're still standing here.

quaist

Maybe it was a miscalculation...

Lain

I'd like to see the people who started the Y2K chaos come up with that excuse

quaist

Was it really that bad? I haven't heard any of these theories here (Austria)...

Lain

Basically, Y2K was supposed to mark the end of the world. Computers are gonna malfunction, airplanes will no longer work. That's sort of thing. Except when the clock struck midnight, only a few computers in some place didn't work. So it was...after all...a new year

Jen Jaree

I find that hysterical whoever came up with feels like a dumbass.

This one tabloid magaazine either Sun or the Globe claim Judgement Day is coming pretty much in every isssue.