What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.171 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -31/+130Steve Irwin gave all the resources from his fame and put them back into the environment. He was likely one of the few genuine people walking this planet. He purchased thousands of acres to maintain as undeveloped wildlife preserves.
You, sir, are the clown. - lucidmatt, on 10/12/2007, -29/+128No one knows "who the *****" Jean-Michel Cousteau is? Riiiiiiight. His family has been involved in wildlife exploration and conservation since before most of the people reading this site were born.
Perhaps he isn't as popularly known as Steve Irwin because his family was less concerned with primping on TV than they were with actual research projects. - JFetch, on 10/12/2007, -50/+121"You don't touch nature ... and that's why I'm still alive."
And that's why nobody knows who the ***** you are either. Steve Irwin saved crocs by capturing them and moving them somewhere safe before they were killed. He didn't dart them because it could have killed them. He did something to save animals, not just watch them go extinct. - waveslam, on 10/12/2007, -17/+59""interfere with nature, jump on animals, grab them, hold them" - thats EXACTLY what Irwin did so how is that *****?? I'm sorry he'd dead and all but everything Cousteau is saying is true.
- themarq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41Oh for Christ's Sake!
JACQUES-Yves Cousteau invented the aqua-lung (ergo Scuba).
This article refers to his son. - onwardknave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42@lucidmatt:
Jean-Michel isn't his father, who had far more fame. So yeah, comparatively, he's only riding on the coattails of his dad, whereas Steve Irwin was a self-made naturalist. I've got to agree that Irwin's hands-on approach saved countless animals (not necessarily just crocs) from man-made environmental disasters (abandoned fishing nets, for example).
To be hands-off in biology is to be apathetic. The type of contact Irwin made was done knowledgeably and specifically to undo negative environmental effects for purposes of conservation. When I say knowledgeably, I mean in such a way that would help maintain or restore balance to an ecosystem. That can _only_ be done with years of observational knowledge. - titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -13/+50"He had "a lot of respect" for Irwin, who he didn't know personally, and his "environmental message," Cousteau said" What ***** talker! /sarcasm
- bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -22/+55People that think we humans should not interact with other animals at all must not think we're animals ourselves. It's in our nature to interact with other life forms on this planet.
"You don't touch nature ... and that's why I'm still alive."
That's just a bitter, jealous comment. Fortunately Philippe Cousteau has 100x the character of this ass. - MakinBacon, on 10/12/2007, -15/+41lucidmatt: No one knows "who the *****" Jean-Michel Cousteau is? Riiiiiiight.
Of course everyone knows him.
He's the bumbling inspector from "Pink Panther". - mrlost117, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31ya this title is highly inaccurate and is obviously influencing the stupid diggers digg downs to people saying he wasn't talking *****. Cmon guys, he wasn't. The submitter has omitted things said in the title to make it worse and I bet most of you didn't read the article.
one word comes to mind
SHEEP - lord_asimov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Okay, how many people here have actually read the article before they commented on it? Cousteau said that he mourns Irwin's death and that he had a lot of respect for Irwin and his environmental message.
If you just read the article you'll see that he does nothing to mock Irwin. Jeez, claim down people. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19To ionix18: He did not invent Scuba, his daddy did.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18What is wrong with this remark exactly? He's not saying 350,000 people a day should be exterminated, he's simply stating that the population is growing that fast.
- moisie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17It's hardly *****. He has a point, perhaps an extreme one but it's perfectly valid. Norm MacDonald had a point on the Daily Show that people were expressing suprise that he had died when in fact based on what he did, right or wrong, he had a big chance of being killed.
- Shade00a00, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18And you think that the planet can just keep "pumping out" lifeforms and sustain them all? It may be immoral to say what he said, but it's 100% true; though his figures may be argueable.
- john570, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24I like it how JFetch said that nobody knows who Cousteau is. Uhh.. I know who Cousteau is. Don't assume everyone shares your ignorance.
- Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29Wait, wait, I have the original translation of the interview from French. I think Bablefish got it wrong.
What he really said was, "Steve Irwin was the man. He was putting himself in harms way, often for the benefit of endangered animals, to reach out to a younger generation who wouldn't otherwise give a rats ass about the Discovery channel. I, on the other hand, am a big pussy and don't like petting sharks and would rather watch them from my multi-million dollar submarine." - Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Quick, without reading the article...which Cousteau is it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Most of Irwin's achievements were high television ratings, which earned him a fortune and allowed him to spend money on his zoos and such.
Most of Costeau's achievements have been immense scientific research that actual biologists use in the field.
One is a successful showman, the other is a successful scientist. - ArcticCelt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21"After seeing the videos from the "show" that Irwin and his wife used to do in their zoo in Australia, I kinda agree with Cousteau.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgHhHNC92M
It was borderline animal abuse, IMHO"
There is no huge difference between what he was doing with the croc and what any dog owner do when they play with their dog. I don't see what was cruel in that video. - Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I agree, I read over the story - it hardly translates to 'talking *****'.
Cousteau pointed out some important factors regarding wildlife and our interaction with it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Seems more like fueled instigation to me. - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Does anyone remember the time where Irwin brought a baby in a crocodile vivarium to hold it next to a croc? Irwin was a clown and his risk taking was the end of him. Cousteau is spot on and although it's terribly lame that he says so in time of grief I believe in the end he's right.
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -30/+40After seeing the videos from the "show" that Irwin and his wife used to do in their zoo in Australia, I kinda agree with Cousteau.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HgHhHNC92M
It was borderline animal abuse, IMHO.
But then again, I'm not a huge fan of zoos, for me the place is a bit depressing. - Weslpz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Cousteau does have a point, and if he had mentioned it before Irwin's untimely death, nobody would've considered it talking *****. It would have just been a difference of opinion. It's the simple fact that his timing is a little off. Many people are grieving the loss of a good man; whether everyone agreed with his tactics or not. It's hard to criticize someones actions immediately after they die without upsetting people in the process.
- dargon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Steve Irwin did good things for animals with the construction of preserves and assorted donations. However he was a grandstanding adrenaline junky at the same time. The Cousteau family has been involved in animal/nature preservation, conservation, research and exploration since long before most of the people in this forum were born. Each has had a great impact, Steves was just a little more shock oriented and as such, everything Cousteau has said is truth, there is no ***** talk here. Steve Irwin was not the god that people seem to be thinking of him as, he was simply a guy who liked to get in the face of nature, nature decided to get in his face and well, that ends that. The only reason most people actually watched his show was because they were hoping to see him loose a limb, admit it.
- wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I just hope they stop making tv shows where people run around grabbing snakes and monitor lizards. You don't need to touch those things.
Steve needed to jump on those crocs, most of the time. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Nothing he said was "talking *****"... He simply pointed out that Irwin lived dangerously by coming in close physical contact with a lot of dangerous animals and this was the reason for his early death. It made a good spectacle, but was not a very good way of approaching nature. I agree 100% with him.
- Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Second story in 24 hours with a swear in the title. Is it really necessary? It just seems to bring Digg down a couple of notches.
- grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11. . . I can't believe people are still talking about this . . .
- WoodenKimono, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think both the Cousteau and Irwin families have done a lot for conservation and I think few people would argue with that. They both have done a lot to engage people with in concerns of wildlife and the environment. I think Cousteau comment was oriented more toward viewing wildlife in its natural environment. This was the work of his father and I can sympathize with his point. Irwin was more interested in getting people up close and personal with wildlife. While this made for interesting television, it also put him at constant risk. Can anyone say they were really surprised to hear he had died in a wildlife accident?
- Cylus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16It's rude to speak ill of the dead, especially when people are grieving. Think of the man's poor wife. Have you people no sense of empathy?
- gabrielg01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Irwin was like Jackass on Animal Planet. I mean, you could just see this coming - you knew that one day he would be owned.
Irwin basically was just a milder, and more likable version of the grizzly man - another crazy "naturalist" who got killed.
http://www.grizzlymanmovie.com/grizzly.html - CrankyMcGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Exactly. And no one was more prepared for that eventuality than his family who had to live with his lifestyle. He took his chances and thems the breaks. I always thought he was crazy, but it was his life to live.
- moisie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't think he meant that we should avoid it entirely and not touch it but more that Irwin's approach was perhaps too hands on, getting so close to many animals is a risk, an unwise one in his opinion. Certain creatures avoid other creatures and have appropriate defense and warning mechanisms for a reason.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Cousteau is partially correct, but if nothing else, his timing is very bad.
- doggo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I don't understand all the antipathy towards Cousteau. What he said was true. And a lot of you guys are acting like a bunch of children. What's your problem? You can't deal with some criticism of your "hero"?
Anybody who knows more about animals than what's on Animal Planet, knows that handling wild animals is a bad idea, both for your own health, and for the animal's. It's very stressful for the animal to be handled, and dangerous for the human.
No matter how charming and charismatic Irwin was, and yeah, I liked him too, what he was doing as Crocodile Hunter, was not the best for anyone involved.
So, instead of attacking Cousteau because he challenges your precious hero, perhaps you should take a step back and think a little.
And as for the cries of hypocrisy for Couseau senior, uh, you do realize the guy was acting in a different generation than you. A different time altogether. What was ethical then, is not necessarily ethical now, with over half a century of social and scientific change.
Here's a quiz: what are the two most dangerous animals you see at local zoos?
BZZZT! Wrong.
Elephants and Polar Bears.
Elephants are smart, they hold a grudge, and they can rip your arms off and throw you over a small building. Or stomp you to death in a fit of pique.
Polar Bears are like land sharks. To them you are food, no matter how long you've fed them and spoke baby-talk through the bars. If they get the opportunity, they will eat you without qualm.
And don't mess with the Spider Monkeys either - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7What I want to know is Steve Zissou's opinion on this subject.
- kevin2735, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11This is what the Dharma initiative is designed to do. It will make the world a better place for all humanity.
- UrlorJkron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It just shows a lack of maturity. Cursing isn't really much more than a bad habit.
"Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."
--Sam Brown - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20The voice of jealousy speaking. Note how he ignores the fact that many people loved and respected Irwin, and that Irwin did FAR more to enlighten people about various species and environmental issues, but Cousteau hasn't done ***** except inherit a famous name.
"I dont like him because he was too flamboyant and hands on"
Just because Irwin was passionate and understood showmanship to sell his ideas, doesn't make him any less of a hero to people.
Personally, I didnot care for the guy, but I admire his accomplishments and passion for the environment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11everyone knows dolphins are really kind intelligent aliens from another planet, lizards are from an alternate evil universe...modding you down for useless comment...
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Ummm, where's your gripe? That's just mathematic. The world's human population is growing at that rate. He wasn't proposing a program of genocide, just stating a fact.
- databasecowboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's common sense to stay away from wild animals for both your safety and theirs. This is why you shouldn't feed the bears at Jellystone. They will become too lazy to find their own food and too comfortable with humans and end up getting shot for looking for a handout.
- halicon5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I fail to see how this qualified as "talking *****" as the title of the Digg article suggested. The man plainly went out of his way to say complimentary things about Irwin as anyone who reads the article should be able to see.
One thing I have noticed is that a lot of diggers seem to really buy into the sensationalized reality TV aspect of all of this and hold it against Cousteau for not be a sensationalized shock-jock. That is why Irwin was famous, because he managed to sensationalize wildlife and nature. I always felt on a personal level that he was irresponsible to some degree, but he was giving the audience exactly what they wanted... excitement and tension. The irony and tragedy of it was that he was killed by a docile species as opposed to some highly lethal venomous spider or something similar. Through that he managed to do a lot of good for wildlife awareness, but I can not help but believe that many of Irwin's actions did amount to harassment of some animals. In an ends justify the means, I feel Irwin's legacy and methods had their place and did a lot of good. Cousteau is echoing similar sentiments that Irwin's way was not the only way. - fivestarsoul, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14I'm sure Irwin really got a lot of his aggression out by man-handling those animals.
Er, no. He did it for their sake. He was devoted to saving animals and thats what he did, and that's what he was known for. He died doing it, and for that we should honor him.
But seriously, Irwin died just as that ***** Cousteau could have. Irwin wasn't roping the stingray, he swam overtop of it and it stabbed him. You could throw out every single thing that Irwin did previously and it wouldn't matter. He wasn't trying to hold the stingray up to the camera, he was swimming near it. - silo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4He didn't die by a croc. He undoubtedly knew them. What he did then was no more dangerous than when you or I introduce our new baby to the family dog. The dozen or so people around him knew that too.
- MetisAlfa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Jean-Michael Cousteau criticized his own father for mistreating animals for his TV programs, so I think he has all the legitimacy to criticize Irwin... so, even if you disagree with what he says, why does it have to be "talking *****"?!?! Just be informative in the titles of stories, then use the comments to express your opinions.
By the way, before coming to the UK 5 years ago, I had never, ever heard of Steve Irwin and his stunts... However, I grew up watching and learning about marine wild-life with the Cousteau family. So, yes, they have done sooooooooooo much more for wild-life awareness - particularly outside the TV stunt-craving english speaking world. - HighDecibel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Cousteau's critcism and Irwin's death are not mutually exclusive. The first thing most people say when they see Irwin on TV, is "he's crazy". I agree. You don't taunt animals in the way he does. Cousteau is in fact right. His timing was wrong, but it doesn't change the facts.
But heck I didn't know the guy, I'm not going to defend his actions just because he died. I could understand some of the comments if he had been shot in cold blood by say an animal activist, but a stingray killed him. Nature is not safe. - mc4_a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So conservation has no value? You can study things all day, but if they're extinct it wont matter.
- BullyJack, on 10/12/2007, -37/+40A buddy of mine in Australia says that Irwin gave tons of money towards establishing wild-life preserves...whatever though....I really don't care whether he hurt a crocodile's feelings or not. Reptiles are pure evil.
I liked when he tackled crocs. That was pretty cool.
Cousteau can stick it up his ass. -
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is