1. News & Issues
You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information.

Reduce Human Beings by 90 Percent to Solve Environmental Woes, Says Scientist

By April 17, 2006

Follow me on:

A professor at the University of Texas at Austin believes planet Earth would be better off if Mother Nature simply killed off 90 percent of the human population—and he predicts that is exactly what will happen in the not-too-distant future.

According to Professor Eric Pianka, a specialist in herpetology and evolutionary ecology who was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist by the Texas Academy of Science, human beings have strained Earth’s natural resources to the breaking point, leaving the planet “parched.”

Pianka believes the solution to this crisis is to eliminate the cause, by decreasing the number of human beings living on Earth from 6.5 billion to around 700 million—a 90 percent reduction.

Pianka is convinced that Nature eventually will exterminate the majority of humans through widespread disease or other effects of global warming—and he seems delighted at the prospect.

“This is really an exciting time,” he told the audience at a recent presentation of his “doomsday talk,” which is designed to raise awareness about the dangers of overpopulation and excess demands on the environment. “Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine.”

Not everyone is quite so gleeful as Pianka at the prospect of widespread death and destruction. Some critics have called Pianka a “loose cannon” and have slammed him for advocating what they consider “worldwide genocide.” According to a Wikipedia article about Pianka, a report to the Department of Homeland Security that he was “fomenting bioterrorism” led to an interview with the FBI.

What do you think? Are Pianka’s ideas sound, silly or dangerous? Join the forum discussion and share your thoughts with other readers.

More information:

Doomsday: UT prof says death is imminent Seguin Gazette-Enterprise

Earth needs a 90% decrease in human population, Texas professor says –Association of American Physicians and Surgeons


April 18, 2006 at 1:40 pm
(1) Debra A Myers says:

To humans to decide that we should eliminate 90% of the world’s population, is playing God. We don’t have the right to annihilate the lives of people…we should educate them even better than before

April 19, 2006 at 2:15 am
(2) Martin says:

The gist of Pianka’s revelations is a reality we humans always refuse to acknowledge, probably in the belief that if we bury our heads in the sand long enough, the problem will just go away. Nature has a way of having its way, and the way things are now, Piankas “doomsdaytalk” may just come to pass sooner rather than later.

April 19, 2006 at 4:33 pm
(3) Derek says:

Debra, this has nothing to do with god, but with the sustainabilty of the planet. We humans use too much of the resources and are killing ourselves.

April 20, 2006 at 3:21 am
(4) shiah says:

I agree with derek. I believe that sometimes we humans are being too religious!!! We must think of what lies ahead for the future generation. And 1 thing that Mr. Pianka is one of the best way of solving the probvlem! My question is, whom of the 100% of the human population will be killed and whom will be left? I think it would create a war between countries.

April 21, 2006 at 10:34 am
(5) james says:

I dunno, after 40 days of rain out of 43 here in northern California, when someone mentions “parched” I have to say, huh?”

I don’t think the focus of the study is to say we should reduce population by 90 percent, but that the forces of nature, (God, Mother Nature, etc.) just might take that route in the future if we don’t start thinking of our likely fate. Endless war is, of course, one of those things that could factor into a decline in world population. We could go out not with a bang but a whimper.


April 22, 2006 at 2:26 pm
(6) RIch says:

Leave it to a scientist to say that we need to decrease the population by 90%. Again, how long will we as human beings try and play God by determining how things should be. “Parched,” what does he mean parched….oh, he doesn’t say. If you wanted, you could take all of the people on the planet and put them each on a 3′x3′ square and not even fill up the state of Texas. The earth is not even begun to be filled. This gives us no right to abuse the earth. There needs to be better ways of managing it without resorting to murder. Are not people part of the earth? The programs that scientists introduce are to give them their 15 minutes of fame and glory and line their pockets or “Foundations” pockets (where they draw their pay) so they can continue to hypothesize or “guess” how things really work. If the sun was less than an 1″ closer to the earth we would fry and if it were less than an 1″ further away we would freeze. Why do we ignore the Designer? What these scientists continue to do is to ignore the fact that there is a Creator and He knows exactly what is going on with all of the entire earth. Why? Because it is His and everything in it. Why don’t we as people turn to Him and repent of our sin so our lands can be healed. In 2 Chronicles 7:13-14 the Bible says “When I (God speaking)shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” But no we have a scientist that wants to murder 90% of the earth’s population so we can alleviate the “parched” condition of the earth. What about the “parched” condition of our souls?

April 24, 2006 at 12:08 am
(7) Jim says:

Dr. Pianka did not say we should “murder” 90% of Earth’s population. He warned that the reduction is very likely to happen if we crowd the earth to such a degree that our population is unsupportable. He said that an ebola-like virus is a likely culprit, but the fact is that other diseases, war, famine, would all be factors that would come into play.

To say that the earth would be better off if this happens is not to advocate deliberately causing it. It simply is stating the stark truth that the earth will not support us if we become a plague upon its surface. From the point of view of maintaining a healthy, life-sustaining ecology on the planet, that is (unfortunately for us) undeniable and inevitable.

It’s unlikely that we are smart enough as a species to begin to control our own consumption and reproduction in time to prevent Pianka’s predictions from coming true. He’s not a monster…he’s making an educated prediction.

May 1, 2006 at 8:27 pm
(8) Matthew Lavigne says:

Peoples outlooks on how the world should cure itself are totally pointless theories. i know that sounds bold but there is really only one possible solution to cure the ailments of the earth, and thats to start fresh. For many years people have been afraid and saying nothing will happen in our time. Well open your eyes people, the time has come, its the only option. And its not people trying to play God. Its God playing God. And i believe it is mentioned in the Bible. ” Seven years of tribulation” well just think of it, since 2005, New diseases have been created, such as the bird flu, wes-nile, hurricans, flooding, ozone depletion, greenhouse gases reaching a all time high. its only a matter of when. The world needs a new breath of fresh air.

December 15, 2007 at 3:12 am
(9) edisone says:

It’s all about birth control. Keep it in your pants, people. 1 baby per couple for the next 100 years will reduce the population to the same level as in 1900. No “murder”, no “pestilence” needed. Just have one, single, happy, healthy baby. Is that so difficult ?????

June 3, 2008 at 1:43 pm
(10) Joan Morris says:

We are all in trouble when the fossil fuels run out for heaven’s sake! Businesses will cease to operate, cars will be left at the sides of roads and we’ll we’ll all lose our jobs. Supermarkets will be empty. There will be food riots. Police will be unable to function. This leaving lights on, wasting energy just means that there will be nothing for future generations. It won’t just keep coming out of the ground! Global warming will be nothing as to the repercussions of the fuel running out.
There is no alternative. We won’t have the space to grow enough oil for bio-diesel. Stop the dreaming, we must reduce numbers now!

April 3, 2011 at 4:01 pm
(11) mish says:

I’m not sure about that – we have had cars that run on electricity for decades but we didn’t release them because it would cost the fuel companies $$$. We have solutions to most of our problems we just don’t want to put in the hard work and change because we couldn’t be bothered.

As for population, I believe in China’s 1 child policy should become global. Business and economics rely on continued growth but the planet is not able to cope. With enough technology we can stabilize our systems and stop our population, then look at ways to reduce growth. But it will be slow, uncomfortable, and like most big changes and revolutions – probably violent :(

Still best of luck to our race, we’ve made it this far :)

July 6, 2008 at 10:32 pm
(12) Angelicapaz says:

I agree with professor Eric Pianka. For centuries humans have believed that we are the most important on earth, but we are not, “The Earth is most important than us”. Without this planet we can not survive. Edisone is right, it’s about birth control, not killing people. Besides, children are not for everybody. Not all humans are prepared to be parents. How many children are abused or killed by their parents? People have been used God as an excuse to justified their behavior, but God really wants all this? He wants we destroy what he has created, (if he created) I don’t think so. All what exist in the universe is interconnected, so when something bad happens here on earth it affects the whole universe. Although it may sound crazy, we are the pollution, we create it, and this is the only way to stop it. Reducing human beings.

I apologize for my English, but it is not my native language.

July 12, 2008 at 12:00 am
(13) guidoLaMoto says:

It always amazes me how a “distinguished scientist” can get the basics so wrong. When a population grows to its maximum along the logistic curve, limited from further growth by the availabilty of resources (the carrying capacity), the species doesn’t undergo a massive die-off. It merely reaches a stable population number where birth rate and death rate equalize.
The problem facing Mankind is that a depleted fossil fuel supply will mean we can produce less food. The carrying capacity will become less, and that will lead to a die-off. The population will then stabilize at some lower level; birth and death rates being equal. Competition for resources may be quite intense. It will get very ugly.

July 17, 2008 at 8:11 am
(14) Kellyg04 says:

This is nothing new. The Illuminati has had this in their plans for years-they’re are just getting very bold now. Check out the Georgia Guidestones. Their plans are listed on that monument and it’s been around a while.

July 20, 2008 at 10:41 am
(15) Jason in PA says:

Kind of hard for people to “control” our population when some countries (Germany for one) subsidize their residents if they have more children – their thought is the old thought of increasing your countries population to gain more power and influence in the world – same thought process as the Catholic Church – or any religion that prohibits effective Birth Control.

He may not be suggesting it, but when you couple his statements with Cheney’s statement that we need another Pearl Harbour or 9/11, and our history of messing with chemical warfare (tested on our own undesirables in the past) you sort of get what many political Elites would call a frightening win/win situation.

October 8, 2008 at 1:18 pm
(16) Just another human says:

This scientist said nothing about killing anyone. What will happen is a natural effect from humans being greeding within their environment. As humans continue to demand more land–more ecosystems become destroyed. Every habitat has a niche to fill. Destroy that niche and the job doesn’t get done. Processes begin to be strained and become dysfunctional and degradated. This will lead to pollution with an end result of a higher probability of disease and pestilence. We have seen the emergence of bacteria that has become desensitized to antibiotics. These “super bug” become killers. Science will not be able to make the medicines fast enough to save people from dying.

If the bacteria or virus is virulent enough, the result is an epidemic. Who are we to say that it cannot happen again. It happened in 1918 (less than 100 years ago) along the Western Front during the World War in Europe, when a virulent strain of influenza struck allied troops and quickly spread. By late 1918 the epidemic spread over the United States and an estimated 500,000 Americans died of the flu and its accompanying malady, pneumonia. With our modes of transportation being more widely available, in my opinion it is just a matter of time before we will see a mass dying. The simple fact is it is just the way life works.

October 20, 2008 at 3:44 pm
(17) Infogleaner says:

Step right up if you agree with the doctor and be the first to take his medicine.

What, no takers…?

I thought not…

This is what makes modern warfare so easy. We can push a button and evaporate millions on the other side of the globe. How simple to kill someone you don’t know, or even see.

One of the writers suggested 1 baby per couple. That’s easy to say in the first world, where contraception is handed out like candy at a promotional. Third worlders lack education and resources to make voluntary population cutbacks.

This is a problem that will fix itself if left alone. The result won’t be much better than Pianka’s, but it looks fair through my first world eyes. The poorest among us die off, leaving educated, single child families to take over running of the world.

December 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm
(18) Alfian says:

Good Idea. But it’s a world genocide dude.
Having one or none baby for a couple is sounds reasonable.
It will reduce human population in years.

But I believe, The Mother Earth has her own way to control our population.
Tsunami in Aceh is the prove.

(sorry if my English is not good. It’s not my native language.)

December 8, 2008 at 7:23 pm
(19) Dave says:

I was hoping world population would drift down to about 1945
total (about 2,300,000) by rewarding couples who give up
having children or limiting themselves to one child. There would
be terrific adjustments with the large percentage of aged people,
but, in time, demographics would level out. Due to the extremely
heavy ecological debt owed by North Americans, a footprint more
than 100 times larger than our biocapacity, we should be the first
to volunteer.

December 10, 2008 at 1:26 pm
(20) James W. Anderson III says:

Thanks for yet another great article Larry.

He’s not saying anything that the UN didn’t say back in the 80s but they have moved away from stating so openly due to the political pressure.

All you folks talking about it being genocide need to wake up. He is stating, and with good scientific proof, that we can either do it ourselves in ways that are humane, such as birth control, or it will happen on it’s own in ways that are a lot less pleasant.

If you haven’t seen the movie Soylent Green you should because we are getting close to it rapidly.

Religion is not the answer, it is a big part of what got us into this mess and if you believe the bible, Talmud, Koran, or whatever, then you should read the part where it says that “god” helps those that help themselves and others.

In other words don’t be lazy and foolish and fix your own problems instead of waiting for some mystical entity to do it for you.

December 15, 2008 at 3:10 am
(21) jisty says:

Oh when will you all see that this is a propaganda campaign handed straight down from the New World Order. It has been their plan all along to eradicate 80-90% of the earth’s population and recently have decided that global warming will be the catalyst to “unite” people against themselves! Those of you who agree with the eugenics scientist shouldn’t be opposed to being the first people to die!

January 12, 2009 at 9:05 pm
(22) Nissa says:

Humans are the selfish ape. We have pillaged the earth and seas to the point of shame. Speaking of playing god… why is it only with other humans god is involved? humans have been killing, creating, breeding, other creatures forever, how does god feel about that? i don’t know. i am not a theologian and would never claim to be, especially on a blog. it is just interesting. i also read other people commenting to save the future generations. i don’t know how old these individuals are. but the impacts have already begun. this isn’t just about future generations, its about saving ourselves.

April 9, 2009 at 10:13 pm
(23) fred says:

playing god? ask yourself… do u ever pollute our environment? Human is a selfish and stubborn animals. Educate them won be an effective way to save our mother earth. Human is the one who harm our earth. War, pollute environment, and so on… all this is killing our earth slowly!!

August 8, 2009 at 10:41 pm
(24) puzzey says:

no it is not humans that aree exploiting the natural resources, its the rich that are, they are the ones who deserve to die, they’ve lived a million lives on earth… they are the ones exploiting every major industry in the world, not the everyday common man, the working class needs to realize we are together, and unite instead of dividing ourselves, this works against us and once again the elite remain the elite…. we’re to blind to realize what control and power we truly have

August 19, 2009 at 12:39 pm
(25) commando94 says:

tell you what is Professor Eric Pianka ready to be apart of the 90% murderd + are the governments willing to die to save us lol ?? i am jw what you think?

September 7, 2009 at 11:13 pm
(26) Celine says:

I’m not so sure that “nature” will be the one to reduce the population by 90% on its own. Will it happen with plagues and sickness? possibly…but I think the elite will be the ones to manufaturer these illnesses and not nature. They have created and increased so many already, like cancer etc…and they have extreme capabilities with new viruses that they have developed in their labs. Viruses that actually target one specific race, or one specific region and this has already been tested on people. How convenient to use nature as the reason…when nature creates its own plants with capabilities of resisting viruses, bacteria and fungus. We are part of that nature and our resilience with an immune system was thought of with the same consideration as plants and animals. Our food supply, vaccines and pharmaceuticals have weakened us…the population wipeout will be by human hands.

November 7, 2009 at 10:52 am
(27) Sabrina says:

I agree that the reduce of humans on this planet will be for the best for the environment. Somehow humans think they rule nature. When there are to many rabbits or other species humans take action by killing. But no human is ruling judgement on themselves…who is the real plaque?
I think nature will take its course and it i think it will be the best for both humans and the environment.

November 10, 2009 at 6:00 pm
(28) Bonnie Parker-Duke says:

Debra, Dr. Pianka didn’t say anything about people eliminating people; he theorizes that nature will do it. We have to face the fact that if we can’t feed the world population or if they can’t get adequate water, massive numbers will die. The same is true for disease: as the world heats up, it will run rampant and with antibiotics next to useless, it will be impossible to rein them all in.

November 11, 2009 at 12:59 am
(29) Mark Hayes says:

Why not make the cull (for lack of a friendlier term) voluntary and filled with incentives? Nothing to do with murder or coercion. Disease, pestilence, global warming side effects will certainly take their toll, but there may also come a day when people decide to depart for the sake of the remainders. We humans take it upon ourselves to decide which of the other creatures should be culled; I wonder what they would do if they had the wherewithal.
One problem with one-child-per-couple is the demographic skew that results. Just ask the Chinese men who cannot find a wife.

November 13, 2009 at 9:57 pm
(30) guidoLaMoto says:

Mark, the problem the Chinese have is that they value male children and with the One-Child Policy in effect, they selectively aborted females in many cases.
-a one child policy still requires four generations to stop “population momentum”. The population keeps rising for about 80 yrs before it starts to fall.
-we only have fossil fuel left (and the ability to use it to keep farm production high) for about 20-30yrs
-that means ag yield will fall precipitously before we can engineer the population down with such a policy.
-back to the drawing board.

November 28, 2009 at 3:25 am
(31) Commentor says:

If we do not control our numbers, Mother Nature will do it for us. She is considerable less particular in her methods than we would be. Since humans will not acknowledge the problem, there will be no technical solution. The natural die off is projected to begin within the next 5-10 years, reach a maximum death rate within 20 years then taper off for another 25-40 until a sustainable population remains.

December 24, 2009 at 5:51 pm
(32) Objectiev says:

Most human being have been so indoctrinated that they are unable to see the difference between a believe system and the ‘truth’. All religions are believe systems and actually very far from the truth.

The planet harbor life (truth). The human population has done its darnedest to damage earth’s ecosystems (truth). Humans are more destructive than all the other species added together (truth). The poorer the population, the higher the population growth rate (truth). The more religious the population the higher the population growth rate (truth). If there are less people on this earth it would be better for the environment (truth)

So yes, I agree that the earth’s population should be decreased by about 90% and fairly soon! YES, I am prepared to be one of the 90% and NO I am not part of the elite, illuminate or whatever group is being accused of organizing the mass reduction.

Naturally we should allow all creationists (of any of the religions) be first to go, as they should welcome this. We would just allow them to be reunited with their ‘maker’ quicker.

February 11, 2010 at 10:53 am
(33) Chris says:

“Reduce Human Beings by 90 Percent to Solve Environmental Woes.” To solve environmental issues, we human beings had to be reduced by 90%. This figure tell us how shocking we, Homo sapiens, are harming the Earth. For Earth to regain ‘peace’, much of our activities would have stopped or to an extend, we should be ‘reduce’ in population.

May 24, 2010 at 3:55 am
(34) patrick says:

Americans should be first in line for population reduction as they consume 90% of the resources

August 21, 2010 at 1:19 am
(35) jaimie lilly says:

i believe that lifting abortion rights, and birth control will help life instead of death. and i do believe there are real plans that must be looked into for all at stake. what will be left behind, will be troubled souls who will be more limited in ways that they clearly are not smart enough to realize themselves, afterall, scientists have had all this information for years. they have seen the planet grow, they might have been using some for slaves then planned on this. ???

November 16, 2010 at 10:04 pm
(36) Mike Dube says:

Pianca’s theory has much in common with the more famous James Lovelock, who has also predicted a ninety per cent die off. If balance is sought, look to the optimist Fred Pearce. I believe the probability of wide-spread catastrope is high, especially given the desalinization of the north Atlantic because of Global Warming.
A theory is a theory; we can use it as a weapon, a tool or a grave stone. if we are to err, I’d rather it be on the side of free expression.

December 10, 2010 at 4:28 am
(37) jean says:

The whole idea is crazy. Humans can not destroy the earth, the earth will destroy us and then go on as it has done with all past species. We can never escape this fate. It is part of gods plan for the end of days to come, and it is part of the circle of life. Nothing is forever, even the earth will one day end. Except it and make the most of the time you have.

December 16, 2010 at 1:21 pm
(38) Jason says:

Why do so many people fail to see the reality of the bigger picture? This guy is right in every sense. History has shown numerous times that whenever one species reaches a point in time where it’s environment can no longer sustain it, massive die-off’s occur. No one can grasp the concept of a wide-spread die-off because it hasn’t happened in any current human’s lifetime. What’s worse is that thousands of species are dying each year BECAUSE we continue to multiply irresponsibly. Eventually, the Earth WILL fight back and find a way to eliminate a good majority of us, and I hope it does soon. We’ve gotten ourselves entirely into this mess, and we’ve put every other living organism on the planet in jeopardy because of our wretched greed. Almost all of us really do deserve to die for what we’ve done to the only home we have. Unless we can learn to share and for f**k’s sake STOP multiplying, we’re doomed.

December 21, 2010 at 4:15 pm
(39) Bill says:

The world is over populated to the point that we are killing our Earth Mother! The only way to save her is to exterminate 90% of the useless feeders in the world! Rejoice the time of correction is at hand, time to restore nature back to the land!

February 6, 2011 at 3:06 pm
(40) Zii Fenrir says:

…I would have to agree..it wouldnt have to happen if we didnt populate so much over the years. Personally I think its just medicine..Humans were never designed to live for such a long time. Now that humans live longer than 35 population increase is high cause people wont die. Even lemmings know when they over populate which is why they go off a cliff. Ethier A. Law kicks in or B. :3 90% goes. Pick your choice because dieases are getting worse. Not glee to say ” humans must die” it sucks.

July 21, 2011 at 4:31 am
(41) Environment Restore says:

The source is that people are forced to be the cause of the environmental problems through the monetary system and means of survival. Yes, we all can do our part to help the environment but that will not solve the damage that has already been done and keeps unfolding. This is not just an environmental problem since ALL the worlds problems are interconnected in a domino effect of causes.

It is logically known to the majority that the environmental problems are the most important problems of the world today since it is the very system in which supports human life, however, all the worlds problems tie into every problem including poverty, war, economy failure, etc…let alone the everyday problems we face as individuals. There is a solution to ALL of this since it is ALL connected.

Click here: http://environmentrestore.blogspot.com/ for more information

October 6, 2011 at 9:10 pm
(42) Queen Mary says:

Humans are no different than any other living organism on the planet. We’re compete for food, water and shelter, we’re just as greedy, self centered and like to reproduce at all costs. We may be a little more inteligent, but not that much. Our population will run its course, just like the norway rat, the cane toad, zebra muscles or raccons.

November 8, 2011 at 1:22 am
(43) Andrea says:

Bravo.. He’s absolutely correct, and I’d crawl through lava to vote for him. The ultimate, overall solution to EVERY problem this world has is massive reduction of the population.

December 23, 2011 at 3:27 pm
(44) leigh brown says:

it is probably that with increase in human population the chance of mass extinghsion is likley like dominio falling and thus a correction in the ballance but this is unlikely becacuse we adapat and survive our enviroment but you might say we have eaten all our enviroment well its a limted resource attributed to time and as we all know it all runs out

January 10, 2012 at 3:56 pm
(45) Gisela says:

If we are lucky, all of the christian fundamentalist get erased from mother earth. Nothing brings more hate and terror to the world than christianity.

January 29, 2012 at 5:59 pm
(46) Freiman H. says:

We should not be killing people let’s not forget our Physics Law “For every Action there is an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction”. In other words as you wish upon others it comes back to you. I don’t think it takes a smart person not to figure that out, second his comment is biased. There are thousands upon thousands of solutions that you can come up with whenever you are faced with a problem create and encourage newer innovations that impact humanity in a POSITIVE way and solve the problems such as oil supply(without going to war) ethanol ect…You cannot argue that if you throw a ball at the ground it will not bounce back at you (because it does).We also complain about children having low test scores yet we allow and NOT ban (monosodium glutamate, fluoride in the water (fluoride was used in Nazi concentration camps on Jewish people)and all those chemicals in non-organic food not to mention the fact that our Government hardly, stands UP for the Citizens and start’s to investigate and fire bad teachers that don’t care about the students).So don’t complain why we are not the number one Nation and China is( by the way China has the most population yet it’s the most successful mh..).

January 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm
(47) Freiman H says:

We can make excuses all we want but I am even surprised that this man is saying that this is “Such an EXICITING time too!, because everyone of you gets to BURY nine people”(How exciting!) this man has NO respect for humanity, its utterly repulsive to hear him even speak like that. I don’t know why he wouldn’t even be embarrassed rather, ashamed at his destructive, idea.(But my other belief is that if Mr. Eric Pianka believes we should be “playing Mother Nature” or “God” and KILL 90 PERCENT of our WORLD POPULATION Well then that literally means that we should start with those people including those who believe we should kill 90 percent of the population because obviously what am picking up from his comment is that if we are deciding who is going to live or die What would make US think that “OUR” LIFE IS MORE PRECIOUS THAN “ANY” OTHER HUMAN BEING in “this planet”; because from my assumption of reading this article I don’t’ think that when he refers to 90% of the population he means HIMSELF. All of humanity have dreams, goals, scientific innovations to bring to the future, new ideas, opinions, feelings, emotions, and family just like you and I.I think the problem is that some people think they are better than others and we have forgotten that we are all connected to each other. Other Scientists have proven that we as “humanity” are far more than skin we are energy “soul beings” obviously Mr.Pianka has to take some ETHICS COURSE and if he did shame on him he needs to retake them or maybe we should take him to apart in Africa were people are dehydrated and with NO food and Leave him there for a couple of weeks then let’s ask him the very thing he proposed would be an “exciting” thing.

February 5, 2012 at 4:06 am
(48) Balaji says:

We are just an organism to complete the cycle for transformation of energy. We are living in a illusion that we control the others earth is a living planet earth needs energy to survive as living planet. It gets energy from sun by transformation. Every living organism do that transformation we humans also included in that when there is unbalance in the transformation of energy earth balances itself. In the balancing process it stops the basic function of the organism in its way (killing). Hey human don’t show off.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.