What is Digg?82 Comments
- Zoplax, on 12/01/2008, -21/+45We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ***** people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the ***** planet?
I'm getting tired of that *****. Tired of that *****. I'm tired of ***** Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a ***** about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are *****. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your *****, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...*****.
So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.
Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."
-- "George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine" - oo7evan, on 12/01/2008, -1/+23entropy bitches.
- Canumbler, on 12/02/2008, -4/+14Not that I have any love for this retarded article.
But do tell me wtf not using technology has to do with socialism?
Bleedin' yanks. - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -5/+13*****'s sake, George Carlin is great but we can't have people spamming random literature all over the ***** place.
* picks up spam * - sonnybobiche, on 12/02/2008, -1/+9Uhhh. heat death isn't what you think it is.
Heat death means that all the energy in the universe is (a) converted to thermal energy and (b) evenly distributed throughout space. This would make it impossible for anything requiring energy to exist. - gardenia, on 12/02/2008, -1/+8Heat --> warming. Novel concept.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6I seem to remember something about vineyards being able to grow at higher elevations in past millenia than they can now, suggesting higher global temperatures back then than today. I could be wrong, but I'm still at a loss as to why warmth is bad, when whole parts of the inhabited globe still suffer deadly cold winters.
What's wrong with tropical? Sure, the climate changes, and sure, humans might have an infinitesimally small impact on the ebbs and flows of a planet's weather compared to the cosmic forces that influence it, but how do you make the leap to a certain level of temperatures being bad? - Finalreminder, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7I wish this global warming would hurry up, it's bloody freezing here.
- bdforever, on 12/02/2008, -1/+7Not completely wrong, but still full of bulls**t...
These guys would also propose that turning on your fan might increase the intensity of a hurricane :-) The authors of the article have completely lost track of the magnitudes they are talking about.
On a sunny noon, the sun heats a single square kilometer (about half a square mile for you non-metrics) with the energy of 1400 Megawatts, which is roughly the output of a full-sized nuclear power plant running under full steam. If we include some efficiency factors, that equivalent area is still some 3-5 sq-km.
Just the idea that our man-made energy output will come within three magnitudes of solar input is ridiculous. - staticneuron, on 12/02/2008, -0/+6Its a new fear catch phrase for this generation, we have been instilled by fear by the powers that be so I our ignorant hate and blame needs to be placed somewhere. The blackies, the reds, the commies, the japs, the immigrants, the terrorists and now the "socialists".
You woulda think anyone paying attention to our history would finally realize that we are not really under attack and they are being used because they are so damn gullible. - LOGNATR, on 12/01/2008, -3/+8“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
- Abomonog, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4Actually, no. Not for humans anyways. Up to about 65 million years ago the entire planet was basically tropical or hotter but between then and now the earth had pretty much cooled to a more temperate zone and much of our existence has been spent dealing with ice ages. Those started copping up a couple a million years ago. Right about the same time as early man.
Although we did start out in the tropics, we didn't stay there and by the time we left the Earth wasn't really different then now. Excepting the concrete jungles that have sprung up over the last 200 years or so. - Murdats, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5wait, do you know what entropy is? you seem to agree with the poster but then ask a question contradictory to knowing what the poster meant.
not all the energy we have is heat, but most of it gets turned into heat after processing, eg, moving things create heat, electrical resistance creates heat, essentially any method of using energy produces heat as its by product. - axiomflash, on 12/02/2008, -2/+6Sunlight arrives at Earth. Plants store it as chemical energy (aka carbon sources) and it becomes part of the Earth. When humans reduce photosynthesis on Earth (deforestation, capturing sunlight, etc), or when they burn stored chemical energy (oil, coal), this energy becomes kinetic energy and heats the atmosphere. There is no extra energy, it's a matter of where it goes.
Global warming is caused by the release of millions of years of sequestered carbon energy.
There's your answer. - aladrin, on 12/02/2008, -3/+7Carlin makes some good points, but forgets 1 thing:
If everyone did their part to live nicely with the Earth, it would be a lot better off. No, we can't 'save' it, but we can minimize impact on it.
Note that I'm not saying 'global warming' is man-made or any of that *****. I'm just saying that perhaps spewing toxic waste into the rivers, litter everywhere, and blowing tons of dirty exhaust into the air isn't healthy for us or the Earth in general. - Devilboy666, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5The planet is fine and even if we all die there will certainly still be life on it for a long time. But we don't want to die in a fire so I'd like to keep the temperature somewhere around the current levels please.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 12/02/2008, -1/+5But don't you people think it would be a good thing for lots of humans to die? Wouldn't that be "good for the planet?" It would really decrease human activity, and thus diminish global warming, right?
But ah, the specter of rising sea levels threatens comfy metropolitan life on the coast. Better to exterminate the hillbillies than the hipsters, eh? - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4Hey, this was mentioned in 3001. The weakest link in the 2001 series, I'll be the first to admit, but I do remember them discussing how at one point, after people had developed a way to get free energy, global warming from energy usage had become a problem. The message I took home from that is the importance of obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 12/02/2008, -0/+4Humanity has weathered unimaginable global disasters and has still come out grinning. The claim that our survival as a species is at stake because of power plants and Hummers is cartoonishly absurd hyperbole.
- BossKey, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3The greatest mistake is to confuse "green" with "saving the planet." Both the right and the greenies make this horrific mistake. The entire point of sustainability is not to save the planet, but to save humans. It's completely acknowledged that Earth will continue on with its cycles. The environment does not need humans. But the other way around is what we care about: Humans need the environment. It's us that need the food and air and water and animal diversity.
As long as both the left and right think this is some socialist agenda about saving the Earth, we won't be helping ourselves. The right are so screwed up on this topic, they can't even be selfish enough to see how sustainability, efficiency, and availability/diversity of resources confer an advantage - a market advantage, a military advantage - on those who possess them. They would rather deplete, pollute, and create extreme single-source dependencies, which is basically what Communist China is doing to themselves.
Green initiatives are really about saving the humans, not the Earth. - sonnybobiche, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3OK, so you know exactly what heat death is. Why do you think the article has anything to do with it?
They're literally just talking about the earth warming up due to energy output exceeding the planet's radiative capability. It's a long way from heat death. - drinking12many, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Great now these idiots will want us to turn off our heaters off in the winter while their 3000sq ft house(al gore) goes through the energy of 30 houses.
- Finalreminder, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3At the expense of personal freedom?
You will pay a higher tax, you will seperate your rubbish and join the great recycling con, you will drive a hybrid, you wont drive a 4x4, you will pay to drive into the city, etc, etc...
You want a cleaner place to live, you pay for it, dont come looking to me to pay for you. - kronzdigg, on 12/02/2008, -1/+4I think Obama should change this.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 12/02/2008, -4/+7Taxation is able to stop anything else, why not entropy?
What I find funny is that environazis think that government taking people's money is an OK way to make the planet healthier, but I never see them lining up to donate money to the IRS in the name of the environment. It must be *other* people's money that's so magical. - Rothbardosaurus, on 12/02/2008, -3/+6I'm really getting sick and tired of this humans-are-a-disease philosophy. What's so bad about warmth anyway? The planet used to be a lot hotter, and back then organic life -- humans included -- was having a heyday.
- peterinjapan, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3Dude, I was totally going to post exactly what you posted. While 2061 was no great work, 3001 was pure "WTF?" and this is coming from a fan of Clarke who has read all of his works. We must be soulmates.
- megamod, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3In the long run...sure. Guess we're just doomed.
- LouisSlippers, on 12/02/2008, -4/+7I'm starting to get really pissed off with all this ***** about saving the planet. The earth gets hot, the earth gets cold. It has been happening ever since the earth was formed and it will continue to happen until the earth is ultimately destroyed by our creator and giver of life, the sun. We wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for drastic changes in our climate. (Ice ages, massive volcanic eruptions, meteors etc)
Life as we know it will cease to be in the future. All we are doing is attempting to postpone the end of the human race by what is an infinitely insignificant amount of time. Deal with it - inactive, on 12/02/2008, -1/+3***** what's good for the planet. The planet will live on regardless. I'm more concerned about what's good for us. We're the ones in danger here. If we get to be too much of a nuisance, Mother Nature will boot our asses to the curb in a big damn hurry, and I don't know about you, but I personally don't want that.
- mplumb, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2Ummm... I like warm. The only sad part is that, unfortunately, global warming is a farce.
- poidh, on 12/02/2008, -5/+7Well, duh.
- Altotus, on 12/02/2008, -2/+4The assertion is a little silly. We have a net energy input from the sun. It turns into heat by default, unless something stores that solar input as potential energy (be it carbon fixation, pumping water up hill, or whatever). The heat released will be less than the heat generated by doing nothing.
It only falls apart when our energy demand requires us to tap into the supply of millions of accumulated potential energy (oil being a popular example). In that case, we're turning over in a a very short time (scale of a couple hundred years) potential energy accumulated over the course of a very long time (hundres of millions of years). You're talking about a million-fold thermal output - BUT, it's also very transient -- in 100 years it won't exist.
So far, the planet is suffering, but has coped with burning bright. If it can hold on just a little longer, the problem of the excess heat will take care of itself. Nature, human or otherwise, will see to it. - staticneuron, on 12/02/2008, -6/+7As much as I love Carlin, Human beings are VERY destructive. Thinking that we cannot permanently damage our planet is a VERY wrong assumption. I mean we currently have the ability and the know how to wipe out all life and vegetation on this planet. Hell we might be able to destroy the ozone and fry the surface on the planet if we were to think about it enough.
We can turn this planet into a smoldering rock in which it cannot recover from. Probably leave it with a thinner atmosphere than mars. - staticneuron, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1@byokii, I believe in evolution but I do NOT believe in abiogenesis . There is as much proof for spontaneous life as there is for a mystical all powerful man in the sky.
And I never said the earth was dying. I said that human beings as we are now are very capable of making this planet inhabitable. It is possible that there might be something that survives but i am sure we can kill this planet off at a speed that throws a serious monkey wrench in the project.
@einstienxx
Are you serious? Do you really thing it takes alot of effort and smarts to kill life? You seriously underestimate the intelligence of our best and brightest. Thankfully they are not interested in destroying all the life on the planet but I am sure that they could come up with a theoretical plan quickly.
I mean even without trying per say a nuclear war with weapons as powerful as the Tsar Bomba (1961), would definitely leave us with a devastating nuclear winter and summer. And i am really sure we probably have weapons that are more powerful nowadays... we are just banned from testing it above ground and it doesn't seemed to be talk about as much. - duder83, on 12/02/2008, -3/+4My farts warm me up when I dutch oven myself in a sleeping bag. It tastes delightful.
- Zapple100, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Nothing to worry about. Lets all keep cool.
- whytheam, on 12/02/2008, -2/+3No *****
- anonymous1986, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1"Heat death of the universe was predicted by Kelvin in the 1850's"
I'm saying that this was known ages ago, and Kelvin's heat death is just an extension (albeit large) of this. - jbob2000, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Meh... give it a couple years and the sun will once again cause two amino acids to form a protein, eh voila! life again!
- lolwaffle, on 12/02/2008, -6/+7What's wrong with wanting a clean place to live?
- nirvanix, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2We should all stop eating beans because the methane we produce is accelerating global warming.
- Grognor, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1So all we have to do is shoot that energy into space somehow, or store it into matter. That actually doesn't really sound like a challenge.
- Amazetbm, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2Dude, just summarize and post a link to the rest. Geez.
- RogueGenius, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2This is actually a very old idea. Read Ringworld, from 1970.
- PhoenixTril, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1First thing I thought of when I read this, both the staved-off ice age on Earth and the Piersen's Puppeteer's (inaccurate) Kemplerer rosette of planets that don't need a star to keep warm.
- Finalreminder, on 12/02/2008, -2/+3Love the way someone Dugg you down for stating a truth.
They just dont wanna hear it. - ChildeRoland420, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1The sea levels will rise only if glaciers melt. If glaciers are melting, then new land will be made available. And, this new land will most likely be more safe from natural disasters such as hurricanes and flooding. Plus, for the glaciers to melt will require the absorption of heat, and therefore a cooling effect.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me. - edrodgers731, on 12/05/2008, -0/+0Yeah! The "Japs" and the terrorists have have never attacked us!
/s
The "commies", "reds", and "socialists" are the same thing, and I notice you left out the Nazis. It's all the same thing. Totalitarian control. And yes, I'm wary of it.
<whiny>
"Yeah, but in Denmark it works just fine!"
</whiny> : You might say...
Depends on the whim of the leaders. They have decent ones right now. And in case you haven't noticed, most Socialist Europeans are packing heat, just in case. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is