Pianka and Ecologist Angst
Noted University of Texas professor and ecologist Eric Pianka gave a recent talk at the Texas Academy of Science meeting and created an internet firestorm. Pianka is being accused of advocating the death of 90% of the world’s population, through a disease like Ebola.
A pretty bold charge.
I happen to have a little to say on the subject. Most of the other grad students in our department were at that meeting and heard Pianka speak. I’ve had a number of conversations with them, and wanted to share some thoughts.
I also have another reason for being interested in the whole subject. I’m reading several hundred pages of Pianka this semester. His book, Evolutionary Ecology, happens to be pretty dang good. It’s considered a classic in the field of ecology. Like any beginning grad student, I instantly grasp some concepts and think, “how cool is that.” (My wife frequently has to be endure excerpts of Pianka). Other parts of the book cause me to scratch my head and strain to remember basic algebra.
If you’re already familiar with the whole story, just skip down to the bottom for my thoughts. If not, I’ve provided the background and some useful links.
What Pianka Said
It might be an understatement to say that Pianka is a pessimistic sort of guy. He’s convinced that the earth is headed towards a catastrophe from its population growth. More problematic (in my view), he’s convinced that it’s going to happen within a couple decades. Undoubtedly, Pianka’s views come from an ecologist’s understanding of populations and the way they interact with their environments and resources. He sees the current state of things as being very unhealthy. I’ll comment more on this later.
In true to form, cantankerous fashion Pianka said some stuff that deserves to get him in a little trouble. His talk predicted that we’re headed towards a crash. Specifically, he mentioned that a disease (bacteria or viruses) would control our population if we didn’t. He mentioned Ebola becoming an airborne virus, saying it could kill 9 out of 10 people. He mentioned that outside a human perspective, this would be a good thing for natural ecosystems around the world.
For good measure, he also criticized organized religion as being the underlying cause of the problem. In his mind, our anthropocentric lens is what allows us (and even encourages us) to abuse the world around us, and this anthropocentrism comes from organized religion.
Controversial? Yep. Do I disagree with him? Absolutely, on certain parts. But best as I can tell (from talking to fellow students who were actually there), this is what he actually said.
What He’s Being Accused Of Saying
That he would offend a few of people with these words should come as no surprise. The ways in which they’ve expressed their disagreement should be a little shocking.
A person at the talk happened to be a disgruntled anti-evolution creationist and left the meeting claiming that Pianka was advocating for the release of an Ebola virus (or something as effective). Within a couple of days, The Drudge Report rose to its typical level of quality journalism, starting the storm. The Worldnutdaily joined in, and not long after the AP was knocking at Dr. Pianka’s door for interviews.
Things got particularly crazy when William A. Dembski (valiant defender of all things ChristianTM) reported Pianka to the Department of Homeland Security for terrorism. No joke.
In fact yesterday, the FBI apparently came down to Austin to interview Pianka. No doubt they’ll quickly leave thinking he’s odd but not a terrorist.
So overnight, Pianka’s admittedly inflammatory statements were reported as a call to wipe out 90% of the human population through biological terrorism. I believe the definition of a straw man is creating a false version of your opponents arguments and then triumphantly knocking them down. This is one of the more extreme straw man distortions I’ve seen lately.
Other Blogger’s Comments
Other bloggers have done a good job of reporting what happened, and providing commentary on it. I’ll link to the best.
- Wes Elsberry has a couple of posts about it. The first on the incident itself, and the latter on what ID proponents mean when they claim to support academic freedom.
- Henry Neufeld provides good commentary with a Christian take on the situation.
- The Panada’s Thumb has put up a letter from the president of the Texas Academy of Sciences, who’s a professor in our department at Angelo State.
Pianka’s Own Words
Perhaps one of the best things to do in a situation like this is go get the information from the source. A local news channel has interviewed Pianka and put the video online. (There are links to a “cleaned up” version and the raw footage of the interview in the left column).
Pianka has the look of a man who’s been ambushed. I don’t think he comes across particularly well in the interview, though he makes it clear that he did not and is not advocating for bioterrorism as a means of population control.
My Thoughts on Ecologist Angst
So that’s the background to this whole situation. What are we to make of it?
I think Pianka is really walking on out on a limb to predict when doom and gloom will come. Many have done this in the past, and when their predictions fail to happen, it allows the public at large to dismiss everything they do as a fraud. As pretty much any ecologist can tell you though, things are out of whack. Every year there’s more people and less habitat. Every day in fact. I share the general pessimism of many ecologists. We are losing biodiversity. We are having a profound impact on the rest of nature. It would be irresponsible of me (not that I’m smart enough, not even close) or someone else to predict the precise date of an impending disaster.
This bring us to the question of how we, as ecologists and concerned citizens, should go about communicating and interacting with others. If the world’s natural environments are getting slowly but surely destroyed, you can either get really mad about it, like Pianka, or you can refuse to allow the anger to win. I think any ecologist (and this certainly includes Pianka) wishes to educate and advocate within their sphere of influences, such that people might actually turn things around. The question is what makes you an effective communicator, especially to a non-scientific audience. Here’s where I think Pianka has missed his golden opportunity. Lots and lots of people will never listen to his incredibly vast knowledge, because he has attempted to hit them in the face with it, rather than truly communicate. Perhaps he’s just not a good communicator. He’s at the pinnacle of his scientific field. (On the flip side, it scares me that I’m a better communicator than I am a scientist).
As far as Pianka’s statements on religion, he’s off base. While I agree with him that anthropocentricism is a huge problem, and that one of the factors of anthropocentricism is even organized religion, it’s not the cause of our ecological problems. For one thing, you don’t need organized religion to get anthropocentrism. For another, science itself, as a system that humans undertake, is a cause of our population explosion and exploitation of the environment. You think we’d have 6.5 billion people without science to lengthen our lifespans, increase our fertility, and most importantly control disease? Blaming religion or blaming science as if we ought to do away with either is unfair.
While I may be disappointed and certainly find things to disagree with Pianka about, his accusers sink to new depths. Wanting to follow my own advice and not show angst myself, I simply cannot articulate my frustration that people are so convinced of their position, that lying then becomes a justified means to defeat their “enemy.” Indeed, viewed in this light, we can understand that hate has become their prime motivation.
And they do all this in the name of Jesus. What a crazy world we live in.
I could go on. I could tell you that I think the best we can do is simply work hard in the circumstances we find ourselves in. I could comment on the fact that my religious understandings give me not only hope but perhaps more importantly reasons for proper appreciation and stewardship of the world around me. I could keep talking about this all day. But I’ve got some reading to catch up on, from a dandy of a book by Eric R. Pianka.
Oh those crazy ecologists and their mathematical models…thats what happens when you over dose on math, the numbers drive you nuts. I’m glad I suck at math, otherwise the impending environmental doom would be overwhelming.
I am convinced that Pianka is not a terrorist. He is just one in a very long series of doomsayers that exaggerrate terribly to get their point accross. And when they perceive that they lose credibility they start to exagerrate even more and I will not be suprised if some of these people eventually pick up arms.
As a journalist I have recently been studying the state of the worlds forests. According to the FAO the world is still 30% covered with forest. In many places tropical rainforest is disappearing, but a huge lot is still left. South America is 50% covered with forest. In the meantime we learn that these forests are not by a long shot as old as we’re told and there are even examples of a new rainforest growing in a century and a half. But meanwhile Pianka says: ‘Deforestation is nearly complete in many parts of the world. ‘ Now I know that not every forest has the biodiversity of a rainforest, that there is a difference between quantity and quality, but even recognizing that, Pianka is exaggerrating to a point where he makes himself incredible. This borders on hysteria and it is this hysteria that might incite others to do really dangerous things.
Since the advent of the environmentalist movement an enormous amount of work has been done. 10% of the world is now a natural reserve. I am not saying that we live in a paradise, a lot still needs to be done, but I would suggest not to listen to the Pianka’s of this world anymore when they start to speculate what they have seen in lizards really means for the rest of us.
In response to Theo,
I’d rather be alarmed (compared to just being passive) to the fact that we are destroying/degrading more habitat than conserving/restoring it…doesn’t bother me that people border on hysteria about the issue, means that it is important enough of an issue for some to attempt to invoke awareness and ownership in the world around us.
And you hit the nail right on the head when you mentioned the differerence between quality and quantity. 30% of the world still being covered in ‘forest’ does not mean that all of them are sustaining the types of wildlife and plant communities that they should be. Nor does it reflect the state of disaster that a lot of our forests are facing because of the introductions (by humans) of invasive (insect, plant, bird) species. We pay somewhere around 140 billion dollars a year for the damage/control/loss that is caused by invasives. You can imagine what the ecological damage is if the ecoomic costs are that high. The USDA put out a report in 2001 that claimed that 3.5 million acres of the national forest system was infested with invasive plants. Invasive insects alone caused 58 million acres of our forest to be at high risk for mortality.
So, economically speaking, I would say that what we see happening to the lizards (and other plant/wildlife) does really mean something to the rest of us.
Oh, and I forgot to mention…
A lot of people don’t realize this, but you actually pay a tax for insect control in many states (or rather, towns/counties). I was recently at the entomological society of america (or “bug club”, if you dont like big words
) annual meeting and several districts along the east coast had talked about a tax they charge for controling invasives like gypsy moths, asian-longhorned beetles, and the like. I think the tax was
I do not think that biodiversity is as important to us as you suggest. We may be destroying more habitat than conserving it, but if we do that for the well being of the human species I think that is a good thing. Roads, airports, computers, chemicals, medicine, fertilizer, pesticides, humans make wonderful things. And sadly has to destroy a lot in order to do all that but we are at the same time probably the only species that cares for other species. So lets not exaggerrate it.
In the long term we will probably be kicked of the planet (hopefully leave voluntarily). These couple of thousand years the human species has won, I see every reason to keep on defending that position. Will we be able to do so indefinitely? Probably not, but I see no point in trying. I have an intrinsic self-feeling, an intrinsic family-feeling and an intrinsic human feeling, but not an intrinsic earth feeling (apparently opposed to Pianka who pretends to speak for the Planet).
No, I do not think that the earth exists with the *purpose* to feed us. I do not believe in purposes and nor in barriers for us to use that earth. We can do that as much as we like. Or better as much as is sensible. If we do it sensibly then we live longer if we dont we loose many lives. So far we appear to be on the right way. So I see no reason to change anything.
If we should do anything then it is to make sure that the whole earth gets as rich as we are. That will make sure that fertilty gets down. That would solve many problems that all these bio-types now see, but they probably do not find it an attractive option since rich equals greed equals destruction of nature equals bad in their mindframes. That is why all their policy ideas amount to making us all a lot poorer.
I think that in this anthropocentrist view the church can play and has played a positive role (though I wouldnt know how to believe in God myself). I recent,y read an interesting piece that in Europe (where the churches are empty) the believe in Christ has ben replaced by the belief in the Holy Oak. That is a jump back in time of about 2000 years. I think I much prefer christianity then.
I am convinced that Pianka is not a terrorist. He is just one in a very long series of doomsayers that exaggerrate terribly to get their point accross. And when they perceive that they lose credibility they start to exagerrate even more and I will not be suprised if some of these people eventually pick up arms.
Let’s see… latest in a long line of doomsayers… would not be surprised if some eventually pick up arms…
So, we should not be surprised when some people, who are like a lot of other people who did some stuff before, suddenly do completely different stuff that none of them ever did before? I would think that that is what surprise is for.
Right yes, for you that would be a surprise, but not for me. (And thanks for the correction, I live in the Netherlands, so English is not my first language)
Just out of curiosity Jay
Did they interpret Dr. Pianka as saying that he approved of the concept of 90% of humanity dying and that human genocide was a good thing? This seems to be Mims’ central claim and doesn’t seem to be supported by accounts from the speech, though one student apparently thinks that is what he said. Did the other students you talked to who were at the speech think he actively wants 90% of humanity destroyed, or is just warning that this will occur if we don’t manage the planet better.
This seems to be the key distinction between the hysteria of Mims and what was actually said.
JM, with all the scrutiny riding on this issue, I think it would be best to repeat that I was not there, and that what I say should be taken with some caution. I’m only repeating my understandings of what other students related to me.
That being said, the message coming from multiple people was that Pianka neither advocated for genocide, nor considered it to be a good thing. This is what I talked to people about the most — whether Pianka was calling for the deaths of 90% of humanity, and if the academy stood up and cheered after he did it. I too found this claim to be scarcely believable (not to mention shocking if it really happened), and everything I heard was that this did not happen.
The other question, whether he thought a reduction in the human population would be a good thing, is less clear to me. He certainly was advocating that our population has reached a critcial, unsustainable level and that it would be much healthier for the planet and the human population if our numbers were smaller. (He’s advocating that in his interviews he’s given after the talk).
How strongly did he do this? I don’t know. From what I understand, in his talk about what might cause a human population crash, he joked around about things that wouldn’t work. Making a statement like “this disease is no good, it kills too slow” is speaking directly from the perspective of the disease and how it works, not talking about which weapon he wants to use and why…
Pianka certainly values the existance of other species, something he’s taken harsh criticism for. His caustic joke about asking “what good are you” to people who ask “What good is a lizard” may play well to some, but it’s easily caricatured at Pianka’s expense.
Anyway, all that to say I feel reasonably sure that he did not advocate, encourage, or gleefully hope for genocide. I am not sure of the ways in which he spoke of population control and reduction. I may try and have some further conversations today with those that were there.