Big time. . Mother Gala. I come on behalf of all humans to apologize for destroying nature and beg for forgiveness. Oh my beloved humans... We' re sorry for bei Big time Mother Gala I come on behalf of all humans to apologize for destroying nature and beg forgiveness Oh my beloved We' re sorry bei
Upload
Login or register

Big time

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Mother Gala. I come on behalf of all humans to apologize
for destroying nature and beg for forgiveness.
Oh my beloved
humans...
We' re sorry for being so selfish,
We never meant to kill nature.
That wasn' t what I mean by .
Nature is adaptable. No matter what you
do to it it will simply change and take on
new forms. it has survived worse things
than you.
You are however in the process of
changing it so much that you can' t
live in it. You' re not killing nature,
you' re killing yourself.
That' s what I mean by sexface meted.
You think that just because you can' t
live, then nothing can,
What?
You' re fucking yourself over
big time and won' t be missed.
...
+981
Views: 44948 Submitted: 04/07/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (175)
[ 175 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#3 - DrollHumor
Reply +185 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
"The planet is fine, the people are ******!"
-George Carlin
User avatar #39 to #3 - twofreegerbils
Reply -16 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
There's enough nuclear weaponry on earth to turn it into a memory.

Comedians should know their place.
#99 to #39 - ryuktg
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Nukes won't destroy the planet; just what's on it: our ****. The Earth will just rebuild after that
#161 to #99 - anon id: 3d889092
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Well at least agree it would set us back a billion years. Yeah germs and some deep sea life will go on but if you dropped all the nukes in the world at once you're gonna fry the surface and the send the world into an ice age at the same time.
User avatar #62 to #39 - jiboia
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
And what does that have to do with anything, is nuking the earth going to make us less ******?
User avatar #65 to #62 - twofreegerbils
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The people have the capacity to **** the earth all to hell.

Therefore, the earth is not fine.
User avatar #68 to #65 - jiboia
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Alligators have the capacity to rip our arms off, are our arms not fine too?
User avatar #69 to #68 - twofreegerbils
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Is there an alligator right next to my arm right now?

Are there people on the earth with nukes right now?

The answer to one of these questions is yes. The answer to the other is no. Can you guess which is which?
User avatar #71 to #69 - jiboia
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Well the ground is near me right now, if i slipped i could break my neck and die, so my neck is definitely not safe right?
User avatar #73 to #71 - twofreegerbils
Reply -12 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Well it depends, are you a pedantic faggot?
User avatar #75 to #73 - jiboia
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Resorting to insults already?That was quick.
#77 to #75 - twofreegerbils
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
U foken owned me man

nice 1
User avatar #80 to #77 - jiboia
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Maybe someday you will be as l33t as me, but don't count on it.
#153 to #65 - shadowgandalf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
At best, the entire worlds nuke armory, would be able wipe out liife on the surface of the planet

It would hardly deal any damagde to the planet itself.
#141 to #65 - anon id: 7ee9f6a8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
no we don't moron. The Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, and energy can not be created or destroyed. wake up sleepy head.
#42 to #39 - anon id: 746d8cd2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
the earth has a system for healing itself, and you think hitting the earth with one of its own chemicals is supposed to destroy it?
#44 to #42 - twofreegerbils
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Holy **** that was the dumbest thing I've EVER read.

How is a nuclear explosion and fallout one of earth's "own chemicals"?

How do you suppose earth is going to heal itself after all the topsoil is buried under 2 feet of ash and the sun hasn't been seen for decades, and all plant life is dead?

You are ******* dumb.
#165 to #44 - anon id: 468c0ee7
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
allow me to enlighten you as to why you are ******* retarded.

What you fail to understand is that TIME is on the planets side. Anything WE dish out, nuclear fallout included, will in time lose it's radioactive nature and cease to be.

It might take millions of years, but the planet can wait that long... WE can't.

Get off your ******* high horse, you are exactly what Gaia was referencing.
User avatar #52 to #44 - fukkendragonite
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Right, what about when the Earth was covered in ice that one time during that ice age thingy and a bunch of **** found the Earth inhospitable?

Nature. Survives. Bottom line.
User avatar #53 to #52 - twofreegerbils
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Oh, you must be talking about that time when the pH of the water wasn't completely ****** all to ****, and everything wasn't irradiated. That one time.
User avatar #54 to #53 - fukkendragonite
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
NATURE.

SURVIVES.

BOTTOM ******* LINE DUMB ****.

Like the post says, nature has survived worse than us.
#116 to #54 - anon id: 38f5ce85
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
I love how you back your evidence up with CAPS.


There are over 30000 nukes in the world minimum ( U.S. and Russia have decommissioned hundreds). Setting off lets say 10 in roughly the same time period would cause a nuclear winter. 6000 nuclear warheads would cover about 1/10 of the world. Now if your pea size brain can comprehend that 30,0000 would roughly cover the whole world twice.

ooh let me guess your rebuttal would be along the lines of something like this " BUT NATURE SURVIVES!!!!" .............and you would be wrong. in the event of something so catastrophic like this the atmosphere would totally change. nothing but anaerobic organisms would survive. no trees, no water, not even a cockroach.

nature has survived bad times, but it wouldnt survive us if we suddenly decided "lets kill nature"
#56 to #54 - twofreegerbils
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Oh no he used bold text! Capital letters! EVEN PROFANITY!

There's no way he can be wrong!

Consider suicide.
User avatar #58 to #56 - jmmora
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
have you ever played Fallout?
User avatar #60 to #58 - twofreegerbils
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Yeah...? What's your point? I hope you're not using a video game as proof that the earth could survive a full scale nuclear war.
User avatar #67 to #60 - jmmora
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
not exactly the game, but the concept and the small IRL things that it contains like:

even after a nuclear holocaust, with the soil and water irradiated and most if not every lifeforms whipped out, the planet will not remain irradiated, the radiation will fade eventually, it might take a ******* of years but the radiation will dissipate or be consumed by something nature develops to do so, like those mushrooms that grew inside Chernobyl's reactor that are feeding on radiation, and so the cycle will restart and life will begin anew

and i was using Fallout as a simplistic example that, even with all the land drenched in radiation , not everything on the planet is as weak as humans, there are organisms that can live in heats we cant even withstand, or depths we cant even reach

even during the formation proces of the Earth, it was an inhospitable ******** for human life, and yet there were organisms living there

TLR: nature adapts, you cant kill it with anything produced by itself
User avatar #72 to #67 - twofreegerbils
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Nuclear weaponry is not something produced by nature.

Do you have any idea of the scale of the disaster that I'm talking about? You can still see the sun in Fallout. You can't see the sun in a nuclear winter. The entire world gets covered with ash. Anything that breathes and inhales the ash dies when it turns into concrete in their lungs. Anything that lives in the sea dies when the pH is horribly disrupted. Every single ecosystem in the world gets ******.
User avatar #74 to #72 - jmmora
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
oh, so you're saying that it will be just like when Earth was just getting Terraformed, and after millions of years life began
#163 to #74 - anon id: 3d889092
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Just gonna say it took 2.5 billion years to go from Earths creation to the first signs of life.
I get what you're saying but it would take much longer to recover from the worlds whole nuclear arsenal.
User avatar #176 to #163 - jmmora
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2014) [-]
bit still, it will recover
User avatar #76 to #74 - twofreegerbils
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Wow, I'm glad to know that it will only take millions of years for the earth to recover. Now I can rest easy knowing that the earth is not in any danger whatsoever.
User avatar #92 to #76 - KazumaKyu
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
This is the point at which this argument ended, as you have just proven their point. No matter how long it takes, nature will recover. Humans and every other life form that persists on the Earth's surface today might be a hundred million years gone, but eventually life will return to the planet and nature will resume its course. That's what they've been getting at this whole ******* time.
#93 to #92 - twofreegerbils
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
That wasn't even my original argument. That was a tangent because you faggots don't know how to pay attention.

Do I have to use this image TWICE in the same thread?
User avatar #95 to #93 - KazumaKyu
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Is that CAPS FOR EMPHASIS? THERE'S NO WAY HE CAN LOSE NOW!

If you'll note, I never actually mentioned your side of things at all. Mostly because it doesn't actually matter. I said that their point was proven, which is where they should have ended the argument. All things considered, your original intentions are completely extraneous to the topic at hand.
#96 to #95 - twofreegerbils
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
You're a ******* faggot dude.
User avatar #97 to #96 - KazumaKyu
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
I'm sure that would have hurt my feelings very deeply if I put any stock in your opinion.

Thanks for sharing, though!
#110 to #97 - twofreegerbils
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Yet you continue to reply

This is too good

Fatty :^)
User avatar #112 to #110 - KazumaKyu
+1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Because as sad as your attempts are, you continue to amuse me. And that's really all I'm after at the moment. Chase that ball of yarn, little kitten!
#108 to #97 - twofreegerbils
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
>I don't care about any of this at all hurr durr   
>continues to reply   
I knew it, you're a ******* fatass, aren't you, you little doughboy?
>I don't care about any of this at all hurr durr
>continues to reply
I knew it, you're a ******* fatass, aren't you, you little doughboy?
User avatar #109 to #108 - KazumaKyu
0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
And again, if you'd bothered to read that one comment that was 'too long' for you, you'd understand why I just cannot be bothered by your sad attempts at riling me up.
#105 to #97 - twofreegerbils
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
I'm about 85% sure you're fat.   
   
Post a pic. Prove me wrong. I dare you. I really want to know.
I'm about 85% sure you're fat.

Post a pic. Prove me wrong. I dare you. I really want to know.
User avatar #106 to #105 - KazumaKyu
0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
And I would, if I honestly cared about your opinion. Props for persistence, though. You're like a kitten with a ball of yarn.
#102 to #97 - twofreegerbils
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
You're insane if you think I'm reading all of that. Is the internet really that important to you? Take a step back and look at your life.   
   
You're fat, aren't you?
You're insane if you think I'm reading all of that. Is the internet really that important to you? Take a step back and look at your life.

You're fat, aren't you?
User avatar #104 to #102 - KazumaKyu
0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Expected that reaction. You'd understand why this has me so amused if you had read it, though.

But really, personal insults? Genius.
#98 to #97 - twofreegerbils
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
You're involving yourself in an argument that has not only long since ended, but also one that you were never a part of. You must have a real sense of self importance.

Do you always cause a scene like this?
User avatar #101 to #98 - KazumaKyu
+1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
... I'm sorry, the comment I replied to was posted only 25 minutes before that point. I was unaware less than half an hour constituted the argument having 'long since ended'. My bad.

It's the internet, sparky. Freedom of speech and all that jazz? I see an argument that interests me, maybe I jump in and say my piece. The moment you gain the capacity to interfere in my doing so, come find me. Maybe then we'll have a chat about it, k? K.

As for causing a scene, that would imply that I could have somehow disturbed someone with my input. Other than you, of course. Who else could be bothered? No one else gets notified of my replies, and anyone who stumbles across the thread can just skip it. This situation defies the very concept of 'making a scene'.

As it stands, I'm just answering your inane responses to see how long I can keep you making them. Something to occupy my mind while DJ Admin's dulcet tones and tunes play in the background.

User avatar #79 to #76 - jmmora
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
well, you were defending the posture that earth would be ****** beyond repair, while we were the fending the posture that it wouldn't and even if it takes millions of years, the earths is not, indeed, ******, because it has the ability to regenerate, and most probably there would be organisms that would survive that nuclear holocaust you're talking about, the fact that we can't doesn't means that Earth will be ****** just because we're not here
#82 to #79 - twofreegerbils
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
If you don't consider a disaster that the earth takes millions of years to recover from a firm *******, then I don't know what to tell you.

Just because it eventually recovers doesn't mean it hasn't been ******.
User avatar #83 to #82 - jmmora
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
from your comment #44

"How do you suppose earth is going to heal itself after all the topsoil is buried under 2 feet of ash and the sun hasn't been seen for decades, and all plant life is dead? "

time, that's how just because it's ****** for us doesn't mean it's ****** for itself, we are less than a blink in Earth's long history, what seems like a ******* of time for us mortals, is nothing compared for a body that has been there millions of years before we were even conceived
User avatar #84 to #82 - jmmora
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
the point is, you were saying earth would never recover, and you're wrong, even if we as a species dont live long enough to see its recovery, it doesnt means it will never recover
#164 to #84 - anon id: 3d889092
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Well there is a time limit, in 4-5 billion years the earth will be engulfed by the sun. So say we nuke the planet and send it back to simple one celled organisms it'd take 2.5 billion years to reach the point we're at now.
#85 to #84 - twofreegerbils
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
ok dude
#143 to #53 - crackedpepper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
what about the last super volcano eruption? that was many times worse than anything we could do to the world.

also another comparison there is currently mold inside the chernoybl reactor that has evolved to thrive in radioactive environments by using radiation as a medium to speed up growth. we nuke the world to **** and more of those appear and evolution restarts from an earlier save state
#2 - thelaks
Reply +102 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
#117 to #2 - luckyxiii
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
#4 to #2 - KillerRekoil
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
#8 to #4 - schmitty
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
#78 to #8 - nibbero
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
#7 to #4 - schmitty
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#29 - jamieswhiteshirt
Reply +52 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
#36 - krasnogvardiech
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
#47 to #36 - electrictroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
We're not destroying the planet, we're merely reforming the enviroment so that it will be uninhabitable, then there well be some millenia where the planet will slowly revert back to how it was before humans.
#140 to #36 - anon id: 04071346
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
give it time. learn to swim.
User avatar #63 to #36 - Tsquared
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
dude, there are bacteria who developed specifically to consume the radiation found at Chernobyl, There is literally nothing we could do short of completely vaporizing earth that to destroy all life on the planet

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

**** yeah nature
User avatar #123 to #63 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
There are also archaebacteria that live miles under the Earth's crust and metabolize the minerals in the rocks. I still feel like we should be good stewards of the Earth, but even if we **** the planet up the ass, something will survive, and that's encouraging.
User avatar #64 to #63 - Tsquared
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
* fungus, not bacteria
#37 to #36 - krasnogvardiech
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Turning the premise around, because our mother isn't a granola munching hippy.
#45 to #37 - anon id: 73516dd8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
You've got your priorities in the wrong place if you believe that simply caring for the thing that sustains all known life immediately makes you a "granola munchin' hippy". You'd never be able to conceive of whatever masturbatory fantasy you delude yourself with if it wasn't for the liberated ancient solar energy that powers your home, or the dead biomass that sustains the crops that feed you. Going off into space based on some Kamina-esque ideal of anthropocentric piracy is irresponsible as hell.

But oh boy, the idea is that we'll all have super-dee-duper robot bodies, and grow organ meats from scratch, and completely control everything in the universe in some sort of godhood. Sorry to tell you, but once that sweet oil peaks, we're stuck on this planet, the only one known to sustain human life. No amount of techno-optimist wankery will save you from that fact.
User avatar #49 to #45 - churrundo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Are you aware of the amount of solar energy that goes to waste? When oil runs out, then we'll learn to maximize the sun's efficiency.
User avatar #122 to #49 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
By the time we run out of oil we'll be so far into runaway global warming that no amount of solar power will save us.
User avatar #170 to #122 - churrundo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Then we'll do what we do best on a world than needs it. That is of course Mars. We warm it up with supergreenhouse gases and terraform it.
User avatar #172 to #170 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2014) [-]
The plan is to destroy this planet like a swarm of locusts, then move on to the next one to do the same? That's a pathetic vision for the future.
User avatar #173 to #172 - churrundo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2014) [-]
Why does that need to interfere with keeping this planet? We love our home, that's why we want to make it bigger. Of course we're just babies still so we are allowed to **** on ourselves and others. Science is what will give us more experience and allow us to clean up after ourselves.
#19 - felixjarl
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
User avatar #149 to #19 - toensix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
I love HFY stories.
#1 - raideoactivepilot
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
This will come in handy some day
#59 - anon id: 673dd9cd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
>Preachy environmentalist ******** telling us that we're all gonna die because we chop down trees instead of having sex with them
>Mother Earth is a plus sized broad who we're all no doubt supposed to think of as "beautiful"
100% probability of being written by a fat tumblr bitch who identifies as a trisexual clarinet
#91 to #59 - anon id: 2c970160
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Pretty sure it's Humon, so you're not wrong.
#139 to #59 - allinallout **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
at the rate our population is expanding, it will HAVE to decline at some point. Expect a mass dying off by 2500
User avatar #174 to #59 - majormayor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2014) [-]
I thumbed this up once I saw this was a comic by humon.
User avatar #86 to #59 - teoyuppie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Pretty accurate.
#162 to #86 - anon id: a96797ab
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
kill yourself, faggot
User avatar #169 to #162 - teoyuppie
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Hahahaha you must like Humon. Whose the faggot now? Go outside a lift brah.
User avatar #175 to #169 - teoyuppie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/09/2014) [-]
Thanks for the support majormajor
#155 to #59 - olias
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
"trisexual clarinet"
User avatar #157 to #59 - finni
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
You're right about the fat part
User avatar #127 to #59 - hoponthefeelstrain
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
well we kinda do need trees for air...
User avatar #142 to #59 - robotvoice
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
that sounds like humon.
#61 to #59 - myfourthaccount
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
I guess some people didn't get your satire in this. Here, brought you back to neutral   
   
gif somewhat related
I guess some people didn't get your satire in this. Here, brought you back to neutral

gif somewhat related
User avatar #118 to #59 - iamthepapercut
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Or

you know

maybe

it's a joke
User avatar #103 to #59 - assrocket
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
You're a dick, man.
But 'Trisexual clarinet'. That was ******* gold.
User avatar #119 to #59 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
I disagree with your opinion, but you were funny, so I won't thumb you down.
#66 to #59 - hawaiianman
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
"Trisexual Clarinet" Thank you for making my day
"Trisexual Clarinet" Thank you for making my day
User avatar #70 to #59 - avatarvszelda
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
>trisexual clarinet

I lol'ed
#15 - vorarephilia
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
We have the technology to build domed cities and artificial oxygen generators
are a few years away from hydroponic farms
1-3 decades from colonizing the moon and mars
maybe a century away from controlling the weather

But yeah we're totally ******. Better go get some environmentally aware bumper stickers.
#24 to #15 - anon id: 753e0ce1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
None of the technology you listed exists on scales large enough to support extremely large masses of people, and the other 2 are just you guessing.   
Also believing humans can live in a society like today in a dome is a good idea until you realize it obviously isnt.   
   
Go ahead man, the money will probably go to people who do a lot more than that. That and recycle and you'll be doing greater good than you belittle.
None of the technology you listed exists on scales large enough to support extremely large masses of people, and the other 2 are just you guessing.
Also believing humans can live in a society like today in a dome is a good idea until you realize it obviously isnt.

Go ahead man, the money will probably go to people who do a lot more than that. That and recycle and you'll be doing greater good than you belittle.
User avatar #51 to #24 - vorarephilia
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
actually I didn't even address the second part about me guessing on those technologies.

Weather modification is already getting put into effect in china and other countries: science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/meteorologists/cloud-seeding2.htm
A century is a rather generous prediction IMO.

same thing with lunar colonies. russia and japan have talked about establishing bases by 2030, and some in NASA saying a return to the moon will happen in the next decade. So if we haven't at least build a base on the moon by 2044, I would seriously be surprised.

Technological singularity man. We're only moving faster.
#81 to #51 - anon id: 753e0ce1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Throughout history there have always been really promising developments in science that show great changes for the future, yet have just really never come to pass.
Either it be it just because couldn't be done, or because of human error/intervention. (Nikola Tesla and his giant coils for example)
Im not saying the changes these things bring will come to pass or not, nor am i addressing the estimates, but saying these things are sure to come is, for lack of better word, incorrect.
User avatar #27 to #24 - vorarephilia
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
I never said it was a perfect solution. People would get left outside and die, sure. But we would adapt.

Besides, for an ecological disaster large enough to eradicate our species would take more than a century to even get started.

Eco friendly bumper stickers would clash with my "I love gay porn" sticker on my car.
#35 to #27 - anon id: 753e0ce1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
I agree, i think the human race is a very, very hard to kill species. IMO the only thing that will end us forever is some uncontrollable cataclysmic event of colossus proportion.
Yet in terms of turning nature against us, just because we have potential buffers that enable survival, doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent such events from happening in the first place. Everyone should at least attempt to help in the protection of our home, rather than shrug it off because of said reasons.

I know this has deviated quite a bit from your original point, and sounds annoyingly environmentalist, but i felt i had to say it.

Keep those and recycle. You'll be a supporter of equal rights and an eco friendly person.
User avatar #43 to #35 - vorarephilia
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
yeah, I ain't about to take a flamethrower to a local forest just to prove a point to nature.

and don't worry, The comic sounds far more preachy environmentalist than you do.
User avatar #107 to #15 - meganinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
actually the U.S.A. claims the right to alter the climate in times of war.
User avatar #147 to #107 - fishandkids
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Proof? I highly doubt when the US starts WW3 other countries will be like: No we can't use this thing that can win us the war the US has the right.
User avatar #167 to #147 - meganinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Not saying other countries will just let it happen. I just thought it was funny that the US would claim that.
User avatar #156 to #147 - shion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Search for HAARP
FJ does not like conspiracies
#121 to #15 - nigeltheoutlaw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
>implying companies will stop doing what they do now for unproven, unprofitable ventures
>implying those technologies are anywhere close to large scale implementation
>implying we shouldn't take care of the environment anyways instead of just ******* it up the ass in hopes that maybe we can fix it before we all die
User avatar #129 to #15 - hoponthefeelstrain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
but would you want to live in a world like that? Something so completely artificial?
User avatar #136 to #129 - vorarephilia
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
I should have worded it better. No, a domed city with artificial plants would not be the best way to live, but humanity would still limp on, even if our planet became as barren as mars. Totally ****** to me equals extinction.

Of course, once again, for something bad enough to force us to flee to massive domed cities would take centuries to unfold. In that time we would probably be able to fix it.

Domed cities would be "plan Y" for our survival.
User avatar #148 to #15 - temporalguardian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
a century from controlling the weather? Like Nikola Tesla's invention? Or what america turned it into "HAARP"?

Point is we're not ****** at all. Not unless some dumb **** presses the wrong buttons.
#22 - jnovuse
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
#9 - ubercookieboy
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
I don't know why I did this
User avatar #87 to #9 - harkvale
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
To sum up the whole comic.