Ambientalismo Racional

Hace unos días una persona, creo que fue Víctor, dejó un link en un comentario a la noticia sobre el científico ambientalista que propone asesinar al 90% de la población mundial para proteger al planeta. Hoy leo esto en lo de Johan Norberg:

SAVE THE PLANET - KILL 90 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION

What is the final, logical conclusion if you are a radical environmentalist or a deep ecologist who doesn´t think that mankind has any particular value, but threatens nature with "overpopulation"?

Via Stephen Hicks, I learn about the conclusion of Eric Pianka, recently celebrated as Distinguished Texas Scientist of 2006. In a speech for the Texas Academy of Science, he recently explained that man is "no better than bacteria", and about 90 percent of mankind has to disappear to save the planet. But war, famine and AIDS is not enough to kill off people rapidly, so instead, Pianka´s favourite environmental solution is airborne Ebola, which is highly lethal and kills the affected in a torturous way in a few days.

Well, there are nuts everywhere. But what shocked me the most was that after this advocacy of killing 5 billion people, the audience - a few hundred Texan scientists - rose to their feet and gave Pianka a long, standing ovation.

This makes me scared. Because of the Islamist terrorists´ inherent hostility to innovative thinking and science, we will always be one step ahead of them. But what if a few young, western scientists, with knowledge of and access to all kinds of biological threats, take their professors seriously and conclude that they can only save the world by killing people? Ideas have consequences.

(By the way, did you ever see Twelve Monkeys?)