Talk:Mims–Pianka controversy

New entries go below

• New entries to Wikipedia Talk pages should go "Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end: Put each new conversation topic or major thread at the end of the talk page..." (see Talk page guidelines#Layout).

And yes, I'm aware of the irony implcit in the posting....<grin>. --MarcoTolo 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Seguin Gazette-Enterprise stories

Both are back online:

http://seguingazette.com/story.lasso?ewcd=aa283ba499554682

http://seguingazette.com/story.lasso?ewcd=8a0a04f5d8e0218a

See also:

Panda's Thumb: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/the_seguin_gaze_1.html

Uncommonly Dense: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1020

Also, interesting article here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/06/science

DLX 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And Mike Dunford's discussion of the reappearance of the stories. Wesley R. Elsberry 00:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Pianka articles restored at the SGE bore the byline "Jamie Maxfield" for a while, then had the "Jamie Mobley" byline put in place. See this article for witness from Jamie Maxfield. If this is really the same person, there is something a bit fishy here in how the reporter got matched to the story. Wesley R. Elsberry 06:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The stories appear to be offline again, however some of these internet archive sites should have a backup copy you can link to if you can get the date right. It's a shame because there is an alleged quote from Pianka that completely verifies Mimms claim: "Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”" To me that clearly looks like Pianka thinks that a cleansing plague would be good for the world. If true, this guy is more nuts than a Bond villain. JettaMann (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Forrest Mims did not Misrepresent Prof. Eric Pianka's Statements

There is a lot of confusion on the part of a number of people here concerning Forrest M. Mims III's comments on Prof. Eric R. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture at the 109th Annual Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science held at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. A number of people here are confusing this March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka with the March 31, 2006 speech by Prof. Pianka at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas. (For that March 31, 2006 speech, see "St. Edward's University transcript," Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, April 6, 2006 http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:wGYXS2KUqBYJ:seguingazette.com/story.lasso%3Fewcd%3D3817403731ee3d74%26page%3Dall .) Forrest Mims's comments in his March 31, 2006 article specifically concern Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture. (See "Meeting Doctor Doom," Forrest M. Mims III, The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006 http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html .)

I wrote the below article to clarify this matter, and to present evidence that Forrest Mims accurately represented Prof. Pianka's statements made in his March 3, 2006 lecture:

Prof. Eric R. Pianka is an evolutionary ecologist who teaches courses in biology and zoology at the University of Texas at Austin. Prof. Pianka was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science at its 109th Annual Meeting held in early March 2006 at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas.

At this meeting, Prof. Pianka gave a lecture on March 3, 2006. Forrest M. Mims III, the Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, who was present during the lecture, claims in a March 31, 2006 article that in this lecture Prof. Pianka "enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola," and that he "spoke glowingly of the police state in China that enforces their one-child policy." (See "Meeting Doctor Doom," Forrest M. Mims III, The Citizen Scientist, March 31, 2006 http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html .)

This March 31, 2006 article by Forrest Mims touched off public controversy concerning what it is that Prof. Pianka had actually stated during his March 3, 2006 lecture. Many individuals who were not present during this March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka have claimed that people such as Forrest Mims have misrepresented Prof. Pianka's words as part of an anti-science "witch hunt" (despite the fact that Forrest Mims is himself the Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, and is one of the most widely read electronics authors in the world).

Unfortunately, during the March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka, audio and video recording devices were ordered to be turned off. Hence, as of the date of this writing, no recording of the full March 3, 2006 lecture is known to publicly exist. An audio recording apparently was made of part of this lecture, but it apparently only caught the ending of it. For a transcript of this partial recording, see "Dr. 'Doom' Pianka Speaks: Transcript From the Speech That Started It All," Pearcey Report, April 6, 2006 http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/04/transcript_dr_d.php/index.html .

But even though a full record is not currently known to publicly exist of what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, I will present other sources of evidence which strongly demonstrate that Forrest Mims did not misrepresent what Prof. Pianka said during this lecture, and that Forrest Mims's account of the lecture is accurate.

I first present an account of this March 3, 2006 lecture by a supporter of Prof. Pianka who was present during the lecture, a one Brenna McConnell, a biology student and senior at Texas Lutheran University. Commenting on Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 Texas Academy of Science lecture in a March 9, 2006 post by her on her personal weblog (see http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:h7mx7M7cGqEJ:brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html ), she says of the lecture, in part:

Dr. Pianka's talk at the TAS meeting was mostly of the problems humans are causing as we rapidly proliferate around the globe. While what he had to say is way too vast to remember it all, moreover to relay it here in this blog, the bulk of his talk was that he's waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope, if you can call it that, is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right.

Brenna McConnell went on to write in the same post, "Dr. Pianka made a very profound comment during his presentation; he said that China has the right idea by limiting reproduction at 1."

Thus, in her March 9, 2006 comments we see Forrest Mims's account of the statements made by Prof. Pianka concerning his desire that 90% of the human population be killed off with an airborne ebola virus and his support for China's enforced, mandatory maximum one-child policy is independently corroborated. Keep in mind that Brenna McConnell was writing as someone who supports Prof. Pianka. Also note that she wrote on this matter well before Forrest Mims published his March 31, 2006 article, and well before the public controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka started.

I next present a circa April 4, 2006 email by another supporter of Prof. Pianka, a one Rebecca M. Calisi, a Graduate Teaching Assistant in the Department of Biology at the University of Texas at Arlington. (See "A Fellow Biologist's Response to the Watson and Jones Article on Prof. Pianka," Infowars, April 4, 2006 www.infowarscom/articles/commentary/emails_pianka_response_biologist.htm .) Rebecca Calisi sent this email in response to an April 3, 2006 article on Prof. Pianka by Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones. Rebecca Calisi was present during Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture (you can see a picture of her smiling warmly at Prof. Pianka during that event here: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/images/fig1.jpg ). In that email by her, she wrote, in part, the following in support of Prof. Pianka:

I was in attendance at the Texas Academy of Science, and the only people (and there were very, VERY few) booing and hissing were the moronic creationists, angry that Pianka informed them they are not the "highest" creatures on this planet.

...

Eric Pianka is a brilliant, extremely well respected scientist. When your article states, "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."

Actually he said MANY TIMES that he would have no problem being the first to go, and fully understood (although saddened by the fact) that this would include his loved ones too!! He wishes no ill will toward anyone (he has children and grandchildren of his own you know), but there is NO DENYING the natural world would be a better place without people - ALL people! Not a selective bunch. Get it straight.

To liken Pianka to Hitler, etc., is the most absurd, ignorant comment anyone could make. He has spent his career trying to PROTECT life. He has inspired many a student to study, respect, and care for the natural world. Why are you trying to defame him when he is simply stating the facts??

Note that Rebecca Calisi was writing after the controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka had already become public. But in her email she doesn't make any attempt to deny the accounts that Prof. Pianka desires a large portion of the human population be killed off. Indeed, she reinforces the accuracy of those accounts by stating "Actually he said MANY TIMES that he would have no problem being the first to go, and fully understood (although saddened by the fact) that this would include his loved ones too!!" She even goes further than the statements attributed to Prof. Pianka in stating that, in her opinion, "there is NO DENYING the natural world would be a better place without people - ALL people! Not a selective bunch. Get it straight." According to Rebecca Calisi in her email, one apparently would have to be a "moronic creationist" to have a problem with large portions of the human population being killed off.

Thus, here again in the email by Rebecca Calisi, who supports Prof. Pianka, we find more independent eyewitness corroboration that Forrest Mims did not misrepresent Prof. Pianka's statements. Again, keep in mind that she was present during Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture.

Next I will present evidence that Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture was not the first time that he stated that it is his desire that a large portion of the human population be killed off, particularly with ebola.

The below two accounts are excerpts from student evaluations from Fall 2004, located on Prof. Pianka's personal University of Texas website and listed anonymously. (See "Biology 304 Evaluations" http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/357evaluations.html .) One student writes the following concerning Prof. Pianka's class:

I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet.

And another student writes regarding Prof. Pianka's class,

Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.

Hence, we have accounts from two different students who took classes by Prof. Pianka that Prof. Pianka has stated that it is his desire that at least some humans be killed off with ebola; 90% of the human population being killed off in said manner, as the second account states. Note that these students were writing well before Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture, and well before the controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka's lecture statements became public. Further note that the above two student evaluations are only marginally critical on some points, while being supportive of Prof. Pianka on other points.

Also keep in mind that Prof. Pianka is in charge of posting these evaluations on his personal University of Texas website. Thus, if these comments were attempts to smear Prof. Pianka, or if they were misrepresentations his views, then Prof. Pianka was under no obligation to post them to his own personal webspace, and it is not very reasonable to think that Prof. Pianka would do so if he thought that they were misrepresentations of his views--without, at the very least, giving his own comment to them in reply. Therefore, by Prof. Pianka's own actions in posting these comments without any attempt to say that they were misrepresentations his views, this certainly suggests that he did not think that they were misrepresentations of his views.

So here again we have independent eyewitness corroboration that Prof. Pianka has made statements in the past that are consistent with the accounts of Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture. And by implication, we have Prof. Pianka's own corroboration on this matter, in that he apparently did not think that the above student evaluations were misrepresentations of his views.

Now I turn to a circa April 5, 2006 email by a one Lenny Foster, who was a student of Prof. Pianka at the University of Texas. (See "A Former Pianka Student Speaks Out," Infowars, April 5, 2006 www.infowarscom/articles/science/pianka_former_student_speaks_out.htm .) In this email, Lenny Foster says, in part, the following about Prof. Pianka:

(I just wanted to talk about Dr. Pianka's comments. I had this professor for a class, and he actually said this to us TWICE in class! Oh, to clarify something for you, the 90% figure comes from the kill rate of ebola; it typically kills 9 out of 10 people it infects. I don't think it comes as much from the average of 85-95% population reduction plan, but Dr. Pianka clearly is a globalist.

He even gleefully went through the progression of ebola infection to death. Symptoms start out mild, but at some point, you start vomiting blood, sores break out on you, and you vomit parts of your esophagus. Make no mistake, he GLEEFULLY read over the gory details, he was actually giddy and smiling about it.

...

2 things. 1, you are fairly accurate with your assertion that universities inundate you with population control. In a number of classes, even non-biology classes, I have heard references to overpopulation. But, I haven't heard any open calls for extermination like I did in Pianka's class. 2, a number of people I have told about Pianka's outrageous statements actually SUPPORTED his position! They wanted more info on his class; they actually WANTED to take his class because of his call for near-global extermination. It's incredible.

So again we have further independent eyewitness corroboration that Prof. Pianka has stated prior to his March 3, 2006 lecture that it is his desire that a large portion of the human population be killed off.

Conclusion

When one takes into consideration all of the above eyewitness accounts of statements made by Prof. Pianka then it becomes apparent that Forrest Mims did not misrepresent what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, and that Forrest Mims's account of the lecture is accurate. These eyewitness accounts are by Brenna McConnell and Rebecca M. Calisi, both of whom are supporters of Prof. Pianka, and both of whom were present during his March 3, 2006 lecture. So also this includes eyewitness accounts that Prof. Pianka has stated prior to his March 3, 2006 lecture that it is his desire that a portion of the human population be killed off, with ebola featuring in all of these accounts and the 90% figure featuring in two of them: i.e., in class evaluations by two students of Prof. Pianka posted on his own personal University of Texas webspace, and in an email by Lenny Foster, who was a student of Prof. Pianka at the University of Texas. Concerning the previous sentence, by implication Prof. Pianka himself corroborates the two students' accounts of his views given in the evaluations, in that he apparently did not think that said student evaluations were misrepresentations of his views, as he posted them on his personal webspace when he was under no obligation to do so and without giving any comment of his own stating that they were misrepresentations his views.

To maintain that Forrest Mims misrepresented what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, one would so also have to maintain that Brenna McConnell and Rebecca M. Calisi, two supporters of Prof. Pianka who were present during his March 3, 2006 lecture, also have misrepresented what Prof. Pianka said during that lecture; moreover, that these two supporters of Prof. Pianka gave the same misrepresentation of Prof. Pianka's statements that Forrest Mims did. And to maintain that Prof. Pianka has not made statements that he desires that a large portion of the human population be killed off with ebola, one would have to discard the Fall 2004 class evaluations by the two students spoken of above, of which were implicitly corroborated by Prof. Pianka himself, as well as Lenny Foster's email.

In sum, to maintain that Forrest Mims misrepresented what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, or that Prof. Pianka has not made statements that he desires that a large portion of the human population be killed off with ebola, is an exceedingly untenable position which is contradicted by the available evidence.

Clarification of Some Recent Confusion

A number of commentators on the recent controversy surrounding Prof. Pianka have made mistakes as to which specific speaking event by Prof. Pianka is being referred to by Forrest Mims in his March 31, 2006 article. In that article by Forrest Mims, he refers to the March 3, 2006 lecture by Prof. Pianka at the 109th Annual Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science held at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. This is the same lecture that Brenna McConnell and Rebecca M. Calisi were at. Some have confused this event with the March 31, 2006 speech by Prof. Pianka at St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas. (For that March 31, 2006 speech, see "St. Edward's University transcript," Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, April 6, 2006 http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:wGYXS2KUqBYJ:seguingazette.com/story.lasso%3Fewcd%3D3817403731ee3d74%26page%3Dall .) The analysis provided above by me specifically concerns the March 3, 2006 lecture given by Prof. Pianka and statements made by him prior to that date.

209.208.77.219 04:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mims had threatened to "out" another female student to attempt to salvage his position. I see from the above that that has been accomplished. For all the tedious length of the above text, it is still missing anything that would support Mims's original claim that Pianka wants his students or colleagues to actively bring about the next pandemic: "Must now we worry that a Pianka-worshipping former student might someday become a professional biologist or physician with access to the most deadly strains of viruses and bacteria?". This is unsubstantiated fear-mongering, and the only outcome I see is to induce a generalized distrust of scientists. I'm not worried about what Pianka-influenced scientists get up to in their labs. I do worry about stuff that unarguably is real. That Pianka approves of the notion that much of humanity would die of natural causes, and shortly, was never an issue, yet that is the only thing that the various snippets of unknown provenance quoted above address. Wikipedia policy says that outlandish claims beg strong sources. An unsigned comment fails to impress, and when one reads what is offered, one finds mostly uncheckable stuff that fails to support the "scientists plot biowarfare" hype of the original screed. Wesley R. Elsberry 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, March 3 and March 31 are the same speech - and one that he has given on several other occasions as well. So it really doesn't make any difference which version of speech we are talking about.

As for the Pearcey report transcription, it has been said several times that the text has been edited - to show Pianka's "malicious intent".

Same as Mims, you very obviously have no education in biology -- not to mention evolutionary animal ecology, which is one of the fastest-developing branches of biology, thanks to various new methods (cheap DNA fingerprinting, fossil DNA extraction etc etc). It may not be easiest for an amateur to understand what has been said - but in Mims' case it is just an opportunity to attack a very well-known evolutionist. Which he does, with malicious glee and help from his friends (Dembski!). DLX 06:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Same as Pianka" <- I think you mean, "Same as Mims". Wesley R. Elsberry 10:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, ty - of course. Fixed it. Like I said - no coffee when I wrote that... DLX 11:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wesley R. Elsberry, my comment was not unsigned. I put the four tildes at the end of my post. But even if I hadn't signed my comment, I don't see why that should properly affect its ability to impress. My analysis isn't predicated upon my name, of which is by positive law James Redford. My analysis is thoroughly solid and comprehensive--it being documented up one side and down the other. I'm not so much interested in making claims: I present proof. In the end, that's all that should matter. 209.208.77.168 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Positive law? A username that consists of a dotted-quad IP address is not signed. It is good of you to give us a name. It would be even better if you set up a real login account here. As to proof, your long article certainly shows that Eric Pianka would be happy if a pandemic wiped out 90% of the human population or more. We knew that already. The gap that has not yet been bridged is between Pianka's well-known views on a human population crash and Mims's claim that Pianka wants humans to develop and deploy a pandemic on purpose. To repeat, "This is unsubstantiated fear-mongering, and the only outcome I see is to induce a generalized distrust of scientists. I'm not worried about what Pianka-influenced scientists get up to in their labs. [...] That Pianka approves of the notion that much of humanity would die of natural causes, and shortly, was never an issue, yet that is the only thing that the various snippets of unknown provenance quoted above address. Wikipedia policy says that outlandish claims beg strong sources." That JAMES REDFORD, or whoever happens to post from 209.208.77.168, says so is not a strong source (see here and here and here for more from a "James Redford"). That Brenna M. on her weblog says something is, by Wikipedia policy, not necessarily a strong source (weblogs are usually not considered reliable sources). That Rebecca C. or Lenny F. say something at all is even less clear -- these are purportedly email exchanges sent to an unknown person and without any way to check it at all. So I think "solid and comprehensive" or "documented up one side and down the other" is, like Mims's original claim of homicidal intent, simply hyperbole. What really gets in the way of its "ability to impress" is its reliance on uncheckable sources that in any case do not address the big claim at issue made by Mims. Wesley R. Elsberry 03:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A round of congratulations are in order. User:209.208.77.219 very likely made at least of one of the longest article talk posts in WP history, if not the longest, and still managed to tell us exactly nothing we didn't already know. All while injecting a nice little WP:NOR into the debate. Bravo. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If what you say in the above about "tell[ing] us exactly nothing we didn't already know" is true, then you are thereby claiming that the editors of the "Mims-Pianka controversy" article prior to me are liars, as they were claiming that Pianka's March 31 speech was the same event as his Texas Academy of Science presentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mims-Pianka_controversy&oldid=47587240 . 209.208.77.252 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say it didn't tell us anything "we didn't already know". I'm new to this whole controversey and to me the quotes from Brenna McConnell, along with some quotes from other newspapers, seems to verify quite conclusively that Mimms is 100% correct in what he claimed: Pianka advocates a huge reduction of the human population via a global virus. I'm not sure why the main article is so reluctant to use these quotes. In my opinion, many of the above quotes should be in the main article. Wikipedia is not about dodging facts, it's about putting facts in the open. JettaMann (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"there is nothing to suggest that the St. Edwards talk is different."

Someone edited in this bit of fallacy: "there is nothing to suggest that the St. Edwards talk is different."

Except the fact that they are different. One was a lecture with an interaction period, the other was a speech. Compare the transcript of the partial recording of the March 3 lecture with the transcript of the March 31 speech:

"Dr. 'Doom' Pianka Speaks: Transcript From the Speech That Started It All," Pearcey Report, April 6, 2006 http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2006/04/transcript_dr_d.php/index.html

"St. Edward's University transcript," Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, April 6, 2006 http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:wGYXS2KUqBYJ:seguingazette.com/story.lasso%3Fewcd%3D3817403731ee3d74%26page%3Dall

Obviously they are not the same.

But beyond that, I have already demonstrated that to maintain that Forrest Mims misrepresented what Prof. Pianka said during his March 3, 2006 lecture, or that Prof. Pianka has not made statements that he desires that a large portion of the human population be killed off with ebola, is an exceedingly untenable position which is contradicted by the available evidence. For that demonstration, see the below article by me:

"Forrest Mims did not Misrepresent Prof. Eric Pianka's Statements," James Redford, April 10, 2006 http://www.geocities.com/tetrahedronomega/pianka-mims.html

209.208.77.168 02:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are forgetting once again that Pearcey Report transcript is incomplete and modified. Try to remember that when comparing. DLX 04:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What I did was edit out this flagrant falsehood: "there is nothing to suggest that the St. Edwards talk is different."

There is nothing to suggest that except all of the available evidence, of which there is a very substantial amount. For more on that, see the below expanded version of my commentary on the Prof. Eric Piank and Forrest Mims controversy:

"Forrest Mims did not Misrepresent Prof. Eric Pianka's Statements," James Redford, expanded edition, April 13, 2006:

http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/pianka-mims.html

See also:

"Letter by Prof. Kenneth R. Summy in Support of Forrest M. Mims III":

http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/kenneth-summy-letter.html

209.208.77.252 23:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Letter by Prof. Kenneth R. Summy in Support of Forrest Mims

The below circa early April 2006 letter by Assistant Professor Kenneth R. Summy, the Vice-Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, was sent to the Board of Directors of the Texas Academy of Science in support of Forrest M. Mims III's account of Prof. Eric R. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture at the 109th Annual Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. The particular copy below is addressed to, I assume, Kathryn E. Perez, Ph.D., SPIRE Postdoctoral Fellow, University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill & Duke University, and Chairwoman of the Systematics and Evolutionary Biology Section of the Texas Academy of Science.

"Letter by Prof. Kenneth R. Summy in Support of Forrest M. Mims III":

http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/kenneth-summy-letter.html

[Potential copyvio removed by Guettarda; see page history]

209.208.77.252 23:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, this supports the non-controversial claim that Pianka thinks that a large-scale human population crash due to a pandemic would be a good thing. We already knew that. It does not specifically address the big claim by Mims that Pianka wishes scientists to develop and deploy that pandemic on purpose. So, hint to people adding stuff here: Consider it stipulated that Pianka thinks a pandemic wiping out most or all of humanity would be a good thing. We don't need kilobytes more text that goes to that point. Now, please concentrate on trying to support the claims that Mims was making about Pianka concerning the purposeful development and deployment of pandemics. So far, that is conspicuous by its absence. Wesley R. Elsberry 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And, on top of that, there is no means given to check if this letter actually exists, or if it does, whether it was accurately copied here. This seems to be a particular problem with the unsigned commentary that is being dropped into this page. Whoever is doing that should review the Wikipedia talk:verifiability page. I, for one, don't see unsigned comments as coming anywhere near that standard. Wesley R. Elsberry 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is whether Forrest Mims accurately stated what Prof. Pianka said in his March 3, 2006 lecture. All the available evidence demonstrates that Forrest Mims did accurately state what Prof. Pianka said at that lecture. As far as "means given to check if this letter actually exists," I gave the name and the professional association of the letter-writer. Here is Dr. Kenneth R. Summy's website at the University of Texas--Pan American: http://www.utpa.edu/dept/biology/summy5.html . Email him yourself and ask him if he wrote the above letter. 209.208.77.252 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Three problems with this

1. Unless Dr. Summy has GFDL'd this, it's a copyvio
2. There's no way to verify its accuracy
3. As Wesley Elsberry said, this does not support the allegation made by Mims. Guettarda 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation. See Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. Second, here is Dr. Kenneth R. Summy's website at the University of Texas--Pan American: http://www.utpa.edu/dept/biology/summy5.html . Email him yourself and ask him if he wrote the above letter. Lastly, I don't know what you are referring to when you say "this does not support the allegation made by Mims." Obviously it supports that Forrest Mims did not misrepresent Prof. Pianka's March 3, 2006 lecture. 209.208.77.252 00:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The letter you cited does not say anything about Pianka "enthusiastically advocat[ing] the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola". So no, it does not support the assertion that Mims did not misrepresent Pianka.

As for "It's not a copyright violation. See Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107" - I have no idea what you are talking about. You have agreed to license your contrib under the GFDL. Unless you are Summy, I don't see how you have permission to release his letter under the GFDL. So you are you in a position to do so? Guettarda 02:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What he seems to be talking about is the "Fair Use" provisions of the copyright code. This doesn't fit well in "Fair Use", as it seems that the entire document was copied. Wesley R. Elsberry 09:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I did send Prof. Summy an email on the 14th asking specifically about whether Pianka explicitly said that he wanted scientists to purposely develop and deploy a pandemic, per Mims's claim. No answer yet; I'll note it here if I do get a response. Wesley R. Elsberry 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not heard back from Summy, and I assume that I will not. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. Guettarda 14:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncommon Descent is now carrying this letter by Dr. Kenneth R. Summy as well: "Mims gets Pianka right according to Kenneth Summy," Uncommon Descent, April 13, 2006 http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1035 . 209.208.77.252 01:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The letter would be just as irrelevant if the New York Times printed it, but I have to wonder why simply being distributed by the "Uncommon Descent" blog should be noted as if that meant something. It's not like they have a great rep for selectivity at UD. That's the same blog that twice now has featured posts based on credulously repeating claims by Raj Baldev, "Cosmo Theorist" and former personal astrologer to Saddam Hussein. Wesley R. Elsberry 09:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

I can't really understand it from the intro, it seems convoluted.

Can someone paraphase what happed... ? -ThreeVryl 13:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Criticism section in article

The "Response to Criticism" section in the article ends with a quote from the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise.

* According to the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise news report on the incident:

"Responding to these very questions, Pianka said, “Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”"[16]

The full context from the linked article is:

Though Pianka turned down requests for a sit-down interview, he maintains he is not advocating human death.

Does he believe nature will bring about this promised devastation? Or is humanity’s own dissemination of a deadly virus the only answer? And more importantly, is this the motive behind his talks?

Responding to these very questions, Pianka said, “Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”

As one can see, the answer given is not directly responsive to any of the questions as given in the original article. One can explain this in several ways, only one of which would be that Prof. Pianka could not manage to understand and reply topically to a question. The rest involve some failing on the part of the reporter in recalling what question was asked or what answer was given.

I think that the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise should be considered a suspect source of information, and not accorded the default Wikipedia stance of trust of print media. The association of the SGE with Mims raises the issue that SGE apparently chose an advocacy role rather than a journalistic role in this affair. The section should note that the SGE source is not necessarily NPOV when it comes to Prof. Pianka. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Witt as author

Did Jonathan Witt write or post Eric Pianka: Disease "will control the scourge of humanity"? I suspect that this is a repost of an article that was written by somebody else, and it was reposted by Jonathan Witt. Am I missing something? CruftCutter (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture of death

As I understand things, the entire controversy boils down to what form of the culture of death Pianka is advocating. Is he passively cheering on a 9/10ths reduction in human population, demoralizing those who might otherwise give their all to prevent such an event or is he an active recruiter and propagandist for a bio-engineered population crash?

The remarkable thing for me is that Pianka's morally reprehensible defense against Mims doesn't seem to raise a peep in the mainstream scientific community. The Mims-Pianka controversy seems much more significant as a "defining deviancy down" event than the particulars of the talk and whether Mims mischaracterized or truly related Pianka's actual position. TMLutas (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then there's the culture of death that is blissfully ignorant of (or in steadfast denial about) the evidence that we are not only in the sixth mass extinction event in earth's history, but may well be directly responsible for it. The false dichotomy from TMLutas above relies upon an assumption that the only deaths that matter are those of humans. The scientific community understands Pianka's point, and that explains why they are solidly behind Pianka.

Where was this "morally reprehensible defense" thing? I must have missed it. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why yes you did miss it. Thank you for illustrating my point. Your commentary is of a piece with the unfortunate tendency of some to regard humanity as a bunch of meat sacks no more important than animals and due to our ecological sins, somewhat less important than certain animals at times. TMLutas (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there really any doubt that for other life on this planet a significant reduction in human population would be very beneficial? Is there really any doubt that maintaining a steady 1-2 billion people worldwide would be a much better solution then allowing for rapid explosion followed after a crash when all resources are depleted? There is no second Earth nearby, if we ruin this planet we are finished. Human population IS out of control while killing is a very extreme measure and rightfully rises opposition, birth control is certainly both moral and sound. There is no doubt whatsoever that current population growth cannot be sustained indefinitely, we WILL be forced to control our population eventually, the only question is when will it happen, the sooner we make this commitment the better for all life on Earth including humans. So if he advocates releasing ebola virus, he's gone too far, but he is certainly right when he states it would be good for life on Earth if human population was 10% of present day numbers.

Think of it in a different way: by controlling our birth rates we will be able to live happily on this planet for millions maybe even billions of years, by allowing population explosion we risk extinction in the next few hundred years, which stance is more responsible for anyone who cares about human life?
Enemyunknown (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a middle ground between "only human life is worth anything" and "human lives are worth nothing" that the false dichotomizing steadfastly ignores or refuses to recognize. People in the sciences are, mostly, able to see that human lives are part of an ecological web, and that those lives are interdependent with the lives of the rest of the biome. This view does not place small value on human life, but recognizes that respect for non-human life is our best prospect for also preserving the most human lives. It doesn't look like I have missed anything relevant. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Recordings

If we are going to claim that there are no recordings because Pianka instructed recordings be turned off, we need a source. Since this claim is attributed to Mims, we should at the very least have a source, whether a blog or whatever where Mims made this claim (note that without this, we are potentially libelling both Mims and Pianka, Pianka because we are claiming he did something he may have never done, Mims because we are claiming he said something he may have never said). But even then, it is generally a bad idea per WP:BLP and other reasons, to include claims someone has made of someone else if that claim does not appear in reliable secondary sources (because reliable secondary sources will usually make attempts to ensure the claim isn't complete bull). Since this seems to be a key element of the controversy, I would presume it's not that hard to find a source which mentions Mims claim. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything that I'm seeing is in agreement that Mims claimed that the recordings were turned off due to Pianka's request. If there is no controversy, there is no need to cite. Are you claiming that there is some sort of controversy over this aspect of the affair? If not, the tag should be removed without adding a cite otherwise we could add fact tags to just about every sentence. TMLutas (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider it a controversial claim and therefore in particular need of a good source, and I don't really care what you believe about the sources since it's irrelevant. I could say "everything I read is in agreement that Mims or Pianka is an fuckhead" however that wouldn't justify me adding it to the article. If you have WP:reliable sources mentioning Mims claim here, please post them. As it stands, you haven't even provided a blog where Mims made this claim, only your opinion that all sources agree. Instead of pointless arguing of clear cut areas of wikipedia policy, why don't you actually find sources since you clearly are highly familiar with them... And BTW, fact tags are indeed justified with every unsourced claim (as is removal), see Wikipedia:Verifiability. However before you take it as an excuse to fact tag every claim, even those you don't dispute, see WP:POINT. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)