What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
83 Comments
- Pyehole, on 06/04/2009, -1/+97Is it too much to ask for a digg title that makes sense in English?
- dbchristopher, on 06/04/2009, -0/+71"Giant Bird breeds in 177 years!"
Wtf? - TheUngod, on 06/04/2009, -3/+36They only get laid every 177 years? Damn...they should join digg.
- displacednomad, on 06/04/2009, -1/+32Breed successfully for the first time in Britain in 177 years.
Breed successfully in Russia all the time. - ATH025, on 06/04/2009, -0/+27Dumbass title.
- puter, on 06/04/2009, -1/+25title FAIL
- inactive, on 06/04/2009, -2/+20How does I breed in 177 years?
- Greengoo, on 06/04/2009, -4/+19I bet the eggs are delicious...
- novenator, on 06/04/2009, -10/+24FTA - "But it was such a visible and tempting target for hunters and egg-collectors that it was gradually driven to extinction 177 years ago, when the last female with a chick was observed in Suffolk. Now, there are thought to be no more than 32,000 birds in Europe, with two centres of population: one in Spain and Portugal, and the other in Russia."
Mankind needs to have a softer footprint. Our species is responsible for the great extinction our planet is in. - bartyen82, on 06/04/2009, -0/+14Innacurate title - the bird is plentiful in Russia. It just has not bred in BRITAIN in the last 177 years...
- inactive, on 06/04/2009, -2/+15Except for the part that novenator quoted....
- 4DFX, on 06/04/2009, -0/+9Sounds like the breeding interval of an average digger.
- inactive, on 06/04/2009, -0/+8Twinkly, sure. I'll bite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon
Two kinds of bird, driven extinct by people. - mctom987, on 06/04/2009, -1/+9How is babby formed?
- level32, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7Dumb ass-title
- catastrophee, on 06/04/2009, -3/+9I accidentally 177 years.
- inactive, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Ya know, gayjesus, I'll agree with you on that - we're not responsible for every extinction. We are, however, responsible for this one.
- mlrigsby, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4Kevin?
- rodon, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4I misread the title as "Giant Beard".
- mctom987, on 06/04/2009, -3/+7¡Sí!. Es verdad.
- twinklyJesus, on 06/04/2009, -3/+7The whole point of this article is inaccurate. It is designed to invoke emotional responses followed by cash donations.
- Matt174e, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4They need to do way instain feather> who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant fligth back it was on the news this mroing a feather in aire who had kill her three birdees . they are taking the three babby back to nest too lady to rest my pray are with the feather who lost his biridees ; i am truley sorry for your lots
- spritom, on 06/04/2009, -1/+4*high-five's the bird for getting some*
- novenator, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3Twinkle, natural extinction cycles are by nature, a natural event. Life has existed on Earth for the vast majority of the 4.6 billion years that our world has existed, so it is only natural that most of the species would have gone extinct outside of the recent development of the advancement of ***** sapien civilization. That does not discount the role that our species has had on the current (ie. the last 30,000 years) course of events in the biosphere.
kolop1, wow, you really told me. I guess I should go home and rethink my life now! - afritzsche, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3Where is the collection of large birds that will roam the planet in the year 2186? This link just directs to something about a bustard.
- inactive, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3Ultra, there are a lot of factors that cause animal extinctions. Such as loss of habitat and increased hunting by predators or people, not to mention diseases and other things that can do them in. While it's true that humans had nothing to do with 99% of past extinctions (how could we, we weren't around for most of them.), the fact remains that humanity has been driving a period of increased extinctions over the past 150 years or so. It doesn't matter if people do it in an obvious way, like hunting, or something more passive such as accidentally introducing outside species to an ecosystem that they take over, or even from pollution. We do not know fully what animals are "useful" to us and which are not, there's really no way of telling if something is potentially useful ahead of time.I think we should be more considerate of the planet before we destroy it. Remember great things like penicillin were originally found in the rain forest, who knows what we are missing or have already lost?
- wunderdog, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3Inglorious bustards.
- BDOUG, on 06/04/2009, -1/+4I say, long expired meme.
- twinklyJesus, on 06/05/2009, -0/+3@ kolop1:
Nice job of Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness.
You do realize that when you fail to address the other person's point and instead attack them personally, you just lost, right? You end up looking like a 14 year old jerk who just found Daddy's new dictionary.
Thanks for playing. See if you can find your Dad's porn collection too... - Suzilla, on 06/04/2009, -2/+5@blah -- FAIL!
- BoutDemCanes91, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3why is giant bird breeds only 177 years?
- psevium, on 06/04/2009, -0/+3We can, you know, survive _with_ other animals here. If it was them or us, then sure, but they aren't even doing anything to bother us.
- BDOUG, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2Generally speaking other predators don't kill for the hell of it. They kill to survive. I'm sure some poindexter can find some rare exceptions to this natural order, but non-human predators certainly don't shoot thousands of buffalo from train cars or dozens of wolves from helicopters.
- diggnidy, on 06/04/2009, -2/+4now where's the bacon?
- jrackow, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2That is an old bird.
- MorpheousMarty, on 06/04/2009, -2/+4I'm more worried about causing our own extinction. Not that I don't care, but I'm sick of talking in terms of "mother earth." Short of the sun exploding the earth will go on, however we have a MUCH more narrow range of conditions in which we can survive. Again, it's not that I don't want to save these animals, I just don't thing the best argument is to talk about saving the planet. I try to appeal to people's own self interest if can. Why save the animals? Because we might depend on them in ways we don't fully understand. Why cut CO2? Because we might depend on the current levels to support a 6 billion + population (I'm thinking agriculture here). Why limit the toxins in our environment? Because our chemistry or the chemistry of our environment might not respond well to those chemicals. And that's just for survival, the range of conditions to support our civilization are that much more narrow.
- Suzilla, on 06/04/2009, -1/+3The title made we wonder if perhaps Susan Boyle finally got laid.
- notquitegone, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2They're all sterile from smoking too much pot.
http://adilona.jeeran.com/beaky1024.jpg - BoutDemCanes91, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2No, not really.
- MothBoy, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2Just for clarification on the term "bred successfully in Britain":
In Britain, is Prince Charles considered the result of a successful breeding?
If not, when was the last time the British Monarchy bred successfully? - Foskey, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2Huge title fail.
- ultraseamus, on 06/04/2009, -1/+3I am not rooting for animal extinction, but Niallgriff, I am pretty sure you missed the point twinklyJesus was trying to make. He did not claim that humans have not driven animals to extinction, I am pretty sure he was suggesting that those animals served no greater purpose for humans, and therefore their extinction was not harmful to us, or anything besides them. Once again, that is a pretty bleak perspective, I am not endorsing it, I am just pointing out what I thought he meant. I can agree with his other point, that the very large majority of animal extinctions are not caused by humans. While animals going extinct is tragic, and should be prevented, in this sense humans are not a unique blight on the planet. If I had to guess I would think that sharks (or any other near perfect predator) have driven more animals to extinction than humans.
- TimTheSuperGuy, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_is_the_oldest_kn ...
- chard, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2This title and article is so confusing, I think what they mean is that this is the first time in 177 years for this bird to breed in Great Britain, NOT the birds first time to breed in over 177 years, nor that it has a 177 year breeding cycle (though I was sure hoping).
- GiggleStick, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1Careful, or babby could be formed.
- skipvt, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1What?!? Giant great bastards are doing what in Britain?
- Thoku, on 06/05/2009, -0/+1awesome, I wanna live to 300+ make me a turtle!
- directive0, on 06/04/2009, -1/+2Bob, hypothetically, if we drove several inconsequential (to us) species to extinction and caused a disruption in any one ecosystem large enough that our natural environment can longer reciprocate the functions required to maintain a balance food chain and somehow it toppled every delicate natural balance on earth and we all starved to death... does that mean we deserved to die?
Sounds like. Now I'm not suggesting that every extinction on this planet is our doing, but personally I'd like it if we were capable of using our evolutionarily acquired skills of reason and logic to see patterns emerging in situations that we have the power to stop then we should. It seems like the logical thing to do in order to prove our "fitness" for survival. - nydwarf, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1That's an old bustard.
- Thoku, on 06/04/2009, -0/+1Misleading title is unsurprisingly misleading.
There was me thinking these 180+ year old birds (I didn't think any animal lived that long!) got it on and had a chick. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 