Agreed. The best Humor is supposed to convey some difficult to accept truth about the environment or ourselves. This joke reminds me of jokes about bald people.

"YOU'RE BALD!!!" that's the joke.
with some extra 'therefore you can't do X'

with all the unique creatures that have evolved on this planet, many in seemly impossible environments, it is only logical to believe there are some alien life forms out there.

this story only adds to the possibility...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7wm7a/scientists-discover-nearly-1-billion-year-old-organisms-possibly-alive

...but the neighborhood cats have yet to catch any of the government drones, so can't confirm that.

Yes. Humor is an asset to all peoples. Even the Native Americans had their versions of Noah, Colbert, Kimmel, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyoka

Russell had a fav quote...

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

BUT this quote is more pertinent regarding today's environment...

The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other.

Effective January 1, 1996, leaded gasoline was banned by the Clean Air Act for use in new vehicles other than aircraft, racing cars, farm equipment, and marine engines.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/gasoline-and-the-environment-leaded-gasoline.php


Why not altogether? Who fuckin knows- prolly lead brained idiots think it's better for their farm equipment. They spew exhaust into the chief export of Indiana: Corn. You know, the syrup they put into basically every food you eat.


Fun Fact: "Lead does not biodegrade, or disappear over time, but remains in soils for thousands of years."
https://extension.psu.edu/lead-in-residential-soils-sources-testing-and-reducing-exposure

But hey, you can save a few pennies if you poison the entire planet for the next few thousand years now... so... VOTE REPUBLICAN

I can't imagine this would be anything but catastrophic to the surrounding environment.

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

I had to quit discussing things like this in private thanks to bob (and his sock puppets). I refuse now because he likes to be a completely different person in private, admitting things he would never admit in public conversation, admitting he’s lying, that Trump is an awful human being, etc. he ruined it.
Sorry…replying publicly.

If you can’t/won’t answer one simple question, there’s no point. I’m sick of answering all of yours and having you dodge mine….especially sick of it since you refuse to even acknowledge my answers and pretend I didn’t give you a straight answer. I refused to answer one red herring, biased, loaded, off topic question because I disagreed wholeheartedly with its premise, but answered every other you asked.
I feel like you’re wasting my time here..

I must point out, the question you continue to ignore trumps every question you asked….how can you deny the rights of legal women to compete in publicly funded contests as women? It’s their constitutional right to not be discriminated against based on gender. Case closed. Nothing overrides that legality.

I answered your question 3 times now. If you can’t understand, why keep trying? One last time, but I’m out. I’m not going to answer you without the same consideration.

There is no evidence that xx vs xy denotes one automatically has an advantage based on just chromosomal arrangements. None.

Women CAN be stronger, faster, better than men in most arenas, and vice versa. Genetic gender may indicate a likelihood random men will be stronger than random women, it alone does not dictate biological differences that can/will be advantageous in athletics. Hormone levels, hormone therapy, supplements, mental fortitude, training, environment, opportunities, dna, rna, diet, HGH, etc can all go into creating (or erasing) those possible physical “advantages” you reference, not just chromosomal arrangements. Since that’s true, discrimination based on chromosomal arrangements is not just wrong and illegal, it’s ignorant and evil.

I’ve been over that 3 times, now 4. I’ve given specific examples. What’s the issue in comprehension? Are you even reading? What?!

I’m bored of this. We won’t get anywhere with this one sided discussion where only one of us answers questions or pays attention to the answers. Fuggetaboutit. This isn’t a discussion

Have a nice day. Bye.

If you are talking policies that govern individuals, average is meaningless, you need to include the outliers. What I really said was, on average it’s somewhat true a bit more than half the time….with many exceptions, so incredibly far from a rule…far from “I can agree”.

You said “ Are you saying you do not believe that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)?”.
I pointed to one instance where (I assume) chromosomal males do not have an advantage over a chromosomal female in an athletic field….just an example of why I don’t believe it’s always true that people who are biologically male(By which I mean XY) have an advantage in athletics over people who are biologically female(by which I mean XX)..one you can’t contradict.

People are never equally gifted or talented, not even with themselves yesterday or tomorrow. I find the premise faulty.

Appears to, so far, in most but not all categories.
In many, the difference is minimal and an exceptional female will surpass males one day in most. Top ranked Kenyan woman already routinely beat top ranked non Kenyan males in long distance running, for one example.

I won’t extrapolate from a temporary skewed position, it leads to ridiculous conclusions….so I won’t be able to agree.
I can agree people believe that.

It’s not just sexual biology. It has nothing to do with genitals. It’s hormones, dna, rna, mental toughness, upbringing, training, health, environment, opportunity, etc. if someone born a woman wants to compete with men, and your position is correct, what’s the harm? If a trans woman, born male but never going through male puberty or taking estrogen and hormone blockers to reverse the effects wants to compete against women, what proof do you have to show any advantage? Two athletes excelling? Out of how many?

Now how expert are you in this field? Expert enough to define the exact point where each person has an advantage vs a disadvantage? I doubt it. But you think it’s fine to deny them the right to participate based on your ignorant assumptions. Do you accept such ignorant, biased assumptions to determine what you may do, how much you may participate in public events? I doubt you would accept it for a second. Think about that.

You want to equate them to non trans people while trying to prove how they’re so different. Pick a lane please.

No matter what your opinion, denying a citizen a chance to compete in public sports is totally unAmerican. I notice how you ignore that, as if to concede it under your breath. It doesn’t go unnoticed that you can’t address that. It IS the point.

Edit : as to the olympics, they have allowed trans gender athletes since 2004. If trans women are really men, why haven’t those records become equal between men and women?

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

Might be a tiny bit of good news on the warming front, but what about the sulfuric "pollution" effect of the areas the ashes reache? Vegetation, waterways, etc. I'm not just thinking about the effects on human, but on the living environment of animals.

"We live in an environment where we're not going to pass federal laws."

Yep, that about sums it up.

Nonsense. Pre industrial agriculture wasn’t very damaging in most cases…and when it was it was on a minuscule scale compared to industrial agriculture.
Pre industrial building wasn’t excessively environmentally damaging in most cases, certainly not to the point where it endangered the planet or it’s atmosphere.

It's utterly ridiculous hyperbole to say we have to be cavemen to not destroy our environment. We don't even have to revert to pre industrial methods, we just have to be responsible with our actions and lower the population massively. With minor exceptions, pre industrial farming caused little to no permanent damage, and it was almost all easily repairable damage. (With a few exceptions like Rapa Nui that may not have been over farming but cultural damage, we aren't exactly certain what happened there).

I eat berries now, don't you? I grow raspberries, blackberries, black raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, and Tay berries myself. People would be healthier if they ate berries, and they're tasty too. What?!

Yes, around 7 billion need to die (without procreating first). Better than all 9 billion.

There’s a huge difference between being occasionally deadly and so insanely toxic we destroy our own planet in under 200 years to the point where our own existence is seriously threatened.
Edit: toxicity levels matter as much as exposure levels. Cavemen impacted their environment at levels well below sustainability (mostly….the idea they killed the mammoths or mastodons off by hunting is, I believe, a myth….natural environmental changes seem much more likely to be the major influence in their extinction.). Per capita, modern humans have a much larger, more detrimental footprint than premodern humans, exponentially larger….and there’s like a hundred thousand times as many of us (or more) too. We need to reverse both those trends drastically if we are to survive long term.

Yes, progress includes risk, but risk can be managed, minimized, and not taken when it’s a risk of total destruction. We totally ignore risk if there’s profit involved.

This is a night time comedy show, not a science class. I think you expect WAY too much. It points out that there is a problem, it doesn’t have the time, or the audience to delve into the intricate chemical processes involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of them. It touched on them, and more importantly pointed out how they’ve been flushed into the environment Willy nilly by almost everyone who manufacturers with them.

Actually it’s both. The final forms aren’t stable in the real world, they shed particles that are ingested, vapors inhaled, who knows, they are likely absorbed through the skin from many products.

Assume they aren’t actually toxic, functioning as designed they coat digestive systems and, if the report is to be believed, individual cells in extreme cases, leading to things like digestive issues and vaccinations not working. In developing children, it sounds disastrous…and it’s everywhere and in everyone….often in high levels.

This is akin to a crop that’s mildly toxic, not one adjacent to a pre existing separate toxic weed. You can’t plant this crop without permanently contaminating the field, and adjacent fields, and the local water sources, and to lesser extent anyone who uses the crop. There’s no separate toxic weed here, just a toxic crop we keep planting in new places, making the contamination much much more widespread at constantly increasing levels with no way to clean it up and little knowledge of the long term effects of such contamination. Pretty big gamble to take with the entire planet just so your thin rain coat doesn’t leak, don’t you think? Especially with a non biodegradable easily spread but impossible to remove toxic chemical with relatively unknown cumulative effects and no method whatsoever for removing it from people or the environment….like this one.

To be fair, most of your complaints were addressed in the piece.

For instance, medical implants, fairly stable, yes, but not in extreme heat like cremation, so as used they’re toxic to the environment despite being considered stable and inert.

The reason to ban them all was also explained, banning one toxic substance at a time means one chemical bond difference and the company can go ahead with Cancer causer 2.0 for a decade until it’s banned for being toxic, and then repeat. It’s how they’ve operated for decades.

I’m fine with outlawing the entire class and putting the onus on the chemical companies to prove any new variants are safe instead of forcing the hamstrung epa to prove they’re unsafe. I also think any company that dumped it into waterways should be instantly and completely forfeited to pay for cleanup. No company has the funds to pay for cleanup, but their assets are at least a start.

Your video, Chuck Norris saves the environment, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.