i think larry commited sucide a few years later. i like the stories of survivors more than the deaths, he rocked, the other story i like most was the guy on a building site one day he was lucky to be alive see his tools coming towards him at a hundred mile an hout,broken legs and bones just enough engery to avoid the final kickl on balls after thinking he had survived,such a freaky accident
it assumes the "smart" are good to go on reproduction...in an environment its destroyed where in 20 years their offspring won't have drinking water
the culture that still doesn't understand Darwin and later developments in human genome studies that confirm our intimate genetic relationship to one another.
"We don't know what he's guilty of and when we figure out what we are going to charge him" If we don't live in a police state here in America then what is it?
But by reacting so provoked, don't you think you actually reinforce the blatantly wrong impression that social darwinism and evolutionary theorie are somehow inherently related?
Everybody who knows Darwin (and who understands the profound difference between a descriptive theory about nature and a normative policy for society) could only see the Darwin awards as an obvious joke... take this too serious and "methinks the lady does protest too much" ;-)
Darwin Award winners are those people that do the rest of us a favor by [fatally] removing themselves by the gene pool in ways that clearly demonstrate their stupidity.
Sorry... I wasn't aware creationists had sharp tools. At least they don't have any in the universe I live in.
But why would you interpret any flavour of sarcasm you can't take as "free ammo for creationists"?
I happen to study emotion theories from an evolutionary perspective... denying that even you in all your moral righteousness have hardwired emotional responses to human stupidity and tragicomical death seems in conflict with the evolutionary worldview you think to defend. peace! :-)
I happen to have only a basic education, and most of the people I deal with daily have a basic education, you'd be amazed how many people reject science or just show little interest for it whilst still enjoy all the fruits of it.
These people are the majority and you better win emotionally guided people over instead of repelling them, or do you want to see government funding of certain science projects cut?
... guess I have long given up on wanting to "win over the majority".
That's probably why I'm not offended by the concept of Darwin-awards. They represent in a funny way my vain hope that stupidity will somehow cancel itself out... I know enough about "most of the people" to know that it's a delusion: they're actually breeding smart people out at a staggering rate.
its smart people that have the least kids, so then who really is the smart one ?
the "moron" seeds the gener pool at a much higher rate, so despite a lack of common sense and reason, at least to some degree, he wins overall. So he can't be that stupid unless evolutionary forces favour one over the other.
no I think the smart one is the one who wins in the end. the last one standing. It's like street smarts. the only thinkg that matters is who survives the longest to enact their agenda.
It's not just about how many children one sires. It's also about how well they cope in the world. Less intelligent people often have fewer resources and opportunities to give to their children. If you have 40 kids but only 2 survive to bear offspring, and only 1 of their kids survives to bear offspring, then the number of any one generation is negligible. So who knows who wins? Though personally, reproductive success is hardly how I would measure the value of a person regardless.
I think you are not looking far enough ahead. My family comes from a small island in the west indies that can only support 200-300 thousand people. In the 50's people started leaving and now there are more than 2 million of us. we average 4.5 kids per couple, are decently educated, and make good money where we work. demographic shifts happen, and what matters is which side you are on.
So you're one of the reasons why humanity will destroy itself by ecocide within the next few generations...
I don't think I have any demographic lessons to learn about "looking far enough ahead".
We are facing major overpopulation in the next decennia and I already see the point where neither your nor my descendents will have a planet left that is able to support them in a decent way.
So there won't be any side left to be on... thanx to your shortsighted "fuck and spread"-strategy.
We were told in the 70's that when we got to 3 or 4 billion the overpopulation would be enough to cause mass starvation and suffering. These were scientists, and now new ones say the same with a higher number. I have no doubt it could become a problem, but it isn't yet. I prefer to err on the side of reason over emotionalism. and I prefer my genetic material to dominate the gene pool over others.
You probably haven't been reading any other newspaper than your local rag lately, have you?
You still think the best for this heating and oil-depleted global village is yet to come?
You're dancing on a volcano, we all are, and if you'd be a little more concerned with keeping up in the memepool instead of running free in the genepool, you'd know.
no but the island we come from is too small to notice, and our people too big to care. We've gotten by on little more than the stuff we grow ourselves. Being forced to deal with with less isn't as scary when you are used to dealing with less. North Americans have too much to loose, while conversely we have too little to care.
Too right you are. Americans are going to sorely miss their Double Whoppers w/Cheese.
By the way, if you do look far enough ahead, you'll see this issue isn't about running out of planet. Instead, the planets going to run out of people.
Dude most off the world population don't live in a decent way TODAY , and its not because overpopulation its because of something called bad distribution of money , and resources
You're splitting hairs... basically overpopulation IS unequal distribution of scarce resources.
Equal distribution of resources is an impossible utopia by the way... Malthus was right, you should read him.
The fact that most of the world is effectively (and contrary to what you suggest) rapidly gaining acces to money and resources is exactly what is causing the massive overpopulation problems we face.... have you even seen what happened to eg india in the last decade?
First i never said that overpopulation is due to bad distribution , i said the main reason of people leaving in a demining way is because "something called bad distribution of money , and resources "
Malthus was completely wrong he told the population would grow in exponentially and the food supply would increase in a linear way, and this is NOT true.
*Today we have enough food to feed everybody but we DO not have It properly distributed and speculation is responsible for wasting a lot of food.
And just to let u know India have this massive grow of population due to its poverty and lack of education and family control. What happen it that they had a big birth rate and a enormous death rate when death rate start decreasing. Boom a demographic explosion of people happens
Stop blaming poor countries for their on poverty and poor countries the called * lack of food start thinking a little better . Your most of country have already made its one demographic boom.
Stop blaming poor countries for their on poverty and poor countries the called * lack of food start thinking a little better . Your most of country have already made its one demographic boom.
and i do not believe in utopia and i do think it will get worts the the bad distribution will only grow as it is growing since end of ww2 ,people just don't care for people . And i don't even know why i care to do such i big comment on this
I agree with you both. I've read part of a Darwin Awards book and I found it uncomfortable the fun they poked at some people who clearly are either desparate for money (the failed robbers), mentally ill or clearly brain-damaged from drugs. Making fun of the unfortunate is the modern equivalent of throwing cabbages at the deformed because you think they were cursed by the Devil.
Did Al Qaeda pilots get Darwin awards? There's nothing more stupid than suicide bombing. I guess they didn't help the gene pool since they removed other genomes from the pool.
Maybe they fear the resultant death threats guaranteed to those who criticize religion.
If someone dies from a fast during Lent or Ramadan they deserve a Darwin award. It's fucking a stupid reason to waste a life that could be put to use. That's a bad exclusionary rule for the Darwin awards people to put in place. How do we fix that?
i hate her site/book. it's too misanthropic!
h1a2l3l4o5o6o7 5 months ago
i think larry commited sucide a few years later. i like the stories of survivors more than the deaths, he rocked, the other story i like most was the guy on a building site one day he was lucky to be alive see his tools coming towards him at a hundred mile an hout,broken legs and bones just enough engery to avoid the final kickl on balls after thinking he had survived,such a freaky accident
danbit5 6 months ago
it looks like shes sleep talking
ChalmDeezy 9 months ago
Her presentation skills are terrible.
thetruespin 9 months ago
her eyes scare me..
MTran0708 10 months ago
OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES WOMAN
EmbrunFalcon91 11 months ago 3
i really wish only ppl with stage presence could be allowed to be filmed while doing presentations.
itsEVERYTHINGme 11 months ago
shall the creator be sent to the NAZI gas house as well? XD
inno1980 1 year ago
winner? western culture.
it assumes the "smart" are good to go on reproduction...in an environment its destroyed where in 20 years their offspring won't have drinking water
the culture that still doesn't understand Darwin and later developments in human genome studies that confirm our intimate genetic relationship to one another.
sonbarably 1 year ago
How about Jesus?! :-)
leon3525 1 year ago
blah blah blah blah blah internet arguments blah blah blah blah blah
CrypticArtix 1 year ago
omg give her glasses she looks awful
Inspire580i 1 year ago
"We don't know what he's guilty of and when we figure out what we are going to charge him" If we don't live in a police state here in America then what is it?
vpaczkowski 1 year ago
Comment removed
haaientanden 2 years ago
jeezus shes got a weird look...
nationalmatch1 2 years ago
imagine seeing that out side you plane window
timehiro 2 years ago 5
WRONG!!!....Larry Walters offed himself sometime in 1993.......
skyshiptrooper 2 years ago
Stupid people, the only roadblock to progress.
pkscolax 2 years ago 3
Ofcourse I agree.
But by reacting so provoked, don't you think you actually reinforce the blatantly wrong impression that social darwinism and evolutionary theorie are somehow inherently related?
Everybody who knows Darwin (and who understands the profound difference between a descriptive theory about nature and a normative policy for society) could only see the Darwin awards as an obvious joke... take this too serious and "methinks the lady does protest too much" ;-)
jalgjalg 2 years ago 2
Darwin Award winners are those people that do the rest of us a favor by [fatally] removing themselves by the gene pool in ways that clearly demonstrate their stupidity.
kshackleton 2 years ago
Cheer up, man... it's just a joke!
How arrogant it would be, to deny that even you sometimes feel that nasty emotion of Schadenfreude ;-)
jalgjalg 2 years ago 6
I agree with 16242T,
I find the idea of a Darwin award extremely repelling and not funny at all.
Besides, why are you so keen on giving free ammo to creationists? Appeal to emotion is their sharpest tool.
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago
And only tool.
fatmanprime 2 years ago
Sorry... I wasn't aware creationists had sharp tools. At least they don't have any in the universe I live in.
But why would you interpret any flavour of sarcasm you can't take as "free ammo for creationists"?
I happen to study emotion theories from an evolutionary perspective... denying that even you in all your moral righteousness have hardwired emotional responses to human stupidity and tragicomical death seems in conflict with the evolutionary worldview you think to defend. peace! :-)
jalgjalg 2 years ago 2
I happen to have only a basic education, and most of the people I deal with daily have a basic education, you'd be amazed how many people reject science or just show little interest for it whilst still enjoy all the fruits of it.
These people are the majority and you better win emotionally guided people over instead of repelling them, or do you want to see government funding of certain science projects cut?
war :p
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago
Point taken.
... guess I have long given up on wanting to "win over the majority".
That's probably why I'm not offended by the concept of Darwin-awards. They represent in a funny way my vain hope that stupidity will somehow cancel itself out... I know enough about "most of the people" to know that it's a delusion: they're actually breeding smart people out at a staggering rate.
How's that for war? ;-)
jalgjalg 2 years ago
its smart people that have the least kids, so then who really is the smart one ?
the "moron" seeds the gener pool at a much higher rate, so despite a lack of common sense and reason, at least to some degree, he wins overall. So he can't be that stupid unless evolutionary forces favour one over the other.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
So you think the right measurement for intelligence is the amount of succes one has in the genepool?
If so, I think you just failed to meet my standards for even minimal intelligence... but don't worry: I love you anyway, you silly mammel :-)
jalgjalg 2 years ago
no I think the smart one is the one who wins in the end. the last one standing. It's like street smarts. the only thinkg that matters is who survives the longest to enact their agenda.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
It's not just about how many children one sires. It's also about how well they cope in the world. Less intelligent people often have fewer resources and opportunities to give to their children. If you have 40 kids but only 2 survive to bear offspring, and only 1 of their kids survives to bear offspring, then the number of any one generation is negligible. So who knows who wins? Though personally, reproductive success is hardly how I would measure the value of a person regardless.
Zeuts85 2 years ago
I think you are not looking far enough ahead. My family comes from a small island in the west indies that can only support 200-300 thousand people. In the 50's people started leaving and now there are more than 2 million of us. we average 4.5 kids per couple, are decently educated, and make good money where we work. demographic shifts happen, and what matters is which side you are on.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
So you're one of the reasons why humanity will destroy itself by ecocide within the next few generations...
I don't think I have any demographic lessons to learn about "looking far enough ahead".
We are facing major overpopulation in the next decennia and I already see the point where neither your nor my descendents will have a planet left that is able to support them in a decent way.
So there won't be any side left to be on... thanx to your shortsighted "fuck and spread"-strategy.
jalgjalg 2 years ago
We were told in the 70's that when we got to 3 or 4 billion the overpopulation would be enough to cause mass starvation and suffering. These were scientists, and now new ones say the same with a higher number. I have no doubt it could become a problem, but it isn't yet. I prefer to err on the side of reason over emotionalism. and I prefer my genetic material to dominate the gene pool over others.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
You probably haven't been reading any other newspaper than your local rag lately, have you?
You still think the best for this heating and oil-depleted global village is yet to come?
You're dancing on a volcano, we all are, and if you'd be a little more concerned with keeping up in the memepool instead of running free in the genepool, you'd know.
jalgjalg 2 years ago
Magazines yet, newspapers not so many. Unless you include their online portions.
I think civil war is unavoidable, and sides will be taken here in the west. I have an exit strategy and I know where I sit. I'm not so worried.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
Good luck, then... i think you'll need it(unless you've got an exit-strategy for planet earth ofcourse ;-)
I'm not worried either, by the way... Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo.
jalgjalg 2 years ago
no but the island we come from is too small to notice, and our people too big to care. We've gotten by on little more than the stuff we grow ourselves. Being forced to deal with with less isn't as scary when you are used to dealing with less. North Americans have too much to loose, while conversely we have too little to care.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
Too right you are. Americans are going to sorely miss their Double Whoppers w/Cheese.
By the way, if you do look far enough ahead, you'll see this issue isn't about running out of planet. Instead, the planets going to run out of people.
pkscolax 2 years ago
Dude most off the world population don't live in a decent way TODAY , and its not because overpopulation its because of something called bad distribution of money , and resources
ricardo4ever 2 years ago
You're splitting hairs... basically overpopulation IS unequal distribution of scarce resources.
Equal distribution of resources is an impossible utopia by the way... Malthus was right, you should read him.
The fact that most of the world is effectively (and contrary to what you suggest) rapidly gaining acces to money and resources is exactly what is causing the massive overpopulation problems we face.... have you even seen what happened to eg india in the last decade?
jalgjalg 2 years ago
Let me explain a little better
First i never said that overpopulation is due to bad distribution , i said the main reason of people leaving in a demining way is because "something called bad distribution of money , and resources "
Malthus was completely wrong he told the population would grow in exponentially and the food supply would increase in a linear way, and this is NOT true.
ricardo4ever 2 years ago
*Today we have enough food to feed everybody but we DO not have It properly distributed and speculation is responsible for wasting a lot of food.
And just to let u know India have this massive grow of population due to its poverty and lack of education and family control. What happen it that they had a big birth rate and a enormous death rate when death rate start decreasing. Boom a demographic explosion of people happens
ricardo4ever 2 years ago
Stop blaming poor countries for their on poverty and poor countries the called * lack of food start thinking a little better . Your most of country have already made its one demographic boom.
Stop blaming poor countries for their on poverty and poor countries the called * lack of food start thinking a little better . Your most of country have already made its one demographic boom.
ricardo4ever 2 years ago
and i do not believe in utopia and i do think it will get worts the the bad distribution will only grow as it is growing since end of ww2 ,people just don't care for people . And i don't even know why i care to do such i big comment on this
ricardo4ever 2 years ago
16242T and DeletedDelusion -
I agree with you both. I've read part of a Darwin Awards book and I found it uncomfortable the fun they poked at some people who clearly are either desparate for money (the failed robbers), mentally ill or clearly brain-damaged from drugs. Making fun of the unfortunate is the modern equivalent of throwing cabbages at the deformed because you think they were cursed by the Devil.
portantwas 2 years ago
@jalgjalg Some people are just WAY beyond help. Not necessarily the "laureates", though.
Drealmful 7 months ago
Did Al Qaeda pilots get Darwin awards? There's nothing more stupid than suicide bombing. I guess they didn't help the gene pool since they removed other genomes from the pool.
tattootomorrow 2 years ago
No, for some reason Darwin awards don't accept nominations in which the person was motivated by religion.
Strange how they would be politically correct about religion when they ruthlessly mock dead people :P
fatmanprime 2 years ago
Maybe they fear the resultant death threats guaranteed to those who criticize religion.
If someone dies from a fast during Lent or Ramadan they deserve a Darwin award. It's fucking a stupid reason to waste a life that could be put to use. That's a bad exclusionary rule for the Darwin awards people to put in place. How do we fix that?
tattootomorrow 2 years ago
I agree totally. As to how we can fix it - I guess we just have to be more critical. Changes are slow, though.
fatmanprime 2 years ago
At least there's this channel and idea:
AtheistHQ
Good luck out there, fatmanprime. Peace.
tattootomorrow 2 years ago
Awesome!
McArrowni 2 years ago
Correct that this is not a Darwin Award winner but he got him self a Honorable Mention cause, I suspect, he shoot him self in 1993.
Second you don't have to die, getting your self sterilised is enough.
Doluses 2 years ago
yay I got here first!
Sardonac 2 years ago