.




























the people...well, they're fucked

[/carlin]

8/29/2005 12:20:20 AM

Is he wrong? We could detonate thermonuclear warhead over every last square inch of dry land on this planet, and the planet itself would still survive. Yes a whole shitload of life would be killed off, not to mention us, but the planet and all that biomass would still exist, and we're not even including all the shit in the oceans that would survive. Life would eventually reclaim the surface, and everything would go back to being honky-dory.

But really, what do we really mean when we say "save the planet?" Species have been dying off long before humans came along, so it's not like we're doing the environment a favor by trying to preserve every last life form. If something important does die off, say, a predator that keeps the other local species in check, then you'll have a huge growth among those species until competition for resources acts as the only check-and-balance. And who knows, eventually another predator will come in and replace the previous one.

Saving the rain forest is all and good, but I'm pretty sure entire forests have been disappearing for years without the help of humans. Granted we make that shit disappear a lot quicker, but even the very land we sit on is in a constant state of flux. Land masses drift apart, new mountain ranges form, new islands grow, plains get flooded by oceans, new rivers get carved from the rock and sediment, blah blah blah. Things have been dying off and changing long before we ever came into the picture.

So what do we mean by "save the planet?" All we really mean is that we ought to preserve nature the way it is because the way it is now is what sustains us. We're not doing "mother nature" a favor, we're really just trying to save our own sorry asses.

8/29/2005 1:03:28 AM

I have a real problem with saving our own sorry asses

8/29/2005 2:00:35 AM

^^ Not even that. Which species on this planet could WE not live without? Whales? Lions? Tigers? Cockroaches? Mosquitoes?

I suspect we could soldier on without any of these species. Sure, the would be far less entertaining, so we should do something. But we souldn't dellude ourselves into believing we are doing it in the name of self-preservation.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 8:37 AM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 8:35:46 AM

its all about plastic

the planet needed plastic

8/29/2005 9:39:23 AM

If you wanna relate all this to us humans, I quess, the main thing we are currently doing is climate change. We all know all the stories of how the world is heating up faster then it should be and greenhouse gasses and the like. How the alarming rate of polar melting will cause a shift in climate. Therefore, droughts in some places, floods in others, and increased unpretictable hurricanes and typhoons. Then you have cellestial missles like comets and astroids. So, as you can see, there is reason to be upset. It would be possible to try and slow down our pollution but that wont happen untill we find alternative cleaner burning fuels. For the armageddon type situation with comets and astroids, many methods of deflection and eradication have been preposed. Who's to say when that day comes we will be ready. But, yes the world still has a healthy life ahead of it never the less.

8/29/2005 10:09:05 AM

There's nothing wrong with the universe. There are no problems.

8/29/2005 10:11:50 AM

We need to hurry up and terraform mars.


CAUSE RIGHT NOW WE GOT ALL OUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET>

8/29/2005 10:12:08 AM

We oughta make the moon a docking station first. Use that bitch as a slingshot to get us there.

8/29/2005 10:16:16 AM

That'd only work a few days out of the month. That would never work.

8/29/2005 10:17:38 AM

poppycock...





I have no idea, it sounded like an idea to me when I first heard it.

8/29/2005 10:19:21 AM

What we SHOULD do is, slingshot around the sun like in Star Trek 4.

Go back in time to the time of the dinosaurs, kill them all off, and then live till the Ice age.




WASH, RINSE, REPEAT

8/29/2005 10:23:16 AM

We're not fucked at all. Its going to take a hell of a lot to threaten our existence on this planet. Unfortunately we can only say the same for rats, roaches and mold.

Quote :

"...Saving the rain forest is all and good, but I'm pretty sure entire forests have been disappearing for years without the help of humans. "

Exaclty how are rainforests "disappearing" without our help?

Quote :

"Sure, the would be far less entertaining, so we should do something"

"Far less entertaining" - this is your perceived reason for saving endangered species....nice

8/29/2005 11:21:42 AM

8/29/2005 12:34:51 PM

Quote :

"Which species on this planet could WE not live without? Whales? Lions? Tigers? Cockroaches? Mosquitoes?"

you're deluded if you think that losing species isn't a big deal. The food web isn't called the food web because it sounded like a good name. Some Ecosystems are connected as deeply as the neurons in your brain, and the more interconnecting points you lose, the more quickly it falls apart.

8/29/2005 12:50:04 PM

Note that the world population exploded circa 1981, the year of my birth. My pimp juice is the reason for the population growth. I can stop it whenever I want to.

8/29/2005 12:50:41 PM

Quote :

"you're deluded if you think that losing species isn't a big deal. The food web isn't called the food web because it sounded like a good name."

But unless you didn't notice, Humans are not dependent upon the "food web" as other animals are. We have built our own "food web" which it largely independent from the natural one we inherited. And with a minimal effort, we could manage the few aspects which are interconnected.

8/29/2005 1:04:30 PM

If we dont need it, then why save it? Am I right?

8/29/2005 1:10:51 PM

No, you are not right. Just because we don't need something doesn't me we don't want it.

I want to be able to go see and pet lions, tigers, and bears. As such, I'm willing to pay money to do so, hence the creation of Disney's Animal Kingdom. Inside which, none of the animals are in danger of extinction.

8/29/2005 1:15:57 PM

If its of no worth to humans, then its not worth saving. Am I right?

8/29/2005 1:18:54 PM

Worth is difficult to judge, especially with our limited understanding. But yes there are numerous species I'd actually enjoy watching go extinct.

8/29/2005 1:33:23 PM

^^ Now you've got it! Congratulations!

8/29/2005 1:43:55 PM

I want to point out that this so called ecosytem does extend to all animals, even the ones we consider annoying. Think about whales for an instance. Loneshark, you said we could live without them right. Thats true, but think of the whales overall purpose first. The whale dines on plankton such as krill. Sea plankton is consumed by all manner of smaller fishes of the sea. Bigger fish eats smaller fish and so on. This food chain leads up to sharks right. If you get rid of the whales more food is left for the fishes. Therefore, more sharks to feed upon them. So, you see in destroying one animal you increase another species that is considered an even greater pest to humans. Also, Mosquitos lay their larvae in esturaries which are the nursing ground for growing fish. It is here that the larvae are used as food for fish such as croaker, spot and whatnot. If we didn't have mosquitos then we sure wouldn't have a good fishing economy on our sea board. Cycles, thats all it's about.

8/29/2005 1:47:39 PM

We need the whales to tell that probe thing in Star trek 4 to fuck off.

8/29/2005 1:55:30 PM

Well it doesn't matter now that Scotty is extinct.

8/29/2005 1:59:20 PM

Quote :

"^^ Now you've got it! Congratulations! "

You're outrageous to think that the only things with a right to exist are things that serve humans.

8/29/2005 2:08:23 PM

Quote :

"right to exist"

hahahhahahahahahahahahah

8/29/2005 2:15:01 PM

Quote :

"But unless you didn't notice, Humans are not dependent upon the "food web" as other animals are. We have built our own "food web" which it largely independent from the natural one we inherited. And with a minimal effort, we could manage the few aspects which are interconnected. "

HGAHAHAHAHHA that's rich

not dependent on the food web? That's crazy talk. we're not DIRECTLY dependent on the food web. Well, actually WE personally aren't, but millions in non-industrial areas definitely ARE.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 2:15:04 PM

well...we're not really worried about the brown people.

in case you havent noticed, we like to bomb brown people

8/29/2005 9:48:31 PM

Carlin is a genius

8/30/2005 12:31:30 AM

If this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed.

8/30/2005 1:10:54 AM