On Tuesday's "Today" show Matt Lauer discovered the solution to all the environmental crises Al Gore and his ilk have warned about, there's just one hitch, it involves the extinction of all mankind. Promoting a book that examined how long it would take for the Earth to clean up "the mess we've made" Lauer and his co-host Meredith Vieira pondered how pristine the planet would be without us:
Matt Lauer: "Then we're gonna talk to the author of a book and this is, really asks an interesting question. The book is called The World Without Us and it asks the question what would happen to planet Earth if human beings were to suddenly disappear. What would happen to our cities? What would happen to our landmarks? How quickly would our streets turn to rivers? How quickly would our farmland turn to forest? What would happen to natural wonders and man made wonders, like the Panama Canal or the Statue of Liberty. We're gonna talk to the author about that. And really it's all about trying to figure out how long it would take nature to reclaim what we've created."
Meredith Vieira: "The mess."
Lauer: "How long it would take nature to fix the mess we've made?"
During the interview with the book's author Lauer wondered how long it would take for such environmentally-damaging things like farmland and the Statue of Liberty to degrade and then concluded:
Lauer: "What's the lesson here? Would the Earth miss us at all? How long would it take for it, to fix the problems we created?"
Alan Weisman, author: "Some things, obviously, would be colonized by nature and covered by nature very quickly. Other things that we've done are gonna be very cloying. Plastics. Nothing knows how to break them down yet. They'll be around for millions of years. They'll be a part of the geologic record. Our radioactive wastes-"
Lauer: "We got, we got a lot of lessons to learn and this book might teach us a few of them. Alan Weisman, thanks for being here."
The following are the silly teasers from Lauer and Vieira, followed by the full interview segment as they occurred on the September 4 "Today" show:
Matt Lauer: "Also how about this? What would happen to our planet if human beings were to disappear? It's an interesting question. Probably better off. What would happen to our homes, our cities, our landmarks? Actually how long would it take Mother Nature to reclaim what human beings have created? We'll talk to the author of a new book that poses that very question."
...
Matt Lauer: "Then we're gonna talk to the author of a book and this is, really asks an interesting question. The book is called The World Without Us and it asks the question what would happen to planet Earth if human beings were to suddenly disappear. What would happen to our cities? What would happen to our landmarks? How quickly would our streets turn to rivers? How quickly would our farmland turn to forest? What would happen to natural wonders and man made wonders, like the Panama Canal or the Statue of Liberty. We're gonna talk to the author about that. And really it's all about trying to figure out how long it would take nature to reclaim what we've created."
Meredith Vieira: "The mess."
Lauer: "How long it would take nature to fix the mess we've made?"
...
Matt Lauer: "There's been a lot of debate these days about what mankind is doing to our planet. So here's an interesting question for you. What would happen to Earth if humans simply disappeared? Author and journalist Alan Weisman tackles those questions in his new book, it's called, The World Without Us. Alan, good morning. Nice to have you here."
Alan Weisman: "My pleasure."
Lauer: "I like the idea. So many people spend time thinking about how long we can survive on Earth, you take the question one step further and say what happens to Earth after we're gone? Where did you come up with this idea?"
Weisman: "Well, as an environmental writer I get more and more concerned that people don't want to read stuff that is really frightening to them because they're scared that we're all gonna die if something doesn't change or we don't change. So I figured that by theoretically wiping us off the face of the Earth and then just seeing what would happen next, it sort of gets people thinking that, 'Well okay we're already dead. This is gonna be fun. We get to see the future."
Lauer: "So let me just, first of all, fill people in. How did you wipe us off the face of the Earth? What happened to us that created the situation?"
Weisman: "I don't spend, really, much time. I pose a few possibilities. They're remote possibilities. A homosapien-specific virus might pick us off. And let's say that AIDS were airborne, instead of transferred by fluids. Let's say there's a rapture or some nano-genius figures out a way to sterilize us."
Lauer: "One way or another we're gone."
Weisman: "Yeah."
Lauer: "We're gone? Alright, let's get into some specifics. You got a lot of people, right now, Alan, they're watching from their comfortable homes, their houses. Human beings are gone from the Earth. What happens to those homes?"
Weisman: "Well everyone who owns a home knows that nature is always trying to repossess it faster than the bank. And if you're not maintaining it constantly stuff is going to come in. You're gonna have little animals coming in, be they insects or small mammals. Mold is coming in and most of all water is trying to get in. And if you're not maintaining your roof water will start to seep underneath and then it starts to fall apart."
Lauer: "And let's face it, we're using cheaper and cheaper building materials these days so, so Mother Nature is gonna win. You write this, 'Gradually the asphalt jungle will give way to a real one.' You talk about cities. For example, New York City. And what's gonna happen underground in the tunnels, under the streets with water damage. What's the scenario? And how long does it take?"
Weisman: "Well subway engineers took me underneath New York to show me that, even on a sunny day, 13 million gallons of groundwater has to be pumped away. This used to be a very hilly island. There were streams that would whisk the water away to the sea. That we flattened the city down to superimpose the grid. So the water is underground and if they're not pumping it uphill or if there are no human beings manning the power plants, it's gonna flood and then the columns holding up the streets are gonna corrode and..."
Lauer: "So Lexington Avenue is a river and..."
Weisman: "It would take 20 years or so for those columns to corrode enough that the streets would cave-in but that would definitely happen."
Lauer: "A lot of bridges around the world would simply collapse and fall."
Weisman: "Right, but Manhattan's bridges, because they were built really early in the 20th century, oftentimes they're overbuilt, so they're probably gonna last longer than say some of our interstate freeway bridges that are already starting to collapse."
Lauer: "How long would it take for farmland to turn into forest again?"
Weisman: "It depends on whether that farmland had received a lot of fertilizer and pesticides and all the other things that we've done to soil. And I've got comparisons of both kinds in this book. The, the farms in northern New England that never saw much fertilizer, they're already turning into forests. The ones that have gotten all this coating of municipal sludge and the other things that we do to so-call improve soil, they're very acidic. They've been very leeched, it's gonna take a while."
Lauer: "Let's talk about some landmarks, things we can all see. Some iconic images around the world. The Great Wall of China. No human beings. How long does that last?"
Weisman: "Great Wall of China isn't all that great compared to other things because it really depends, just like our subways, just like our bridges on human maintenance. It's a pastiche of bricks and mud and sticks and even rice gluten to hold it all together. And if people weren't there maintaining it, erosion would just dissolve it."
Lauer: "The Panama Canal? What's its future with no humans?"
Weisman: "The Panama Canal was described to me, in Panama by engineers there, as this great wound in the Earth that amputated one continent from the other. It would take less than 20 years, probably less than 10 years for that wound to be healed by nature."
Lauer: "Here's something that would last longer than I ever, the Chunnel. Okay, the tunnel that, that goes from Great Britain to France? How long would that last?"
Weisman: "Well the Chunnel was built, intelligently, through one geographic layer. So it probably wouldn't get divided by a fault or anything. It would, it's a really well-built tunnel that might be buried down there forever. However, the, the Calais side, the French side isn't that high above sea level. So if seas keep rising it may flood and water will collect at the lowest point. It's kind of v-shaped."
Lauer: "Things that would last a long time: the Statue of Liberty, pennies minted before a certain year. What's the lesson here? Would the Earth miss us at all? How long would it take for it, to fix the problems we created?"
Weisman: "Some things, obviously, would be colonized by nature and covered by nature very quickly. Other things that we've done are gonna be very cloying. Plastics. Nothing knows how to break them down yet. They'll be around for millions of years. They'll be a part of the geologic record. Our radioactive wastes-"
Lauer: "We got, we got a lot of lessons to learn and this book might teach us a few of them. Alan Weisman, thanks for being here."
Weisman: "Thank you very much, Matt."
UPDATE: The above segment was very reminiscent of the following MRC Quote of the Year runner-up from 1990:
"It's a morbid observation, but if everyone on earth just stopped breathing for an hour, the greenhouse effect would no longer be a problem."
-- Newsweek Senior Writer Jerry Adler, December 31, 1990 issue.
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.





Lauer: "I like the idea. So many people spend time thinking about how long we can survive on Earth, you take the question one step further and say what happens to Earth after we're gone? Where did you come up with this idea?"















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ah, now we know their end
September 4, 2007 - 17:18 ET by Chris NormanAh, now we know their end game. But, if we're all gone, who'll watch Matt and Meredith in the mornings? Surely, they aren't including themselves in this, huh?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris, you've got it
September 4, 2007 - 17:20 ET by CrashChris, you've got it backwards. Libs like Matt, Meredith, Gore and Leo are the ones ready to throw in the towel. Three cheers for the extinction of liberals!
Not at all. Notice how when
September 4, 2007 - 17:22 ET by Chris NormanNot at all. Notice how when they say we shouldn't be driving SUVs or living in mansions, they aren't talking about themselves...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
It's the Amish, stupid...
September 4, 2007 - 17:32 ET by TruthMonger...and once again I say that the Amish have every single issue we debate here already figured out...whenever we're ready:)
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
But, but, I don't like
September 4, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Chris NormanBut, but, I don't like those weird beards they wear...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
...you get used to
September 4, 2007 - 18:00 ET by TruthMonger...you get used to it:)
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
But I thought the House
September 4, 2007 - 18:07 ET by Chris NormanBut, I thought the House Amish don't use electricity and modern technology, so how could we go on NewsBusters? Look, I'll give up a lot, but there are limits... :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
sacrifices will have to be
September 4, 2007 - 18:29 ET by TruthMongersacrifices will have to be made - not my rules unfortunately:)!
we have a few centuries to get ready...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
TruthMonger
September 4, 2007 - 23:23 ET by SportPoliticsIm sorry, we have about 9 years left, and I don't quite understand how Lauer forgot to tell the bookwriter that soon to be Dr. Al Gore and his scientific minders have declared mass human extinction is already upon us, and the heat envelope of earth is nearing it's exponential and unstoppable increase.
I realize GWB was trying to save humanity with his manned mission to mars idea, but these people want us all dead so the earth can live a normal healthy life, can you really blame them ?
I was encouraged by the announcement that amputations like the Panama Canal are reversed and regrown by Mother Earth (thank God Jimmah abandoned that atrocity ), She really is a far more avanced Being than we, the human virus invading and destroying Her health.
The ironic part is our carbon spewing that is increasing Her heat to fever temperatures will be our own undoing. Isn't She a gloriously advanced Creature, no need for white blood cells, the invasive virus She shelters, we humans, will simply cease to exist in Her fever.
Excuse me I need to go hug a tree and cry now, since I'm afraid many of my wooden friends, including Dr. Al Gore won't make it.
the good news SP
September 4, 2007 - 23:28 ET byall those people who told us cockroaches would outlive us all were right. That will be man's final vindication we were right about roaches.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
So, Heir Lauer is in favor
September 4, 2007 - 17:09 ET by drillanwrSo, Heir Lauer is in favor of genocide and extermination?
Libs...lead the way
September 4, 2007 - 17:24 ET by LionKingLet the liberals lead the way...
Nothing But Flowers
September 4, 2007 - 19:06 ET by RiharThis reminds me of that song by Talking Heads called "Nothing But Flowers" wherin the world is being reclaimed by nature. However it had a typical not-what-you-expected twist the Talking Heads often used.
The lyrics were, I think more in line with what normal people would do than what liberal utopians might do. Or think they would do.
My favorite was "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower"
Sadly, this kind of thinking would probably put me in the ranks of Philistine in the eyes of the Today Show.
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Why don't we try it this way...
September 4, 2007 - 17:14 ET by c5thenAll the AGW hard core activists get to drink the cool-aid first. If there is no discernable change after 10 years, the MSM can go next. After another 10 years those of us poor souls left will evaluate what the next steps should be.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Does anyone here remember
September 4, 2007 - 17:41 ET by motherbeltDoes anyone here remember the article that Rush read on the air a few years ago? It was by some mankind-hating enviro-wacko that "knew" man was responsible for ruining the earth. Went on to talk about how it was only "chance" in evolution that made men supreme, as opposed to, say, dolphins. And everyone knows how intelligent dolphins are, so they would have been much better stewards of the earth if they had ended up at the top of the food chain.
It was hilarious, because you would swear it was a parody, but the guy meant every word!
I haven't seen a dolphin
September 4, 2007 - 18:50 ET by danboI haven't seen a dolphin while diving yet. However a number of divers have commented that dolphins can be a royal pain. People have the flipper image of them. Which isn't quite accurate. Just as Jaws is the image of sharks. Rather than the image of people holding and petting sharks. (They can go limp in your arms like a contented cat.) Example
Like wise the image of the poor polar bear.
Unfortunately libs live in the fantasy world of Disney and Hollywood. Not the real world.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Well, dan. I'd imagine a
September 4, 2007 - 19:01 ET by BlondeWell, dan.
I'd imagine a dolphin would be smart enough to recognize Hillary Clinton for the shark she is, and try to drown her.
Other than that....they are extremely intelligent animals. Highly specialized with their sonar capabilities. But as the libs postulate....smart enough to run the world? Idiotic!
The whole discussion these liberals had about no humans on earth is absurd.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
But, you all would agree
September 4, 2007 - 19:08 ET by Chris NormanMaybe not running the world. But, I think we all would agree that Flipper would do a better job at anchoring a news program than, say, Matt, Meredith, Dianne, or Katie.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Agreed. Hillary and the
September 4, 2007 - 19:19 ET by danboAgreed. Hillary and the dems are the real sharks. Let's hope the dolphins do chase them off. And the finned sharks bite them.
Like I said. Haven't encountered dolphin yet. (I hope to. They're on my list of to see; along with whale sharks, manta, and sea horses.) But sharks also seem pretty sharp. And with well developed senses.
BTW (Think I told you.) had a pair of tarpons accompanying us on a night dive a few weeks ago. And a spanish hog fish that was a real ham. Kept jumping in the light where ever we pointed it.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
dan
September 4, 2007 - 19:30 ET by BlondeAs you said, I've never encountered dolphins while diving either (although I "swam" with them as a kid in the Keys).
There are no end to fascinating and nosy fish and other creatures on the reef (I think you told me it was a 3" blue damselfish that was giving you fits....crazy little critters!).
We saw a baby whale shark in the Keys once (about 20' long), but it was so shy it ran off before I had a chance to jump off the boat and swim with it. A beautiful creature.
I once encountered a box crab and a small octopus (4"?) fighting to the death on the flats in about 3' of water. Amazing. I'll never forget it.
The point being, though, is that these liberal idiots just think of "mother Nature" as some sort of idealogical thing, whereas sportsmen (and women) like ourselves find the beauty in the environment....and work to preserve it.
Letting it revert doesn't serve anyone's purpose. But instituting use rules, catch limits, etc. serves everyone's purpose. Too bad the liberal fools will never get that. As much as they dislike it....human beings not only share, but rule the planet. We just need to do it responsibly. And yes, that means drilling (I flew over the Gulf rigs on my way back from Houston....first time I'd ever seen that....Wow!....but what a great marine habitat that must be under water). Equitable use of the environment.
Anyway, I digress. Glad you had a great trip....and good luck on meeting the denizens on your list. Good stuff!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hard to believe a 3" blue
September 4, 2007 - 20:06 ET by danboHard to believe a 3" blue phase sargent major stood his ground to me. I must have gotten too close to the egg stash.
Yes, I've watched small fish jumping in and fighting a larger eel. trying to take the eels lunch away from him. And it's fun watching fish of different species join together to hunt.
I used to try to pick up trash on the ocean floor. Untill I realized the bottles and cans were someone's home.
The rigs are interesting dives. Lots of life attaches itself to the legs. And if you're observant when you dive you see the little eyes and faces watching you. They attract life, just as wrecks, discarded tires and rubble. (Sometimes they're eyesores to us. But the fish love them.)
We need to be careful what goes out. but man really is a part of nature. And adds to nature.
Is it my imagination? Or do conservatives tend to get more directly involved with and interact more with nature. Verses libs who often just watch representations.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"Is it my imagination? Or
September 5, 2007 - 10:30 ET by NCConservative"Is it my imagination? Or do conservatives tend to get more directly involved with and interact more with nature"
My brother is in a 4-wheel-drive enthusiasts club, and as he likes to point out, they have never come across any members of the Sierra Club while they are out picking up garbage from the parks and conservation areas...
My Concern
September 4, 2007 - 17:18 ET by WoodyMWhat a stupid topic for speculation. Let's just hope that crabgrass doesn't take over golf courses.
I saw this author
September 4, 2007 - 17:43 ET by balboaI saw this author interviewed on The Daily Show, and it sounds like a fascinating idea for a book. Very interesting stuff.
Better Idea
September 4, 2007 - 18:12 ET by WoodyMHow long would it take for the world to return to normal if all the liberals instantly disappeared?
I thought that's what you
September 4, 2007 - 18:29 ET by balboaI thought that's what you guys said will happen during the Rapture?
Flash update: humans are
September 4, 2007 - 18:32 ET by TruthMongerFlash update: humans are part of nature - and nature can't make a mess of itself:)!
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
In many ways, humans have
September 4, 2007 - 19:21 ET by balboaIn many ways, humans have risen above nature.
Anthropologist used to say
September 4, 2007 - 19:35 ET by danboAnthropologist used to say that man was the only species that made and used tools. Untill apes were seen making and using tools.
What man does exists in nature.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Yes, but we've conquered
September 4, 2007 - 21:19 ET by balboaYes, but we've conquered the elements in large part, allowing us to inhabit places such as Canada, Iceland, etc. We exist despite nature, to some extent.
We exist despite nature? hahaha
September 4, 2007 - 21:30 ET by RJBal, Nature itself "conquers the elements, allowing living, breathng creatures to inhabit places such as Canada and Iceland."
Polar Bears are a relatively recent evolution from Grizzly Bears...and they live in that inhospitable place called Canada.
All I'm saying is that
September 4, 2007 - 22:17 ET by balboaAll I'm saying is that we're not at the mercy of nature as much as all the other animals. There are exceptions, yes, such as extreme nature, but we build buildings that stand up better during earthquakes, we build dams, levees, etc.
Not much of an outdoorsman, are you bal?
September 4, 2007 - 22:37 ET by RJ"we're not at the mercy of nature as much as animals"....ha
Feel sorry for the poor creatures who have to live outside?
Animals do just fine, bal. In fact, they usually do better than man in ALL conditions. See, they've learned to specialize and adapt for where-ever they live.
And the buildings, dams, etc that man builds? Nothing more than complicated adaptations.
[sigh]...Do squirrels have
September 4, 2007 - 22:49 ET by balboa[sigh]...Do squirrels have air conditioning? Has there been some leap in technology whereby rodents have mastered the concept of central air?
Two answers required, bal
September 4, 2007 - 22:57 ET by RJ...because of your ambiguous post. ;^>
Answer 1: Once again, you begin with a stupid premise and when challenged, resort to sarcasm in an attempt to cover.
Answer 2: Because animals have no technology, it means they are "at the mercy of nature?" Like I said, you don't know much about nature, do you bal?
I didn't say "at the mercy
September 4, 2007 - 23:00 ET by balboaI didn't say "at the mercy of nature," I said "MORE at the mercy of nature" than we are. MORE. You don't know much about sentence structure, do you RJ.
My sarcastic response clearly illustrated my point. We have air conditioning. Squirrels do not. Point, us.
Why, yes, I do know about sentence structure, bal
September 4, 2007 - 23:15 ET by RJ...and I know when you're trying to blow smoke. You actually said "we're not at the mercy of nature as much as all the other animals." This clearly means you think that animals ARE at the mercy of nature, but humans are less so.
So you were being serious when you bragged that humans have air conditioning and animals don't. Sorry for my confusion. It was such a silly thing to say, I couldn't be sure.
Yes, we have adapted with complicated shelters (that includes mechanical air conditioning), but so have the animals. Their burrows, nests, tree holes, caves, etc, are what they've created to survive and thrive in all the weather conditions they are likely to encounter.
In fact, I would say our systems are more prone to massive failure, coming as they do through a complicated infrastructure, than the animals are.
WOW. Just, "wow." So I
September 4, 2007 - 23:18 ET by balboaWOW. Just, "wow."
So I assume you'll be moving into a tree or cave soon? Perhaps a nice nest somewhere or burrow? So you don't expose yourself to "massive failure."
Back to the pointless sarcasm, bal?
September 4, 2007 - 23:20 ET by RJAlways a sure sign that you understand you've lost the argument. ;^>
You didn't answer the
September 4, 2007 - 23:29 ET by balboaYou didn't answer the question.
And neither did you, bal
September 4, 2007 - 23:47 ET by RJRespond to my post three doors up and I'll be happy to respond to your silly "I give up/you win" post about moving into the trees.
"Feel sorry for the poor
September 4, 2007 - 23:58 ET by balboa"Feel sorry for the poor creatures who have to live outside?"
No, I don't. Your turn.
Nice try, but childish, bal
September 5, 2007 - 00:09 ET by RJRespond to my entire post or go away.
Speaking of going away, I'm going to bed. I'll check in the morning to see if you've decided to argue like a serious adult, or if you stick to the tiresome and silly one liners.
Repeat the question. I'm
September 5, 2007 - 11:28 ET by balboaRepeat the question. I'm too stupid to pick it out of your many posts.
Just re-read the last 5 or 6 posts, bal
September 5, 2007 - 14:15 ET by RJI'm sure you can pick up the thread of conversation going before you decided to derail it with sarcastic non-sequiturs.
On the other hand, we can stop if you prefer....I've made my point, which is that you, having little knowledge about animals in their natural environment, probably shouldn't have commented on the subject.
RJ
September 5, 2007 - 19:02 ET by balboaAnd I made my point, that you're wrong.
Well, bal, if that's true
September 5, 2007 - 19:25 ET by RJWhy don't you just do as I suggested and pick up the thread where you dropped it in favor of silly, sophomoric gamesmanship? Just go back (now) 8 or 9 posts and respond like a grown up. Come on, bal. Show me your stuff. You can even move it down to the bottom so we have plenty of room.
balboa, please tell me the last time
September 5, 2007 - 00:03 ET by SportPoliticsbabbling bubbleboy: " My sarcastic response clearly illustrated my point. We have air conditioning. Squirrels do not. Point, us. "
balboa, please tell me the last time you saw a squirrel passed out on the sidewalk from heat exhaustion ?
roflmao - the idiot lib!
No, bal, but they do have
September 4, 2007 - 22:59 ET by MikeBNo, bal, but they do have summer homes and winter homes. The summer home is a nest of leaves in the tops of the trees where the upper branches give them shade from the sun, and any errant wind current that comes along blows through the nest to cool them off. The winter home, on the other hand is a hollow in a tree lined with dead leaves and twigs. The hollow keeps the cold wind off of them, and the dead leaves and twigs make for a fairly efficient blanket of insulation. So, they have no need for central heat and air.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
There is life that survive
September 4, 2007 - 22:27 ET by danboThere is life that survive in places we can't. We do have more tools to extend our range. But animals also have tools.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
These guys havent seen
September 4, 2007 - 17:19 ET by bassndudeThese guys havent seen Planet of the Apes? What gives here? The movie tells us that if humans "devolve", the apes will rise to the top of the food chain.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
and just wait until those
September 4, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Chris Normanand just wait until those "damned, filthy apes" get SUVs! :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Should we start calling
September 4, 2007 - 17:25 ET by NortonalecShould we start calling Meredith Nova?
Nortonalec
Would Al Gore be Dr. Zaius?
September 4, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberWould Al Gore be Dr. Zaius?
I can't remember. Was Dr.
September 4, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Chris NormanI can't remember. Was Dr. Zaius an overweight, embittered presidential loser who sought to resurrect his career by becoming a crazed prophet of whacked-out environmentalism? Please refresh my memory. :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Haha! Dr. Zaius was the
September 4, 2007 - 17:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberHaha!
Dr. Zaius was the "keeper" of global warming , er, ape religion, AND invented the ape-ernet!
"Will Global Warming come
September 4, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Chris Norman"Will Global Warming come back? The answer lies Beneath the Garage Roofs on the Planet of the Apes"...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
LOL! You are right! In the
September 4, 2007 - 17:33 ET by NortonalecLOL! You are right! In the movie, Dr. Zaius invented the internet.
Nortonalec
I've heard conversations
September 4, 2007 - 17:31 ET by MidAmericaI've heard conversations like this before (I'm a boomer).
The people are really stoned and they are having these brilliant insights and everybody is like, "whoa... that's heavy". and then they'd giggle and forget what they were talking about.
MidAmerica, You made me
September 4, 2007 - 17:34 ET by msh1973MidAmerica,
You made me laugh!
Me too....I cracked up!
September 4, 2007 - 17:42 ET by motherbeltMe too....I cracked up!
Well it's easy to make a
September 4, 2007 - 17:52 ET by MidAmericaWell it's easy to make a joke when it looks like you're watching a skit from Waynes World.
You guys really don't think
September 4, 2007 - 17:54 ET by balboaYou guys really don't think this is an interesting topic?
The topic can only be
September 4, 2007 - 18:13 ET by MidAmericaThe topic can only be pure speculation and flights of fantasy.
It's like a koan in Bhuddism where you can meditate on 'the sound of one hand clapping' or 'what did you look like before your parents met?'.
That's not a good
September 4, 2007 - 18:28 ET by balboaThat's not a good comparison. You can base the discussion on the actual reality of things, as it appears the author did to write a whole book about the subject.
Without a self-aware life
September 4, 2007 - 18:51 ET by MidAmericaWithout a self-aware life form the earth has no meaning. It does not 'exist'. Removing all humans would be the 'destruction' of the planet. Life is more than biology.
You really can't appreciate
September 4, 2007 - 19:20 ET by balboaYou really can't appreciate this subject, can you.
You're not following my
September 4, 2007 - 20:00 ET by MidAmericaYou're not following my train of thought. If there is an end to humanity what happens next is unknowable and it doesn't matter.
It's unknowable because there won't be any creature to be 'aware' of the state of the planet.
It doesn't matter what the state of the world becomes because whether something is good or bad is a moral judgement and without humans there is no creature to make those judgements.
To hope for the end of humanity as a cure for it's 'ills and sins' is a mental disorder.
I understand what you're
September 4, 2007 - 20:11 ET by balboaI understand what you're saying. I don't know why contemplating what would happen to our planet, our infrastructure, if we disappeared isn't interesting or worthwhile.
No one's "hoping" for the end of humanity. It's "contemplation"; analysis.
Sure it's OK to
September 4, 2007 - 20:46 ET by MidAmericaSure it's OK to speculate on this topic as long as you keep in mind this is a science-fiction novel. There's no way to validate any claim in the book.
Well, duh, that's the fun,
September 4, 2007 - 21:16 ET by balboaWell, duh, that's the fun, speculating as to how things might happen. I'm not basing my life around the book. It's fascinating to me, though.
Yes the death cult is fun huh, balboa
September 5, 2007 - 03:41 ET by SportPoliticsI guess Leon's propensity for death cultism is also infecting our other famous lib, huh babbly ....
Well, since it's fascinating, did you surmise Mother Earth would swallow nearly all traces of man rather quickly, as any normal lib archeaological wacko darwinist multi-cultural person could easily conclude ?
I suppose NOT. I think you're like Matilda and his co-lib death cult crybaby, and whine to yourself " my God! radiation and plastic! the bane of the world forver! "
Then your inner child probably shrinks in horrid fascination.
It's not just speculation,
September 4, 2007 - 22:30 ET by cleverpigIt's not just speculation, either. A lot of what is cited in the book is research done around Chernoble. In addition to studying the effects of radioactivity, they can also study what happens when humans completely abandon a functional and civilized place. It's fascinating stuff that's going on.
...they can also study
September 4, 2007 - 23:07 ET by MidAmerica...they can also study what happens when humans completely abandon a functional and civilized place.
I personally can't see anything that would be interesting in these studies. Maybe because I live in a rural area and I have seen firsthand how 'nature' reclaims old farmhouses and replants abandoned fields. It's what nature does.
Not big on speculation,
September 4, 2007 - 23:14 ET by balboaNot big on speculation, then.
It's somewhat interesting,
September 4, 2007 - 21:20 ET by HypocriteHaterIt's somewhat interesting, but what annoys me is Matt's insistance that there's a lesson to be learned from this book. What lesson? Nature good, humans bad?
Sorry, I'm already inundated with white guilt, I'm not getting sucked into the "human guilt" trip. Next thing you know Matt will have us apologizing to trees and giving reparations to rocks.
Absolutely, that's
September 4, 2007 - 21:24 ET by balboaAbsolutely, that's annoying. There aren't any "lessons" here. It's just a fun exercise. Yeah, plastic bags will outlast us, but...so?
bal -
September 4, 2007 - 22:40 ET by drillanwrAfter all, the archeologists hundreds of years into the future will need artifacts to dig up ... from us.
We can only hope that it'll
September 4, 2007 - 22:50 ET by balboaWe can only hope that it'll be Target bag.
"Plastic bags will outlast
September 4, 2007 - 23:08 ET by MikeB"Plastic bags will outlast us." But they don't have to. A recently patented process exposes plastics and other petro-products to certain frequencies of microwaves, and they are turned back into the petroleum fractions they were made from. Or, for those who object to a sentence ending with a preposition: they are turned back into the petroleum fractions from which they were made.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Ogre from Revenge of the
September 4, 2007 - 23:03 ET by MikeBOgre from Revenge of the Nerds II: after taking a toke of some wacky weed: "What if c-a-t really spelled "dog"?
"Wow, Ogre, that's really deep!"
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
We have a winner!!! Why is
September 5, 2007 - 13:07 ET by TheDeuceWe have a winner!!!
Why is it that lefties believe that 'the people' noted in the 2nd are different than the 'the people' mentioned elsewhere in the Bill of Rights?
Matt and Meredith are
September 4, 2007 - 17:33 ET by msh1973Matt and Meredith are perfectly matched...between them they might have half a brain.
You're right. It's laying
September 4, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Chris NormanYou're right. It's laying on the floor, between their chairs...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
but God said...
September 4, 2007 - 17:35 ET by vrwc1326 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
OR
the evolution view...millions of years ago monkeys and apes mutated into humans and the world starts to go downhill..
v
...so who would preach
September 4, 2007 - 17:43 ET by TruthMonger...so who would preach against this stuff anyway?!?!?
could it maybe be.........
SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Probably has at least a hand
September 5, 2007 - 08:57 ET by vrwc13Probably has at least a hand in it.
According to evolutionists this was all tried before
September 4, 2007 - 17:52 ET by c5thenAt least twice.
The Dinosaurs were around for a long time and the Earth was really hot and humid with mostly one giant continent. Then they all died (damned asteroid) and it was the mamal's turn. They populated all the various continents that had started to drift apart by then and then it got REALLY REALLY cold. An Ice age happened all by itself.
Now it's us Human's turn.
What makes these twits think that anything related to "nature" stays the same?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
As I was going through my
September 4, 2007 - 17:35 ET by bobthemanAs I was going through my morning routine, I had this segment on the TV and was in listen mode for the most part... the more I heard, the more agitated I got at how ridiculous the whole conversation was.
I kept thinking, "how in the hell does this make it on network TV? Is this going to end up on SNL?"
An irritating and irrelevant interview...
If we get rid of all the
September 4, 2007 - 18:00 ET by charlietexasIf we get rid of all the liberals think of how nice the world would be.
No hot air, no scumbags. The world would smell better too.......
Lauer's call to vote Republican.
September 4, 2007 - 18:03 ET by Gary HallLauer's call to vote Republican.
After all, if everyone voted Republican, civilization as we know it would be doomed. Man would disappear from the face of the earth and the earth would recover and flourish.
I wish Matty and Ms Vieira would...
September 4, 2007 - 19:19 ET by drewinmass61... do their part to clean up the "mess" that is our lamestream media by becoming "extinct" from my television screen.
George Carlin on Plastic
September 4, 2007 - 19:29 ET by PopularTechLet George Carlin explain it:
George Carlin - The Planet is Fine (Adults Only) (Video) (8min)
The plot to get rid of humans is nothing new:
Eco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 Billion (Business and Media Institute)
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
They really are that stupid!
September 4, 2007 - 20:10 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThe premise is totally off... wrong... sophistry and hyperbole.
First, it is only one ideology's opinion that we humans are destructive to the environment. I don't see anything we do as being destructive to the environment, especially on a planitary scale. Plastic bags? Destructive? Not even. Spent Nuclear fuel is destructive? Nope...don't buy that either. Look at Chernobyl, the only life that isn't thriving there is human... and humans could probably live there without incident.
When we mine for ore in the Grand Tetons, and the activists claim we are destroying nature... I say... screw them all and blow those mountains to kingdom come and get that ore... how much more destructive is a volcano? And is a volcano really destructive? NO. It creates new opportunities for life and new land.... we create new opportunities for life and in many cases... new land. Hell, look at the Hong Kong airport and the Tokyo airport. Both on man made islands. We humans just form the environment to meet our needs... and since this environment is here to be done with as we see fit.... I say we tie the liberals to the trees they love.... and let nature sort out the rest.
...>>> starts chainsaw<<<<....
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
I'd rather look at the
September 4, 2007 - 20:18 ET by balboaI'd rather look at the Grand Tetons than some ugly mine.
That's fine balboa
September 4, 2007 - 23:36 ET by SportPoliticsThe most important thing is your eye-candy nature pleasure view. ( please avoid looking in the mirror)
What we'll do is remove from you all human inventions that were made with the metal products produced from the ore taken from " unsightly mines".
Then well toss you out there so you can gawk at the Grand Tetons. No, your bicycle won't be available, nor your industrial loom clothing, not even your handy keychain imitation swiss army knife with toothpick, tweezers, and one less than 2" blade, the greatest weapon your manhood allows you to posses, guilt included.
So, good luck. I hope you studied more than Indian Ward Churchill's rants against the "little Eichmans".
We'll be by in a week or so to view your remains and chase away the last few wild animals picking at your rotting corpse.
No worries, we'll know you died happy with your Grand Teton viewing druthers warming your now in a vultures belly heart.
I've always appreciated
September 4, 2007 - 23:37 ET by balboaI've always appreciated your ability to be rational.
And balboa
September 4, 2007 - 23:47 ET by SportPoliticsI'm always amazed at your insignificant braindead moron comments.
Are they generally speaking your attempt at humor ? Are you that dry ? Do you notice you are in that case a parody of your own political party's stances ?
What do you want peon, all your modern conviences, or your mine free Grand Teton view ? It's not that hard to understand, stupid. It simply takes a moron or some insane liberal to not "get it", and perhaps both.
I guess you were joking again, right ?
(hope that one isn't too hard for you either - but I dearly suspect it is )
That was excellent. I thank
September 5, 2007 - 00:00 ET by balboaThat was excellent. I thank you.
Global Warming Offense Taken To The Extreme
September 4, 2007 - 22:49 ET by Intellectual HonestyAsk a staunch man-made Global Warming believer that if it could be proved that activities of humans play a minute or zero role in the slight elevation in global tempatures, would they still advocate all the solutions they had deemed necessary to save the earth? Almost to a T they would say, "Yes!"
It is that answer that the root of all virulent strains of enviromentalism lay. Socialism again would be proven to be firemen putting out a fire they themselves started.
It is the intellectual equivalent of streaking. If the source of their alarm can be shown to be false well they wouldn't change a damn thing. Full speed ahead! There is no use arguing with such a person because you couldn't possibly satisfy their standards which are...none.
There are three questions that NEED to be answered, in order, when it comes to GW.
1 - "Is there Global Warming?"
2 - If yes, "Are humans the cause of it?"
3 - If yes, "Is there anything we can do about it?"
On the first question the figures vary, as do the time frames, but it is generally agreed that there has been a measureable warming in the last hundred years. There is still great debate about by how much of a degree or degrees but it is generally acknowledge, hockey stick aside.
On the second is the debate that we are told is undeniably over. "Can we skeptics review your underlying data and try to replicate?" "Get lost!" When your core group of college educators, those that are incharge of educating, promoting, giving tenure to future teachers, journalists, scientists, politicians are of primarily of one political party, is it really a surprise that such a theory with weak proof, hidden methadology, incubator mentality has gotten as far as it has?
On the third is really where this guys book comes into play. It is reasonable to assume that this author would have no problem with the earth shedding it's human locusts. The question for this gentleman would be if untested enviromental policies, in the guise of social justice, peace, love, multiculturalism, tree hugging via an all-powerful government were to become so oppresive as to make the general tenets of freedom (individual rights, self-protection, restricted government) a relic of the past, for the good of Mother Earth, would there be any sense then in even trying to continue the existence of humans? If man is doomed then shouldn't we act like the cancer patient that has only months to live that decides there gonna have that one last meal that they shouldn't have, that will hasten their demise but they refused to let the disease have the satisfaction of denying that one simple pleasure?Could he really honestly answer that if he believes the earth would be better without humans.
Of course not and hence any views this man may have about curbing Global Warming have zero merit. If humans are to survive then they will have to submit to the visions of Orwell's 1984. And if that isn't enough then humans disappear and so be it.
The bottomline is that this gentleman and his ilk are barely removed from your standard enviromentalist enthusiast. The ultimate problem is they never want to live up to their own standards so it just becomes a facilitator to further other ends.
Matt Liar, set the example and go ahead and off yourself.
September 4, 2007 - 23:02 ET by Dave RI'll even supply the gun and the bullet. Hell, I'll even show you which end of the gun the bullet comes out of.
Just imagine the much lower level of BS we will all be forced to wade through once you're gone.
The Earth Was Made for
September 5, 2007 - 01:37 ET by KalihiwaiBeachThe Earth Was Made for Humans NOT Humans Made For the Earth
figure that one
Get back to me
Aloha
One of these days, one of
September 5, 2007 - 06:51 ET by lnthompOne of these days, one of these nutsos is going to take "12 Monkeys" as a blueprint for action. I only hope his result will be less devastating than that depicted in the movie.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Rainbow Six
September 5, 2007 - 07:02 ET by UnsaneActually, I think they would find Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy to be very inspirational.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I never ceased to be amazed
September 5, 2007 - 09:51 ET by misterbee241I never ceased to be amazed at the sheer utter stupidity of these people.
God created the earth, saw that it was good, then created man to tend it and saw that was VERY good. We havent always done the best job, but hey, we're human not divine. We're working on getting things clean.
So tell me, what good is the earth without man? Who is going to admire it?
So go ahead, Matt - you and your friends worship the creation. So tell me whose going to watch your stupid little show?
And another thing - along with the cockroaches will be a Kennedy.
Hey Matt and Meredith, heal
September 5, 2007 - 14:25 ET by greenfairieHey Matt and Meredith, heal the Earth...you first!
"Answer 1: Once again,
September 5, 2007 - 19:34 ET by balboa"Answer 1: Once again, you begin with a stupid premise and when challenged, resort to sarcasm in an attempt to cover.
Answer 2: Because animals have no technology, it means they are "at the mercy of nature?" Like I said, you don't know much about nature, do you bal?"
Is that the question, under Answer 2? If so, again, I said "MORE" at the mercy of nature.
Almost, bal, almost.
September 5, 2007 - 19:55 ET by RJExcept you only gave a partial of your response. Here's the rest:
I didn't say "at the mercy of nature," I said "MORE at the mercy of nature" than we are. MORE. You don't know much about sentence structure, do you RJ.
My sarcastic response clearly illustrated my point. We have air conditioning. Squirrels do not. Point, us.
My response: Why, yes, bal, I do know about sentence structure....and I know when you're trying to blow smoke. You actually said "we're not at the mercy of nature as much as all the other animals." This clearly means you think that animals ARE at the mercy of nature, but humans are less so.
So you were being serious when you bragged that humans have air conditioning and animals don't. Sorry for my confusion. It was such a silly thing to say, I couldn't be sure.
Yes, we have adapted with complicated shelters (that includes mechanical air conditioning), but so have the animals. Their burrows, nests, tree holes, caves, etc, are what they've created to survive and thrive in all the weather conditions they are likely to encounter.
In fact, I would say our systems are more prone to massive failure, coming as they do through a complicated infrastructure, than the animals are.
(now, you can go from there, bal) ;^>
"This clearly means you
September 5, 2007 - 20:21 ET by balboa"This clearly means you think that animals ARE at the mercy of nature, but humans are less so."
Everyone's at the mercy of nature, but humans to a lesser degree than animals. That's my point. Sure, animals have developed great ways of counteracting the elements, ingenious ways. Technology has given us a greater edge.
Well, that's a starting point, bal
September 5, 2007 - 20:45 ET by RJSo you now agree that you did say animals are at the mercy of nature.
Let me ask you a couple of questions.
1)Can you give me examples of some specific animals that are more at the mercy of nature than humans, and in what specific way?
2) You said "we build buildings that stand up better during earthquakes, we build dams...etc." Well, HOW do our structures stand up "better" than, for example, burrows, beaver dams, nests or caves? I can think of many examples where the structures of man haven't faired so well against nature.
Squirrels do not have the
September 5, 2007 - 21:21 ET by balboaSquirrels do not have the luxury of living in insulated houses heated during the winter, nor air conditioned houses in the summer. Trees are nice, I'm sure, but they're not houses.
As I've seen on Meerkat Manor (strangely addictive), there's usually a struggle to find food, usually as a result of weather. We've learned to store food, to preserve it. One meerkat got bit by a snake, and died. We have medicine to counteract most venoms, and many viruses, that animals are more susceptible to.
As for structures, trees don't stand up to high winds as well as houses.
bal, you're trying to anthropomorphize the animals
September 5, 2007 - 21:59 ET by RJIt's classic liberal behavior to Bambi-ize animals. You want to use human criteria in judging the "quality" of their existence.
For each of your examples, I could give you human equivalences of hunger, death, structures that fall during high winds, animals that store their food, etc. But that's pointless, because we aren't animals, any more than animals are human.
Again, to claim animals are any more "at the mercy of nature" than humans is to reveal a lack of knowledge about both nature and animals.
I stated my case, and I
September 5, 2007 - 22:09 ET by balboaI stated my case, and I think it's a good one. But I appreciate your "classic liberal behavior" comment and claim that I don't match up to your vastly superior knowledge of the animal world.
Don't forget anthropomorphizing the animals, bal.
September 5, 2007 - 22:12 ET by RJAin't they cute? Almost like they could talk. ;^>