Rooting for Human Extermination
This is what I have been warning against if we reject human exceptionalism, which can lead to an embrace of radical misanthropy. Apparently, Eric R. Pianka, a (deep) ecology professor speaking at a science symposium in Texas predicted in hopeful terms the outbreak of an ebola pandemic that would wipe out almost all of the human population--which he saw as necessary for the health of the earth--and received a standing ovation from the scientists in attendance.
According to Forrest M. Mims III, who edits Citizen Scientist and brought this matter to light, "One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, 'What good are you?' Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, 'We're no better than bacteria!'"
He should speak for himself. But seriously, this is a clear minority view but not necessarily one on the fringe. The speaker, Eric R. Pianka, was named Distinguishged Texas Scientist of 2006 by the Texas Academy of Science.
I worry increasingly that science and misanthropic ideology are beginning to blur, which is not about science, but deeply held ideological scientism. A hearty, "Here, Here," to Mims for exposing this matter and for sounding the alarm.
(Hat tip, Colin.)
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:04 PM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
Radical misanthropy, indeed. This gentleman and Peter Singer ought to establish a political party. I suppose we ought to let the hungry starve? Let the sick and injured die? I suppose it is possible that most of those U.T. folks were so enthusiastic because of the rhetorical tour de force they had heard; but it is truly frightening otherwise.
Why don't clowns like this lead by example and kill themselves ?
This guy is a hypocrite if he doesn't.
That was precisely the prescription of social Darwinists who didn't believe in charity because it helps the "weeds" flourish.
Eugenicists and deep ecologists never think THEIR lives are the ones that shouldn't be lived.
In that case, the Bush administration and most of the Republicans aren't really bible-believing Christians, they're the epitome of social darwinians, considering how little they cared about the Katrina victims.
As for eugenics, I support education and non-coercive programs aimed at educating prospective parents about the genetic defects they could pass on, such as Cystic Fybrosis, in the hope that fewer children will be born with these defects.
Good for you. But that is not the primary issue this post addressed. This entry was about how I am noticing an increasing anti-human attitude among some scientists. I have also noted it among animal rights activists and bioethicists who denigrate those they deem "non persons."
With regard to Winston's comment,"As for eugenics, I support education and non-coercive programs aimed at educating prospective parents about the genetic defects they could pass on, such as Cystic Fybrosis, in the hope that fewer children will be born with these defects", I understand your point. However, I have a sister who is profoundly retarded (not genetic--but it could have happened that way), and I cannot describe the joy and the life's lessons that her life has given me and my family. If we are successful in stamping out all birth defects, that would be wonderful. I think, however, that God has given us those people so that we may exercise love, empathy and compassion.
I would like to see the actual transcript of the speech before I have an opinion one way or the other about the professor.
Secondhand reports and reports from somebody who may have an ax to grind just doesn't cut it for me.
Reading his webpage where he talks about the environment and overpopulation, he's not at all controversial, in my view.
Susan is right to be wary. I am too. But this seems pretty solidly reported, and in more than one place.
Eugenics is dangerous precisely because it presumes to decide which are better human attributes and which worse. If we can help treat people with serious disabilities, we should. But, that is not the same thing at all as saying their lives have less importance or value than the lives of people without disabilities. And I agree: Some of the best people I have ever known have been people with developmental disabilities.
I respect people's decision to reserve judgment on the accuracy of the report about Pianka's speech until more details come forward. But as someone who knows and has met the Citizen Scientist writer who first broke the story, I am nonetheless confident his column will be proven accurate.
Writer Forrest Mims has long been respected for his work in electronics and in atmospheric science. That respect was what led to his election to the Texas Academy of Sciences. Because of his reporting, Mims has now been the target of attacks from persons defending Pianka. I expect Mims will be fully affirmed and vindicated in all this as more details are forthcoming. And I strongly suspect the facts will not look at all kindly upon Pianka's horrific speech.
And, its not as if these kind of statements aren't often said. Deep ecology supports human erradication as a primary thrust of their ideology. Awhile back, I blogged a piece where a NYT editorial writer said that Darwinism proves humans are no more and no less valuable than barnicles.
Yes, the disabled can add great value to our lives. However, I believe there is an ethical argument that would encourage people not to deliberately increase the number of disabled people in the world.
I don't think that anyone would willingly choose to be disabled, after all.
"I don't think that anyone would willingly choose to be disabled, after all."
-- but those who ARE disabled might just be darned happy they were given a chance at life at all.
Then why don't we deliberately encourage two people with the cystic fybrosis gene to breed? After all, if we don't create the disabled person, then the disabled community will get angry at us for not giving the future CF sufferer a chance at life.
"Then why don't we deliberately encourage two people with the cystic fybrosis gene to breed?"
We don't need to go around ENCOURAGING any couple to "breed." We don't need to go around DISCOURAGING any couple to "breed." You seem to think it's one or the other.
But even so, most disabled people would rather not be disabled, and it would be cruel to have children if there is a high risk of them having a major defect.
Winston, you have a valid point, but I don't think you realize why people here are bristling at it. Regardless of what you may personally hold, follow bioethics debates long enough and you frequently see positions such as yours slip -- quite easily -- into justifying more active measures of "preventing disabilities". The argument can easily go from discouraging the conception of the genetically ill to preventing their *birth* or *continued life* once they are conceived.
Even if they do not go that far, there is also the concern that such thinking will encourage the devaluing of those with disabilities and thus has to be handled carefully. Whether you intend it or not, the nasty edge to some of your comments simply helps reinforce this concern.
This is nasty. Talking about education for prospective parents isn't. Give him a break, you self-important mental masturbators.
Post a Comment
<< Home