Good Question. . LIVABLE cmes A BIG COAX MID we we tire A BETTE?-. In the end, everything we do is for nothing.
x
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#9 - djequalizee (02/12/2013) [-]
In the end, everything we do is for nothing.
#40 to #9 - youxbarstard (02/12/2013) [-]
And it is for this very reason that I do **** all.
User avatar #18 to #9 - gayboard (02/12/2013) [-]
Not true.
User avatar #35 to #9 - Psychotic (02/12/2013) [-]
2deep4me
#36 to #9 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Well, it depends on who decides what is something. Have such a relative matter up for discussion makes every person's opinion count to themselves.
I, for one, believe that as long as I am happy and have something to strive for then everything is for something, even the things I regret.
It's up to you what to make of your life, not God or science.
User avatar #26 to #24 - djequalizee (02/12/2013) [-]
If I was any deeper I would be hitting bedrock.

**** that was terrible
User avatar #32 to #9 - pianoasis (02/12/2013) [-]
yep

but you can have kids and they are basically made of your matter

so your matter gets to live on
User avatar #15 to #9 - nunubot (02/12/2013) [-]
I started thinking about this at work. It's kind of depressing how eventually the world will end (regardless of how and when) and the universe will continue forward like Earth and its inhabitants never existed. Eventually, all of our greatest achievements and struggles as individuals and as a species wont mean anything. Needless to say, I lost my motivation.
User avatar #17 to #15 - graphenz ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
Actually depends, if we figure the whole space travel thing the human race and other selected races from earth (such as the super mutated cow which shoots milks by just looking at it and clones itself as soon as it hears a stomach growl) the story will be passed on from there... that or we die from some unforeseen unbalance somewhere in the universe tomorrow, who know :)
User avatar #89 to #15 - desuforeverlulz (02/27/2013) [-]
It means everything right now though. Your existence has subjective meaning. Everything, to you, has subjective meaning, one way or another. It's this beautiful subconscious value system the human mind has. The only thing you can be sure that exists is you and your experience, so you should make it the best one you can. <3
User avatar #22 to #21 - djequalizee (02/12/2013) [-]
2deep
#12 to #9 - desuforeverlulz (02/12/2013) [-]
He's right.
#14 to #9 - darthtomale ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
that's why the most important thing we can do is make our consciousness feel as good as possible.
that's why the most important thing we can do is make our consciousness feel as good as possible.
User avatar #33 to #14 - pianoasis (02/12/2013) [-]
BAM

thats how I stopped myself from going insane
User avatar #88 to #14 - desuforeverlulz (02/27/2013) [-]
I realized this the first time I dropped acid.
#1 - killyojoy (02/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #59 - finni (02/12/2013) [-]
Oh, another political debate on funnyjunk. I expect people here are going to talk to each other in an adult matter, not thumb down people for having a different opinion and want to, respect each other's opinion even though we don't agree and answer arguments with counter arguments, providing sources and not get emotional, right?
#72 to #59 - kyrozor (02/12/2013) [-]
We could of course just sit and complain about people having different opinions and make snarky comments at one another.
User avatar #71 - neoexdeath ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
Dude, I heard a plan where they wanted to coat the polar ice caps with black ash to keep it from melting. That's the kind of **** that can REALLY **** things up if you don't know all the outcomes.
User avatar #73 to #71 - neoexdeath ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
For starters

* Polar bears would be indistinguishable from Black Bears
* Penguins would be utterly indistinguishable from short *******
* The entire population of Alaska would, in a matter of days, entirely be in blackface.
* The Eskimo's would invade Canada in a fit of unbridled rage at being covered in soot.
User avatar #45 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
simple solutions:
* stop sending money to the 3rd world and spend it on things that matter
* kill off all the new world order ******* who are bleeding the world dry while they themselves do nothing
* use the numerous trillions of dollars saved to advancing the human race to greater goals
User avatar #48 to #45 - umaya (02/12/2013) [-]
In England we are having all sorts of spending cuts on important things and these douchebags are planning on a 6th airport that we really don't need that will cost £60 billion, so they cut all the good things like police and health and they pull out £60 billion from their arse for something stupid, like that £20 billion railway that now really isn't the time to build, when we have much higher priorities.
User avatar #49 to #48 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
i think the smart thing for brits to do is look over and see how epically **** ireland became after they over-invested in building **** without the population to make the projected economic growth work
too many buildings. noone to live/work in them
User avatar #50 to #49 - umaya (02/12/2013) [-]
exactly, we could send all the council house people over there.
#51 to #45 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/12/2013) [-]
stop sending money to the 3rd world and spend it on things that matter

what the **** , if we stop that, billions of people would die from starvation and thirst.
It's called basic human decency
#52 to #51 - soisoisoisoisoi (02/12/2013) [-]
Implying it would affect the world negatively. Face it, if 3rd world countries just died out it would prevent future suffering and poverty, though initially it may seem like a cruel thing to do it's how nature has intended. They are causing themselves the trouble as soon as they receive money it often goes to guns rather than where it was intended so it is quite a waste, and then there's the fact they have far more children than they can feed, sure sometimes caused by rape and this isn't really preventable. All our efforts to aid these countries are basically useless and a waste of money especially when our countries are in debt, and their countries use the money to make it worse

Tl;dr implying

#56 to #52 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/12/2013) [-]
What... the... ****

you heartless bastard, as soon as they receive money it goes to guns? are you ******* stupid, what about all those organisations that focus on water, or the bee drive the yogscast did? they don't go to guns. Sentencing all those people to death is a cruel heartless thing to do, the ends don't always justify the means.


tldr, they're humans, don't kill them all bro
#60 to #56 - Blasphemer (02/12/2013) [-]
It's not killing them, it's stopping to support them. Personal expirience:

If you give a broken man money. He'll ask for more. He won't go and try to get up, he'll sit there and wait for more. You will give him more, he will eventually **** and have children he cant feed, you give him more and continue so until he's dead, will his kids get up? No, they'll sit right there where the father was sitting doing the same thing only now in greater number. You are only creating a nation of people dependent of someone elses help, unwilling to ever fight for themselves.
User avatar #68 to #60 - zxxxmightyxxx (02/12/2013) [-]
Yeah. Kinda like: "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he'll eat for life."
#74 to #68 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/12/2013) [-]
So what about the organisations that give them seeds and create ways for them to get fresh water for them to provide for themselves?
User avatar #80 to #74 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
thats just media propaganda to inspire people to donate

have a few well-fed actors pose for a tv ad to look like things can be better, if the world throws money at it and taadaa, it happens
#82 to #80 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/12/2013) [-]
Are you ******* stupid, are you saying that charity organisations are ******* media propaganda, you really believe that?


god... damn
User avatar #84 to #82 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
oh im sorry, the catholic church has so much gold and gems because they share the wealth?
#69 to #68 - Blasphemer (02/12/2013) [-]
Sadly, very true.
User avatar #63 to #60 - Cookiez (02/12/2013) [-]
That may be a valid argument if it wasn't for the fact that European countries ****** over most of Africa, which is why they're poor in the first place.
#64 to #63 - Blasphemer (02/12/2013) [-]
There isn't a country on this planet that hasn't been ****** up by someone in past...
#62 to #60 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
That's like the ******* abbo cunts in Australia.

They ******* hold out their hands, expecting charity, and when you refuse to support them, they call you a racist white cunt. What's more, the government GIVES them $632 per week, simply because they're abbo's.
#57 to #56 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
you're implying that the food water and money arent stolen by the baddys that continue to drag their country down.
User avatar #79 to #56 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
the world is wasting its time supporting kids in africa, the corrupt governments there steals 99% of the donated money and leave the kids to rot
the world wont speak up on it because theyve been brainwashed into thinking that telling africans their government is **** would be racist

one can understand to keep supporting south africa because that mugabe guy is blackmailing the new world order supporters into leaving him alone but the other african countries have no excuse
#81 to #79 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/12/2013) [-]
It's not so much the fact that you want to stop 3rd world support, there are many arguments for that, the problem i have is that you said spend it on things that matter, as if their lives don't matter
User avatar #85 to #81 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
hmmmm,...countless staving black kids who are dying because black people cant stop sticking their dicks in things
seems legit, lets send them money
#58 to #56 - ezzkalak (02/12/2013) [-]
Forgot to log in.
#61 to #51 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
It's survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest works in nature, and nature has functioned for billions of years because of it.

Human civilization barely functions for 5 days without something going wrong. Some societies need to disappear in order for the greater good to succeed.
User avatar #77 to #61 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
true story

if you look at something even so simple as birds....if momma bird has several babies and one of them is clearly smaller and weaker....she just wont feed that one because by instinct, she knows that one most likely wont survive

so why are we as humans supporting those that most likely wont survive on their own
User avatar #76 to #51 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
blacks arent human, theyre a form of ape
if you want to help apes, donate to PETA and SPCA
#78 to #76 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/12/2013) [-]
What if they're indian
User avatar #86 to #78 - konradkurze (02/12/2013) [-]
indian as in microsoft tech support, or indian as the name given to native americans?
#67 to #51 - zxxxmightyxxx (02/12/2013) [-]
Have to disagree there. See, giving them money doesnt help them. Unfortunately,, the money we send often lands in corrupt people's pockets. Also, they (third world countries) will always have problems if WE solve THEIR problems. Their goal should be independent from any superpower.

And btw, they can't repay their debts so its like flushing millions of dollars into the void. Just sayin'.
User avatar #16 - proudnerd (02/12/2013) [-]
You mean we waste a ******* of money for nothing? I don't know, you tell me?
User avatar #19 to #16 - Sethorein ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
"nothing"

jeez, and you call yourself a proud nerd?

Shrinking landfills, rebuilding ecosystems, fixing our atmosphere... the list goes on...
#46 to #19 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
What if the atmosphere's just changing during a normal earthly process that scientists haven't been able to observe due to only knowing the hugest scheme of things rather than the smaller hundreds-thousands of years schemes? And what we do won't help save us, just like anything that died from the transition of the ice age to what is now?

It kind of would be pointless, were that the truth for global warming. Unless you're talking things like smog, that we should be fixing.
User avatar #75 to #46 - Sethorein ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
holes in our atmosphere caused by our refrigerators aren't natural... We fixed those holes back then. Now we need to deal with car emissions doing the same thing. Why do people suddenly think scientists are being superstitious?
#54 to #46 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
but if we work hard enough we can keep a preferable climate for the human race... just saiyan. not dying out is our GOAL here...
#41 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
******* retarded ******* trying to leave a better world for bunch of assholes who care about nothing but their own gain
Teach your children manners and teach them to care for other people and they will make the world a better place without these bunch of **** "plannings"
#29 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
How the **** can you create a better world for nothing... Its a better ******* world
#2 - theangryvegan (02/11/2013) [-]
because there arnt just pros, there are massiv disadvantages. first of all, read the "treaty of copenhagen" if you have no clue what is written inside of it, dont share this **** on the internet.

and a lie is a lied, doesnt matter what intention is behind her. just to name some disadvantages:
- massive taxes for the people
- more regulations
- massive price increases for most kind of products
- price increase for electricity
well, if you have enough money, okay. but not everybody can pay even more for their household
- we suspend developement in developing countries (read treaty of copenhagen)
- politics can prevent good invention without a court proceedings (read 'the treaty)
and so on

even if it is not a hoax (which is likely) it is not a scientific or environmental issue, it is a political issue. and the way the politic is handling it, is embarrasing and wrong. taxes and regulations is not what fits in my liberal mind.

and please dont argue about the science behind it. i study this subject.
#44 to #2 - lefish (02/12/2013) [-]
Alright asshole, I went and read that **** , and tell me, how the **** is the "Treaty of Copenhagen, by which Margaret of Denmark was betrothed to James III of Scotland" even remotely relavent?
User avatar #3 to #2 - allamericandude (02/12/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's what bugs me about the whole global warming thing. It's not the science, it's the politics. The things they are proposing are just awful, and a lot of it has nothing to do with the environment. Listen to a Greenpeace activist for more than 5 seconds and you'll find that they're more anti-capitalist than pro-environmentalist (which is why one of the founding members of the organization abandoned it).

We could solve most environmental cases from a more "free-market" approach by just letting the government protect personal/property rights. I.e. if someone dumps trash on your land (or the public's land), you have the right to get them to stop. Or if a company is putting chemicals in the air that are affecting your health you also have the right to get them to stop.

It really doesn't have to be difficult.
#5 to #2 - autoxx (02/12/2013) [-]
The Kyoto accord is another wonderful example of government screwing it's citizens.
There is no hope of meeting the expectations so the penalty fees are guaranteed.
#8 to #2 - orangepikmin (02/12/2013) [-]
Unless you get statistical evidence from a reliable source about any of these points you bring up, I am not inclined to believe a single word you type.
Also, it doesn't help to state the Treaty of Copenhagen if you don't give us at least a small summary of it.
#4 to #2 - teranin (02/12/2013) [-]
So your reason for bitching here, if I am taking this right, is that it would mean people would actually have to do something responsible for a change, and that we would stop sending a ridiculous amount of aid to developing areas? Also, you're suggesting that what, you are currently studying climatology or meteorology, I'm assuming at some venue of higher learning?

Let me clue you in on something bub, no person who has ever had an interest in science has ever said "don't argue the science behind it" to anyone. Any person who genuinely is trying to advance the study of a subject is always willing to have a reasoned discussion regarding that subject, to explain their points and hear counterpoints, and to overall expand not only their knowledge but the knowledge of others. To suggest that a person you know nothing about should simply NOT argue with you on a point because you feel you have some knowledge on the subject is not only cowardly, but downright pedantic.

Now I will agree that there are aspects of climate science that have been politicized in such a manner as to be similar to a hoax (see:Al Gore) but that does not mean that the actual science behind it, the thousands of climate studies and meteorological studies that have been done do not point to a clear and present change in our climate, one that is not being caused wholly by human factors but is clearly being affected by them. Take the holes in our O-Zone layer as an example. Those are real, we know what caused them, and we know humans did it.

I would posit to you, sir, that you not take a person you don't know's educational level for granted, and if you want to make some sort of point, try to do so in a less haughty, holier than thou condescending bullcrap manner, otherwise all you'll do is annoy people without successfully getting your point across.
#10 to #4 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Did math just to thumb you up. Well said, sir.

Here's my opinion:
If we spend the money for cleaner energy, we will have an impact n the environment, even if it ultimately doesn't affect global warming. It isn't a waste. Even if we have no global warming, what do we stand to lose? Time and money? In the grand scheme of things, nothing much.

If we don't spend the money for cleaner energy and it DOES affect global warming, what do we stand to lose? Everything.

Weigh time and money against the survival of the human race (or at least modern life as we know it). Which to chose is a no-brainer.
User avatar #39 to #10 - rainbowrush (02/12/2013) [-]
That is absolutely correct. By burning fossil fuels, we won't destroy the envirornment, but that is irrelevant. By making 'cleaner' energy cheaper and more effective, we don't have to waste resources.

Not every country has Norway's water or Denmark's wind, but there are solutions if we just try.
#6 to #4 - repostsrepost (02/12/2013) [-]
This isn't about people acting more responsibly. People are free to do that on their own. This is about government forcing everyone to live the way they want us to. The result being high electricity rate higher taxes higher gas prices. And there is no evidence humans are behind global warming. Global warming has popped in and out for thousands of years. The last major climate change episode was in the Dark Ages. And I don't recall anything about Vikings driving cars.
#13 to #6 - desuforeverlulz (02/12/2013) [-]
Lol so just admit you're an anarcho-capitalist and move on! The government should not intervene, the free market will fix itself and hopefully everyone will have moved to Mars before our planet becomes uninhabitable.
#7 to #6 - teranin (02/12/2013) [-]
That's really not what the content is about, though, nor is it about the 			****		 that this clown just spewed at me. The content is about this question, that this man is asking.  As you can see, the title of the content is &quot;good question&quot; as in, I think it's a pretty good question. And the original comment was some guy just venting his 			********		 at the content without understanding either the context, nor the intention behind it, in an effort to sound officious and intelligent when he's really just a pompous egotistical douche.
That's really not what the content is about, though, nor is it about the **** that this clown just spewed at me. The content is about this question, that this man is asking. As you can see, the title of the content is "good question" as in, I think it's a pretty good question. And the original comment was some guy just venting his ******** at the content without understanding either the context, nor the intention behind it, in an effort to sound officious and intelligent when he's really just a pompous egotistical douche.
User avatar #37 to #4 - rainbowrush (02/12/2013) [-]
It has been proven an un-end of timesthat the climate change has nothing to do with us. We probably could nuke 70% of the planets life. Changing a cyclus that has gone on for over 4 billion years, is however rather unlikely.

You can look into it all you want. The more you look, the more you will find it to be rather one sided. Take the increas in CO2 for example. Human logic ****** that theory up too. We first saw that the temperatures rose, (after a short ice age = ='). Then we found out the increas in CO2, thus making us jump to the conclution that CO2 makes the temperature rise. If you just observe, or do some tests, you will find out that it's the other way around.
#11 to #4 - allamericandude (02/12/2013) [-]
Dude, you could have made a similar counter-argument without sounding so obnoxious. You called the guy out for his attitude (which really wasn't that bad), but you should hear how you sound.
#23 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
the money wasted on more expensive options to the traditional resources is taken from someone else. Governments see climate change as a popular way to confiscate more wealth from the people who work to produce all of the things that keep society going.
it is a freaking hoax. the climate has changed multiple times over the millions of years and there is not a damn thing we can really do about it.
politicians and others (like Al Gore) will sure use a lie to get you to voluntarily give up more money so they can redistribute it to their donors and their dependents (the 47% of the population who dont contribute back to society other than the lottery tickets they purchase).
#25 to #23 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
shhh. this is the internet, logic has no power here.
#34 to #23 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Don't use logic on liberals, next they'll tell you humans were responsible for the ice age.
User avatar #28 to #23 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
The fact that you actually believe the 47% who pay no federal income tax are worthless moochers dependent on government discredits any point you are making.
#27 to #23 - ronyx (02/12/2013) [-]
So you're saying all the millions of tons of pollutants we dump into the atmosphere, the oceans and the land has no effect on the earth at all? seems legit.
So you're saying all the millions of tons of pollutants we dump into the atmosphere, the oceans and the land has no effect on the earth at all? seems legit.
User avatar #55 - durkadurka (02/12/2013) [-]
the problem is that the way in which some people want to do this is ******* insane. We're moving towards most of these at a sane pace.
 Friends (0)