digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at flickr.com

Explain... (PIC)

flickr.com — Found on a city street...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stvalentino, on 04/05/2008, -44/+16Need some explanation here!!!!!! ;)
    • JulyZerg, on 04/05/2008, -6/+6Yes - a mental examination, if you don't understand this...
      • fubuvsfitch, on 04/05/2008, -2/+9Why are people digging him down? He's making the point that this should be obvious. Can't you tell by the wink?
        • stvalentino, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2People always feels hard to interpret emoticons :D:D:D:D
    • DucoNihilum, on 04/05/2008, -39/+9Socialist propaganda.
      • Steviebe21, on 04/05/2008, -8/+36Yeah...it's socialist to care about the environment. You're an idiot.
        • fubuvsfitch, on 04/05/2008, -19/+4It's a joke. You're an idiot.
        • DucoNihilum, on 04/05/2008, -21/+4If you pay attention to this sort of propaganda (Look at the other guy I'm talking to in this thread) they generally support something along the lines of global communism. Suggesting we tear down corporations for the 'environment' is clearly socialist.
          • Ataxia2008, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5I am reading your other responses later in this thread and by the looks of it, you got your ass handed to your on a silver plate.
      • jgtg32a, on 04/05/2008, -0/+11Druid propaganda,
        Not all Socialists are Druids and not all Druids are Socialists.
        • TheKrillr, on 04/05/2008, -1/+7You sound like a logic professor. ;-)
          • aukxsona, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4what chair?
          • sovietninja, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2wheel.

            Like Stephen Hawkins before the Handicapped Coalition comes after me....
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Hey, don't leave out rangers. They like forests, too.
      • rigorious, on 04/05/2008, -1/+2what you need is /sarcasm
    • evilbunnys2, on 04/05/2008, -4/+3facepalm.jpg
    • aguraki, on 04/05/2008, -1/+2Need a dispenser here!
  • stonebear, on 04/05/2008, -19/+128"SOMEBODY'S got some splainin to do!" ~ Ricky Ricardo
    • elizabethb221, on 04/05/2008, -4/+27WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
    • 15thPD, on 04/05/2008, -1/+5Lucy! You can't be in the show.
    • Blandyman, on 04/05/2008, -1/+2Ethel! I've got an idea!
    • H0tKarl, on 04/05/2008, -3/+1I love Silver Spoons.
    • mattlphoto, on 04/05/2008, -4/+2"Somebody's got some SPLAININ' to do!" ~ Ricky Ricardo
    • BlackJackJester, on 04/05/2008, -3/+5screw this hippy *****, pave the rainforest.
    • rentmitchum, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3Vita..migee.. magic mat... It's got mitamins and vinerals. lol
  • beelz, on 04/05/2008, -84/+385Explain... to future generations how spray paint cans destroyed the ozone...
    • DeskFlyer, on 04/05/2008, -17/+188CFCs haven't been in spray paint cans since the late 70s....

      Still no excuse for defacing a wall though.
      • snowskate22, on 04/05/2008, -3/+62and i would have gotten away with it too, if it werent for you meddling kids!
        • HiKevinRose, on 04/05/2008, -3/+25Unless it's a Banksy. I'd pay that guy to paint my house.
        • isunktheship, on 04/05/2008, -6/+1He'd just vandalize it.
        • ComstockGordon, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4It's old man Patterson and the haunted amusement park!
        • SSUK, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1It's old man Jackson and the haunted children's amusement park!
      • Le3f, on 04/05/2008, -0/+16Depends on the wall
      • Tayls, on 04/05/2008, -2/+4Or possibly paper bags, judging from the photo.
      • Spottswood, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1I thought they were still inside the cheap spray paints, that the non-CFC ones cost more. No? There might be a ban on CFC spraypaints in the states but i would doubt that its a global thing. I think i remember reading somewhere that there arent any regulation for CFC's in China (obviously the grafitti isnt in chinese but that still doesnt mean we should assume its in America)
        Its a template design so it could be a banksy (UK)
      • thesonofdarwin, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Here's the tricky thing with CFCs.

        1. America can manufacture them for export.
        2. America can't use American made CFCs, but they can import CFC containing goods, even if they were made with the America-made, exported CFCs.

        It's not hard to see from the above how it's easy to circumvent regulations forbidding manufacturing of goods containing CFCs. Create CFCs, "sell" them overseas, manufacture goods, import back to USA.
    • rentmitchum, on 04/05/2008, -8/+1The even with CFC's how would a can destroy the o-zone? The can isn't what does it, it's the contents. RETARD!!!!
      • Spottswood, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1...um, you mean the contents (CFCs) which r excreted whenever you use the can, and which are on display in the picture being commented on...
        Wow, i dont think i can actually fathom how ignorant and pointless that comment was, and then afterwards to add to it you accuse someone else of being a retard.
        Good luck in life
    • Gooble74, on 04/05/2008, -8/+4You are a retarded misanthrope, have fun sucking big industry's ***** the rest of your useless life
    • gmCURRENT, on 04/06/2008, -1/+0Damn hoodlums and their baggy pants.
  • bryano, on 04/05/2008, -65/+95Try explaining what a waste of resources it will be to clean up this wall. You could've stuck up flyers instead, *****.
    • dsmx, on 04/05/2008, -13/+50And of course the amount of pollutants created by producing all those flyers would be so worth it.
      • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -9/+3Replied to wrong person, sorry. Digg down.
      • Akronos, on 04/05/2008, -12/+6Stop breathing, you're contributing to the greenhouse effect. *****. Don't you care about the environment?
      • chewties, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2he is talking about flyers made of rainbows and moon beams.
    • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -31/+63***** that. Public space belongs to all of us, grab some paint and express yourselves, ESPECIALLY if you have a point to make that will provoke critical thought in others who see it. We are surrounded by images urging us not to think, but to obey, to consume, to do what we are told, not to mind the men behind the curtain. It's insane, I love when people take the initiative and place thought-provoking art in a landscape where corporate or government domination would otherwise prevail unchallenged.
      • wafflez, on 04/05/2008, -5/+33this is all fine an dandy, until a poor shop owner has to pay to have his wall repainted because someone was making a point.
        • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -12/+12I see your point, but realistically this is kind of a non-point. I've never seen a Billboard Liberation happen to some small mom-and-pop store on the corner of a small street. I mean, on the other hand, if somebody wants to use a can of spray paint to notify Pepsi Co's customers of its involvement in the overthrow of democracy in Chile in 1973, more power to them.
      • liquidpele, on 04/05/2008, -8/+20The images urging you to "obey" and "consume" might be mindless, but they're on people's property with that person's permission.

        You seem to think that just because something is in a public location, you have the right to paint it? Grow up already, your right to paint ends on YOUR property line. If you really have to "express" your points which you think no one else in the world has already thought of, buy some damn colored chalk or something.
        • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -13/+13Um, excuse me, who decides what property lines exist? I am exposed - against my will - to thousands of advertisements every single day, even when I walk down the street of my city. Why do you think that rich corporations have a right to bombard me with images convincing me that I'm too fat, too short, too black, too gay, too poor, or any other underrepresented norm, to fit into their advertising executive dream world... But I have no right to fight back with REAL art, with works whose goal is not to create insecurity and longing in others but to stoke the fires of their imagination, to make them love themselves and those around them, to encourage them to stand tall and ask big questions?
          • liquidpele, on 04/05/2008, -9/+7Your community does. So what. Because they paid for those ads and paid employees (maybe me) to make them and put them up. I think your "REAL art" everywhere will be just as annoying as the ads I see now but will look crappier since professional design artists probably won't make it.
          • tehknotte, on 04/05/2008, -8/+11When you live in society it is an unspoken agreement that you won't going around being an ass and making a mess. Property lines are made by law and by hard work of people who own the property. Just because you don't have the money to advertise on a billboard does not give you the right to deface other people's work and property.
          • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -6/+9liquidpele-

            "Your community does."
            Really? Last I checked I was born into a society that inherited a rigid ideology of property from an intellectual period centuries ago and never really bothered to question it. I certainly never voted to have my mind polluted by corporate advertisements on every street corner.

            "I think your "REAL art" everywhere will be just as annoying as the ads I see now but will look crappier since professional design artists probably won't make it."
            In a just society, "graphic designers" would spend their days making real art and beautifying the landscape instead of whoring their talents out to sociopathic corporations and convincing young girls to vomit their meals to be skinnier, or trying to convince people to buy automobiles so they can pollute the air. I for one would prefer artists working for good instead of evil. What do you think?
          • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -6/+8tehknotte-
            "When you live in society it is an unspoken agreement that you won't going around being an ass and making a mess."
            I'm not "an ass," I'm a kind, generous, gentle human being who's more concerned with doing good to the world than selfishly and mindlessly acquiring property. I gave up my car so I don't pollute and gave up eating meat for ethical reasons. Realistically I'm "making a mess" far less than the average person. Further, corporate billboards are "a mess"; they are an eyesore, they are propaganda, they are a waste of resources and artistic talent, and they make people feel inadequate (which is the point: convince people they won't be happy or popular without consuming some useless product or service).

            "Property lines are made by law and by hard work of people who own the property. "
            So people who don't own property have no right to publicize their opinions and beliefs? The wealthy have a monopoly on the distribution of ideas? Do you think this is good for people and democracy? Which do you think would benefit a community more: a billboard urging them to purchase destructive Hummer H3s that they don't need, or a billboard explaining the US Constitution and the ways in which the Bush administration has violated it? Do you base your actions on morality and logic, or on legality (ie appeal to authority, a fundamental logical fallacy)?

            "Just because you don't have the money to advertise on a billboard does not give you the right to deface other people's work and property."

            And just because wealthy people have the money to advertise on a billboard does not give them a right to deface my urban landscape, to bombard me with mindless propaganda, to convince the women of my community to hate their bodies, to urge all those around me that they are unattractive or uncool unless they consume a certain object.

            Property lines are made by law and by hard work of people who own the property. Just because you don't have the money to advertise on a billboard does not give you the right to deface other people's work and property.
          • liquidpele, on 04/05/2008, -2/+1@wootup
            I think you are idealistic, but not very realistic. Good luck to you though.
          • kaluzak, on 04/05/2008, -2/+2lol @ Wootup. You're arguments are filled with so many logical inconsistencies that it's hard to even know where to begin. Regardless of the fact that you're coming across as a self-righteous ass, you talk idyllically about public property belonging to no one, and then rage at the Corporations that are filling "Your highways" with propaganda. Be balanced at least. If you have the right (which I would argue you don't) to deface (note here I would define deface as any unsolicited tagging) anything you see, then the corporations have the equal right. Even if you want to argue that corporations don't enjoy the same rights, liberties, and freedoms as citizens, the head of marketing is a citizen, and if he wants to use his freedom to do whatever he wants on billboards or buses, he has that right.

            Now, you may say you don't agree with their message, but that just doesn't really matter, because we definitely all share a right to express ourselves how we see fit. Your society would self destruct within years, partially because people aren't as "enlightened" as you and partially because you're too idealistic to understand how laws and systems of governments, despite the evil that may result, do a lot of good as well. Also, your system of beliefs would breakdown eventually because you have nothing to call upon as objective (note I'm not talking about a Deity or higher power here) so just because you might not eat meat, or drive a car, or be mean, doesn't ensure that the rest of the community would. Maybe to some people, killing especially obnoxious individuals is permissible and better for the overall enjoyment of life in the community. You might not agree, but without a system or calls to higher morality and is A Priori and shared by everyone (a pretty tall order imo) you would have no grounds to confront said individual.
          • liquidpele, on 04/05/2008, -1/+0Thanks to Kaluzak for posting that. I gave up because I didn't want to type that much :)
          • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1kaluzak-
            "you talk idyllically about public property belonging to no one, and then rage at the Corporations that are filling "Your highways" with propaganda. Be balanced at least."

            This is semantics and nothing more. I am obviously not saying "my" in some jealously-guarded capitalistic sense, as anyone who actually read my posts would know. If I use a highway to travel on, and am exposed to whatever corporate propaganda lines it, I have a vested interest in that highway and in ensuring I can travel it without being a dumping ground for corporate mental pollution, as does everyone else using it.

            "If you have the right (which I would argue you don't) to deface (note here I would define deface as any unsolicited tagging) anything you see, then the corporations have the equal right."

            Corporations aren't people, they have no rights. Are you completely insane? Do you think Chevron-Texaco should also be able to vote in the next election?

            "Even if you want to argue that corporations don't enjoy the same rights, liberties, and freedoms as citizens, the head of marketing is a citizen, and if he wants to use his freedom to do whatever he wants on billboards or buses, he has that right."

            Sure, so why don't I have the same right to express myself as the "head of marketing at a major corporation"? Because he has more money than I do? Again, is commodifying the distribution of ideas good for people and good for democracy, or does it harm people and effectively cripple democracy?



            "Your society would self destruct within years"

            First of all, what do you mean "my society"? A society where the distribution of ideas isn't commodified, and the landscape is dominated by art instead of hideous advertisements trying to sell crap to people? How would such a situation "self-destruct"? Isn't our current society, with the stunning rise in media-assisted anorexia, depression, suicide, etc in recent decades, essentially "self-destructing"? Isn't the broad-scale ecocide, the millions of homeless, the billions around the world unable to live with dignity and prosperity, an indictment of the status quo? Realise that you are among the wealthy 20% who have the privilege of ignoring what a hellish world you've made for the other 80%.

            "partially because people aren't as "enlightened" as you and partially because you're too idealistic to understand how laws and systems of governments, despite the evil that may result, do a lot of good as well"

            Governments, in the statist sense, consist of forcing people to obey them and work within them, as well as massive-scale territorialism (international borders), both of which are inherently divisive and violent concepts. That said, I have not argued against laws or rules per se, merely the blatantly unfair laws and rules that define the media landscape in our society. When the most powerful 1% controls just about all of the media, you've got to fight back in the info war somehow; public artwork is a cheap, effective way to do so. And it often makes cities prettier!

            "You might not agree, but without a system or calls to higher morality and is A Priori and shared by everyone (a pretty tall order imo) you would have no grounds to confront said individual."

            The "call to higher morality" in our society is the state; an institution that controls, murders, and harms people in stunning ways every single day. Being that one can not opt out of cooperation with the state if one lives within its claimed territory, the state is inevitably violent in that it forces itself upon all of its subjects. It often brainwashes people into believing that its rule is good for them (ie making American kids give a pledge of allegiance to its symbol, the flag, every morning in state-run schools). And this is the same US government that incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country on Earth, that drops bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan, that has sponsored anti-democracy coups from Venezuela to Haiti to Iran, and that enables its corporate sector to wantonly pollute and destroy the biosphere. So I hope you'll excuse me if I don't accept that the rules we live by shouldn't be defined by an institution as evil and destructive as that.
      • DucoNihilum, on 04/05/2008, -18/+15"***** that. Public space belongs to all of us"

        Unless this was written on private property. (Protip: Private property is owned by the private, not the public.)

        Plus, I wouldn't want people defacing my house, I'd hardly want them to deface anything I owned- even publicly.

        "We are surrounded by images urging us not to think, but to obey, to consume, to do what we are told, not to mind the men behind the curtain."

        Can I buy pot from you?

        "corporate or government domination would otherwise prevail unchallenged."

        Corporations aren't evil, government is.
        • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -13/+10"Unless this was written on private property. (Protip: Private property is owned by the private, not the public.)"

          Who decides what is "private" and "public" to begin with? Why do you think that those with the wealth to buy billboards and signs have more of a right to express themselves than I do? Is commodifying the transfer of ideas - the lifeline of any democracy - really a good thing? What has the long-term result of decades of government and corporate domination of airwaves and other steadily-consildating media been? Are people more engaged, informed, intelligent and aware than ever, or are they getting more distracted, more listless, suffering more mental illness, more depression, more anorexia? Use your brain instead of mindlessly accepting the norms you've been presented with.

          "Can I buy pot from you?"

          What a stupid comment, contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion. I don't smoke marijuana, if you do that is your own choice.

          "Corporations aren't evil, government is."

          So Monsanto's terminator seeds don't seem, say, nefarious and negative to you? Chevron's SoCal refineries blasting pollution into the air and increasing cancer rates around its operations for miles in every direction isn't unethical? Coca-Cola bottlers killing union organizers in Colombia doesn't qualify as "evil" to you? I mean, that has to be the stupidest ***** comment I have ever read.
          Corporations are interested in profit, and that is all. The moral pluses-and-minuses of a given action are not even considered, only the legal ramifications are; in this sense, corporations are inherently sociopathic. 30,000 children starve to death or die of easily-preventable illnesses (ie diarrhea) every day in this world. The resources exist to save them all, but are not given to them, because market economies distribute resources according to wealth, not need. Ergo, large numbers of people die needlessly, and "the market" is the one withholding resources from them.
          • liquidpele, on 04/05/2008, -6/+7You seem to not understand that money is the embodiment of "more of a right to express themselves" here. If some company worked hard and has money, they get to buy billboards. You don't have as much, you get to use other means. This is how the world works. Maybe you should start your own business and put up more meaningful billboards?

            Also, I've seen far more purely even individuals than corporations. There are evil forms of *everything* that are composed of people, because people can be very evil. Do your part to not be and do what you can to help others, but don't lecture on the "evil corporations".
          • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -5/+7liquidpele -
            "You seem to not understand that money is the embodiment of "more of a right to express themselves" here."
            Yes, you are correct, and that is why I have no problem with artists or political dissidents making their mark on the public space: because ideas are not a commodity, and the government and corporations currently enjoy a virtual monopoly on the spread of ideas in public. A homeless person has the same right to express themselves as Ford Motor Company... Actually, they have even more of a right, since they are a real human being with real ideas; Ford Motor Company is not a person and it doesn't have ideas, only propaganda to sell things.

            "You don't have as much, you get to use other means."
            Yes, other means like: courage, spray paint, and wit!

            "This is how the world works."
            In case you haven't noticed, the global ecosystem is on life support, billions of people live in abject poverty (ie a few dollars a day), thousands die every year in wars... Maybe CHANGING how the world works is my point. Just an idea.

            "Do your part to not be and do what you can to help others, but don't lecture on the "evil corporations"."
            Corporations are not people, they have no morality. The function of a corporation is to gain wealth; at no point does morality enter the picture. This is for systemic reasons: capitalism is based on the transfer of resources according to wealth, not according to need. This market-based international trade system is why there is so much endemic poverty in the world that people can't get out of. It's why Exxon and many other companies have no problem polluting the air and giving people cancer: they are not people, they have no feelings, and they only care about profits. "Is this good or bad for the world?" never enters the equation. The system itself is inherently and majorly flawed.
        • stealth210, on 04/05/2008, -3/+8@wootup: "Who decides what is ""private"" and ""public"" to begin with"

          The owner/leasee. Putting weather I agree with your message aside. If I own and/or lease the land/storefront I am responsible for what is displayed on it. I would not appreciate someone placing graffiti on my property without permission. Should I not agree with it or I just don't want it, I now have to pay someone to clean it up or spend time cleaning it up myself. That to me is complete disrespect for other peoples livelihood. Is that unreasonable to you?
          • stealth210, on 04/05/2008, -1/+4Also, spelling/grammar corrections: "whether" instead of "weather". "own or lease" instead of "own and/or lease".
          • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -5/+6"The owner/leasee."
            How can someone own a part of planet Earth? Who did they buy it from to begin with? If I live in a country that was stolen from indigenous nations, should I buy the land from the natives, or the European-style state that colonized them, or both, or neither? If all of the world is already owned, what are people who are born after it is all bought supposed to do? Why are people compelled to work to "buy" access to that should be open to them anways (ie land to live on)? Should people own and exploit land for their own selfish needs, or for the betterment of all?

            "I would not appreciate someone placing graffiti on my property without permission. Should I not agree with it or I just don't want it, I now have to pay someone to clean it up or spend time cleaning it up myself."
            I don't appreciate Verizon placing graffiti on the side of my highways without my permission. Whether I agree with their billboard or not, I would now have to go to all the trouble of editing it to inform people that Verizon is a traitorous entity that violates the US Constitution by illegally wiretapping their customers on behalf of the US government. It's such a hassle! But hey, nobody said that being good was easy. Or cheap!
        • com2, on 04/05/2008, -4/+5"Corporations aren't evil, government is."
          Then how do corporations like Shell get away with making a $47billion profit? I think theres evil on both sides of the equation that feed off each other and thrives like a weed at the heart of America.
          *breath*
        • DucoNihilum, on 04/05/2008, -8/+7"
          Who decides what is "private" and "public" to begin with? "

          Whoever rightfully bought the property owns it. Public property should be incredibly rare.

          "Why do you think that those with the wealth to buy billboards and signs have more of a right to express themselves than I do?"

          You have the same right, you have the right to express yourself- you do not have the right to use somebody elses property as a sopbox.

          "Use your brain instead of mindlessly accepting the norms you've been presented with.
          "

          I suggest the same to you. Capitalism has provided you more benefits than you could or do imagine.

          "What a stupid comment, contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion. I don't smoke marijuana, if you do that is your own choice."

          Sorry, I figured someone with incoherent schizoidal rants might be on drugs. My mistake.

          "So Monsanto's terminator seeds don't seem, say, nefarious and negative to you? Chevron's SoCal refineries blasting pollution into the air and increasing cancer rates around its operations for miles in every direction isn't unethical? Coca-Cola bottlers killing union organizers in Colombia doesn't qualify as "evil" to you? I mean, that has to be the stupidest ***** comment I have ever read."

          Nope. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me stupid.

          "Corporations are interested in profit, and that is all."

          They get this profit by voluntary exchange with consumers. People get what they want thru capitalism.

          ". 30,000 children starve to death or die of easily-preventable illnesses (ie diarrhea) every day in this world. The resources exist to save them all, but are not given to them, because market economies distribute resources according to wealth, not need."

          These children are dying in capitalistic countries? ... NO, in fact, these children are dying in socialistic, communistic, or other economically totalitarian countries. THe US does not have masses of children dying, Hong Kong doesn't either.

          "Then how do corporations like Shell get away with making a $47billion profit? "

          What's wrong with profit? Are you jealous?
        • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -4/+7"Whoever rightfully bought the property owns it."
          Bought it from whom? Who owns it? I live in Canada, should I "buy" my land from the First Nations or the European-style surrogate state that established itself on top of them? Or should I "buy" it from neither, being that the concept of a person or a group of people "owning" a part of planet Earth is completely, inherently insane?

          "Public property should be incredibly rare."
          Everything should be public property. Private property means holding and hoarding a plot of land at the expense of all others having access to it. That's crazy, and is the type of territorial thinking that has inspired every territorial war in human history.

          "You have the same right, you have the right to express yourself- you do not have the right to use somebody elses property as a sopbox."
          Again, in an economy where most of the property is owned by very few, "the same right" is not quite the same in this context; the wealthy use the newspapers, TV stations and billboard as their soapbox, often to nefarious and selfish ends. And you are saying I shouldn't be allowed to insert my voice into these mediums as well?

          "I suggest the same to you. Capitalism has provided you more benefits than you could or do imagine. "
          Like my public health care system that has provided me and my family with timely medical service every time I've ever needed it? Like my public education and publicly-subsidized university education that has taught me much of what I know? Like the publicly-subsidized and publicly-owned gym that I work out at four days a week? Like the publicly-owned sidewalks I use to get there, and the publicly-owned bus and subway system I use to get around the city?

          "Sorry, I figured someone with incoherent schizoidal rants might be on drugs. My mistake."
          You're as confused about the effects of marijuana as you are about what I'm saying.

          "Nope. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make me stupid."
          Love how you totally ignored all of the examples of corporate wrongdoing I cited. "Corporations aren't evil, government is" - DucoNihilim. One for the stupidity record books.

          "They get this profit by voluntary exchange with consumers. People get what they want thru capitalism."
          Except for all of the homeless people, the billions who scrape by on a few dollars a day, the billions who can't get university (or even secondary!) education because they can't afford it, the billions who can't get health care (and thus can't get life itself) because they can't afford it, and so on. Also, does "work or starve" really seem "voluntary" to you?

          "These children are dying in capitalistic countries? ... NO, in fact, these children are dying in socialistic, communistic, or other economically totalitarian countries."

          I like how you just completely made that up. The entire international trade system, as overseen by the WTO, and its predecessors like GATT, is market-based. Some countries with starving people end up EXPORTING their crops for money instead of feeding their own starving citizens because it is "fiscally responsible" to do so, I recall this happening in - I believe - Niger, or somewhere in that region, several years ago during a famine.

          "What's wrong with profit? Are you jealous?"
          People should seek to do good in the world, not gorge themselves and be selfish, especially if that selfishness harms others (ie Monstanto creating terminator seeds). It has nothing to do with jealousy (I grew up in a very privileged situation, thank you), and everything to do with basic ethics.

          • lowhauler, on 04/05/2008, -2/+5wootup: you rock. You obviously know what you're talking about. Re: the second-last paragraph--pretty much any poor country that's received so-called aid in the form of food shipments is being attacked by the western agriculture industry. By flooding the market with heavily-subsidized western grains etc, local farmers are cut out of the market. So, that's pretty much all of Africa.
            Anyway, thanks again for being a virtually lone voice of educated reason and compassion around here. Reading a lot of these comments can get really depressing.
          • DRoZZySTyLe, on 04/05/2008, -1/+0I think your other examples of corporate misdeeds are far better than that of Monsanto's sterile seeds. That is more of a way to ensure return sales, it may be unethical but in my opinion not evil. They did not create the terminator seed, but rather merged with the company that did. However they did get in trouble for a lot of other things that do seem rather evil, like their liver destroying corn, or their toxic waste dumping or the bovine growth hormone controversy. I just think you are picking the wrong thing to get upset about.
          • cbuddha42, on 04/05/2008, -1/+1Ok wootup, I'll take one shot at explaining this to you.

            First, might makes right. Who decided this? Well I guess you could say it was the first one to be mighty. Depending on your religious persuasions (which I'm going to guess are atheist) you can either look to the animal world or the bible for early examples of this. For early examples of how this applies to international affairs, you could read The Prince.

            By it's very nature, "might makes right" only needs to be accepted by the mighty, but in the animal world the loser of a fight generally accepts the credo as well. Regardless of whether or not you like this idea, it's empirically true.

            Anyway, at some point society evolved and started teaching little kids that might doesn't make right. If every kid in 2nd grade was trying to bully everyone smaller than them you would have a mess right? This made the concept of might makes right seem "wrong," so people came up with some disguises to hide it. Today you might hear the term national power politics to describe similar interactions between nations. All of these ideas of how to protect what one wants to keep from others whom might wish to take or destroy haven't changed much over the years; we've simply added more fuzziness to the outside.

            But wait you say, society doesn't function like this! We have laws and morals! Well the unfortunate thing with morals is they more often restrict those that would be victimized than those who would prosper given anarchy. So why can't someone with lax morals beat me up and take all my money? They probably could, but just like in second grade, allowing this would create a mess, so we created governments and legal systems.

            So laws and the government prevent that horrible might makes right system? Not so, they simply shift the need to be mighty. You see, enforcing the law on the strong individual that took all my stuff still requires more might than he or she can muster, but the government provides that strength so I don't have to. This is the essential reason for having governments; people agreed to form a group with some rules (laws) such that the need for individual might is suspended by having a mighty state. With the need for individual might reduced, people could now focus on other things like increased productivity.

            So how do we accumulate the benefits of that productivity? Before someone might have collected the product of labor in the form of increased power, but now individual power provided little benefit and could not be easily stored. Collecting livestock only worked for so long, so eventually people came up with the idea of money. While money was not the same as power, it was a effective store of value that could be exchanged for other material goods or services and by effect, power.

            Both capitalism and the ownership of land you find so ridiculous are outgrowths of having a governed society that runs on money rather than power. You still have to receive, earn, or exploit your way up the food chain, but you do it by gaining money. This is established on the basis of equal rights. See, you don't have a right to a doctors time; you have to trade something he or she wants for the services you want. Sure, the state could establish a national health care system and take someone else's money to provide for your care because they have might, but what right do you have to pay for services with their money? Your still using a might makes right philosophy, your just changing who has the might and what they make right.

            However, my point isn't to show how the actionable might makes right lead to today's system, it's to show you don't have an alternative. You ask others to envision your world, so I'll ask you to do so first. You portray work or starve as a poor situation, so can I assume someone who refused to work wouldn't starve in your society? Maybe you embrace the ideal of to each according to his needs? What motivation do I then have to work? Are you going to compel me to work? How will you ensure I work efficiently? Force someone else to watch me work? How are you going to provide public services or even food without making people work?

            It seems pretty soon all you'll be doing is forcing some people to force some people to force some people to force some workers to provide for your society. Basically you'll establish a giant bureaucracy and become an authoritarian socialist country. Before you do this, reflect on the awful habit of these countries having higher rates of starving, uneducated, and sick children than capitalist nations with their horrible dog eat dog mentality.

            Your system would be great, if it worked, but it won't work because of some basic human characteristics. For instance, individual greed either must be put down or destroys your society. This is why it's a utopia. That our current society exists proves this point.

            To recap, some people formed European governments. These governments then took the Americas by force. However, power isn’t an effective way to run a society, so internally the governments used money. The government (having taken the land) then sold or gave it to someone who it (the government) liked. The cycle of giving and selling continued until your parents came to own it. Other land was given to other people who continued to sell it until some corporation came to own it. Now they can decide to put a billboard on it. Because they own it, you have absolutely no right to voice you opinion on it unless they say you can. The same goes with your cable TV. You have no right to use that medium unless you pay for or are given airtime by a station who then pays to distribute their signal.

            In each case, people’s rights are determined either by their own power or the support of a government who has power.
          • wootup, on 04/05/2008, -1/+1cbuddha42-
            "First, might makes right. Who decided this? Well I guess you could say it was the first one to be mighty."

            Early human history, and by that I mean the 95% of our species' history which precedes the agricultural revolution, was primarily based on egalitarian, anarchistic social structures. In many ways this was facilitated by the nomadic nature of those societies (the establishment of agriculture led to permanent settlements, which facilitated resource stockpiling and thus disparities in wealth). There are a plethora of anthropological papers and studies confirming this fact; the rise of inequality, authority, ownership, etc, all of which came after the agricultural revolution, intensified concepts like "might is right" and betrayed the egalitarian, closely-knit nature of the original human societies. That is not to say that no early humans had hierarchy, or oppression, just that such things were far more rare and far less intense then than they are now.

            "Anyway, at some point society evolved and started teaching little kids that might doesn't make right."

            You've got this completely backwards. The evolution of human civilization precipitated the rise of systemic, institutionalized hierarchy and exploitation; children were raised to obey laws, to bow to those with the most wealth and authority, to worship and submit to imaginary deities, etc. Civilization - by that I mean the post-agricultural revolution series of ideas about hierarchy and domination that has defined human history right to the present day - is not a guarantor of equality, it's historically the single greatest opponent of it.

            "They probably could, but just like in second grade, allowing this would create a mess, so we created governments and legal systems."

            The government "beats you up and takes your money" every day. And I'm not arguing for some libertarian or anarcho-capitalist alternative, because I think in a capitalist economy the state is often the only defence people have against the cruelty of the market, but still. You're ignoring how hierarchical, authoritarian, and exploitative the status quo is.

            "This is the essential reason for having governments; people agreed to form a group with some rules (laws) such that the need for individual might is suspended by having a mighty state."

            Is this a joke? The formation of the VAST majority of states is intimately intertwined with warfare, violence, and domination. At no point did I "agree" to be a part of a state; I was merely born under one's domination.

            "Both capitalism and the ownership of land you find so ridiculous are outgrowths of having a governed society that runs on money rather than power."

            Capitalism and land ownership are power. Money is power. When you have to sell your time - sell your life, in essence - to a rich person in order to buy the shelter or food you need to survive, that person has power over you. By "owning" land (in the sense of claiming it and denying it to all others), they have power over others.

            "See, you don't have a right to a doctors time; you have to trade something he or she wants for the services you want."

            I totally disagree. Health is life, and life is not some commodity to be bought and sold, for the rich to enjoy and the poor to lack. That idea is capitalist insanity at its very worst.

            "Sure, the state could establish a national health care system and take someone else's money to provide for your care because they have might, but what right do you have to pay for services with their money?"

            If the capitalist system didn't exist then the disparities in wealth and power that necessitate government intervention in the economy to help people survive wouldn't be necessary to begin with.

            "However, my point isn't to show how the actionable might makes right lead to today's system, it's to show you don't have an alternative."

            Ah, the old Francis Fukuyama argument: this is the end of history! Liberal democracy is the only path! As we bomb, clearcut and pollute our way to an environmental catastrophe, continued economic and political inequality and concentrated pro-establishment media. Is this system's indoctrination of you so complete that you honestly do believe that there is "no other way"? Do you still dream at night, or have they taken that as well?

            "You portray work or starve as a poor situation, so can I assume someone who refused to work wouldn't starve in your society?"

            I think the ideal situation would be one in which all people have an opportunity to contribute to a society, and freely associate to the benefit of themselves and others. The anarchist cities in Spain in 1936-37 exercised the most plausible example of this for our current industrial situation, but I imagine there could be other models to experiment with as well.

            "Maybe you embrace the ideal of to each according to his needs? What motivation do I then have to work?"

            Is the only reason you do anything to make money? Is that your sole motivation in life? If so, I pity you; but truth be told, I suspect this is not the case. I imagine you read books because you are curious, I imagine you clean your home because you want it to be clean, I imagine you read to your children because you want to teach them, and so on. Personally, I am even looking into starting a garden and growing my own food simply because I want to (apparently many people across North America are doing this in recent years as well). This is not to say that some compensation to urge people to do work will never be needed, but realistically most of the things we truly need, we can and do provide ourselves.

            "How are you going to provide public services or even food without making people work?"

            I wouldn't "provide" anything to anyone, I'd try to foster a situation in which they are empowered to provide things to each other.

            "Before you do this, reflect on the awful habit of these countries having higher rates of starving, uneducated, and sick children than capitalist nations with their horrible dog eat dog mentality."

            I live in Canada, and thanks to our socialist tendencies enjoy far lower violent crime rates than the United States. I have access to health care whenever I need it, as do all people around me (as it should be). I received a publicly-subsidized university education for a fraction of the cost that an American student would've had to pay in the USA. You need to look at the evidence and reevaluate your capitalist tendencies.

            "Because they own it, you have absolutely no right to voice you opinion on it unless they say you can."

            I beg to differ, ideas are not commodities nor should people need to be bombarded with corporate advertisements every time they step out onto the street. But art? I think I could settle for art. Imagine if all the advertising employees in the world went to work on real art, sculptures and paintings and installations we can't even imagine because they've never been tried yet...
          • cbuddha42, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Alright, I know I said I'd only make one attempt, but you seem know enough about your position for me to really like you, and I think I accomplished most of my objective. That's to say I wasn't trying to convince you that this view of the world is right but simply explain the foundations of what others were promoting in answer to your questions. I also think your views are far closer to what I presented than you might care to admit :).

            Who decided the land can be owned? Well someone with power, someone with the ability to deny it to others. What gave them the right to do this? Their power. You may say that's no right, but it's all that matters.

            Only a couple of your answers suggest you don't understand my points, but mostly I just think your picking and choosing what to respond to. One of your replies troubled me though:

            "However, my point isn't to show how the actionable might makes right lead to today's system, it's to show you don't have an alternative."

            "Ah, the old Francis Fukuyama argument: this is the end of history! Liberal democracy is the only path! As we bomb, clearcut and pollute our way to an environmental catastrophe, continued economic and political inequality and concentrated pro-establishment media. Is this system's indoctrination of you so complete that you honestly do believe that there is "no other way"? Do you still dream at night, or have they taken that as well?"

            That probably should have read "my point isn't ONLY," but alas. By no means do I expect liberal democracy or even capitalism to remain the dominant system forever, or even for long. I expect government, market, and state size to continue a cyclical rotation as they have for most of modern human history.

            However, I don't expect us to transition to a "small community," rural or agrarian society until some significant apocalypse type event occurs. That's to say I think the technology which has been developed must be lost as it would not simply be ignored. I also believe there are certain barriers to your idea, namely a lack of land. Such a society functions better with an abundance of land so that people can spread out, so perhaps we need another frontier.

            But back to you agreeing with me:
            "This is the essential reason for having governments; people agreed to form a group with some rules (laws) such that the need for individual might is suspended by having a mighty state."

            "Is this a joke? The formation of the VAST majority of states is intimately intertwined with warfare, violence, and domination. At no point did I "agree" to be a part of a state; I was merely born under one's domination."

            This is what I was saying. The point of the state is to be mighty, to fight war, to make its citizens right. You didn't agree to create Canada, but way back when some guys formed Rome which colonized Britain which colonized Canada and gave you your current government. They didn't need your cooperation to form because the state already has might and you have the choice to accept its superior power or face its wrath. Accepting its superior power means either bowing to its authority or getting away. You can of course attempt to be a subversive, breaking the rules while inside the state, but you only rely on its lack of will regarding stopping your actions.

            BTW: Anarchism in Spain was mostly in decline by 1936 and pretty much disappeared in the revolution. One of the famous leaders (I'm pretty sure his name was Lorenzo) discusses the decline in his memoirs (unless I'm thinking of completely the wrong book) and I believe he died around the start of the war (so 1913-1915, the war started in 1914). Given your persuasions, you might find it an interesting read if you haven't already.

            Finally, I'll deal with one of your picky responses. You're of course right that not everything I do is for or determined by money. However, I generally do things which would be considered productive for society in return for money. While it's certainly easy to find fault with a contemporary definition of productivity, these are things any society requires. Reading books and playing games isn't going to get anyone fed, and a society where one must hunt, farm, or gather is most certainly most certainly work or starve.
          • wootup, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Fair enough post, just a few things I want to address:

            "I also believe there are certain barriers to your idea, namely a lack of land. Such a society functions better with an abundance of land so that people can spread out, so perhaps we need another frontier."

            I totally accept that the global population is such that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle literally could not function or provide everyone's needs. We are stuck with industrial agriculture one way or another, the key now is to distribute crops according to need instead of wealth, and switch to more sustainable farming techniques and technologies.

            "BTW: Anarchism in Spain was mostly in decline by 1936 and pretty much disappeared in the revolution"

            You are both correct and wrong. Lorenzo was a famous Spanish anarchist, though I haven't read any of his works. However, Spanish anarchism didn't wane, and in fact was one of the major factors in the Spanish Civil war in the 1930s. George Orwell, for example, fought with the anarchists in Spain and recorded his experiences in his book "Homage to Catalonia". 1936-37 in certain parts of Spain is commonly cited as one of the relatively few examples of industrial anarchy in action. And yes, I'll be sure to check it out.

            "Reading books and playing games isn't going to get anyone fed, and a society where one must hunt, farm, or gather is most certainly most certainly work or starve."

            Agreed, there are different ideas of how to deal with this; Chomsky, for example, endorses a kind of rotation system, where people would do different tasks at different points in their life, so somebody isn't stuck working garbage duty their entire life etc, and suggests that if a military is needed it should be based on conscription, so it isn't overly targeted at lower class people. Maybe he is on to something, or maybe that type of rigid "we-tell-you-what-your-job-is" approach would ruin the entire experiment. Who knows.
      • Zera, on 04/05/2008, -3/+20"Public space belongs to all of us"

        Agreed, lets not deface it.
      • pugs909, on 04/05/2008, -2/+1ignorance is bliss
      • jstem1994, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1All UR Public space belong to us!
    • Zera, on 04/05/2008, -1/+21Flyers fall off and become pollution....
      • chewties, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1litter and pollution are two different things
    • britoca, on 04/05/2008, -1/+13a message like that shouldn't be erased anyways
    • KDX200rider, on 04/05/2008, -3/+2Flyer are made of paper from trees. Let's face it, no matter what we do, it will have some negative impact on something. But yes, spray painting on the sidewalk is a stupid way to make your point.
    • po43292, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2I don't think the Homeowners Association would like it if I painted my house all crazy and put words all over it and stuff. Even though it's technically your own property there is still somebody that sets rules for what you can do with it! It's *****!
      • Felectrode, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1On the upside, homeowners associations don't really have any power to enforce the arbitrary rules they come up with in their neighborhood. There are a few exceptions, like vehicles on the lawn and such, that the police can enforce, but yo u do have the right to paint words on your own house.
    • Hypomanic, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2I'm really sick and tired of climate/ecological debates being spun into oblivion with the endless 'oh that sign to talk about climate change wastes resources' or 'oh if you travel by car to get to an environmental event you're a hypocrite.' All it is is a sleazy diversion tactic to keep these kinds of movements pensive and disorganized. The source to this debate is industrial laziness and how we generate power. But nothing will ever get done if everyone is so concerned with being a hypocrite, or apathetic because they can't afford to switch from their old SUV to a hybrid.
  • Hananda, on 04/05/2008, -36/+30To hell with future generations. They want a livable planet, they can go get their own.
    • krusader3z, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4People worry too much. Capitalism has this nasty habit of fixing things that don't work in the long run.
  • prabjot, on 04/05/2008, -21/+5Self explanatory
  • juankovo, on 04/05/2008, -100/+131Global warming is the easiest way to gain complete control over the populace. Anything and everything anyone does can be declared "bad for the environment" and subsequently outlawed by whoever is in power. Scientists in Russia and numerous other countries not embroiled in Western politics on the matter are currently concerned about the current global *cooling* threat. If you believe in man-made catastrophic climate change, you have been taken in by the biggest political swindle of all time. For every negative digg I get for this post, I will leave my 100-watt incandescent bulbs burning an extra hour.
    • Peko, on 04/05/2008, -6/+16Russia? They have nothing to gain by lying about global warming. Nothing at all. I'm not looking at Russia's oil reserves, nope. Nor am I looking at Russia's completely free and open media system which never ever stamps out differing opinion from the executive.
    • Triskozko, on 04/05/2008, -14/+8That's troofer-grade paranoia right there.
    • dasmonki, on 04/05/2008, -10/+49Global warming may be a political ploy, but it still doesn't make sense to waste energy.
      • juankovo, on 04/05/2008, -4/+6I agree. I was joking about the incandescent bulbs. I have 95% CFLs in my home, and I keep my house at 66° or less during the winter and 79° or more during the summer. I save energy because it saves me money. The problem is that I don't like the government *requiring* me to do or not do what they think is the most beneficial for the environment.
        • L0t3k, on 04/05/2008, -1/+3Well said. There's nothing wrong with conserving, but please don't use it as a legislative weapon against me. I'm just trying to get by.
      • tas08, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3And that's my dilemma. I agree with you, I'm all for conserving energy, but I despise when people confuse simple responsibility (fiscal responsibility too) with my being crazy about saving the environment from catastrophic global warming! I refuse to be limped into that category and it sometimes makes it harder for me to conserve!
      • Kbriggs, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2It can't hurt to be green. It may cost 10-15 more every trip to the grocery store, but it's definitely not hurting "mother" earth. Pedal Power!
    • ExRe, on 04/05/2008, -5/+78Even IF man made global warming is false, we still NEED alternative, renewable, and more efficient energy sources.
      • juankovo, on 04/05/2008, -0/+10And the market will richly reward those who bring forth viable solutions. Government mandates on alternative energy bring us crap like ethanol, which has forced the price of basic foodstuffs through the roof and uses exorbitant amounts of water in production. Ethanol may make sense some day, but the technology is just not there yet.
        • Tetraca, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Right now Oil has the benefit of the QWERTY effect, which makes competitive fuels a little more difficult to successfully implement with or without government control.
    • rolf, on 04/05/2008, -4/+20I don't believe your side either though -- humans can and do transform their environment. Just look around you - it was all wild and nature at one time.

      I believe Global Warming may be real although I believe that it can be talked about in a rational way and stupid solutions like corn ethanol is worse than a waste of time.
      • CatcherInTheWhy, on 04/05/2008, -4/+2Isn't it still wild and nature? What is "wild" and what is "nature"? who defines those terms and whose normative aesthetic should be applied to the "environment"?
        • lowhauler, on 04/05/2008, -1/+1Your question re: normative aesthetic kind of answers itself. Aside from chunks of the world that we haven't yet found a use for, like large deserts, steep tall mountains and remote boreal forests, the planet is either city, farm, or parkland. There is no wild. At the end of the nineteenth century there were virtually no trees left in Japan: all the "nature" there has been carefully cultivated to resemble nature. Much the same is true of most of Europe. The point of a "wild" and "natural" environment is that no aesthetic whatsoever is to be applied to it.
        • kaluzak, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1@lowhauler

          that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. I live in Japan at the moment and have travelled from North to South. There's more trees in nearly every place I've been than in the cities and states on both coasts. My wife was born in Montana so obviously those areas are rich with wildlife and abundant in trees, but both of us have been amazed by the natural beauty here in Japan. I think it's around 30% inhabited with close to 70% woods/forests/mountains/wildlife etc. I'm not sure on that statistic, but I think it's close, either way you slice it, as I look out from my window on this mountain down at the abundance of trees, your comment that there was virtually no trees left makes me giggle.
    • Vector713, on 04/05/2008, -5/+8Dugg to protect the environment from your incandescent bulbs.

      JK! :D
    • houndeyex, on 04/05/2008, -8/+7OH NO! Wasting power?! I must Digg you up!
    • LucasVB, on 04/05/2008, -12/+47I'm always amazed at how people can just simply throw away large chunks of science in order to have their pet conspiracy theories around. Ironically, you rely on things that use this same scientific knowledge every day, taking it for granted. I'm sick of this sort of double standards with science.

      It's not hard to understand that certain substances absorb and re-emit light better than others, nor it is to understand, and see, that we're pretty much putting a lot of this kind of ***** up the atmosphere for a couple centuries now. Trying to blame the effects on something else doesn't change the fact we are adding to it unnaturally. Denying it altogether is just plain stupidity.

      It is true, the issue was hijacked for profit and power, but that happens with everything anyway, so it's a non-argument, or at most an ad hominem It doesn't make it all any less of an issue.
      • juankovo, on 04/05/2008, -11/+2No one stands to benefit from a threat of global warming more than power-hungry politicians. The politicians themselves created things like the IPCC to reinforce the "evidence" of global warming. The global climate is far more complex than we are currently capable of understanding or modeling accurately on our computers. Restricting people's freedoms in the name of some bad thing that may or may not happen at some unknown time in the future with an unknown level of severity is almost worse than restricting people's freedoms in the name of protection from the evil terrorists.
        • deanimate, on 04/05/2008, -1/+3hehe :) you're the typical cretin who doesn't want his quality of life affected in ANY way. Even if it means the death of the planet.
          bit sad really.
        • kaluzak, on 04/05/2008, -1/+1@ deanimate

          and you're the typical cretin who exaggerates arguments out to hilarious proportions to "prove" a point. LOL @ death of the planet. We may kill ourselves, but this planet, which has survived ice ages, droughts, attacks from space, and a slew of other onslaughts will continue on.
      • anchorman, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3LucasVB... I was looking for a response that I could digg for this comment so I didn't have to write my own. Well... yours was the comment.... except that it was so ON I had to comment on your awesomeness.
      • CJDUFFMAN, on 04/05/2008, -2/+3But it hasnt been unanimously decided, there are something like 1 believer to 3 nonbelievers in the actual scientific community. The believers are more outspoken. It has not been proven either which is why it kills me to have it so accepted. people dont think for themselves or do their own research. Sure, around me (NJ) we had a mild winter, but vermont is still getting snow, and there were record breaking snow seasons all around the country, i just got boned by the westerlies. but really, think about it, look into it yourself and stop listening to the loud minority, listen to the quiet side who doesn't get paid by gore to yell.
      • kaluzak, on 04/05/2008, -1/+0Actually, what I'm amazed at is how "amazingly" each political party has it's own set of "scientists" that "surprisingly" enough all confirm each political parties assumptions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not confirming or denying anything at this point, but I think it's also a bit early to start making this your life's ambition. Poverty, gender equality, racial justice have all been around for a lot longer and will continue to be around for even longer as long as everyone is willing to devote so much time and energy to whatever happens to be the latest fad. Save the whales!!
      • Notasheeple, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1you don't that the science is true..........You just beleive that it is.
    • Vitalstar, on 04/05/2008, -11/+0//video[dot]google[dot] com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573&q=Great+Global+Warming+Scam&total=91&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
      • Triskozko, on 04/05/2008, -1/+1good video but make a tinyurl or something plz
    • firebirdx01, on 04/05/2008, -2/+13Global warming has been agreed upon unanimously by the scientific community as an actual effect- the disagreement among scientists is actually on how much effect it has on the planet and if it will have significant effect or not.

      Sure, capitalist forces and politics have abused it for their own purposes, but that's no reason to call it a swindle.
      • Vitalstar, on 04/05/2008, -2/+2"But that's no reason to call it a swindle."

        The link above takes the people who call it a 'swindle' with their brand of science, and cuts it to pieces, with.........get this.....actual logic. Can you believe that?? LOGIC!!!
      • CJDUFFMAN, on 04/05/2008, -1/+2But it hasnt been unanimously decided, there are something like 1 believer to 3 nonbelievers in the actual scientific community. The believers are more outspoken. It has not been proven either which is why it kills me to have it so accepted. people dont think for themselves or do their own research. Sure, around me (NJ) we had a mild winter, but vermont is still getting snow, and there were record breaking snow seasons all around the country, i just got boned by the westerlies. but really, think about it, look into it yourself and stop listening to the loud minority, listen to the quiet side who doesn't get paid by gore to yell.
        • Soave, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Exactly. Anyone who thinks that they have noticed the effects of global warming (e.g: a more mild winter, like you said) is a complete idiot, as the change in temperature is something like half a degree.
        • Vitalstar, on 04/05/2008, -1/+0"But it hasnt been unanimously decided" so?
          " there are something like 1 believer to 3 nonbelievers in the actual scientific community."
          who says?
          " The believers are more outspoken."
          Why would non-believers be outspoken? they don't think there's a problem...hahaha.
          " It has not been proven either which is why it kills me to have it so accepted. "
          You didn't watch the video link did you? I know you didn't, not to have said that.

          Now, listen to this. A very smart person once pointed out to me, whoever has the strongest conviction and articulation, WINS. Facts be damned. Because, peoples critical thinking in the U.S has been deliberately thwarted by the powers that be so they don't 'get' that they're being shafted up the rear. Are you now going to contest that the U.S education system doesn't suck?
          Please, no seriously, please. This said....you have sheeple on either side, believing whatever, because of the convincingness of a speaker. I haven't even seen Gore's movie. I don't need entertainment to inform me. There's hard science. Some corporate paid scientists get paid to contest the findings, and voila. If a person doesn't want to believe it, now he has some 'legitimate' science to hang his argument on. BUT, if you look at the link, the opposition to the science of Gores film, is then, taken apart by a physicist, and makes too much sense to me. AND, always
          always always, follow the money. FOLLOW THE MONEY. When you follow the money, anti-global warming strategies would have people looking into decreasing dependency on OIL.
          $$$$$$$. Not good.
          "people dont think for themselves or do their own research."

          I think for myself. But research??? Huh?? I want BIG NERDS doing the research. I like NERDS to do the research. I like the nerd in the link, who took the other nerds to task.
    • libkarl2, on 04/05/2008, -2/+9If I could make things go away simply by choosing not believe in them, Conspiracy Theories and Stupid People would cease to exist.
      • smackphat, on 04/05/2008, -3/+2I didn't think it was possible to believe yourself out of existence.
    • aroundtown, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5Theres another hour for you.
  • robwolf100, on 04/05/2008, -34/+28Propaganda scare tactics at its best
    • Hayaemsay, on 04/05/2008, -3/+17It may exaggerate, but the message is valid.
      • PopcornDave, on 04/05/2008, -12/+6How so? If that generation can't drink water, has no food or air to breathe, how are they even alive to explain anything to in the first place?
    • akamurph, on 04/05/2008, -6/+1No *****! Can't diggers come up with better ***** to get on the front page instead of this same old crap?
  • phyuk, on 04/05/2008, -21/+153explain to me how theres gona be a future generation when theres no air to breathe and no water to drink....
    • Phyltre, on 04/05/2008, -0/+56Didn't you read the sign?! Clearly they'll drink the land, breathe the water, and farm the air!
      • evilbunnys2, on 04/05/2008, -6/+1Comment of the week.
      • Culyt, on 04/05/2008, -2/+2That would be awesome. Giant flying farm cities, molecular assemblers capable of turning soil into h2o for drinking and separating the oxygen from the hydrogen for the atmosphere.
        Everyone pollute so we can get right on that.
    • aoneal417, on 04/05/2008, -2/+5hey, we've endured terrible threats like that before and have survived... just think of Waterworld, they made it through difficult times
    • JointVenture, on 04/05/2008, -6/+3With punks these days I could give a ***** about their future.
    • Envark, on 04/05/2008, -1/+0We'll have passed the singularity by that time; spiritual machines do not require drinkable water or cleanable air.
    • Independentsam, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3There will be future generations. I would guess that none of the replies to your post were made by people with children or grandchildren.

      I guess what bothered me the most is that the "Waterworld" reference is possible.
    • itstodd, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1at least there will be plenty of morons to pick on... yes i was referring to you. i knew you wouldnt get that.
  • 2468ben, on 04/05/2008, -41/+3Wow, that is a completely tasteless image of the 9/11 attacks.
    • slayernine, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5did you even look at the picture?
      • juankovo, on 04/05/2008, -6/+12468ben was JOKING, people.
        • nonstop87, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Are you sure? This is the internet we are talking about here.
    • Dr00pieS, on 04/05/2008, -0/+9I didn't know that the countries coal plants were attacked?
      Did I miss something?
    • Murdats, on 04/05/2008, -0/+14is that you Rudy Giuliani ?
    • jgtg32a, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Well in your defense I thought it was 9/11 related also, but then I clicked on the link.
    • ralphthemagi, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2You know, it's hard to tell if that's a troll or not. If it's not, I actually find that fascinating that is how someone would interpret that.
  • mrgeekguy, on 04/05/2008, -13/+8Ummm, if they couldn't do any of those things, they'd be dead. So no need to explain anything!
  • fabiosir, on 04/05/2008, -18/+13Explain to the future why their ancestors were so retarded that someone thought this image was a strong message.

    It's just really crappy art. People cram "political messages" into art and think they're special, but it's really just *****.
    • jonmlm, on 04/05/2008, -1/+1i'm sure you're changing the world with all of your digg comments. good work.
      • Soave, on 04/05/2008, -1/+2He never claimed to want to change the world.

        He also never claimed that he wanted to shove his political message in everyone's face by defacement of public property.
  • TheLastFreeMan, on 04/05/2008, -13/+8The smokestacks spewing out the black ***** is a metaphor for MrBabyMan's Submit Story button.
  • matthughes, on 04/05/2008, -19/+3get over it
    • tehknotte, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5that sounds like something a guy whose excuse for smoking is "everything today gives you cancer", would say.
  • mrfunktastic, on 04/05/2008, -16/+5It's actually kind of a brilliant image. Some might see the twin towers, some might see twin refinery smokestacks, evoking pollution from oil dependency. The smoke coming out of the top evokes a camel reaching toward the Middle East, and the three dots loosely represent Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Kudos to the artist that made it.
    • DemonWasp, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5So...what do you see on a Rorschach test?
    • tricks574, on 04/05/2008, -1/+0Stop doing Meth, it is bad for you
    • tehbored, on 04/05/2008, -1/+2OK, you are totally misinterpreting it. Not to mention over analyzing. "Pollution bad" is pretty much the whole message here.
  • aoki4, on 04/05/2008, -20/+10***** crying hippies
    • Dr00pieS, on 04/05/2008, -2/+5I hear their tears are 100% organic now.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3Buncha bitches aren't they? *snickers*

      But on a serious note. Global warming has far from conclusively been proven to be manmade. in fact, we account for less than 5% of carbon emissions, the oceans got us beat. turns out, they LIKE the ***** carbon. Plants EAT the *****! SO STOP IT! and plus, i'm a liberal hippie, ya jerk. and this is far from being a dem/rep - con/lib issue, it's about reason and reading some ***** real statistics. you people piss me off. there are ways to find out exact answers. i propose starting off watching al gores movie "an inconvenient truth", then watching "the great global warming swindel", then researching, and coming to your own conclusion.
  • mfc5200, on 04/05/2008, -11/+21Listen, I'm all for preservation of the environment. But it seems the artist here didn't know that developed countries have the cleanest air, water, and soil.

    It's developing countries that tend to abuse their environments more. Just compare Western Europe and US to Southeast Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, etc etc etc.
    • liquidpele, on 04/05/2008, -2/+11Well, a lot of this is because companies in Western countries do their manufacturing/etc in "developing" countries to get around anti-pollution laws so that it's cheaper for them. So, it's our "culture" doing it, but it's that local country's laws that allow it. Who to blame can be argued, but I think we're all to blame since the developing country isn't curbing pollution and the developed ones aren't putting tariffs on imports from the developing country to make it not profitable for the company doing the pollution anymore (blame WTO). Why, oh why, can't we just put large tariffs on imports from countries with lower quality pollution and labor laws? Oh yea, because we want to buy oil for cheap :(
      • tricks574, on 04/05/2008, -2/+1That and it would kill their economy and their people would starve, but hey, we can't let the blue shrub brush in southern Florida go extinct!!!! It provides such a vital link in the ecosystem that only 50 other species of birds could do.
        • Danktolker, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2By kill their economy you mean take money out of the pockets of their highly corrupt leaders and by starving their people you must mean...hold on, these people are already starving?! Aw shucks, at least by letting these governments ruin the environment a select few can remain rich...hip hip hooray for capitalism!
    • N0vember, on 04/05/2008, -1/+1In a sense, they only do the bad polluting work for us, and we are just so happy about that.
      It's obviously not as simple as that, but still, much of their pollution is generated through a production which destination is : western countries.
      Take also into account that much of our toxic wastes are exported to eastern countries, like India.
    • Crisender111, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3WTF are you talking about moron?

      "The USA is the world's biggest polluter."

      http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html
  • matthughes, on 04/05/2008, -7/+13explain to me what mr. babyman does for a living....i mean really. that dude is everywhere!
    • Tetraca, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Rupert Murdoch pays him per story to keep up the bread and circus so important stories don't have any space on the front page, while we sit here and write witty or moreso fad comments on pictures about turtles eating and people getting hit in the groin with a football.
  • compuser1, on 04/05/2008, -9/+2someones dramatic
  • foofoobee, on 04/05/2008, -16/+8Buried as lame
  • dkay, on 04/05/2008, -3/+47The message is not necessarily targeting global warming. Its a statement that industrialization must be conscious of our impact on future generations. Take the ever rising levels of mercury found in fish as an example of the damage that we humans can have on the environment.
    Propaganda or not, for those that have kids, the future can be a scary thought.
    • tracywood, on 04/05/2008, -9/+2Exactly. I know that global warming is a hoax, BUT, I am an environmentalist and want us off polluting energy ASAP. I'm just not prepared to LIE to people in order to achieve that like Al Gore is so willingly prepared to. But he was going to be a President, so that says a lot. I like the image. Let's clean the air and the water, but stay away from this global warming BS.

      Once the US population wakes up to the BS of global warming, how are we then supposed to be able to get them concerned about the environment when they feel like total dicks for being conned for a decade. Stop the BS before no one cares anymore.

      Al Gore = The little boy that cried wolf...
      • Phyraxus, on 04/05/2008, -1/+4Global warming isn't a hoax.
      • carolineiscool, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4I don't know how you can claim you are an "environmentalist" and say that global warming is a hoax. maybe you don't understand the concept, it should be called global climate change more appropriately. All of the actions taking place currently by environmentalists are to prevent destructive and economically inefficient activities which degrade the environment, which us humans have to rely on for the future. What would be your purpose for doing it otherwise?? Global climate change is going to be the consequence of our wasteful commodity oriented lifestyles, inefficient industrial processes, and overpopulating world. So to say there aren't going to be really really scary and unfortunate consequences from all that us humans have done to this small little world supporting 6 billion or so people, is just plain naive.
        • Kythas, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1It's changed to Global Climate Change just so the members of the Church of Global Warming can cover all their bases.

          Recent data shows a cooling trend, while just 2-3 years ago we were bombarded with stories of how hot the world is getting (hence, global warming). But since warming does not seem to be the trend, the global warming alarmists have changed the moniker to global climate change.

          Guess what, skippy? The global climate DOES change, and HAS changed, for as long as the earth has been spinning in space. It has nothing to do with driving SUVs or whatnot - it has to do with the change in the amount of solar radiation emitted from the sun, the variances in the earth's orbit around the sun, the wobble of the earth's rotation, etc.

          Get over yourselves if you're narcissistic enough to believe that you're so powerful you can change a global climate. The temperature of the earth changes due to the earth's source of heat - the sun. Period. End of story.

          That said, we should get off fossil fuels and find cleaner energy. I want a clean planet to give to my kids. But don't confuse pollution, which we have control over, with global warming (or climate change, or whatever it's currently in vogue to call it this year) which we don't.
          • carolineiscool, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2I don't know if you ***** read what I said. My only concern isn't the climate. That is one among many. I said the e n v i r o n m e n t. That means nature and all the living things around us humans, which we must learn to live in harmony with. We are destroying the environment by our wasteful ways and it can be seen, it's obvious. The climate trends are still something that is not fully understood, I can admit to that. However, don't put ***** words in my mouth and accuse me of aiming towards something unattainable. The weather is something that hasn't been figured out, as you put it. Don't act like it is all figured out already and that your conclusions are accepted by climatologists and environmentalists alike. I don't see how you can claim that SUVs or pollution in general don't alter the weather. So you are saying that green house gases which are emitted from a tail pipe of car or industries have no part in changing the weather, or never will? I don't see how a claim like that can be made, back your claims with some evidence and then maybe i'll be some what persuaded.
            I speak to inform others and to clarify their misconceptions. In no way do I think I can change the climate by myself, that's the reason why I'm informing people. PEOPLE need to know about this stuff. Obviously it's not understood by everyone, and people become consumed in politics and with the ***** that is on the news.
            Get the ***** over yourself, go educate yourself or something, read a ***** book for that matter and stop belittling others just to make your self feel better.
    • neutralmind, on 04/05/2008, -1/+3"..for those that have kids..."
      Diggers will not be worried. /joke
  • hansk, on 04/05/2008, -9/+3OK Mr spray painter, what would you recommend? WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND?!!!!!!!!!
  • IpwnZnoobs, on 04/05/2008, -11/+5The graffiti artist that designed this was probably Amish.
  • apache2, on 04/05/2008, -8/+2Okay. I'll gladly tell them. Where they at? I don't mind.
  • mrzack, on 04/05/2008, -18/+12 Humans have no control over Global warming because it's dictated by the sun's activities, but humans do have control over how efficient and less wasteful they can be. Human pollution kills humans, animals, and destroys the land and air, but that is NOT the cause for the earth warming up. Volcanoes spew more toxic pollutants into the air than human industry.
  • bigwrestlerguy, on 04/05/2008, -10/+2Your sparse words that appeal to idealistic pre-teenagers lack the common knowledge found throughout the world.
  • wsuBobby, on 04/05/2008, -20/+4Hippie propaganda. Hey buddy... way to hate industry. Way to hate technology and the forward movement of the human race. A better solution... Playing hacky sack in the park and holding hands.

    lol... submitted by: MrBabyMan - my point exactly.
    • blorguehad, on 04/05/2008, -4/+7you failz. Technology is not coal burning earth destroying factories that employ slave labor aka little Chinese kids who are paid pennies a day.
  • 15thPD, on 04/05/2008, -16/+7If these ***** hippies had their way we'd be living in tents and hunting buffalo, without electricity or running water. Yes, we're polluting the environment. No, we can't change that. No, it isn't going to destroy the world. Ever.
    • jeremyosborne81, on 04/05/2008, -6/+6What's wrong with living in tents and hunting buffalo without electricity or running water? I'll gladly take a simpler time, as long as it includes our current human rights and modern medicine.
      • sl123000, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4It doesn't work that way.
      • jgtg32a, on 04/05/2008, -1/+6Because the earth couldn't support us if we were all living in tents and moving around, hunting and what not.
      • blast_flame, on 04/05/2008, -0/+4That's all fine and good if that is what you personally wish to do but never force that upon others. I for one am looking forward to the technological innovations of the future and gain most of my pleasure from utilizing those of the present.
    • Parker307, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I've been looking for this pro littering type position. Everybody says throwing trash out your window is bad and you never hear the other side.
  • DEaDIRiS, on 04/05/2008, -9/+11The last time we listened to radical environmentalists they told us how nuclear power was destroying the planet, so we immediately stopped making them. Now look where we're at. Let's take our time and make sure we're making the right decisions and we simply do not have enough information yet and probably won't for many more years.
    And stop trying to make us feel bad, were good people and we want less pollution too and we've made many good strives in the last couple decades. We just want sound judgement and were not getting it from you.
    • piradians, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1How about that time we listened to radical environmentalists and we stopped using lead in our gas. Boy that was stupid! And then we listened to radical environmentalists who told us to stop using CFCs. Psht, the ozone never actually needed our help or anything! Boy, these radical environmentalists sure have a maniacal agenda!
  • ventralnet, on 04/05/2008, -8/+3Won't have to explain... I'll be long dead
    • evaDlivE, on 04/05/2008, -0/+3You need to keep a journal:
      "Dear great great great great grandsomething. Today, I drove to the lake, it was wicked awesome. Apparently because I did this, your life is *****. But, to be honest, I had such a great day that I really don't give a ***** because I'm long dead. So I'll pop this beer in your honour. Yours not really very sympathetically, great great great great grandomethingelse."

      That way, you can explain, and gloat at the same time :)
      Dugg allll the way up!
  • trolleyfan, on 04/05/2008, -5/+5Explain to future generations why there _are_ future generations when it's inevitable that - someday - they won't be _able_ to farm the land, breath the air [or] drink the water...

    "Sustainable" is a myth in any universe with entropy in it.
    • uberdilly, on 04/05/2008, -1/+5yea i guess the universe will eventually contract again.... why bother with anything
      • blast_flame, on 04/05/2008, -0/+5Remember if we keep advancing technologically we might be able to break out of this universe into another younger one.
        • uberdilly, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1well im not going to pretend to know the feasibility of that... but good point. dugg
      • tehbored, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2No, actually it'll keep expanding until there is no usable energy left.
        • uberdilly, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1ugh at which point it will contract from gravity.... right professor?????
        • aquadoctorbob, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1@uberdilly
          Hate to sound like a huge nerd but gravity is way too weak to overcome the accelerating expansion of the universe. We'll probably be ripped to shreds thanks to dark energy, or fizzle out in the Big Freeze (i.e. heat death).
        • evaDlivE, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1I thought Dr Stephen Hawking changed his mind and the universe is not expanding infinitely - it's actually on the rebound from the Big Bang.
    • tehbored, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Well duh, the point is just to be as sustainable as possible.
    • evaDlivE, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1trolleyfan - it seems that your post is a bit too intellectual for the average digger (not to mention the average eco-psycho). Therefore, as logical and correct as your post is you will be consigned to negativity value and ultimate burial.

      For the record - I dugg you up as I have more than two functioning braincells.
  • MasterMynd, on 04/05/2008, -1/+3i like a little sarcasm with my guilt trip
  • dualityim, on 04/05/2008, -4/+7It's funny that people think they have the capacity to think for future generations, when most of the time people can't even think for their future selves.
    • uberdilly, on 04/05/2008, -3/+4It's funny how you think conservation of natural resources is imposing our values.
  • uberdilly, on 04/05/2008, -2/+3I think the greatest atrocity isnt our consumption of oil but the fact that we are wasting it all by burning it.
  • forgeflow, on 04/05/2008, -11/+4boo hoo.
    p.s. anthropogentic global warming is a lie.
    p.p.s. the cake is a lie!
    • jgtg32a, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1As a member of the church of druids you need to be dugg down
      As a member of the Valve Temple you need to be dugg up
  • jbr824, on 04/05/2008, -7/+8What have future generations done for me?
    • Trublmakr, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Ever been to a nursing home? Thats how we treat the greatest generation. The Boomers ought to be scared ***** - perhaps a good thing because there won't be a lot of volunteers to change diapers.
  • 2ndEdition, on 04/05/2008, -8/+3fck the next generation. i want to enjoy life now.
  • soot, on 04/05/2008, -5/+6Oh look, another MrBabyMan submission from yesterday's reddit front page.
    • yacks, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Atleast it's not another MrBabyMan submission from Digg's Front Page of 3 days ago..
    • evaDlivE, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Looks like the MrBabyMan acolytes are digging you down........what, they're digging me down too! Arrrgghh help me, I'm being oppressed. The TRUTH, the TRUTH, it hurts, but it's still the TRUTH damn you!!!!
  • TremorX, on 04/05/2008, -3/+8"I think we should make the world better for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex."
  • Mikhail101, on 04/05/2008, -7/+2Too bad I nobody will have to coz we will be dead by then
  • Moses410, on 04/05/2008, -11/+4***** you
  • blast_flame, on 04/05/2008, -2/+2As scary as it may sound the solution to global warming is geo-engineering. Technological solutions like geo-engineering are the only solutions that will solve global warming without decreasing the quality of lives of people.
    • whatever01, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because turning the lights off in the room when I leave is such a drag. Seriously, there's plenty we can do to decrease our footprint without significantly impacting our quality of life. I started cycle commuting, and love it. I hate the days when I have to drive now - talk about decreasing the quality of my life!
      • blast_flame, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1A new study came out that suggested if we were to try to reduce our carbon footprint as a solution to global warming we would have to reduce it to near zero. That isn't turning lights off when you leave that's banning motorized transport and computers.
  • fubuvsfitch, on 04/05/2008, -6/+5Grammatically incorrect. The 'and' in the last line should read 'or', as in 'breathe the air or drink the water'.
    • fubuvsfitch, on 04/05/2008, -0/+2God this is why I hate some of the mindless fags on digg. I got digged down for pointing out that if the dude wants to get his point across, he should use correct grammar.
      • gavintlgold, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Maybe the people who tried to digg you up had problems with the comments system .... :(
      • lowhauler, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Okay, I digg your point. But I think "dugg" is probably the correct simple past form of "to digg". And I do have a problem with "mindless fags". Up for the point, down for the casual homophobia.
      • 33PercentGod, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1I'm with you. Douchebags on here are more concerned about the story's punctuation as opposed to the story itself.
  • andrewdevlin, on 04/05/2008, -5/+9Damn hippies...with their stencils, and their...music...
    • kokoves, on 04/05/2008, -1/+0i don't like you
      • 33PercentGod, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Was that one REALLY that hard to tell the difference be