They sound like they are from the east coast.

tuh buh furs.

Thats so labrador

*air

HA HA HAW HAW HAW!!! His names "Steve French!" Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Makes me want to be a redneck canadian. I swear, I'd probably live happily for the rest of my days with such trite entertainment. At least until the US invaded.

*ria

*eia

Adding video to channels (Eia) - requested by ant.

Parasites.

>> ^chilaxe:

Parasites.


Parasiting who?

>> ^calvados:

>> ^chilaxe:
Parasites.

Parasiting who?


It takes about 100 million humans to maintain our current rate of innovation.

All the people who are incapable of accountability and who don't value intellectualism are just wasting resources, particularly when they injure themselves for no reason.

They are like this because they chose to be like this.

Did you ever think that these people are consumers, whose dollars help to drive the innovation process?>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^calvados:
>> ^chilaxe:
Parasites.

Parasiting who?

It takes about 100 million humans to maintain our current rate of innovation.
All the people who are incapable of accountability and who don't value intellectualism are just wasting resources, particularly when they injure themselves for no reason.
They are like this because they chose to be like this.

@longde

Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.

We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.

Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.

L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

Sorry, I don't know you, but from what I can infer from your post you live in the States? You don't "subsidize" anything in Canada. Certainly not the health care system. Who's this 'we' you're talking about?

>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

@jqpublick

Ha, yeah, but I'm talking about humankind's most productive people subsidizing its least productive people. Inefficient societies make everybody worse off and squander diminishing collective resources.

Chilaxe, sometimes you scare me. Sometimes I think you would favor a "final solution". Maybe I'm not creative enough to envision how you solve these problems you outline with useless eaters without extermination.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

@longde

I don't think there are any viable solutions. Homo sapien evolution left 99% of the species with great difficulty with abstract thought. There was no reason to evolve temperaments that would be useful in civilization, because civilization hadn't emerged yet, thus all the behaviors we see around us.

So there isn't going to suddenly be a cultural shift toward valuing productivity, innovation, and intellectualism. There are a few hubs around the world like Silicon Valley, but that's it.

My only recommendation is people devote themselves to their careers and insulate themselves from the under-performing culture around them. Reprogenetics (re-programming genetics) will likely fix all of it before the end of the century.

And I thought I was cynical.>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
I don't think there are any viable solutions. Homo sapien evolution left 99% of the species with great difficulty with abstract thought. There was no reason to evolve temperaments that would be useful in civilization, because civilization hadn't emerged yet, thus all the behaviors we see around us.
So there isn't going to suddenly be a cultural shift toward valuing productivity, innovation, and intellectualism. There are a few hubs around the world like Silicon Valley, but that's it.
My only recommendation is people devote themselves to their careers and insulate themselves from the under-performing culture around them. Reprogenetics (re-programming genetics) will likely fix all of it before the end of the century.

>> ^chilaxe:

It takes about 100 million humans to maintain our current rate of innovation.
All the people who are incapable of accountability and who don't value intellectualism are just wasting resources, particularly when they injure themselves for no reason.
They are like this because they chose to be like this.
Jumping 3 pianos in a homemade go-cart is fucking innovation, imho. Besides, I'd hate to live in your world where those who simply wish to be happy and enjoy their lives are considered "parasites". What a sad comment.

>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
I don't think there are any viable solutions. Homo sapien evolution left 99% of the species with great difficulty with abstract thought. There was no reason to evolve temperaments that would be useful in civilization, because civilization hadn't emerged yet, thus all the behaviors we see around us.
So there isn't going to suddenly be a cultural shift toward valuing productivity, innovation, and intellectualism. There are a few hubs around the world like Silicon Valley, but that's it.
My only recommendation is people devote themselves to their careers and insulate themselves from the under-performing culture around them. Reprogenetics (re-programming genetics) will likely fix all of it before the end of the century.


Are you kidding? If everyone valued "productivity, innovation, and intellectualism," who would be our janitors? Our garbagemen? Our fry cooks? We need doofuses around -- and a lot of them at that -- to do the stupid menial jobs that we'd never want to do.

@Sarzy

Most menial tasks are easy to automate, but there's no reason to because it's cheaper to pay unskilled workers. The US doesn't use agricultural automations that are used in other countries because since 1970 we've imported 80 million less skilled workers.

*nochannel *eia *wtf *actionpack *canada *wheels

This video has been removed from all channels (Eia, Wtf, Terrible, Actionpack, Canada, Wheels) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Actionpack, Canada, Eia, Wheels, Wtf) - requested by xxovercastxx.