Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Eco-Scientists Want Humanity Eliminated

What do you recommend that my mom and I should see in your state?

***

I posted on this back in April, and Deroy Murdock's column in yesterday's Human Events looks at even more scientists who see humanity as problematic for the earth. Their solution: Eliminate 90% (or more) of the people on the planet.

“We’re no better than bacteria!” University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka recently announced. “Things are gonna get better after the collapse because we won’t be able to decimate the Earth so much,” he added. “And, I actually think the world will be much better when there’s only 10 or 20% of us left.”

Pianka dreamed that disease “will control the scourge of humanity.” He celebrated the potential of Ebola Reston, an airborne strain of the killer virus, to make Earth nearly human-free. “We’ve got airborne 90% mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

I'm not sure what "collapse" he means.

As U. Texas Arlington’s Rebecca Calisi observed April 4 on Infowars.com: “There is no denying the natural world would be a better place without people. ALL people!”

For his part, William Burger, Ph.D. [Curator Emeritus for botany at Chicago’s Field Museum of Science], decried “the devastation humans are currently imposing upon our planet.” ...Burger continued, “Still, adding over seventy million new humans to the planet each year, the future looks pretty bleak to me. Surely, the Black Death was one of the best things that ever happened to Europe: elevating the worth of human labor, reducing environmental degradation, and, rather promptly, producing the Renaissance. From where I sit, Planet Earth could use another major human pandemic, and pronto!”

"Reducing environmental degradation"? Didn't all those decaying dead bodies from the Black Death degrade the environment for a while? And how did the Black Death produce the Renaissance? I think I missed that one in World History class.

Murdock asks the obvious question that the eco-extremists don't ever seem to answer: Which nine of each ten of their family and friends would they kill to save the planet? Or would they save their families and just kill the families of the rest of us?

These people worship at the altar of an idealized Planet Earth (see Ann Coulter's book, Godless, for more details). The only thing that has degraded is the value they place on human life: It's lower than the value they place on flowers, bugs, and bacteria.

God help us if one of these eco-gurus or their disciples decides to act on their goals.

2 comments:

All_I_Can_Stands said...

90%? Can I pick?

SkyePuppy said...

Skye,

Yes, I'm a conservative. But I don't quite see how saving humanity from an eco-nut with weaponized Ebola qualifies as being political.

Somehow, I suspect that I'd be part of the 90% they'd want to do away with, so it's really just self-defense and not politics.

I blog about whatever happens to be on my mind at lunchtime, so I hit a lot of topics: personal, politics, weird animal news, movie reviews. If you disagree with me in the comments, I'll be nice in my reply (my mama brought me up that way).

I hope you come back. I'll be checking on the progress of the baby birds later. Gotta get ready for work now.