Proactive Human Population Reduction

almond13

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
714
Likes
7
Points
34
#1
“and there before me was a pale horse and it’s rider named death”

I did a search on FT and no one seems to have posted this. I read it some time ago in a scientific journal and I had to wait a while for the implications to sink in. This mad bastard thinks he’s one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.
Top Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Population

Fellow professors and scientists applaud and roar approval at elite's twisted and genocidal population control agenda

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 3 2006

A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka's chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

Pianka's speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.

Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We're no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.

Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.

Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide. “And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”

Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of bird flu and spoke glowingly of China's enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

At the end of Pianka's speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clammered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.

One horrified observer was able to make notes on the speech and our gratitude goes to Forrest M. Mims for bringing this sickening display to the attention of the world.

Throughout history elites have invented justification for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations. Up until the 19th century, the transatlantic slave trade was justified by saying that the practice was biblical and therefore morally redeemable in nature, despite the fact that no such bible passage exists.

From 1932 until 1972, the Tuskegee Study Group (pictured below) deliberately infected poor black communities in Alabama with syphilis without their consent and withheld treatment as the diseased rampaged through the town killing families.

In 1951 the Israeli government used US government provided technology to irradiate 100,000 Jewish children in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths used as guinea pigs. 6,000 died immediately after the experiments and the rest suffered for the rest of their lives with debilitating illnesses and cancer.

Pianka's doomsday warning of the population bomb, for which Mims claims he presented no evidence whatsoever, is complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries is it expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land.

Think about the magnitude of Pianka's statements. He wants to kill nine out of every ten members of your family and he wants to kill them in one of the most painful and agonizing ways imaginable.

If Pianka, or 'The Lizard Man' as he likes to be called, is so vehement in the necessity of culling the human population will he step forward to be the first one in line? Will he sacrifice his children for the so-called greater good of the planet? We somehow doubt it.

Will the students who so enthusiastically greeted his ideas go home and kill themselves for the cause if it is so righteous?

It was noted how Pianka presented his argument with the kind of glee that you would see in a demented serial killer before dispatching his victim. This is an attitude we have encountered again and again. To discuss killing 90% of the world's population via a horrific plague is sick enough within itself but you would at least expect its advocates to be serious and sober in their approach to the subject. The opposite seems to be the case, where the subject is aired in a context of lighthearted lip-smacking and hand-rubbing as if the individual was about to sink his teeth into a T-bone steak.

This window gives us a clear view of exactly why these deranged bastards encompass this ideology. They love death and their lives are motivated by dark influences very different to you or I.

Pianka's approval of how the Chinese police state effectively controlled their population tells us that this rhetoric is just the glue that holds together the true agenda of the elite. A staged bio-attack blamed on terrorists could be the perfect cover for enacting the program of population reduction and the usurpation of our remaining freedoms.

In the 21st century the elite are concerned that from over 6 billion people might spring a new elite to challenge their stranglehold on the reigns of power. This is one reason for desire to cull the population down to a manageable level. Another is control over the behavior of the existing serfs and herding them like cattle into the slaughter house.

As we have documented, members of the elite are quite open in their feverish lust to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing. In the foreword to his biography If I Were An Animal, Prince Philip wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled "Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests," says:

"Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S."

Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.

One of the most chilling admissions of deadly intent came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:

"The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer...."

"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it."

The Melbourne Age reported on recently uncovered documents detailing Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet's plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia.

Pianka's ideology is in the same league as Hitler, Pol Pot, and the rest of history's despots who advocated mass extermination and had the temerity to dress it up in a 'noble' Straussian facade. We demand that he be investigated for openly calling for mass murder and in the meantime we encourage everyone to click here and e mail Pianka, enabling him to receive your feedback about his wish that you and your entire family die.
infowars.com/articles/life/p ... ercent.htm
Link is long dead. The MIA article can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/2006090...n_reduction_top_scientist_cull_90_percent.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,065
Likes
19,527
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#2
hmmmm, i think ian mackellan will play him in the film, being dragged away laughing and raving at the end.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
724
Likes
397
Points
79
#3
Sadly I can see excatly where this thread's going to go.

I'll just go and pack my bags.
 

lupinwick

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,645
Likes
2
Points
54
#4
Involuntary Human Extinction it is then. So would Pianka save a global elite then? Or would he leave it entirely to chance?

Could we start with Pianka (and other similar nutters) and then stop? :twisted:
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,057
Likes
40
Points
129
#5
Pianka sounds like some sort of sadist. Either way, I think he should be the first to sacrifice himself. The rest of us will catch him up later... honest... no no no - you first Mr Piainka, I insist, etc. etc. ;)
 

Timble2

Imaginary Person
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Messages
5,728
Likes
1,131
Points
234
Location
In a Liminal Zone
#6
Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world
.


The link to the Kissinger item takes you to a site owned by the wife of Lyndon LaRouche, the kook's kook.

Helga Zepp LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute internationally, is also Chairman of its Board of Directors in the United States. A German citizen, Mrs. Zepp LaRouche is wife of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., statesman and economist, who, with his wife, is a true citizen of the world, in Schiller's sense.

An article from Dr Piankia's site, looks like it might be a version of the What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know

What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know

Eric R. Pianka

I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it.

Population crashes caused by disease have happened many times in the past. In the 1330s bubonic plague killed one third of the people in Europe's crowded cities. Smallpox and measles decimated Native Americans when Europeans transported them to the new world. HIV is a relatively new disease wreaking havoc in Africa and Asia. Another population crash is inevitable, but the next one will probably be world-wide.

People think unrealistically because they have lost touch with the natural world. Many people today do not really know where and how our food is produced, and on what our life support systems are based. As we continue paving over natural habitats, many think that we can disrupt and despoil the environment indefinitely. We have already taken half of this planet's land surface. Per capita shares of all the things that really matter (air, food, soil, and water) are continuously falling. Our economic system is based on the principle of a chain letter: growth, growth, and more growth. Such runaway growth only expands a bubble that cannot be sustained in a finite world. We are running out of virtually everything from oil, food and land to clean air and water.

Some politicians, economists, and corporations want us to believe that technology will come to our rescue. But we have a false sense of security if we think that science can respond quickly enough to minimize threats from emerging diseases. Microbes have such short lifecycles that they can evolve exceedingly fast, much faster than we can respond to them. Many bacteria have evolved resistance to most antibiotics, and viruses are resistant to just about anything. Defense always lags behind offense. So far, modern humans have just been lucky. A reactive approach to problems isn't enough, we also need to be proactive and anticipate problems before they become too severe to keep them from getting out of control.Many people believe that Earth and all its resources exist solely for human benefit and consumption, this is anthropocentrism. We should allow the millions of other denizens of this Earth some space to live -- they evolved here just as we did and have a right to this planet, too.

I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us. Simply stopping the destruction of rainforests would help mediate some current planetary ills, including the release of previously unknown pathogens. The ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind -- we are living in one of the most interesting times humans have ever experienced. For example, consider the manifold effects of global warming. We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that.
 

almond13

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
714
Likes
7
Points
34
#7
Meeting Doctor Doom
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html

Forrest M. Mims III
Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.
But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,057
Likes
40
Points
129
#10
Actually, if the transcript is accurate, Pianka doesn't appear to be as extreme as some would suggest (says Jerry, retracting his earlier post ;))...
 

Leaferne

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Messages
2,733
Likes
52
Points
64
#11
Generally, the more rights women have, and the more education, the more the birthrate drops. Make of that what you will. ;)
 

amester

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 29, 2004
Messages
226
Likes
4
Points
34
#12
I'm not defending the dude, but this article seems to have been written by the type of folks who have their own axe to grind (I.e., don't worry about the environment; 6 billion people could fit in Texas; the more people the better, etc. :evil: )
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,814
Likes
55
Points
64
#13
Everybody is against it because nobody wants to die. That aside I think it would be smashing for the last 10% if it would be done. Imagine how nice it would be. Be honest, I always dream of a world with less or no humans for reasons I have given many times on this forum. So don't bite my head off for being honest. His theoretical idea is getting my thumbs up [yes even if it was done randomly by virus, so nobody can moan about an elite and also the leftovers would be immune to that particular strain...excellent!].
:smokin:
 

karlmarxismydad

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
26
Likes
0
Points
17
#14
Why would the world automatically be a better place with fewer people in it??

Surely it's the way a relative handful of people have behaved, the decisions which have been made by the 'elite' about how to run the world, which have created the messes we have now? Would those eiltes suddenly start making better and fairer decisions if they had 90% less people to oppress??

That's assuming, of course, that the world could maintain any of its economic infrastructure after such a plague - more likely this would throw us all back to the dark ages.

And as much as I would love to believe in some rural communal utopia - the reality is likely to more closely resemble midwest America - dirtpoor and isolated.

And what would we do with all the bodies? :shock:

In any case, if Mr Bush has his way, we'll have Armageddon before we know it anyway...
 

Mister_Awesome

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
264
Likes
5
Points
34
#15
I don't think it's an entirely bad idea, honestly. We're like any species that's overpopulated, except we can overcome the natural checks and balances and cause far more than perhaps any other species. HOWEVER! I can only respect this suggestion from those who are willing to give up their own lives, as need be, for the cause. No-one can automatically be spared from such a holocaust for it to succeed. Any agenda to preserve any person or class of persons is a flaw that will lead to fascism among the survivors.
Then again there may be some moral issues involved. Overpopulation is a problem nobody wants to look at, but something must be done. Hopefully we can find a better way than this.
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,057
Likes
40
Points
129
#16
It's seems to me that what Pianka is actually saying is that, sooner or later, nature could come along and wipe 90% of humanity off of the planet with some sort of nasty, relatively fast virus of some sort. I don't think he's suggesting that one should be introduced articficially to cull the population.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
35,276
Likes
21,098
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#17
Something will happen sooner or later.
I think we'll have another world war before the population ever gets up to 9 billion.
And we've got Ebola, SARS, bird flu, etc. spreading about naturally without the need to do it artificially.

Did anyone notice the date of the original article? April 3 - perhaps the speech was delivered on April 1st...?
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,601
Likes
13
Points
69
#18
We have a population-cull advocate on the board do we not? Chriswsm? (I may be wrong - apologies if I am)

The problem is, of course, as Mister_Awsome and just about everyone else, including the original article point out, that people advocating radical reduction of the population in order to save the planet and rid the species of the ills of modern life aren't usually actually volunteering to top themselves - it's those other types, the stupid sheep, who need to be killed off.

Way I see it, like any other species, if population density becomes such that it is no longer sustainable we'll die off naturally. We will make the planet no longer able to support us, either through using up resources or through deliberate or accidental apocalypse of some sort, and either some will survive to do the whole thing again or they won't. I don't think we'll actually be able to wipe out all life on earth for ever and there is nothing special about mankind that means we have to be around indefinitely and ultimately the solar system will blow and the then a bit later the ol' universe'll cool down anyway, and that's if an asteroid or other mass extinction event completely beyond our control doesn't do us all in first. Is it really worth worrying about or gleefully anticipating some population-decimating plague?

You wanna go live in a tree house and eat berries there are still plenty of places to go do that on this one doomed rock out of pazillions* - there's really no need to try and engineer the whole world after your own crazy human-centric yet oddly human-phobic utopian mind-wank.



*actual number of doomed rocks in existance may vary e.g. by being an actual number
 

feen5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,115
Likes
22
Points
69
#19
There always seems to be something coming along, Sars, Ebola, bird flu and yet the world population just keeps on growing. What makes people think that any virus or bacteria is going to wipe out half or more of the worlds popualtion?
There are plenty of places on earth packed to bursting point with poor and desperate people and yet we still don't see them being wiped out by any of these new dangers. Age old diseases like typhus, cholera, dyptheria and malaria, the biggest disease killers in the world, still don't stop the population growing in these areas. Wars even less so.
To be honest i'm a bit fed up hearing about how all these new threats are going to destroy us, their not, even the bubonic plague which had absolutly perfect conditions to spread and grow could only wipe out half the worlds population. It was so devestating because there was no natural immunity to it when it hit Europe in much the same way that european diseases were so devestating to South American populations when colonisation began. I think that with the greater degree of travel and mixing of people it may make it easier for some diseases to spread but it will be off set by the greater immunity of people that this mixing will give.
Add to that the potential for new medicenes (and yes i'm fully aware of the new drug resistant diseases such as MRSA) and also the virtually untapped potential of gene therapy and i think it will become much harder for diseases and virus's to wipe out huge portions of the earths population.
As far as i'm concerned its not the diseases that will be the death of me but the bloody doom merchants and armeggendonists boring me to an early grave.
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,057
Likes
40
Points
129
#20
I think the only way the general population will decrease will be if fertility rates decrease. I think this is already on the cards to a certain extent. Wars, famine, pestilence, etc. obviously can't do the job of reducing the growth rate in such an effective way. Perhaps one side-effect of the polluted world will be that it may increasingly hinder our ability to reproduce.
 

James_H

And I like to roam the land
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
6,584
Likes
3,772
Points
259
#21
I think that the original article has been somewhat coloured by opinion...
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
25,157
Likes
20,361
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#22
As Leafy points out, when rights and education are available to women, birth rates drop.

This has already happened in the G8 countries, catastrophically so in fact, in terms of the available workforce. Average age for a woman to give birth for the first time is approaching 30 for the first time ever. Families are smaller. Many couples have 2, 1 or no children where their grandparents would have had around 4.

The only fecund groups in Britain are unmarried teenage mothers and certain ethnic minorities. As the ethnic minorities take advantage of the British education system and their girls are taught to the same level as the boys, one may expect their birth rates to fall also, by the next generation.

No need to kill people off - just educate the girls and watch them grow up to have smaller, healthier, better-provided-for families. ;)
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,057
Likes
40
Points
129
#23
And IIRC, the UK has a larger number of teenage pregnancies than elsewhere in Europe, so the birth-rate is perhaps lower outside of the UK in wider terms.

The only problem with a lower birth rate is that there won't be enough people in future generations to pay for those who will be old at that time.
 

robbo616

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
112
Likes
0
Points
32
#24
:shock: What?The entire population of the earth can fit in Texas with room to spare?Blimey.......

See,I think the problem is not over-population but under-providing.
It smacks a little of communism,but if outrageously rich companies(or indeed,individuals and or countries)gave something to the people who truly need it,as opposed to gleefully shoving it into their own pockets,would this not help?A South American country could inform and relocate(and feed)the poor families that build wriggly-tin huts on mudslide-likely mountainsides.F'r instance.
Countries feeding their own desparate poor bastards?
No corruption?Anywhere?
Everyone with a full belly?

Yeeeeeah,right.....


It is possible,and it could be done,too.

But not by humans and certainly not in my lifetime.
 
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
5,758
Likes
4,181
Points
244
#25
Mister_Awesome said:
Overpopulation is a problem nobody wants to look at, but something must be done. Hopefully we can find a better way than this.
Incinerating Butlins holday camps at the height of the season would be my starting point. Obviously you'd have to rebuild them every year but I think the costs would easily be offset by the savings. And before someone raps my knuckles for not taking the problem seriously tell me how an annual Butligeddon is any more ridiculous an idea than a deadly airborne virus that knows when to stop at 90%??
 

almond13

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
714
Likes
7
Points
34
#26
Sadly I can see exactly where this thread's going to go.

Pianka says he was misrepresented.

Pianka doesn't appear to be as extreme as some would suggest (says Jerry, retracting his earlier post

Generally, the more rights women have

article seems to have been written by the type of folks who have their own axe to grind (I.e., don't worry about the environment; 6 billion people could fit in Texas; the more people the better, etc.

That aside I think it would be smashing for the last 10% if it would be done

I don't think it's an entirely bad idea, honestly.

Hopefully we can find a better way than this.
I’m amazed at the reaction to this post. With the exception of the last quote who at least has given some thought to it, everyone has either trivialised it, justified it, or changed the subject. The last guy thinks it’s sad and not bad.

This guy would like to see us all dead and his audience agree and give him a standing ovation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Surely it's the way a relative handful of people have behaved, the decisions which have been made by the 'elite' about how to run the world, which have created the messes we have now? Would those eiltes suddenly start making better and fairer decisions if they had 90% less people to oppress??”

The only person to take it seriously.
Even she is mildly apologetic and thinks that maybe we do deserve this fate as we have all stood apathetically by and let it happen.

No one mentioned madness in academia; surely this has got to be Fortean?
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,057
Likes
40
Points
129
#27
Well, reading around what was actually said and what was alleged to have been said seems to point towards the allegations being somewhat baseless.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#29
For those of you that know me it goes without saying that I fully support the idea of reducing the human population to 653 million.

At the same time lets reintroduce the wolf and the bear to the reclaimed woodlands of the UK.

I am quite happy for us all to prove that all 6.528 billion humans could fit into texas as long as once we prove it no one ever gets to leave.

8)
 
Top