http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3871/doom1qo2.jpg

and after all that, QGL is having a lan

Yet with new technologies we can reuse nuclear waste, producing a radioactive biproduct with a half life in the range of hundreds of years...

No more greenie propaganda.

why would gm crops die out?

if anything they'd spread far better without humans around to harvest them

^ dude, i really wish it was propaganda.... ignorance is bliss

Of course its propaganda, the way they slip in "gm crops die out" and "endangered species start recovering" like man is the big baddie.

And besides dont greenies always say how Gm crops will run rampant and out of control while man is around to control them, yet man dies out and they have no chance?

yeh but it's ok to lie if you have altruistic intentions, right?

Of course its propaganda, the way they slip in "gm crops die out" and "endangered species start recovering" like man is the big baddie.

well if you look at it from the angle of a healthy ecosystem, then yes man is the big baddie, i get annoyed at greenies as much as the next person but you cant deny that we are actually responsible for damaging the planet.

Nah i dont, but the way this little pic is represented as some sort of general interest thing is pretty disingenuous, and it was the "hidden" message that irked me.

if you hate humans so much why don't you kill yourself and set an example

i think the saddest thing to come from the extintion of man is that electric cars will be killed off forever

I suspect any event catastrophic enough to bring about human extinction is going to throw a lot of the things in that thing massively out of wack.

I have no idea how accurate or not that timeline is, but the scary thing is that whatever damage has been done, has been done in a pretty small timeframe

It should be "Immediately - journalists no longer write s*** articles"

I have no idea how accurate or not that timeline is, but the scary thing is that whatever damage has been done, has been done in a pretty small timeframe

Such little impact we have had that for all the monuments to our existence it can be mostly swept away in the short time frame of 200,000 years.

The earth's age is estimated to be around the 4.4 billion year mark which is several orders of magnitude greater than that.

I laugh at these misonthropic posts, what makes you think mankind is so special that we defy nature and are these all powerful beings when in the timeframe of the earths age and on the scale of the universe you cannot begin to understand how insignificant we are.

Whatever makes you feel your existence has meaning I guess.

We are all part of a 'system', our growth can be predicted through mathematics, our interactions via the same, the economy we have developed, chemical processes that go on dictating our behaviour. Keep wondering about the what ifs, and wonder if anyone will remember you within the next 50 years, let alone the next 200000, Which I am fraid to tell you is an insignificant number against the scale of infinity.

Hmm, now back to worrying about that next meteor hitting, or the sun exploding in a timeframe we can't really relate to since our lives are so short.

the reason that is stupid greeny propaganda is that they can't predict any of that s*** with any accuracy. how do they know carbon dixoide levels would fall, they have been naturally fluctuating for millions of years. if humans were extinct the radical changes that would happen in the environment and climate could cause massive changes. the whole "it was all go back to perfect normal super happy land" is utter s***, they can't predict the weather next month properly how can they expect to predict that?

the world without humans is as perfect as the world with humans. stupid animal loving tree hugging hippies.

you cannot begin to understand how insignificant we are.

does it make you feel cool to spin meaningless bs that proves people's lives are essentially meaningless? i reckon it's more the case of you not being able to understand how significant we are

if you hate humans so much why don't you kill yourself and set an example

ahahaha! touche!

The earth's age is estimated to be around the 4.4 billion year mark which is several orders of magnitude greater than that.

Duh, god made everything 6 thousand years ago!

predator, most stupid post I've ever seen, and not just because spelt misanthropic wrong

last edited by Jim at 12:08:17 16/Oct/06

I laugh at these misonthropic posts

I laugh at posts with misspelled big words. If you wanna flex your vocabulary run it through a spell checker first.

Damnit, Jim'd.

Hate you Jim.

does it make you feel cool to spin meaningless bs that proves people's lives are essentially meaningless? i reckon it's more the case of you not being able to understand how significant we are

f*** man you got it in one, it does make me feel cool! And you are cool for working that out!

If what I am saying is meaningless how does it prove anything?

Furthermore since you seem to be such an authority on practically everything that is posted in this forum, how significant are we?

Seems you have the answers to everything, being a mind reader and 'knowing' how significant we are :) You humble me with your genius, please share more of your insight with us, the uninformed masses.

btw slightly related, a friend of mine was telling me of some tv show he was watching about meteors etc and I ended up stumbling across this link as to a theory as to the extinction of dinosaurs:
asteroid coolness

I reckon something like that possibly has more impact than anything mankind has done so far if indeed the theory is correct.

Hogfather:

shrug, I made a spelling mistake, my bad! My apologies, that my post does not meet the stringent spelling requirements of this forum.

Just as well there are people such as yourself to police it! :) Perhaps dice will be kind enough to patronise me some more as I was hoping for more of a response than someone pointing out a spelling mistake.

Seems you have the answers to everything, being a mind reader and 'knowing' how significant we are :) You humble me with your genius, please share more of your insight with us, the uninformed masses.

you're meant to exaggerate or speak falsely when using sarcasm

ORLY WOW

you're meant to exaggerate or speak falsely when using sarcasm

You have identified my response as sarcasm, but if indeed I am not exaggerating or speaking falsely how can it be sarcasm?

It would seem upon making the above statement you are wrong either way?

Perhaps dice will be kind enough to patronise me some more

I think you've been patronising enough for everyone in this thread. f***, you've practically filled the forum quota for October with your opening post! :p

I think you've been patronising enough for everyone in this thread. f***, you've practically filled the forum quota for October with your opening post! :p

Laugh true, had a lot of catch up to do, glad I managed to rattle some cages, hmm back to lurking for me now I think, god forbid I get my post count up further.

glad I managed to rattle some cages

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

oh THAT'S what you were doing - lol!

oh THAT'S what you were doing - lol!

Er yeah that's right, god forbid actually rescinding my prior comment about 'people who hate mankind'.

ho ho ho ho!

yeah cos there's actually a post in this thread that is misanthropic

try saying something that's actually fallible as opposed to something that's just blatheringly stupid, if having your post rescinded is what you're after

and after all that, QGL is having a lan

Quoting this because it's f***ing funny.

Quoting this because it's f***ing funny.

Quoting this because the funny is absent on both accounts.

try saying something that's actually fallible as opposed to something that's just blatheringly stupid, if having your post rescinded is what you're after

Ok you got me, sure I may not have made my point succinctly in my original post, but how is it stupid?

Perhaps I am trying to reflect myself onto others, but after reading 1 or 2 books on chaos theory and some general reading on the nature of the universe. It would seem that certain patterns repeat themself on a small and large scale, and in what would appear to be completely different systems as mentioned in my first post, would indeed indicate there is some sort of common theory behind it all.

If you want when I have some spare time and am not at work, I could no doubt dig up some sources for you.

Furthermore I get the impression a lot of 'misanthropes' don't think we fit in the large scale of things. But if that were the case, surely the impact that we have on the environment around us would be more catastrophic. Perhaps some of the laws of physics would break down, perhaps we would have wiped out a significant part of the universe or we were bringing about the end of existence as we know it.

However this does not seem to be the case. Just earlier today I found out about some meteor strike which seems to be a nautral enough event causing more damage than mankind has, and its effects have been felt for millions of years. Yet when reading the first post of this thread I see most traces of man's presence on this planet would disappear after a mere 200000.

Hell I know I am not perfect, however I do try and be open minded, and it would seem a lot of people who say nature would be a lot better off without us, haven't really done much research into the many aspects of the environment/nature around us.

Animals kill each other for food, or just because there are 2 males fighting over a mate. What makes us worse?

How is survival of the fittest even remotely fair? It would seem to be one of the laws of nature, but who knows how many animals have died off which could have been the next step on the ladder toward a greater intelligence or improved social interaction amongst their kind or other species.

Honestly regardless of whether my post was presented the wrong way or not, I thought this thread was related to the effect man kind has on the environment and since it would seem the starting post was indicating it would be better without us. I was trying to make the point out, the yardstick for measuring this had an emotional, oh noes the poor plants and animals, basis, rather than something more empirical taking into account other aspects of 'nature' as it were.

I for sure don't know where we stand on the grand scale of things, but one would think if we didn't have a place here, we never would have evolved one way or the other in the first place.

last edited by Predator at 15:19:34 16/Oct/06

ah to be 18 and trying to sound as if a clue is present again

ah to be 18 and trying to sound as if a clue is present again

I hope your condescending forum presence is making up for whatever your other shortcomings are. Doesn't seem to be working considering what your post count is at and how rare it is for you not to be criticising someone in a negative manner.

Low self esteem? Does it help trying to make other people feel bad?

Ah to be any age and to think a clue is present ;)

Quoting this because the funny is absent on both accounts.

Oooooo did someone find amusement in the middle of one of your e-battles again dice? Smile!

predator, I have no idea where we stand in the grand scheme of things either. All I said was:

I have no idea how accurate or not that timeline is, but the scary thing is that whatever damage has been done, has been done in a pretty small timeframe

In my opinion, that was a pretty open-ended comment which made no claim to the alleged effect humans have had on the universe, or whether humans are allegedly bad for the universe. You then responded directly to it by quote, and subsequently launched into an unfounded tirade on a topic that had barely come up in this thread - presumably because it's a pet hate of yours and conflicts with something you've adopted as a personal belief, for whatever reason.


Incidentally, I _do_ believe that humans are certainly capable of having more than a token and temporary effect on at least the earth, and that we have the choice whether to or not. Whether anything we are doing now _is_ making a dent in the universe I don't actually know, but I assume it is. I don't believe this point of view is even remotely misanthropic either.

i question the validity of that time line.

just because man has gone doesn't mean the effects of what we done are all gone too.

for example, the introduction of foriegn species of flora and fauna isn't going to be undone by man disappearing.

Nor is the habitat of endangered species going to magically regenerate as soon as man vanishes.

to me that whole time line reeks of sensationalism.

i am sure there is a michael crichton book within the bowels of this discussion somewhere.

OH NOES MAN IS DESTROYING EARTH

its evolution, you cant argue with results

Low self esteem? Does it help trying to make other people feel bad?

are you admitting you feel bad?

Oooooo did someone find amusement in the middle of one of your e-battles again dice? Smile!

what?

If god made four wheel drives, what would he make?

the sensationalism and preditor raise valid points.

we have done a f*** load to this planet in a comparitavly short time. and if we are interested in the future, preserving "nature" etc. we have to be carefull and consider what we do.

HOWEVER, in the end. it won't change a single thing. because eventually the sun will f*** this earth up way worse than anything we can do to it.

this raises another point. perhaps we shouldn't worry so much about preserving this "nature" that we are use too, and consentrate on transforming another planets "nature" into one that closely resembles our own.

which raises another point. what is so bad about destroying the enviroment in the first place? we as humans live off domesticated animals. and crops and we control thoes enviroment. animals die. thats the price they pay for dareing to live. we are talking about change over time. so the animals die off. they don't suffer untill death. they just aren't as prosperous as before. i feel that the need to save the enviroment is a purely selfish thing to do. because untill we destroy every reproducing organism. there will be a "nature". its just how it looks is different. we only want to save the one we have because "we like it"... what do we need the enviroment there for anyway?

oh great another one

typo, god does make 4wd's they are called patrols :D

Tis all pretty pointless if there are no humans around to enjoy the changes.

no, there's just even less point

and after all that, QGL is having a lan

I lol'd. I heard teh next QGL lan is like the end of days. It will come when we least expect it. In fact, I think a QGL lan is one of the impossible events that will herald the coming of the apocolypse.

Edit: HTML error :D

last edited by Crizane Tribal at 21:31:10 16/Oct/06

Only one thing I agree with in this thread.

We shouldn't break the planet until we can harvest a new one... at which point in time, like a kid with a new toy, this one can trased, destroyed and thrown into the bin for all I care.

Repeat process consuming worlds.

Repeat process consuming worlds.

Try getting to a new planet. Space travel is a very long way off, I'd be shocked if we could inhabit another world within the next thousand years.

that enviro-propaghanda is full of errors & really, what is it supposed to achieve anyways? to make the sort of people that have a tendency towards self-indulgent guilt feel some guilt about conditions that are totally beyond thier control & responsibility perhaps, is one possible theory. for example, i reckon there would still be methane in there atmosphere much longer than 10 years after humans are gone because it is produced naturally by several processess.

ignorance sure is bliss, that's what i like about it, the blissfullness.

There's an article on NewScientist about this at the moment as well ...

Source: NewScientist

"The sad truth is, once the humans get out of the picture, the outlook starts to get a lot better," says John Orrock, a conservation biologist at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, California.

Try getting to a new planet. Space travel is a very long way off, I'd be shocked if we could inhabit another world within the next thousand years.

Yer, that's why I said we shouldn't destroy this one [completely] till then.

Zomg this makes me wanna go form an environmental terrorist group. We'll call it 'Avelanche', and we'll start by taking out power plants. I'll have a big whiney fap-fest over my identity issues then I'll stop some bad guy who's making a meteor crash into the planet.




f***, ASIO just kicked my door in and stuck a gun in my face :(

No they didn't.

i don't think we should ever destroy this planet ... why would you think of doing/allowing such a thing?