HOME | DD
Conservatoons — Gaia Uber Alles
Published: 2009-11-14 17:02:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 1834; Favourites: 26; Downloads: 14
Redirect to original
Description
*Related content
Comments: 35
That was so creepy & stupid that I watched the whole thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
HOW DARE YOU TRY TO LIVE! Cavemen are so selfish aren't they.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We all are, citizen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
prob family he has never helped out. Tho maybe that is not so bad. Got a worthless uncle here..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gah!
He wants to change the world and he can't even help his own families out?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well he would prob have to use his own money. Socialists are only generous w/ OPM.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, how dare we mourn the deaths of innocent babies who never seen life due to abortion. The world's over populated anyway. We gotta protect the planet, mang!
*vomits*
It's so disgusting how people worship this planet instead of the One who created it! Since when did this planet become so great that human lives are now of less value?!
👍: 0 ⏩: 5
since nature happened. People die. A whole planet shouldn't have to.
Also, aborted fetuses are not babies. Do you cry every time you jack off because those "babies" die? where is the line drawn? For me it's drawn when the creature can feel pain and begins to think. Even fish do that, but fetuses... not so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So in other words, you feel remorse over the death of a tadpole than a human baby. Wow, you're just like the ingrate hippie in the comic above.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not a baby. It's a bunch of cells. Get over it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If that were true, I would. The fetus that you call a bunch of cells, consist of parent's DNA. (ya know, the mommy and daddy genes...) This basically means that this is a brand new baby in the making. If anyone kill off the baby while he is in his smallest stage of life, then a crime has been committed.
BUT of course you wouldn't know anything about that...we gotta kill humans to save the planet anyway, aint that right? 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
wow! epic comment! nicely done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't think I could have said it any better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You're creating a false dichotomy. You're suggesting that by promoting sustainability we have to disregard third world countries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Largely a hoax. And cost more in human lives (real lives) than it was worth. I would use it tomorrow.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you're OK with that? It's a dishonest debate technique.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Nations must be rich to participate in your eco nonsense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In the Al Gore era, sustainable is libspeak for: subsidized ie not economically sustainable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you really consider this "The Al Gore Era?" He's not that important. You always go after him as if he were the originator of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Also sustainable means an all encompassing sustainability economic, environmental, and social sustainability.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The environmental movement has adopted "sustainability", as a justification for reducing our consumption of natural resources.
On the face of it sustainability sounds like a legitimate goal. To the extent that sustainability is a useful thing for humans to practice, free markets provide the best mechanism for that to happen. As a specific resource is gradually depleted, its cost goes up. This leads to the development of new technologies that then become more cost competitive. For instance, overfishing of ocean waters has lead to fish farming in manmade ponds. Then, as a result of reduced pressure, this allows ocean stocks to replenish themselves gradually.
The adaption to dwindling resources that free markets automatically provide then prevents the resource from ever getting used up. That so many people fret over dwindling natuarl resources is one more example of the simple linear thinking that leads people to believe that global warming will be a serious problem. They see a current trend, and extrapolate it far into the future, not realizing that there are other forces at work that help stabilize the system.
This simple linear thinking that causes some people to worry about the climate system is the same simplistic thinking that also prevents them from understanding the self-regulating nature of the free market economic system. It is tempting to call these people ignorant, because they do not seem to be aware of basic fundamental principles.
Similar types of linear thinking lead to the oft-reported claim that species are going extinct every day due to the human pressures on ecosystems. This theory is definitely not a scientific observation, and is little more than urban legend. New species are still being discovered by biologists every year. How is it that we could know there are no remaining members of a species anywhere in the world, but then we discover a new species we never knew existed? No wonder so many people are confused about true science ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
way to back out of reasonable debate. pussy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The environmental movement has adopted "sustainability", as a justification for reducing our consumption of natural resources.
On the face of it sustainability sounds like a legitimate goal. To the extent that sustainability is a useful thing for humans to practice, free markets provide the best mechanism for that to happen. As a specific resource is gradually depleted, its cost goes up. This leads to the development of new technologies that then become more cost competitive. For instance, overfishing of ocean waters has lead to fish farming in manmade ponds. Then, as a result of reduced pressure, this allows ocean stocks to replenish themselves gradually.
The adaption to dwindling resources that free markets automatically provide then prevents the resource from ever getting used up. That so many people fret over dwindling natuarl resources is one more example of the simple linear thinking that leads people to believe that global warming will be a serious problem. They see a current trend, and extrapolate it far into the future, not realizing that there are other forces at work that help stabilize the system.
This simple linear thinking that causes some people to worry about the climate system is the same simplistic thinking that also prevents them from understanding the self-regulating nature of the free market economic system. It is tempting to call these people ignorant, because they do not seem to be aware of basic fundamental principles.
Similar types of linear thinking lead to the oft-reported claim that species are going extinct every day due to the human pressures on ecosystems. This theory is definitely not a scientific observation, and is little more than urban legend. New species are still being discovered by biologists every year. How is it that we could know there are no remaining members of a species anywhere in the world, but then we discover a new species we never knew existed? No wonder so many people are confused about true science ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fish farming is unhealthy for the environment and consumers. If the species needs to replenish itself than we can afford to do without for a while.
Linear thinking is more logical than speculation, and replenishment is not a guarantee. Why risk it?
There are scientists monitoring species populations and doing a damn good job. Of course they may not be 100% accurate in knowing whether an animal may have a few members left in the wild. If there are few enough to not be readily observable by people actively seeking them out with refined methods and equipment, that is a problem. A species that sparse will be extinct before long.
I'd like to know what your conception of "true science" is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It'll be good to be able to plant corn in Greenland again... and they can revive the wine industry in England, also.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. One would think Canadians & Russians would be cheering Global Warming on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0