Be Good to the Planet: DIE – the sooner the better

December 20th, 2009
submit to reddit Share

You just can’t make this stuff up!

It seems that the extreme anti-humanist agenda of the “enviornmental” special interest is not nearly as veiled as it used to be.  Witness this card from an “eco-friendly” trivia-based board game.

This image comes from failblog.

Amazing, isn’t it?  The best thing you can do to be as “Green” as possible is to be fat and out of shape, because then you’ll probably die sooner, and the sooner you die, the better!  Presumably this would also mean that other actions you could take that might result in your death would be “green.”   So not wearing your seatbelt, playing smoking and engaging in dangerous activities would be a good thing.   On the other hand, one would have to think that things like coronary bypass surgery or radiation therapy for cancer would be very un-green, as those would likely result in longer life.

But why even bother with this?   Isn’t the obvious answer just to go buy a length of organic, bpa-free rope and hang yourself before you do any more damage?   It would seem that would be the greenest thing you could possibly do!

By the way, this is indeed from a real game, called “The Green Game.“   It’s made by TDC Games, and is sold with the slogan “Play this  game… save the planet.”   That’s a rather strange sales-line for a product that isn’t actually useful for anything and is made out of cardboard and plastic that could easily be used for something more important.  It’s not a durable item and has pieces that won’t biodegrade.   They do, however,  state that it’s made from recycled materials.

I suppose you could try to choke on one of the pieces.  By this logic, that would be very green.

And if that’s not enough for you, it even comes with little paper “carbon offsets.”   If I roll my eyes any further back, my optic nerve might break.


This entry was posted on Sunday, December 20th, 2009 at 1:44 am and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Enviornment, Humor, Just LAME, Not Even Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



30 Responses to “Be Good to the Planet: DIE – the sooner the better”

  1. 1
    Neurovore Says:

    “Environmentalists” do not seem to realize that humans are the only species on the planet that is actually working towards to SAVE the environment. Should the Earth be facing an impending disaster such as a massive asteroid or a massive blight that is destroying trees left and right such as anthracnose, would any other organism on the planet have the means or the ability to find solutions to these problems? Right now, researchers are trying to breed a blight resistant strain of the American chestnut. If it were not for humans, this tree would remain extinct.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    DV82XL Says:

    The Greens for all their enthusiasm to spend tax dollars on their favorite notions, remain opposed to any real carbon-free energy generated by nuclear plants to meet current and future needs for electricity. They are utterly opposed to people driving around in cars for any reason and, one must assume, the trucks that deliver the goods we require to live.

    The longer one listens to what the Greens want, the more one becomes convinced that the members of these organizations must be utterly brain dead and that their objective is to reduce the whole world into third-world poverty. It reminds me of a saying that I wish I could properly attribute: “Naturalists are scientists that are interested in understanding the natural world. Environmentalist are pseudointellectuals who hate mankind”


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    Q Says:

    What a great game to play and raise your children with. What a lovely message! “You see, little Johny, it’s good to be green and not consume resources, and we as people do consume resources, so the sooner we die the better. You, for example, the best thing you could do is to die, because you’re a human and it’s really a tragety that you were even born to begin with. Unless, of course, you kill more than one person, because then your existance represents a NET GAIN for the earth. Look around you. Everyone you see is bad and should die as soon as possible.”

    Yeah. People=bad. Death=good. Timing for death is the sooner the better.

    If there is a better way to raise a socially-detached, self-loathing, warped person with a distinct possibility of being a mass murderer, I don’t know of it!


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    Russ Says:

    Well, saying obese people don’t live s long is a generalization. Some make it to old age, especially with modern medicine. Some slim healthy people get hit by a car or end up with a freak medical condition that kills them. But the message is clear: do what you can to die as soon as you can.

    Can anyone come up for some kind of moral justification for this and keep a straight face?

    Anyone who honestly believes this should fall into two groups: Either they’re already dead due to having committed suicide or they’re a terrible hypocrite because they haven’t offed themselves eventhough they believe that other people should do so.


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    George Carty Says:

    Drbuzz0, I think you missed an “e” from the word “planet” in the post title. (Please delete this message once you’ve corrected the typo…)


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    George Carty Says:

            Q said:

    If there is a better way to raise a socially-detached, self-loathing, warped person with a distinct possibility of being a mass murderer, I don’t know of it!

    At least one school massacre has been the result of eco-extremist ideology…


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    Jason Ribeiro Says:

    I admit, this post gave me a good laugh. Someone already has a bumper sticker for this idea:
    http://www.bumperart.com/ProductDetails.aspx?SKU=2004012257&productID=1577


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    O.G.N Says:

    The ideology of the Greens does imply that joining the VHEM is the only moral choice.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    drbuzz0 Says:

            George Carty said:

    Drbuzz0, I think you missed an “e” from the word “planet” in the post title. (Please delete this message once you’ve corrected the typo…)

    Oops. Very obvious typeo that I missed, likely because I posted this at 2AM

    Corrected


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    Chris Brown Says:

    Well I consider myself and “green” and beleive in protecting the enivornment. The BEST tool we have to do that is RATIONAL THOUGHT – clearly something these game types do not use.

    I think it is important that we seperate those who believe in using science and rational thought to improve the environment from those who are really just anti-modern, pot smoking, non-contributing wastes of space. I live in hippy town USA and all day long I see these worthless brain dead planet savers talking about the environment. They have no solutions other than returning back to some idealized pre-industral past in which 50% of the population died before 21 (they leave that part out). You cannot feed the planet with eco babble and organic grains – there are too many people now and they live too long. Adapt and change – or stagnate and die.

    God damm worthless morons.

    Hey but have a good christmas!


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    wave_man Says:

            Neurovore said:

    “Environmentalists” do not seem to realize that humans are the only species on the planet that is actually working towards to SAVE the environment. Should the Earth be facing an impending disaster such as a massive asteroid or a massive blight that is destroying trees left and right such as anthracnose, would any other organism on the planet have the means or the ability to find solutions to these problems? Right now, researchers are trying to breed a blight resistant strain of the American chestnut. If it were not for humans, this tree would remain extinct.

    Do you honestly expect a ****ing squirrel or emu to save the planet? They are not destroying it at any rate, even if you completely discount AGW (which I am guessing you do) take a look at the vast (bigger than Texas) vortex of plastic in the Pacific Ocean that continues to grow… By the way, it isn’t the only one. There is one in every major ocean and sea.

    I hope those goddamn chestnuts taste really good. But we can do better.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    drbuzz0 Says:

            wave_man said:

    Do you honestly expect a ****ing squirrel or emu to save the planet? They are not destroying it at any rate

    Maybe not, but Red tide, gypsy moths, zebra muscles, parasitic fungus, norway rats, wild pigs and plenty of other species have been known to decimate entire areas of the globe and kill other animals.

    The question is how do you define “destroy”? Human impacts can’t actually destroy the world, like vaporize the whole planet, but it can change the world. Whenever you introduce a new species (and humans are relatively young) it’s not uncommon for them to dramatically change the enviornment, even killing off many previous species. It can lead to a population explosion followed by a mass die-off, but given enough time, evolution tends to rebalanced things.

    Hell, at one time, the bacteria in the oceans so drastically changed the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere, it lead to a tipping that killed many of them off. Of course, this also lead to the rise of many multicellular organisms millions of years later.

    You might say I’m playing devils advocate, but the earth simply *is.* It does not care. Throw all the plastic you want into the water and eventually it will be incorporated into the natural enviornment. Surely many species will die in the process, but give it enough time and new ones will arise.

    The only ones who can care are us, the humans. I don’t like plastic being thrown in the oceans because I like the oceans the way they are, and also because most changes in an enviornment include some die-offs and some reduction in biodiversity. It always bounces back, but *I* don’t want that to happen because my lifespan is unlikely to be more than a century at the most, which isn’t enough time for it to come full circle or even close.

    As humans we value stability. We like the planet more or less as it is. That’s fine, but that’s us. That’s not the planet. We don’t want to see most of the corals in the world die off and then have to wait a million years for new ones to evolve and for their former locations to be recolonized with a an assortment of life as vibrant, diverse and stable as those which were there. But again, that’s just us.

    Earth doesn’t mind a major upheaval. On a geological time scale, it happens pretty frequently.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Curtains Says:

    A good book that deals with a few of the issues with animals destroying their habitats, and nature finding ways to adapt to the effects we create, is The New Nature: Winners and Losers in Wild Australia, by Tim Low.

    This website here gives a much better summary of the book that I would be able to: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/14/1044927785878.html

    I recommend it for both “green” and “non green” readers alike.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Jason Ribeiro Says:

    Did anyone else read the other “answers” on the card which are also a big fail? “Medications being flushed [are] turning fish into addicts”. “A 15 minute shower could use up to 75 gallons of water”. Last time I shopped for a shower head I learned that all shower heads are regulated to either 2 or 2.2 gallons per minute by law, so unless you have an old shower head a 15 minute shower will only take 30 gallons.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    Q Says:

            Jason Ribeiro said:

    Last time I shopped for a shower head I learned that all shower heads are regulated to either 2 or 2.2 gallons per minute by law, so unless you have an old shower head a 15 minute shower will only take 30 gallons.

    Ja, but the illegal showers are soooo good. They give you such a nice drenching. It’s wonderful


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Antice Says:

    I agree with Chris Brown up at post #10.
    There is such a wast difference between those of us who care enough to want to preserve nature and those eco crazy hippies and their Luddite sentiments.
    Most so called environmental organizations are not even trying to preserve anything. they are just Luddites in disguise trying to force their world-view onto everyone else.

    There are no reasons for not enabling both prosperity and nature preservation. the cost of preservation is not all that high.
    A quick example: after Norway changed the rules for livestock. demanding a new kind of home for cattle. (it’s very cold here and the animals needs to be indoors at least 5 out of every 12 months) the new industrialized structures give the milking cows a better life as well as allowing cost savings trough extended robotic automation. the irony is. the cattle are no longer sendt out into the forests during summertime. this has caused a massive rebound of deer, moose and other highly valued prey animals whom the cattle tended to crowd out before the change.
    This was made possible trough research into plant biology and genetic engineering. New strains of grass and grain that are more productive are allowing the production of the same volume of food with a much smaller impact on nature. and it works. it works so well that hunting has become a source of income that is no longer considered negligible.

    Only continued development can help counter the problems we face. what we need most nowadays is energy that has the smallest impact on the environment as possible. and nuclear is the best option there. no doubt about it. it has the least area bound up for energy production per kW. it has the least amount of mining requirements. and it is the only option where waste is handled properly.
    As for feeding the masses. The only hindrance there is these Luddites in disguise that call themselves green.
    They have repeatedly spread lies and propaganda that has caused several nations to block the use of GM crops. Crops that can quadruple the food made by a single farmer.
    The list goes on and on… the sins of those who give those of us who genuinely care about the environment such a bad reputation is endless.
    I think we need to start a new movement. give it a new fresh name. one untarnished by Luddite sentiments like they are expressed by greenpeace et al.

    Sorry for ranting. but i get so darn steamed up about these kinds of things.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    George Carty Says:

            Antice said:

    I agree with Chris Brown up at post #10.
    There is such a wast difference between those of us who care enough to want to preserve nature and those eco crazy hippies and their Luddite sentiments.
    Most so called environmental organizations are not even trying to preserve anything. they are just Luddites in disguise trying to force their world-view onto everyone else.

    I’d prefer “technophobes” to “Luddites”.

    Luddites do not oppose technology in general – only specific technologies which threaten their livelihoods. The original Luddites were skilled weavers whose jobs were threatened by steam-driven looms. Coal miners who oppose nuclear energy as a threat to their jobs would be modern-day Luddites.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    Matthew Says:

    Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…

    http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=3449994

    you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…

    Huh. Those forces don’t seem to be very effective – I’m accessing it just fine, with nary a 404 in sight. Maybe they need to try harder.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Josh Says:

    Absolutely correct George Carty. Luddites were interested in protecting jobs. Modern Greens are out to destroy as many jobs as possible.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    Antice Says:

    Alright. calling Greenpeace Luddites isn’t fair to the original Luddites. That means i need a new word for it. calling them technophobes sounds too tame. I’m open for suggestions.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Paul Studier Says:

            Antice said:

    Alright. calling Greenpeace Luddites isn’t fair to the original Luddites. That means i need a new word for it. calling them technophobes sounds too tame. I’m open for suggestions.

    How about Villager? A villager is someone who wants to live in a small isolated village where he can know everyone who has any influence in his life. He wants the technology low enough that he can understand all of it. He doesn’t want to use anything from a big company or from far away because he wouldn’t know the people involved. A villager invented the concept of food mile. A true environmentalist would look at the energy content of food or some other meaningful metric. The Amish are good villagers because they live their philosophy and don’t impose it on others. The Khmer Rouge were very evil villagers.


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    Chris Brown Says:

    I like the idea of the “Villager” however the real issue is there is just too much meat walking around in human form on this planet and none of these “greenies” really want to take on that issue. Lets educate people on the cost (environmentally) of these extra bodies. Every extra body is a bill that needs to me paid.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Antice said:

    Alright. calling Greenpeace Luddites isn’t fair to the original Luddites. That means i need a new word for it. calling them technophobes sounds too tame. I’m open for suggestions.

    Something that invokes the memory of the unabomber would be optimal. He’s become one of the best known and generally disliked of them.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    Marion Brook Says:

    What about “Terraist”?


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    Finrod Says:

            Chris Brown said:

    I like the idea of the “Villager” however the real issue is there is just too much meat walking around in human form on this planet and none of these “greenies” really want to take on that issue. Lets educate people on the cost (environmentally) of these extra bodies. Every extra body is a bill that needs to me paid.

    Why don’t you educate yourself first, if you think that our level of technology can’t cope with the current human population? Consider the potential of advanced nuclear power and high-tech food production. The carrying capacity of this planet is way above where we are now, so long as we use the correct technology.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    Chris Brown Says:

    Finrod – I agree with you. My point was the greeie/luddite contingent is trying to bring down out level of techology without reducing population. That will not work. We can either have an endless number of new mouths to feed or a low tech “greenie” lifestyle – not both. They are mutually exclusive.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    George Carty Says:

    Howzabout “Neo-Mongols”?

    The medieval Mongols, like the modern Greenies wanted to destroy the current society and replace it with one of a lower tech level.

    For the Mongols that meant replacing agricultural societies with nomadic herding, for the Greenies that means replacing a industrial/technological society with an agricultural one.

    In both cases, this would require mass murder on a huge scale, to reduce the population to one commensurate with the carrying capacity of the lower tech level.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    Curtains Says:

    I find that something simple like “twats” is a good cover all term for these people. ‘These twats don’t seem to have a clue’, ect.


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    Matthew Says:

            George Carty said:

    Howzabout “Neo-Mongols”?

    The medieval Mongols, like the modern Greenies wanted to destroy the current society and replace it with one of a lower tech level.

    For the Mongols that meant replacing agricultural societies with nomadic herding, for the Greenies that means replacing a industrial/technological society with an agricultural one.

    In both cases, this would require mass murder on a huge scale, to reduce the population to one commensurate with the carrying capacity of the lower tech level.

    Nah, the Mongols were fairly impressive and complete pragmatists. As point of fact, they were very tolerant religiously – something that the Greenies are most emphatically not.

    Now, Neo-Vandals I could maybe see. Maybe Neo-Huns?


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    George Carty Says:

            Matthew said:

    Nah, the Mongols were fairly impressive and complete pragmatists. As point of fact, they were very tolerant religiously – something that the Greenies are most emphatically not.

    The Mongols did mellow later on – Kublai Khan was a reasonably civilized Chinese emperor IIRC. I was thinking more of the early Mongols.

            Matthew said:

    Now, Neo-Vandals I could maybe see. Maybe Neo-Huns?

    Or “21st-century Huns”…


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string VqSnV7 to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam