What is the worst thing ever created by man?

[TheFleetwoodMack]

The printing press

 

[subway]

TheFleetwoodMack

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

Those MC Hammer yoga pants. Way to take everything I love about yoga pants and screw it up. 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

16 hours ago, Monty said:

2 Broke Girls.

Holy crap yes. I thought about making a thread on this after trying to watch the show a few times recently. I figured it's always on and it keeps getting new seasons. Maybe it's good right? Boy was I wrong. What a piece of over contrived, poorly acted, horribly written, monkey excrement. And I am being nice about it.

[Canucks Prophet]

5 hours ago, DeNiro said:

True. 

Man is both good and bad, but some things are used in the name of good or bad more than others. The answer should be what thing, if removed from society, would take away the most evil from the world.

Of course it's all hypothetical and you could argue something else would just replace it. Makes me think of the South Park episode where science replaces religion. Instead of fighting over which god is the right god, they fight over which science is the right science.

I guess the idea of people not fighting over some ideology is not realistic. You just hope that civilization will find a higher level of consciousness at some point in evolution.

I don't think we ever will, sadly enough. As long as stupidity, greed, and ignorance are common human traits, common ground just can't be found. It's in our nature to fight and kill each other, over who knows what. We've done it for thousands of years. Mankind won't be quiet until we nuke Earth into nonexistence. Hopefully the intelligent and advanced ones will be in Mars by then. 

[Canucks Prophet]

43 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Holy crap yes. I thought about making a thread on this after trying to watch the show a few times recently. I figured it's always on and it keeps getting new seasons. Maybe it's good right? Boy was I wrong. What a piece of over contrived, poorly acted, horribly written, monkey excrement. And I am being nice about it.

Yeah, the comedy is pretty cringeworthy. I usually try to give comedies the benefit of the doubt, and if I don't like something, I just assume that I'm not the correct audience. But 2 Broke Girls is something else. 

[Monty]

6 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Holy crap yes. I thought about making a thread on this after trying to watch the show a few times recently. I figured it's always on and it keeps getting new seasons. Maybe it's good right? Boy was I wrong. What a piece of over contrived, poorly acted, horribly written, monkey excrement. And I am being nice about it.

 

5 hours ago, Canucks Prophet said:

Yeah, the comedy is pretty cringeworthy. I usually try to give comedies the benefit of the doubt, and if I don't like something, I just assume that I'm not the correct audience. But 2 Broke Girls is something else. 

I thought the same, at first. However, garbage like this has no place on television (like a lot of things). "Hey, they're the everyday, modern 'crazy' girls who talk like you and your moron friends. Pretty cool, right?"

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

On 2016-01-24 at 6:41 PM, Svengali said:

Social stratification.

 

(and the movie Gravity)

 

Seriously what a pile of crap !  

Clothes !  WE would have never moved away from the equator and the world would have way less population, thus way more food and humanity would be happy and naked ; D

[Shift-4]

Cigarettes

[Hugor Hill]

Cancer

[Tre Mac]

Autotune

[Kragar]

On 1/24/2016 at 10:35 PM, nuckin_futz said:

Loonie, isn't "might makes it right" what human beings were supposed to be? Survival of the fittest. The strongest, fastest, most powerful propagate their genes and the weak ones die and don't. Thus making the species stronger, ensuring long term survival. Feudalism wasn't physical might makes it right. It was financial might makes it right. One group hires fighters to do their fighting for them in exchange for land or gold or whatever. Sounds an awful lot like capitalism doesn't it?

indulge me if you will as I get a little philosophical. Think back to whomever put human beings on Earth. Be it some celestial power, Mother Nature of whatever one chooses to believe. Human beings really need only three things to survive. Food/water, shelter and oxygen and in some climates clothing. We do not need money.

We were originally governed by the laws of survival of the fittest. Now we are governed by the laws of capitalism. Where the weak and useless (think Lloyd Blankfein) are now in charge. How did that happen? I find it hard to acquiesce that the human body which was designed to carry heavy objects and walk 25 miles a day. Was ultimately intended to sit at a desk 8 hours a day and shuffle paper. In return for pieces of paper backed by nothing.

We're the only species on the planet that is no longer governed by survival of the fittest. Imagine how hard you'd laugh if you saw a pride of lions walk into a supermarket pull out their wallets and buy some zebra meat with pieces of paper backed by nothing. You'd say "wtf are they doing" wouldn't you? Yet that's the system we have had imposed on us.

In the words of Todd Bertuzzi "It is what it is".

Thanks for indulging me, keep in mind I am on my 3rd Gin & tonic.

The definition of "fittest" changed, that's all.  First, it was society with the best hunters.  Then those that could best grow their own food. expanding the diet.  But back then, there were people who were willing to kill to take what someone else had hunted, gathered, built, or grown for themselves.  Long before there was money.

Today, those that are most fit are those that are best able to earn and/or keep money, for themselves and their children.  And, there continue to be those who are willing to kill to take money from someone else.  Nothing much has changed except the medium of exchange, and the means with which to store, take and protect it.

I must give props for your drink of choice for the evening.  Hendricks is definitely not the worst thing humans have created!  Damn, now I'm thirsty!!

[Jägermeister]

Yeah sorry, but the answer is 100% organized religion.

Religion in and amongst itself isn't an issue.  It's how people have organized it and used it to exploit and manipulate.

[nuckin_futz]

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

The definition of "fittest" changed, that's all.  First, it was society with the best hunters.  Then those that could best grow their own food. expanding the diet.  But back then, there were people who were willing to kill to take what someone else had hunted, gathered, built, or grown for themselves.  Long before there was money.

Today, those that are most fit are those that are best able to earn and/or keep money, for themselves and their children.  And, there continue to be those who are willing to kill to take money from someone else.  Nothing much has changed except the medium of exchange, and the means with which to store, take and protect it.

I must give props for your drink of choice for the evening.  Hendricks is definitely not the worst thing humans have created!  Damn, now I'm thirsty!!

The point I was trying to make was that for the long term survival of the species you want the physically stronger ones breeding and the weaker ones to die out. The same way it still is for every other species we've shared the planet with.

Can a case not be made that having pudgy, lazy bankers and the like breeding and having access to better healthcare over their more physically capable but poorer counterparts is a detriment to the long term survival of the human race? Nature would say it is.

[Cowardrobertford]

55 minutes ago, Jägermeister said:

Yeah sorry, but the answer is 100% organized religion.

Religion in and amongst itself isn't an issue.  It's how people have organized it and used it to exploit and manipulate.

Imagine you're a philosopher/Buddhist, you believe what you come up with and for some reason you concluded that life is meaningless and whatever you do doesn't really mean anything

How dangerous are you now?

[Kragar]

40 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

The point I was trying to make was that for the long term survival of the species you want the physically stronger ones breeding and the weaker ones to die out. The same way it still is for every other species we've shared the planet with.

Can a case not be made that having pudgy, lazy bankers and the like breeding and having access to better healthcare over their more physically capable but poorer counterparts is a detriment to the long term survival of the human race? Nature would say it is.

I get what you are saying about physically capable people. but "pudgy, lazy bankers" is a massive generalization.  We have multi-millionaires (and countless multi-millionaire wannabes) working their ass off trying to be pro athletes.  Billionaries Gates, Zuckerman, Ellison, Jobs, and the Google guys are/were far from fat, but they put together some tidy sums.  Those that make the money can choose to improve their physicality, if their physical prowess was not already the source of their success.  

If there was no money/capitalism, I believe there would be no modern technology present.  No electronics.  Maybe even no electricity in our homes.  There would be no collected resources to build the infrastructure.  Everybody would be back on the farm.  Dying young because we wouldn't have the health tech we have today.

Dammit, there would be no Vancouver Canucks!!!  How dare you 

Plenty could argue that we, as a global community, would be better off if we went back to pre Industrial Revolution times.  I'm just not one of them.  

 

[oldnews]

[nuckin_futz]

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

I get what you are saying about physically capable people. but "pudgy, lazy bankers" is a massive generalization.  We have multi-millionaires (and countless multi-millionaire wannabes) working their ass off trying to be pro athletes.  Billionaries Gates, Zuckerman, Ellison, Jobs, and the Google guys are/were far from fat, but they put together some tidy sums.  Those that make the money can choose to improve their physicality, if their physical prowess was not already the source of their success.  

If there was no money/capitalism, I believe there would be no modern technology present.  No electronics.  Maybe even no electricity in our homes.  There would be no collected resources to build the infrastructure.  Everybody would be back on the farm.  Dying young because we wouldn't have the health tech we have today.

Dammit, there would be no Vancouver Canucks!!!  How dare you 

Plenty could argue that we, as a global community, would be better off if we went back to pre Industrial Revolution times.  I'm just not one of them.  

 

My definition of the fittest would not simply be the physically strongest but a combination of brawn, brains and a clean genetics. That would be the best for the long term survival of the species.

With the names you've mentioned. Sure they can improve their physicality but no amount of working out would alter their genes. If they have a family history of disease that could be passed on to their offspring nothing they do will change that. Weak genetics with a bag of money is still weak genetics.

Did you mean Zuckerman or Zuckerberg? Both are billionaires so it probably doesn't matter.

If there was no capitalism maybe there is no modern technology or maybe there is. Maybe it's even better than what we have now. What if the guy who invented the wheel ran to the patent office to have his intellectual property protected? Where would we be right now?

Necessity is the mother of invention. If it needs to be invented it will be in spite of capitalism. People will work together to accomplish things.

Capitalism is a double edged sword. Remember it's capitalism that has convinced people hemp is dangerous. That marijuana with all it's medicinal qualities should be illegal, that cigarettes were healthy etc. Maybe without the interference from capitalism we already have a cure for cancer, or flying cars or whatever else eludes us. Just some food for thought, bon appetite.

[surtur]

19 hours ago, Canucks Prophet said:

I don't think we ever will, sadly enough. As long as stupidity, greed, and ignorance are common human traits, common ground just can't be found. It's in our nature to fight and kill each other, over who knows what. We've done it for thousands of years. Mankind won't be quiet until we nuke Earth into nonexistence. Hopefully the intelligent and advanced ones will be in Mars by then. 

Not every human is born with those  traits so the only reason we have yet to advance is that the lesser are required to do the dirty work. Once everything is automated then there is a reason for mass  extinction of the lessers. 

Once the elimination of the weak takes place. The evolution of the select will commence and we as humans will continue on our way to god'dom.

[Kragar]

16 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

My definition of the fittest would not simply be the physically strongest but a combination of brawn, brains and a clean genetics. That would be the best for the long term survival of the species.

With the names you've mentioned. Sure they can improve their physicality but no amount of working out would alter their genes. If they have a family history of disease that could be passed on to their offspring nothing they do will change that. Weak genetics with a bag of money is still weak genetics.

Did you mean Zuckerman or Zuckerberg? Both are billionaires so it probably doesn't matter.

If there was no capitalism maybe there is no modern technology or maybe there is. Maybe it's even better than what we have now. What if the guy who invented the wheel ran to the patent office to have his intellectual property protected? Where would we be right now?

Necessity is the mother of invention. If it needs to be invented it will be in spite of capitalism. People will work together to accomplish things.

Capitalism is a double edged sword. Remember it's capitalism that has convinced people hemp is dangerous. That marijuana with all it's medicinal qualities should be illegal, that cigarettes were healthy etc. Maybe without the interference from capitalism we already have a cure for cancer, or flying cars or whatever else eludes us. Just some food for thought, bon appetite.

You're right, I meant Zuckerberg.  Are you suggesting that the majority of billionaires have weak genetics?  Regardless, weak genetics with a bag of money gives that person the means to fund research to overcome the genetic problem.

My point with modern tech is that capitalism drives the need for improvement, due to the increased competition in the market.  So, while we may have some tech that we know today, I expect the quality would not be as good or the product will not be as capable.

Even if someone invents something useful, who is going to produce it for someone else?  Take the car.  Go back to when they were first on the scene.  Once someone builds a car and starts puttering around town, who is going to build the next one?  It's a lot cheaper and easier for someone with experience to do it, rather than individuals or small groups doing it on their own for their own benefit.  And if the people who already have their own car they built, and have the experience already, what is their incentive to build it for someone else when it can take many days of effort to build?

Almost anything can be a double-edged sword.  As you suggest, I can fully imagine capitalists running interference on some things like cures, because they are looking out for their profits.  I believe that is happening today.  Is that any worse than the various societies in the 20th and 21st centuries where millions of people are deprived of quality food, water, air and/or healthcare because their government figures what they already have is good enough, yet to some degree provide those essentials and more for those in charge?  Where the masses have no incentive to do better, because it won't make a significant difference for them?

I agree that people can and will work together to accomplish things on a small scale.  To go beyond that, there needs to be motivation.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  Incentive is the mother of innovation.