With all due respect to Mike, who by all accounts is a most exceptional and good-natured scientist, I’d like to point to two recent of examples of why many of us non-scientists find many of the field’s practitioners to be of ill-repute.
The first example comes courtesy of the Associated Press, which today ran a story discussing some apparent fossil evidence for the evolution of fish to becoming land creatures. What caught my eye was this beaut:
Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they’ve had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.
Now, admittedly, more of the fault lies on the lazy reporter here, who is chiefly responsible for asserting that these scientists have “long known” as fact that fish evolved into land creatures circa 365 million years ago. And while Mike will undoubtedly remind us of the distinctions between hypotheses and theories and facts and truth, I will go ahead and remark that while the reporter is being lazy with his language here, he is also undoubtedly expressing the consensus view among scientists. In that vein, I find it mind-boggling how reporters and/or scientists can assert something so readily as fact and in the same breath mention that there is “precious little fossil evidence” to support their view!
So let us agree that evolution is the popular view and makes a lot of sense, but let’s take a breath before going around and asserting its indisputability, shall we?
Moving on to another story that is far more disturbing (hat tip: Best of the Web). At a crowd gathered for a meeting last month at the Texas Academy of Science, University of Texas evolutionary ecologist Dr. Eric R. Pianka gave an outrageous speech–and was met with “vigorous” rounds of applause! What did he say that was so outrageous? I’ll let you decide:
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?â€?
Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, “We’re no better than bacteria!â€?
Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it’s too late.
Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
…AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.â€?
With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious. The audience that had been applauding some of his statements now sat silent.
After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation.
“And the fossil fuels are running out,â€? he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.â€? So the oil crisis alone may require eliminating two-third’s of the world’s population.
How soon must the mass dying begin if Earth is to be saved? Apparently fairly soon, for Pianka suggested he might be around when the killer disease goes to work. He was born in 1939, and his lengthy obituary appears on his web site.
When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn’t merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
…The audience laughed when he said, “You know, the bird flu’s good, too.â€? They laughed again when he proposed, with a discernable note of glee in his voice that, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.â€?
…He spoke glowingly of the police state in China that enforces their one-child policy. He said, “Smarter people have fewer kids.” He said those who don’t have a conscience about the Earth will inherit the Earth, “…because those who care make fewer babies and those that didn’t care made more babies.” He said we will evolve as uncaring people, and “I think IQs are falling for the same reason, too.”
With this, the questioning was over. Immediately almost every scientist, professor and college student present stood to their feet and vigorously applauded the man who had enthusiastically endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population. Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern to extend greetings and ask questions.
…[F]ive hours later, the distinguished leaders of the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. When the banquet hall filled with more than 400 people responded with enthusiastic applause, I walked out in protest.
While Pianka may be an extreme example, the hostility to “anthropocentrism” is quite common in the sciences. My question, though, is what species aren’t [its own species]-centric? If the lion thinks only of his next prey and not of the survival of his environment, why should we be any different if we truly are no different than lizards or bacteria? The whole reason we should care about the environment is because of our anthropocentrism. Yet Pianka, who asserts we are on the same level as bacteria, nonetheless says our humanity must be reduced to 10% of its current population. For what good? If we are equal with other animals, let the course of history and fate decide the rise and fall of our species. Who are we to regulate that? Following his solution implies that we are less than bacteria and other species, none of which he calls for special population reductions.
Even more disturbing, though, is the apparent popularity of his ideas and way of thinking to fellow scientists and naturalists as evidenced by the reception of his ideas in that forum. For them, the global ecology in perfect balance sans human interference is the highest goal. No wonder then that scientists for example are more concerned with stopping global warming than they are with ensuring that humanity thrives. I mean, if more scientists worried first and foremost about people living and thriving, perhaps they might come to the conclusion that we can adapt to global warming, or at least mitigate its effects without such great costs to ourselves that our economies collapse and billions are left to suffer in third-world status.
At a minimum, if scientists put humans first, the tone of the debate over issues like global warming, cloning, and stem-cell research would improve drastically. When science loses sight of the fact that it exists to serve the needs of the human race first and foremost and instead focuses only on knowledge and technological advancement, we’re in trouble.
The key, then, is a better balance between virtue (or morals, or religion, or whatever your nomenclatural preference is) and science. Fortunately there are some scientists that make room for that balance, but the many who don’t are a strong reason why so many people in our society (and elsewhere) have been turning their backs on what the scientists have to say.
April 6th, 2006 at 12:01:55 am
I need some time to think about my reaction to the second article (I disagree with most of what he says, but not quite all, and need some time to put my thoughts in order), so for now I’m confining my reaction to the first. Call it semantics if you like, Andrew, but I think you’re missing the key part of the sentence. I say the key issues is that there’s been little fossil evidence for how it happened, not that there’s been little fossil evidence that it did happen. The closest outgroup to vertebrates morphologically is that of the lobe-finned fishes, particularly an ancient form of them known only from the fossil record. Standard evolutionary explanations for speciation involve things like that when you have two types of organisms that look more like each other than they do like anything else in either their time period or the times immediately before they’re found, the simplest explanation is that their common ancestor was probably of the group that had been around for longer, giving rise to the organism not seen previously. That has long been known, but several of the intermediate steps in this particular case were almost entirely speculative, given that most living creatures don’t fossilize, and that many which do aren’t preserved until the present. Further, fossil evidence isn’t the only evidence in questions of evolution–increasingly, genetic evidence is playing a larger and larger role.
Saying that we know something happened without knowing the details of how is neither inherently wrong nor inherently arrogant. I knew that it was warmer in the summer than it was in the winter before I knew that this was because the hemisphere experiencing summer is pointed toward the sun in a way that increases the level of solar radiation reaching it. I knew that if I dropped a cup it would fall before I learned that this was due to gravity. And even after having learned about gravity, I still don’t really understand what actually causes what is effectively spooky action at a distance–I can parrot various hypotheses I’ve heard, but that doesn’t mean that I really understand them. And it also doesn’t mean that even if every one of those hypotheses is wrong that I don’t still know that if I drop my glass it will fall.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:16:07 am
Well Andrew, you’ve successfully grabbed two poor examples of the presentation of scientific research with which to proffer this beaut:
If more scientists worried first and foremost about people living and thriving, perhaps they might come to the conclusion that we can adapt to global warming, or at least mitigate its effects without such great costs to ourselves that our economies collapse and billions are left to suffer in third-world status.
At a minimum, if scientists put humans first, the tone of the debate over issues like global warming, cloning, and stem-cell research would improve drastically. When science loses sight of the fact that it exists to serve the needs of the human race first and foremost and instead focuses only on knowledge and technological advancement, we’re in trouble.
Really, Andrew, shoddy reporting and a 3rd-hand report of what certainly sounds like a real nut-case lead you to believe that science, as a general field, lacks enough individuals who “put humans first”? Wow.
Mike covered your objections to the fish article quite well, so I’ll leave it…
Have you really anything to back up your statement, hostility to “anthropocentrismâ€? is quite common in the sciences? You do realize that the vast majority of research funded by the US Government, for example, is directly or indirectly linked to furthering human medical and technological causes, right? And, is it really “hostility to ‘anthropocentrism’” to point out (in the case of global warming) that humans are, in fact, causing reversible and/or avoidable damage to ecosystems worldwide?! Reasonable debate certainly exists as to where/when/how/how much damage occurs and whether it is a good investment (finanacially, socially, etc.) to address such issues, but just because you don’t like to hear “humans are causing global warming and it’s going to seriously change the earth” doesn’t mean it’s some humanity-hating indictment on the nebulous institution of “science.”
No wonder then that scientists for example are more concerned with stopping global warming than they are with ensuring that humanity thrives.
Do you realize how stupid this statement is? Whack-job Pianka aside, stopping global warming (if possible) would allow humanity to thrive whilst also allowing the current panoply of Earth’s creatures to exist–which seems to be the main goal of every climatologist I’ve ever met or read about. Instead, you essentially claim that if scientists cared more about people they might come around to your personal opinion that the economic costs of some environmental laws are too high. Nice. Care about people=think like Andrew. Got it.
The key, then, is a better balance between virtue (or morals, or religion…) and science.
Don’t mince words, Andrew, spit it out. You really mean “better balance between Christian theology and scientific reseach,” right? If so, explain to me how any of that fits into the scientific method. (I know what you’re getting at: stem-cells and cloning bring up morality issues of fetal rights and “playing God,” respectively…but why should scientists have to tone down their opinions? And show me a good example of cloning or stem-cell technology that isn’t designed to serve the needs of the portion of the human race that we can all agree are “people,” those living outside a mother’s womb.)
You’ve done a marvelous job of taking two piss-poor examples, a badly-written article about a notable scientific discovery and one loud-mouth jerkoff’s tirade that included his preferred pandemic design, to wrap your world-view in a vituous, comforting blanket of love and affection for humanity. Not like those scientists. They hate people.
April 6th, 2006 at 3:53:30 am
Andrew, your argument that scientists are not putting people first is not consistent with the way science is funded. Take a look at the federal R&D budget. You can see that at $28.4 billion, the National Institues of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services has the largest budget for research. The NIH only funds research relevant to medicine. The National Science Foundation (NSF) on the other hand funds science and engineering research that is not relevant to medicine and only has a budget of $5.6 billion in 2006. If anything, the funding for non-medical science research should increase.
Here are excerpts from the mission statements of the NIH
“NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.”
and the NSF
“NSF is the only federal agency whose mission includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical sciences. We are tasked with keeping the United States at the leading edge of discovery in areas from astronomy to geology to zoology.”
April 6th, 2006 at 3:57:28 am
This is a low quality post for this blog.
There is OVERWHELMING fossil evidence for the porcess of evolution.
The point being discussed here is that the EXACT CREATURE that provides the EXACT LINK for the VERY FIRST FISH TO LAND TRANSFERENCE has not yet been found.
The fact that this one particular creature or set of creatures has not been found in the fossil record DOES NOT IN ANYWAY CALL INTO QUESTION THE OVERALL PROCESS OF EVOLUTION.
Evolution is indisputable.
This fossil which has not been found does not in anyway call into question evolution.
I mean let’s get real, people.
Next thing you know, we’ll be debating whether or not the Biblical timeline of the Erath is the correct one or if the carbon and other forms of dating are correct….
April 6th, 2006 at 4:03:29 am
By the way, this posting is misnamed.
It should be titaled “Science vs. Andrew.”
April 6th, 2006 at 4:26:36 am
Forgive me my typos. I’ve been dead for over 100 years….
April 6th, 2006 at 6:51:47 am
Andrew, you’re placing an awful lot of faith in one person’s account (the linked “Citizen Scientist”) of how the audience reacted to that speech. If I, or anyone else, made the sort of assumptions you’re making on the basis of a New York Times or AP article — suppose, for example, an article said that a conservative speaker got “loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause” for a racist remark in front of a conservative audience, and I used that to support the assertion that conservatives are a bunch of racists — you’d cry foul for various reasons, one of which is that the source isn’t entirely reliable and is most likely biased. I fail to see how this is any different. Admittedly I’m not familiar with the biases of “Citizen Scientist,” but at the very least he/she is an unknown quantity, and one ought to be careful in assuming that his/her account of the audience reaction is necessarily completely accurate.
You’re also not considering the makeup of the audience — to the extent there was an enthusiastic reaction, it’s probably largely because the people who came to hear that guy speak like him. It’s a self-selecting sample. Sort of like, if you go to a John Tesh concert, people are going to cheer loudly and enthusiastically, because obviously the only people would go to a John Tesh concert are people who like him! But it would be wrong to conclude on that basis that music fans generally love John Tesh. Similarly, it seems to me that you are unjustifiably extrapolating the alleged enthusiasm of a particular audience as representative of the scientific community as a whole. There’s a reason this guy has been “making waves” in the media lately, and it’s because his ideas are… unusual, bizarre, out there, whatever you want to call it. It’s not because he represents the mainstream of scientific opinion, by any stretch of the imagination.
And now, I yield the floor to the honorable gentleman from Palo Alto via Buffalo. :)
April 6th, 2006 at 7:28:43 am
I don’t blame the writer as much as the editor, AP is usually the first job after J-School, but the editors should have know better.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:56:17 am
If the lion thinks only of his next prey and not of the survival of his environment, why should we be any different if we truly are no different than lizards or bacteria?
This brings up an interesting point: It is said that bears (/wolves/orcas/other hunters) have a necessary hunting territory, and that it takes X square miles of grazing land to support herbivores. I wonder, on a per-organism (or perhaps per kilogram of biomass?) basis, what amount of resources humans require as compared to other animals?
I suspect that it is far more. Certainly the stereotypical “fat dumb American” cannot support him- or herself in the lifestyle they currently maintain by the resources immediately, and naturally, available to him. After all, it takes a lot of acres of former rainforest to produce all that palm oil for Twinkies™ and Cheetos™ (ad slogan since 1996: “Dangerously cheesy!”).
So to answer your question, we are different because our range of (negative) influence on the environment is greater — global, even — and that combined with our ability to think beyond our own immediate actions gives us the responsibility to do so. The zebra mussel cannot be held responsible if it chokes out native species; we can.
…let the course of history and fate decide the rise and fall of our species. Who are we to regulate that?
We are regulating it, albeit in the opposite direction: that is, we are taking measures to promote our own population growth beyond what the natural environment is able to support in a given area. I’m not advocating that we all return to hunters and gatherers, but to think that we aren’t already unnaturally affecting the food/population balance isn’t true.
if scientists put humans first
In a sense, they are. They simply realize that for the species to survive in the long term, unlimited population growth is not sustainable. If non-scientists realized that “putting humans first” is more than stock returns, bigger SUVs, and the right to pave as much of the Earth as possible, maybe the tone would also improve drastically. The responsibility for the tone of the debate does not solely rest with scientists, Andrew.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:05:21 am
Pianka sounds like a villain I wrote in a short story once.
Then again, Andrew reminds me of all the conservatives who worried and fretted during the Renaissance that humanistic art and a heliocentric universe made humanity less important.
I agree too many of us stresses our resources, especially when we insist that everyone on the face of the planet has to live by the exact same economic mode. I just don’t see how Communism or viral decimation are the solutions. Daniel Quinn writes well on the subject, and he doesn’t call for some kind of humanity-wide genocide in the process.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:47:20 am
Aw….Andrew’s post was simply 4 days late.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:48:10 am
Ooooopppps…..make that 5 days late. Boy this month is going fast.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:50:03 am
Sheeesh…forget the whole thing, I was right the first time as I see his post was made before midnight yesterday. All right, time for me to crawl off the land and back into the water where I belong.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:15:12 am
My thought: on a blog that has thrown up (read: vomited) some extraordinary straw men, Andrew’s Dr. Pianka takes the cake. The piece de resistance. Is he even a real person?
The issue of whether humans are better than bacteria, or whether several billion humans should die, is ultimately subjective, and definitionally outside the realm of science. ‘Real’ scientists resist the intrusion of ID into their classrooms to a large extent because they don’t want to make the kinds of moral judgments that “Dr” Pianka apparently relishes.
Curiouser, the so-called science advocated by this Dr. Pianka is just plain stupid. That any institution would appoint a title with “Evolutionary” anything to someone so moronic strains credulity.
Consider: the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology says: genes are selected for to the extent they are incrementally successful at replicating themselves in the population.
Our “Evolutionary” ecologist Pianka apparently knows not a damn thing about evolution, as he apparently spewed forth the following hilariously stupid quote:
“And the fossil fuels are running out,� he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.
Well, there’s a grand plan! We’ll kill off the 4 billion folks with the genes that look to replicate themselves broadly when resources are plentiful, and I guess that will leave 2 billion people with genes that just want to hang out, and be happy, and not worry about propagating, even though in Pianka’s dream world there are lots of resources, few competitors, and thus lots of opportunity for explosive population growth.
What an idiot. If anyone runs into this so-called Doctor, perhaps they could help him out with the story of Easter Island, an idyllic microcosm of what this Pianka apparently wants the whole world to be - lots of resources, small population - but, alas, that didn’t go so well…because of EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES.
This is the dumbest thread ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island
April 6th, 2006 at 11:27:57 am
To be clear - the dumbness of the thread relates to Pianka’s inadequacy as a straw man. Its okay to rip an area of inquiry to shreds, but its important to have even a veneer of credibility. Pianka’s veneer is unclear to me.
On the other hand, Andrew’s Mahoney thread below is right on.
April 6th, 2006 at 5:05:23 pm
WHOA, straw man! Hadn’t heard that in a few days! I was starting to get all jittery! Thanks, Jazz!
April 6th, 2006 at 5:54:59 pm
OK, I’ve had some time to put my thoughts in order about Pianka and the points Andrew attempted to draw from him about science as a whole.
1) “While Pianka may be an extreme example, the hostility to ‘anthropocentrism’ is quite common in the sciences.”
I’d like you to back that up, Andrew. Most scientists are hostile to anthromorphism–things such as stating that molecules want to be in their lowest energy configuration are irritating as molecules don’t really want anything as far as we can tell–but anthropocentrism is actually pretty much par for the course. Ricardo’s referencing of R&D money is a good example of that. We biologists have more money coming our way than most other scientists do, but we’re constantly having to justify what the tangible benefits of our work will be. It’s true that there are scientists out there who aren’t anthropocentric, but they’re by no means the majority.
2) “When science loses sight of the fact that it exists to serve the needs of the human race first and foremost and instead focuses only on knowledge and technological advancement, we’re in trouble.”
That’s your interpretation of the point of science, Andrew, not a factual point. Not all will agree with you. I see nothing wrong with some scientists focusing on knowledge for the sake of knowledge, in the same way that I see nothing wrong with some art historians focusing on knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Personally, I don’t think that science exists first and foremost to serve the needs of the human race. I think it exists primarily as the most reliable way of learning things about the world and universe. The application of that scientific knowledge to the benefit of humanity is typically known as engineering, medicine, agriculture, or the like. But it is not essential that those acquiring knowledge be those who are seeking applications thereof–in fact, it’s often better that they aren’t, as most major breakthroughs come about serendipitously, and someone else figures out an application for the basic science. If you’re always looking for applications, you will be much more constrained by the practicalities of what is likely to lead to an incremental advance, and as such are more likely to miss out on the low-probability angles which will eventually result in massive changes.
3) “However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.”
That’s just not true. Death occurs within 2-3 days for most Ebola victims, many of whom are unconscious for the majority of their symptoms. It’s a horrible thing to witness, undoubtedly; and for those who remain conscious it is indeed highly painful. Even those who are unconscious tend to thrash about spraying infectious blood from every orifice, as their internal connective tissues have liquified (My high school term paper: the effect of biological warfare in the second half of the 20th century. My oral report had people turning odd colors, as I forgot that some people get squeamish hearing the biological effects of many of these agents. And the class did border lunch…but I digress). Many end up drowning in their own blood when the lungs come under attack. But it’s certainly not slow, given that it’s one of the fastest causes of death not attributable to traumatic accident or homicide. I also have a hard time thinking that the term torturous applies if the victim isn’t even awake.
4) “At a minimum, if scientists put humans first, the tone of the debate over issues like global warming, cloning, and stem-cell research would improve drastically.”
I’ll disagree with you here as well, Andrew. The role of scientists in the debate of, say, cloning and stem-cell research is to say what is possible, what the procedures would entail, what the probabilities of success at various sorts of treatments are. They aren’t the ones who should be involved in debating whether or not such acts are morally acceptable. That’s better handled by bioethicists. Science tells you things along the lines of what is, what was, what will be, and what can be. It doesn’t have anything to say about what should be. There are scientists who also go into advocacy–particularly true in environmental matters–but the public policy portion of it isn’t science.
5) “That any institution would appoint a title with “Evolutionaryâ€? anything to someone so moronic strains credulity.”
To be clear, Jazz, they didn’t. His title is “Denton A. Cooley Centennial Professor of Zoology”. He includes in the list of his own research interests evolutionary ecology, along with a lot of other terms that most people on this blog wouldn’t find that interesting and/or enlightening. (Or maybe this is an example of me being an elitist arrogant scientist for assuming that most people in general public don’t know much about, say, metapopulation theory)
6) Even at our present lifestyle, we probably do require fewer resources per individual than many species do. Despite the fact that we’re at the top of the food chain, we are omnivores and consume primarily plants and herbivores. And even there, most of our herbivores are rather efficient, with the least efficient being cattle. Those obligate carnivores which feed primarily on other carnivores (more common in marine systems than terrestrial one, but even among terrestrials we have snakes which feed primarily on other snakes, for example) will lose more of the base-level energy as they ascend the food chain. And, of course, there are both carnivores and herbivores who are much, much larger than we are, and consequently need a lot of resources to stay viable.
There are plenty of reasons why people don’t like to listen to scientists. One is that many scientists have no idea how to communicate to people who are not. Another is that many scientists truly are arrogant and condescending, and few people like to listen to what that sort of person has to say. There’s also the fact that science is seen as threatening to the closely held beliefs of many, and that it often says things that most people intrinsically don’t want to hear (the Earth is not the center of the universe, humans are really clever apes, eating less and exercising more is healthier than being sedentary and overweight, homeopathic medicine is selling you really expensive water with no molecules of the alleged medicine left, psychics have not been able to perform at better than random chance in any sort of controlled test, perpetual motion machines are impossible…). But scientists not putting enough importance on humanity is not realistically one of those reasons. Perhaps the perception that they don’t is one, but that perception isn’t based on objective reality.
Other than that, Brendan in particular, as well as several others have slammed this post pretty effectively, Andrew. Overall, not one of your better-thought-out pieces.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:47:05 pm
…Cheetosâ„¢…“Dangerously cheesy!â€?
Yes but no need to sloganize this Post, Briandot. :} Andrew’s often Wrong but that doesn’t mean he’s Cheeting. :>
Well, Andrew me lad, you’re takin’ it on the ol’ Chin, here, I won’t contribute Further to the fearsome Slaughter :) …
…BUT I Will paste the following Extensive (hi Brendan / how’s the ol’ Bandwidth doin’? :) excerpts from a deeply Flawed but still Interesting Special Editorial in “The Citizen Scientist” (the publication whose Report raised the Hue & Cry about Per-fesser Pianka in the first place) by Shawn Carlson, Ph.D. (in What, I wonder :), founder & executive director of the Society for Amateur Scientists ~ “Helping Ordinary People Do Extraordinary Science”. ;> (Doctor Mike’s thoughts on the general merits of TCS and the SFAS would be Illuminating; but the Sage of Palo Alto has done enough work for us already, here. :)
Sayeth Dr. Carlson in the Editorial (here quoted Out of Order)(not to mention, Context :) ~
… the good doctor hasn’t actually called for acts of terrorism. He hasn’t declared that he wants people to bring about the painful deaths of over 5,000,000,000 human beings. True enough. Professor Pianka has never, so far as I know, advocated that human beings should act to bring about the depopulation of the planet. He says only that he thinks that it will happen, that it has to happen if the earth is to survive, and he strongly implies that he thinks it would be a good thing if it did happen. So, is Pianka really a dangerous man?
Carlson says Yes, he Is ~ because some of his Students [many of whom reportedly Adore him], once having acquired the technical Capacity to do so might Act to hasten the fulfillment of the guru’s Prophecy.
Previous to that, the writer Writes this ~ which is altogether Worthy of Quotation because it sets forth the theoretically Valid & ultimately Useless view to which I have long been Inclined :) (hi Mike :)
…Pianka claims that the natural world would be “better off” if there weren’t so many humans. To see if that’s true, we have to figure out just what constitutes the “natural world”? As an evolutionist, I see human beings as the products of the same natural forces that shaped all other life on earth. Our brains evolved on this planet subject to the same kinds of natural selection pressures as those that shaped peacock feathers. The same can be said of all of our social structures, our religions and every other aspect of what we are that helped us secure resources and propagate our species (the hammer and anvil of natural selection). In short, our institutions and our technology are every bit as much a part of the natural world as elk mating rituals and beaver dams. In fact, by evolving the ability to adapt the world to fit us , human beings have become better at securing resources and procreating than any other vertebrate on the planet. By this measure, we are evolution’s most successful creation (amongst vertebrates). If extraterrestrials were asked to select nature’s most successful vertebrate on the Earth they would certainly point to us.
So it seems very strange to me for an evolutionist to identify one of evolution’s most successful creations as somehow operating outside the natural order. To do so is to deny this undeniable truth of evolution.
Pianka, however, is an evolutionist who believes that humanity is not part of the natural world. Somehow, the fact our evolution led us to a point whereby we can adapt our environment to our bodies, rather than wait for our bodies to adapt to our environment, puts us in an inferior position in nature. In his mind, Homo sapiens are the despoilers, the corruptors of the natural order. This viewpoint is every bit as anthropocentric as those who would place humans in a superior position, saying that we are the “pinnacle of evolution” or “chosen by God.” Only instead of lauding humanity’s position in nature, Pianka denigrates it. Evolution supports neither camp.
I especially like the parts about the Peacock feathers & the Elk. :) Unfortunately, after next rebutting the scientific validity of Pianka’s forecasts re the statistical Efficacy of global pandemic, Carlson says:
…Since neither of Pianka’s foundational assertions are consistent with the best interpretation of the scientific evidence, his opinions on these matters are merely political rants. They therefore do not deserve protection under the doctrine of academic freedom, and scientific institutions like the Texas Academy of Science should have no problem refusing to provide speakers of his ilk a platform to publicly advance these positions.
Presumably Doctor Carlson’s PhD is not in Political “Science” :}, else he Probably (? :) would not be under the impression that Academic Freedom is somehow Inapplicable to Political Rants. :|
April 6th, 2006 at 8:15:19 pm
A quick google search reveals that Dr. Carlson’s doctorate was in Physics, granted by UCLA in 1989.
As for the SFAS, I just don’t know enough about them to have an opinion. They’ve not shown up on my radar, really.
April 7th, 2006 at 9:29:01 am
Interesting quote, Joe, from Carlson attributed to Pianka:
humanity is not part of the natural world. Somehow, the fact our evolution led us to a point whereby we can adapt our environment to our bodies, rather than wait for our bodies to adapt to our environment, puts us in an inferior position in nature.
Setting aside the moralistic conclusion (”inferior”? I was going to say “superior”, but whatever), Pianka may be on to something here.
Further, at the risk of committing the ultimate Brendanloy.com heresy, Pianka’s point also calls out a misleading statement from Mike, here:
Even at our present lifestyles, we probably do require fewer resources per individual than many species do
I am not disputing the accuracy of the statement (I’m a science dilettante), but rather its relevance to the conversation at hand.
Indeed, when a species (humans) reaches the point of being able to manipulate its environment, it doesn’t really matter their comparative resource consumption, evolutionary theory tells us that:
if Species A consumes fewer resources per individual than comparable Species B, then the Species A will likely generate more offspring per individual than Species B, all else equal.
As it turns out, this is ultimately the story of Easter Island. When the Polynesians arrived in 400 AD, the island was a beautiful paradise with lush rainforest in one part, wonderful arable land in another part, plentiful other natural resources in other parts, generally natural riches beyond belief.
So what did the people do? Consumed it all. Chopped down the trees to build canoes for fishing, at faster rates than the forest could be replaced. Farmed the land out of all its fertile soil. Consumed the resources, until there was little left. Kept having more and more offspring to consume the plentiful (but depleting) resources. Eventually landed in cannibalism.
Why are humans different? Because we can farm the land, by which we can permanently alter ecosystems to suit our interests. Other species have the incentive to try the same thing, but few if any can make a permanent mark on the ecosystem. Through agriculture, and deforestation, humans can destroy ecosystems, as the Easter Island example unfortunately illustrates.
Indeed, there are some cultures (apparently the Russian Orthodox among them) who equate the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden with the transition from a hunter-gatherer to an agricultural lifestyle. The hunter-gatherer can typically not destroy an ecosystem. The farmer can (and historically often has).
One last plug for science guiding morality: at last year’s APA Convention in Los Angeles, megawatt evolutionary theorist and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker gave a talk on this very topic. Pinker’s view (compelling to me) is that we should look to science MORE, not less, to guide our ethical choices.
As an example, if evolutionary theory can predict what would happen if we leave the Polynesians to their own devices on Easter Island (read: very bad things), then doesn’t it make more sense to use those learnings to set up policies like private land ownership, incentives for renewing resources, etc. that improve everyones’ lives? As opposed to just praying that everything would go okay? In this regard science can, and has, contributed much to the ’spiritual’ well-being of societies.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:46:42 am
See that, Mike, I never did master the Quick Google Search. :)
But thanks. Knowing now that Dr. Carlson is a Physicist ~ the only scientific discipline that ranks above (albeit Slightly :) evolutionary microbiology, mathematics, and Stamp collecting :) ~ I recant my previous Sardonicisms toward him. :> And in furtherance of my perennial Physics projects in the Basement ~ tepid fusion, asteroid deflection by action of folksong-at-a-distance, and expression of the No-Strings Theory in Gaelic ~ I shall join his Society for Amateur Scientists. :) Especially since they’ve not shown up on your Radar, so I’ll feel Safe. ;>
April 7th, 2006 at 1:06:28 pm
Good commentary, Jazz. / Come join me in the Basement (see above :). Since “Manhattan” is taken, we’ll consolidate the work and name it Da Bronx Project. :) Instead of joining Carlson’s crew we could form a Rival outfit. Society for Scientific Dilettantes. ;>
You’re off the Hook on the Heresy charge :> because Dr Mike was responding to Briandot’s previous inquiry re “…what amount of resources humans require as compared to other animals?” so it was Relevant to that, at least, even if Briandot was imPertinent. (hi Briandot :)
My Thinking [sic :] is that homo sapiens has Evolved to a point where we possess (and Deploy) the capacity to degrade or Destroy the present-era ecosystem(s) of which (Carlson & I insist :) We & all our Works are currently an integral Part ~ OR, to Switch Up and Restore their teetering Balances and protect & Maintain them (and Us) in something approximating environmental/evolutionary Stasis. IOW we as a species have evolved the ability to collectively make this Choice ~ which is simultaneously a No Brainer and a Dilemma. / IOOW: ultimately the “correct” Choice is Not Revealed by our Evolved scientific understanding of the Evolutionary processes which have Brought us to the point of being capable of making it. I.e. (I haven’t got the nerve to add yet a 3rd “O” to the acronymn :) our Cognitive brain does not instruct us as to whether it is in the best interests of the Cosmos (now There’s a Concept :) for our species to live Long & prosper (okok, so maybe Not prosper) ~ OR, to go extinct Sooner rather than (sorry but y’know :) Later.
What DOES enlighten us on this, of course, is the ould Alligator brain. :> (See, “No Brainer”, above.) Which Stem teacheth: Screw the Cosmos, save my Ass. (OKOK. My Genes. :)
Hm? / Well yeah, of COURSE I go with the Crocodilian Option. I have the deepest respect for my hindbrain, and accordingly for my heinie. :> I just like to Think out loud, is all. (Using Which of the aforementioned 2 Organs, my Readers shall be the Judge. :)
April 7th, 2006 at 4:01:28 pm
I haven’t had access to a computer for a few days, and don’t have time to respond to any of this now. I’ll catch up tonight when I get to Sacramento.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:31:24 pm
To follow up on Brendan’s point (Comment #7), I’ve done a little more searching. The account of Dr. Pianka’s talk Andrew linked to is by Forrest Mims, a fellow at the Discovery Institute (the Intelligent Design folks) and a disgruntled amateur scientist. There has been a full frontal assault on Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences, including prominent intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski reporting Pianka to Homeland Security and offering a $1000 reward for a recording of the speech, as well as reported death threats. To date, nobody else has come forward to verify Mims’ claims.
Pianka’s website has further explanation on his views.
It may well be true that what was reported is accurate, but I harbor growing suspicion that this is a case of an edgy speech by an edgy professor that has been misrepresented to make a public stink. Mims’ account was rapidly spread throughout the conservative blogosphere and talk radio without any further verification.
Read Pianka’s public response here. He claims Mims is a jealous rival in the TAoS and his speech was taken out of context: “He’s an avowed enemy, and he’s made this very clear that he’s going to get me and take me down,” Pianka said.
Here’s a take on the situation that seems more knowledgeable.
Bottom line: the source seriously lacks credibility. Maybe Pianka did say these things, and if so, my reaction (calling him a whack-job and so forth) stands; calling for the deaths of 90% of humanity is the act of a sociopath, not a scientist. But I feel I reacted far too soon–there’s not enough info–and while calling for 90% mortality is heinous, predicting it is not…hyperbole: maybe.
In the end, Brendan’s point about “consider the source” rings loud and clear…and makes Andrews post even dumber.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:40:42 am
Mike, responding to Comment 1, it’s the certitude of the pronouncement that offends. Evolution is not quite as high on the scale of certainty as is gravity. Scientists and journalists may fairly say that they’re pretty sure evolution is the only explanation that fits the evidence before them, but they can’t say they “know” it happened 350 million years ago as if they had a camera on hand to view it when it happened.
Skipping ahead to criticisms of the source by Brendan and Scientizzle, Pianka has said nothing to call into question the accuracy of the report. He has merely clarified how he feels his words should have been interpreted. I don’t care if the scientist present was creationist nutjob in his own right, the quotes he attributes to Pianka plainly represent Pianka’s views accurately, and that’s all that matters for the sake of my post’s argument.
Briandot, you mistakenly critiqued my rhetorical questions as if they were my own views. I was plainly operating under the non-anthropocentric premise there that all we are is just another form of life on this planet. My own personal views are different, that we are a special and unique form of life on the planet, endowed with the responsibility to be good stewards of our environment. Still, some of your responses are amusing:
The zebra mussel cannot be held responsible if it chokes out native species; we can.
“Held responsible” by whom? Mother Nature? Zeus? God? I thought I was the theist here.
we are taking measures to promote our own population growth beyond what the natural environment is able to support in a given area.
How do you know what the natural environment can support? Many predicted the natural environment couldn’t take 5 billion, and we’ll soon reach 7 billion. In many cases, modern civilization is far cleaner and more benign on natural habitats than it was fifty or a hundred years ago. Clearly things are getting better, not worse. It’s countries with centralized, powerful governments like China and the former USSR that the environmentalists need fear the most, and yet centralized, powerful regulatory government is exactly what most environmentalists clamor for. The notion of private property does far more to protect the environment than top-down government regulation.
April 9th, 2006 at 8:09:49 am
Addressing the broader objection voiced by Scientizzle, Mike, and Ricardo, I will concede that much of scientific funding comes from the government and other sources hoping to use scientific research to improve the quality of human life, and that no doubt many if not most scientists believe seriously in that mission. But I will continue to maintain that a significant number of scientists in academia promote their hostility to anthropocentrism. Naturalism is a philosophy that has been around for well over a century and has always been prominent among scientists, and naturalism is naturally suspicious of and hostile to anthropocentrism.
Jazz, I agree that science can help inform virtue and wisdom, just as it can inform evil and folly. It’s not the knowledge that is deadly but how it is used.
I see nothing wrong with some scientists focusing on knowledge for the sake of knowledge, in the same way that I see nothing wrong with some art historians focusing on knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Sure, but within bounds, Mike. I’m confident science could learn a lot from experimenting on human beings like the Nazis did, but that doesn’t mean we should do it. Even science must have a guiding ethic in its pursuit of knowledge. I’m not saying that most scientists don’t have an awareness of ethics and morals, only that many do not, and that too often the ethical outliers are defended by their peers–after all, they are merely pushing the bounds of scientific knowledge, and it’s inevitable that someone is going to do it.
There are scientists who also go into advocacy–particularly true in environmental matters–but the public policy portion of it isn’t science.
Oh that more people thought like you, Mike. The conundrum is that when these scientist-advocates do enter the public debate, if their position is criticized, the critic is almost always unfairly painted as anti-science. And the opposite problem occurs as well (and more and more frequently), where the public policy and political positions of said scientist-advocates begin to inform and mold their science. In other words, they focus their research on obtaining a certain result to back up their beliefs, and ignore all present evidence that suggests their hypothesis ain’t true, to better bolster their argument in the public debate. It seems to me, Mike, that you should much more fear the damage of these scientist-advocate types to the cause of science than numbnut seven-day creationists.
April 9th, 2006 at 8:21:06 am
The key, then, is a better balance between virtue (or morals, or religion, or whatever your nomenclatural preference is) and science. Fortunately there are some scientists that make room for that balance, but the many who don’t are a strong reason why so many people in our society (and elsewhere) have been turning their backs on what the scientists have to say.
I’ll take the heat from the science community here (Scientizzle, Mike, Ricardo) for comments preceding this paragraph that hyperbolically painted scientists in a bad light based on the views of what said community insists is a minority and not a majority. However, I stand by my conclusion: Scientists need to do a much better job of balancing ethics and virtue with their profession, because the many scientists who don’t or who defend those who don’t help feed the public perceptions against science. This Pianka story is a perfect example; despite what Mike might say is the “objective reality” of Pianka being an extreme minority, thanks to Pianka and the internet, scores of critics now have additional evidence to bolster their belief that science has gone awry and has become the enemy of the good. Much as we chide moderate Muslims for needing to deal more forcefully with their fundamentalist brothers to save Islam from ill repute, the scientific community needs to do a better job of taking to task men and women like Pianka who advocate such anti-human views.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:57:08 am
Andrew, the problem with your postulation regarding evolution has a serious logical flaw.
You postulate that evolution, although fits what information we have but that there is insufficient information to prove this.
Which is fine. Your implicit argument is that therefore creation or ID has some credibility for the inherent reason that evolution is an incomplete theory. This position is logically flawed.
You must argue your point not in contradiction to some other theory — it must stand on it’s own.
You are not arguing against evolution, you must argue from the null hypothesis that you are correct. Which would be, well, umm–there is nothing alive on this planet. And then try and prove your theory for why there is life on its own merits.
If you look at ID on its own merits it does not get even close to the merits of evolutionary theory. It would be like putting a t-ball team up against the Red Sox or Yankees in a baseball game.
April 9th, 2006 at 3:05:03 pm
Honestly, Andrew. The need for a camera? Historical evolution is in about as much doubt within biology as historical erosion is within geology, as the only scientifically viable explanation for the accumulated evidence yet proposed. For that matter, how do you know that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt? Basically the only evidence you have of that is the writings of Exodus, as references to Jews as slaves are conspicuously absent from Egyptian monuments to Pharaohs–which, as a matter of course, list the enemies that one defeated. The author of that book could have been wrong. Yet for all practical purposes we state that we know the Israelites were enslaved by Egypt, we know that the Appalachians are older than the Rockies, and that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Or even that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you really want everyone to start including caveats of “as far as we can tell” or “to the best of our knowledge” about every single past event about which anyone could raise doubt? If not, then don’t single out one particular type of statement just because it offends the religious sensibilities of some people.
Your discussion of the need for ethical boundaries on science, while true, is also tangential to the point of my view about there being nothing wrong witht he pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. That was a direct counter to your assertion that science exists first and foremost to meet human needs. I disputed that assertion; you responded by changing the topic. I wouldn’t have argued the point in the first place if all you had said was that there need to be ethnical boundaries on how science is conducted.
“It seems to me, Mike, that you should much more fear the damage of these scientist-advocate types to the cause of science than numbnut seven-day creationists.”
I dislike scientific advocacy for those very reasons, Andrew. And have taken a lot of heat from it in expressing those views in, say, the Ethics of Ecology and Evolutionary Bio course I had to take here in my first year, where only one other student had any reservations about such advocacy, and about half of the class were actually considering careers in policy and therefore wanted a doctorate to back them up. But no, I don’t fear those who blur the lines between science and policy as much as I do the ardent creationists. The advocates don’t try to put restrictions on actual science which people can be taught, and thus don’t keep people from entering the field in the first place. To my way of thinking, attempts to chuck evolution and scientific naturalism out the window are much more of a threat to science than scientists forgetting that there’s a difference between their research and what they think the results should means in terms of political policies. The latter leads primarily to some bad science and/or policy; the former leads to a lack of science. And since science is a self-correcting field, I’d rather see flawed scientific theories put forth than see a lack of any, as the flaws at least lead to progress in the field when they get straightened out.
April 13th, 2006 at 3:04:48 pm
(Just catching up with post-April-7 comments to this one) ~ Andrew, while I still disagree with Some of your points, I think your 4/9 comments clarify and Redeem (somewhat :) the original Post.
Re the pursuit of scientific Knowledge for its Own sake (re the legitimacy of which I strongly agree with Mike), consider that for one thing, absent such Pure research the Anthropocentric capacities of science to Help humankind would be hugely diminished. I.e. the Pure-knowledge quest often (and in ways seldom Predictable at the outset) leads to discoveries & practical results of great positive value to the Species. (Me, I think that Knowledge Itself is also Of Value to us; but obviously we need a lot of Other stuff too.)
April 13th, 2006 at 3:11:54 pm
PS ~ next time don’t drop a Neutron Bomb here :) just before Decamping for someplace Computerdeprived for a while. :> This Way Here See, your Shields won’t be Down for Days while us Romulan Terrorists fire at will. :)