What is Digg?151 Comments
- sockpuppets, on 11/24/2008, -4/+41Humanity is stupid. We already have too many people on this planet to sustain ourselves, it's only going to get worse as we hump ourselves into oblivion.
- theberlindoctor, on 11/24/2008, -14/+33Whenever I bring up eugenics in conversations about sustainability people get really nasty looks on their faces and usually wont or don't want to accept the fact that its going to be necessary for long-term human survival.
- RobotBuddha, on 11/25/2008, -3/+16"Too many scientists still plough their own research furrows without thinking what it's all for. "
What idiots, doing their job and whatnot. They're almost as bad as the shoemakers who don't sit around musing about all the adventures the people wearing them will have. - migshark, on 11/25/2008, -0/+13I'm starting a company called VaulTech, anyone want to invest?
- hhswatkins, on 11/25/2008, -2/+14Write this down. M.A.R.S. That's right! Mars, bitches!
- diggduggDOOM, on 11/25/2008, -2/+13"it's only going to get worse as we hump ourselves into oblivion"
Oh, I don't know. The humping part sounds fun. - RobotBuddha, on 11/25/2008, -2/+13Call me when humans stop killing each other. That's a really good first step.
- Intercon, on 11/25/2008, -1/+11Eugenics? How about Genetics instead? I'm all for a responsible investigation of natural processes to create advancement in certain areas of science and technology. We need to understand nature's ways in order to bring our activities in closer alignment. But Eugenics, that's Genetics with an 18th century white man's understanding of science: limited.
- Devilboy666, on 11/25/2008, -1/+10Yea just remove all the warning labels from everything and the problem will sort itself out.
- Herolint, on 11/25/2008, -5/+14Eugenics is an asinine concept. No wonder you get really nasty looks.
- TruthExposed, on 11/25/2008, -0/+9"natural selection... ... the crazies & unstable ones get killed off."
The Germans tried something like this in the 30s and 40s. - Dometheus, on 11/25/2008, -1/+9Mr Smith from the Matrix said it best: "I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure."
- offrdbandit, on 11/25/2008, -3/+10My survival plan is a 30-06, 3000 rounds of ammunition, and 1200 acres of woodlands.
I really couldn't care less what the rest of you do. - RudeTurnip, on 11/25/2008, -0/+7Darwinism is alive and well and selecting the "stupid people" over the intellectual ones. Why? Because they get laid more. That's the only thing that counts in terms of "fitness of survival."
- Gizza, on 11/25/2008, -0/+7Yes and already a large percentage of the population lives on next to nothing and get barely get enough food to survive.
- ztexas, on 11/25/2008, -2/+8The problem is too many humans. We need to stop reproducing at the current breakneck pace, and start killing each other more effectively and with less collateral damage to our ecosystem.
- Jeffler, on 11/25/2008, -1/+7O noes my walmart caladar ends December 31st 2008!!!!
- pdxnick, on 11/25/2008, -1/+6Mormons have to be the most selfish people on earth...stop having so many kids!!!
- Trent1492, on 11/25/2008, -0/+5Eugenics? How did that get involved in the conversation?
- phdude, on 11/25/2008, -1/+6
Well... you better get rid of the.. FED and shut down the Elite familys. - Chjoma10, on 11/25/2008, -5/+10Oh *****.... It's the end of the world..... for like the 27th time.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -0/+5the growth rate halved, what are you talking about? we have a ***** ton of people but its not such an outrageous problem that its beyond correction
- anonymous1986, on 11/25/2008, -1/+6We already have enough natural resources for all humans. However, due to politics and limited technology they cannot all be utilised sustainably.
- kakwakas, on 11/25/2008, -0/+5Hm... Something about it doesn't see quite right... Throw in a hyphen and get rid of that H, and I think we have a deal.
- anonymous1986, on 11/25/2008, -1/+6It's a futile attempt to try and tell these people about man-made global warming. They have a dogmatic position on the stance stemming from anti-science mistrust, political opinions (hate of liberals and al gore) and pure dogmatic idiocy.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -0/+4only if i get a cool blue jumpsuit
- inactive, on 11/25/2008, -0/+4The issue is not whether there is enough space for human beings. The issue is whether we have too many people to sustain comfortably, and whether our efforts to sustain ourselves puts undue strain on the rest of nature.
- inactive, on 11/25/2008, -5/+9My God, tell us something we don't know, or something that we haven't been hearing for the past 40 years?
And I'll bet that there will be a global warming reference in the article.
Edit: And yes there is, under climate change. - uberchaoslord, on 11/25/2008, -1/+5I agree, the rampant killings is probably the only thing keeping us in moderate check. Can't wait for the Chinese to invade Alaska, and us to unleash Liberty-One on them.
- iNunchuk, on 11/25/2008, -0/+4700 Billion Species Bailout Plan.
- anonymous1986, on 11/25/2008, -6/+9Anti-science Idiocy debunked:
Who has proven it false? NASA, the American Physical Society, the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change? Or the other 37 reputable scientific organisations that also say that global warming is man-made and an immediate threat? Note there is no scientific organisation that says that global warming is not man-made or not occurring.
The science of global warming is clear, the politics however is not.
Stop posting from right wing blog sites and start posting from reputable scientific websites. Oh I forgot there is no scientific organisation that denies man-made global warming.
NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_world
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
APS American Physical Society:
A statement from the American Physical Society:
- The 46,000-member American Physical Society argues the need for action is urgent because the energy crisis is the worst in U.S. history. It also says that the physics and chemistry behind the human causes of climate change - such as heat-trapping pollution from the burning of fossil fuels - "well understood and beyond dispute."
From the report: "Science has also achieved an overwhelming consensus that the increase in greenhouse gases is largely of human origin, tracing back to the Industrial Revolution and accelerating in recent years, as carbon dioxide and methane - the products of fossil fuel use - have entered the atmosphere in increasing quantities. Modeling the climate has proven to be a complex scientific task. But although the models are far from perfect, many of their predictions are so alarming that conservative, risk-averse policymaking requires that they be considered with extraordinary gravity."
New Scientist: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 - zspade, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3♪ Except the ones who are dead ♪♫
- SawButter, on 11/25/2008, -2/+5Sarah Palin will be the best choice for this mission.
- inactive, on 11/25/2008, -3/+6If we want to survive as a species we must lead the way by making the switch to a resource based economy.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com - watch addendum to find out what you can do to help. - inactive, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3I had some ideas for a company called RobCo. Maybe we could work something out together?
- 80hd, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3idiots reproduce too much, and at way too short of intervals
- zspade, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3♪ For the good of all of us ♫
- angryredplanet, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3The population growth rate in modern societies has slowed. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to have a lot of children (a lot = more than 2 resulting in net population growth). In developed countries like Italy and Japan, the net growth rate is actually in decline.
The increase in population growth comes from those areas where people are lesser educated in developing countries, those in failing states like Somalia, Nigeria, Ethiopia and many others. In these countries it's common to see families with 6, 7 or 8 children. The resulting poverty from sharing limited resources with so many, causes more neighbouring states to fail and the cycle of unavailable resources/poverty/failure grows.
The best way to address this issue is to provide contraception to those who don't have access (at US 4c each, that's pretty cheap given the cost of not using them), educating people and reducing poverty. - uberchaoslord, on 11/25/2008, -3/+6I'd prefer we went back to Darwinism, and let the stupid people off themselves, since we do so much to coddle them these days.
- defwheezer, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3The next large asteroid to hit our planet will wipe out all of humanity; it would be a good idea to store a "backup" of our civilization (science/literature/favorite recipes/etc) on the moon (or maybe there is one already, from some prior civilization, and we have not yet found it?!).
- thbigtiket21, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3except shoemakers make shoes. scientists don't make science. they investigate it and try to benefit the human race (in most cases). why wouldn't you want scientists to think about what they're doing?
- zspade, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3They do what they must, because they can.
- Doritos, on 11/25/2008, -1/+4never gonna happen, so I guess you'll never get a call.
- Strenoth, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3Really, all we need to do is completely eliminate any sort of subsidizing of any farm or ranch any where, for anything. Then only economically feasible things will be grown, ie, the most money for the land space per year. Watch as the price of beef and corn both rise, and people start focusing on less expensive foods. The beef one is especially critical, as cows consume a lot of resource for the amount of food they represent. beef and such won't disappear from our diet, but we'll probably be eating less of them as the price goes up.
- wunksta, on 11/25/2008, -2/+5BESIDES the point that the main article wasnt directly about climate change
the climate change will also result in more desertication, making current places that suffer even worse. and the "increase rainfall" wont help if its a detriment to the plants, crops and cities (ie see flash floods)
also, ill just point out ONE misinformation statement from your article
"96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%"
while the cycle is more or less balanced, we are creating EXCESS (more than volcanos actually by a factor of a hundred). and when you have a consistent amount that isnt being successfully balanced out, it accumulates and creates additional problems
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller- ... - inactive, on 11/25/2008, -1/+4my bad
- skeletorcares, on 11/25/2008, -0/+3SPACE is a crucial key.
- Intercon, on 11/25/2008, -1/+3
Brilliant article. T Boone Pickens has said that we need leadership, and he couldn't be more correct. We certainly need to make new markets where conservation and green-shifting are rewarded, and also create jobs.
For instance, if we are going to spend billions to rescue the auto industry, perhaps we should get some concessions like 100 MPG cars for a start, and then soon a vast new fleet of hybrids, electrics, and hydrogen and natural gas burning cars. Seems like a sound investment and good for everyone. Oil companies want in? They buy in (no one is stopping them.)
These types of shifts from the existing energy paradigm are crucial for a stable transition to energy independence. 100% Green is the goal, let's not drag our feet, shall we? We can take the reins are create a sustainable, and frankly healthier, life for ourselves and our planet. - 80hd, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2I hate that in Indiana welfare workers tell you that you will get nothing in aid unless you are a single parent. I'm working towards an accelerated 2nd bachelors at Purdue and couldn't get help after I was out of work for six weeks with a broken foot from work, but an old friend of mine gets more in tax credits than I made my first year on the job just because she had her third kid out of wedlock. ***** that.
How about for survival, we put birth control in the water and only let people in the 50th IQ percentile reproduce? Then again, maybe I'm the idiot here for going to school instead of working a lower paying job and taknig handouts to make up the difference. - mlynch3261, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2I got 40 nations ready to ROLL SON
-
Show 51 - 100 of 157 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is