this post was submitted on
2,112 points (52% like it)
25,957 up votes 23,845 down votes

pics

subscribe2,381,713 readers

5,432 users here now

Looking for an image subreddit with minimal rules? Check out /r/images

A place to share interesting photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)

Hover over to read.

Rules

  1. No screenshots, or pictures with added or superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, info-graphics and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

  2. No gore or porn. NSFW content must be tagged.

  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.

  4. No solicitation of votes (including "cake day" posts), posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor, or [FIXED] posts. DAE posts go in /r/DoesAnybodyElse. "Fixed" posts should be added as a comment to the original image.

  5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited.

  • If your submission appears to be filtered but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

  • If you come across any rule violations, please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Comics  
/r/comics /r/webcomics
/r/vertical /r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels /r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats /r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals /r/desktops
/r/Demotivational /r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs /r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper Animals
/r/wallpaper /r/aww
/r/wallpapers /r/cats
The SFWPorn Network /r/TrollingAnimals
  /r/deadpets
  /r/birdpics
  /r/foxes
Photography Un-moderated pics
/r/photography /r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique /r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc New reddits
/r/misc /r/britpics
/r/gifs Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful /r/thennnow
/r/picrequests /r/SpecArt
/r/LookWhoIMet
  /r/timelinecovers
  /r/MemesIRL
  /r/OldSchoolCool
  /r/photoshopbattles

Also check out http://irc.reddit.com

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]dwarf33 465 points466 points ago

Nice picture. You might also like this or this.

[–]Creative-Overloaded 166 points167 points ago

The first pic looks like it would be a cool magic the gathering card.

[–]omnomnomenclature 135 points136 points ago

Scourge of Industry

2 black mana, 4 colorless

6/4

Tap: Turn any land in play into a Desert.

[–]Clovyn 34 points35 points ago

Cardified

Magic Set Editor was the program used, pretty simple and a fun way to make a ton of card ideas.

[–]orange_kevin 2 points3 points ago

An Desert

ಠ_ಠ

[–]Dirante 60 points61 points ago

I like the second one. It's like "Your move nature. Oh you yield again? This is too easy!"

[–]N4KED_TURTLE 26 points27 points ago

[–]J3PO 2 points3 points ago

Aw yeah, we gonna fuck up the whole universe! Have some pride man!

[–]silverwolf761 5 points6 points ago

I really like that second one. Anyone know of a wallpaper sized version?

[–]sidd230 7 points8 points ago

[–]jachiuhdci 104 points105 points ago

All three pieces (OP's and your two) are nice pieces of design work, but I find the politics behind them fatuous and lazy (much like Banksy's work.)

Are they anti-capitalist statements? Perhaps they'd like to propose a more positive alternative rather than simply attacking 'humans' for environmental degradation and construction of houses, roads and skyscrapers. Perhaps the artists would simply like to kill all the humans? I find the concept lazy, arrogant and boring.

Edit: More: It's a kind of 'New Victorianism Romanticism' (Edit, thanks truncatedChronologis), in which 'nature' is fetishised as 'good', and all industry/human activity portrayed as 'bad'. In these people's eyes (here's a particularly obnoxious example) the two are mutually exclusive.

How many people who upvoted this would also upvote a picture of an amazing new skyscraper or other similar achievement?

The point is that lazy 'art' like this creates a dichotomy between nature and man humans, when, in fact, the only way to avoid the impeding environmental destruction of Earth is for the two to work together through sustainable development.

Edit 2: grammar

Edit 3: I bet these speakers and vans were made on the other side of the bridge over the false dichotomy!

Edit 4: Updated end to reflect st31r's point.

[–]st31r 26 points27 points ago

The point is that lazy 'art' like this creates a dichotomy between nature and man humans, when, in fact, the only way to avoid the impeding environmental destruction of earth is for the two to work together.

This I like, except you bungled the ending: it feels like you're saying nature has a choice and can co-operate.

The trouble, as I see it, is a major lack of respect for sustainability. Our civilization is largely ignorant or apathetic of its dependence on limited resources, incapable of scaling to meet even the current population's requirements.

Instead we in the 'modern' world ignore the massive instability of our system, ignore the cost elsewhere - both human and natural - and just keep our foot on the accelerator praying science will deliver an easy, convenient energy Macguffin to save us.

[–]jachiuhdci 1 point2 points ago

Good point - I agree, and think human agency will (if anything does) provide a way out of the environmental crisis. I just baulk at the hypocrisy of a modern art form criticising the culture from which it came so one-sidedly.

I'm gonna edit original my comment.

[–]jachiuhdci 1 point2 points ago

Updated with credit to you.

[–]believemeimlying 123 points124 points ago

They are artists, not politicians. They don't have to propose an alternative, they are just expressing what they see. It's a sad truth. And whether you like it or not, humans have affected the environment in a hugely negative way. It's not saying "kill all the humans", its a wake up call telling us that we need to start treating the Earth and our environment better. We can still change.

[–]CanadianBeerCan 3 points4 points ago

Am I mistaken in thinking that this is the core difference between ovjectivist and post-modernist art?

It seems to me as though objectivist pieces usually portray certain ideals, and glorify human progress, whereas post-modernist art is usually a criticism of some previous concept? (in this case it's a criticism of humans turning nature into a more habitable, for us, at least, environment.)

I'm really not any kind of art expert, but if post-modernism's kitsch+camp=art formula keeps being applied this blatantly, aren't we in danger of our art becoming dangerously circle-jerk-y and unproductive, instead of aspiring to some objectively 'good' thing?

Excuse any terminology mistakes, I'm really an art noob. Lol

[–]Xciv 12 points13 points ago

Post-modernism is not necessarily a criticism of a previous concept, but it can often come off that way.

Post-modernism as I understand it is about recognizing shifts in perspective that alter perception of reality.

Example: Take a solid object that, from one angle, looks like a cube. But from another angle the same object looks like a pyramid. Whereas an objectivist will say that there is an inherent truth to the object, that there is a "true object", the Post-modernist will say that there are infinite objects to be seen, for each change in perspective gives us a new object. Therefore, because the object depends on an eye to see it, there is no "true" object, and all perspectives of the object are valid. The only truth to the object comes from a combination of the different perspectives, rather than an ideal "truth" that is independent of observation.

Using post-modernist philosophy it becomes easy to take anything in the world and see it from a new perspective, thereby changing the original meaning. The OP's cartoon is simply framing an objective truth, that humans use the resources, trees, to create housing, and altering the perspective to one of grotesque consumption, equating houses to defecation.

Not all post-modernism need be so negative though, but the negativity usually has the loudest voice, as with everything.

I am no expert on objectivist art, so I will say nothing in that regard.

[–]truncatedChronologis 9 points10 points ago

Lol I think you mean New Romanticism. Victorianism is pretty different.

[–]OIP 7 points8 points ago

Are they anti-capitalist statements

not necessarily but they can certainly be easily co-opted by anti-capitalism

Perhaps they'd like to propose a more positive alternative rather than simply attacking 'humans' for environmental degradation and construction of houses, roads and skyscrapers.

okay, how about living sustainably within the means provided by the natural environment?

Perhaps the artists would simply like to kill all the humans? I find the concept lazy, arrogant and boring.

funny, as those words aptly describe the critique.

i actually dislike banksy quite a lot, but this picture to me is more powerful partly because it doesn't have an obvious artistic ego such as banksy's attached to it. not to mention, it's a pretty simple message without trying to be 'clever'.

[–]unpopular_speech 7 points8 points ago

The artist simply conceptualizes his perspective through a medium.

The viewers are the ones who structure dichotomies through their own predisposed biases.

Art is only the impressionistic expression of the artist. The viewer is not compelled to see the work as the artist sees it, nor come to the same conclusion that other viewers arrive at.

We, as viewers, own the responsibility to view art with reason and objectivity. It is disingenuous to blame the artist when we fail to do so.

[–]brumsmithy -1 points0 points ago

Your comment stopped me from feeling like the last sane person in the room, thank you :)

[–]Viva42 5 points6 points ago

Thank you!

[–]christopherhovgaard 10 points11 points ago

I liked this the most

[–]deaft 23 points24 points ago

Really? I'm more partial to this.

[–]insufferabletoolbag 7 points8 points ago

Wake up sheeple this is the best

[–]wolfvision 8 points9 points ago

Chess, I like that second one a lot.

[–]salasia 0 points1 point ago

Don't mind if I did

[–]chumpette 1 point2 points ago

The first one is from the documentary END:CIV

Edit: Here's the full poster.

[–]Eloquium 35 points36 points ago

[–]ggqq 80 points81 points ago

Can we somehow shit those houses into african slums?

[–]bigskykb 14 points15 points ago

depends... can they qualify for the mortgages?

[–]DerpMatt 1 point2 points ago

Ask Fanny and Freddie.

[–]silverwolf761 13 points14 points ago

There's no money in that

[–]Franzo208 123 points124 points ago

Reminds me of Gru from Despicable me. Everything, except the nose, looks exactly like him.

[–]WhereAreMyDragons 48 points49 points ago

I was reminded of Shel Silverstein's illustrations from Where the Sidewalk Ends and all those other books.

[–]Fordy_Oz 80 points81 points ago

Dude's eating too much fiber. That's why he's shitting so much.

[–]mathees 15 points16 points ago

Maybe he has Crohn's Disease :(

[–]jappleseed12 47 points48 points ago

Homes Disease

FTFY

[–]toke101 14 points15 points ago

Alternately, he could be sucking houses through a vacuum in his anus and vomiting out trees...

[–]jpf566 97 points98 points ago

Stupid humans. Why do we keep using non renewable resources like trees? Trees don't grow from trees you know!

[–]Three60special 27 points28 points ago

I know, right?!?! Funny how the painting doesn't show him planting three more trees for each one he eats like the loggers do.

[–]Gen_McMuster 23 points24 points ago

sssh! don't let facts and rationality get in the way of a good anti-humanity circle-jerk

[–]JJDinomite 10 points11 points ago

Man, there's just no hope for us.

[–]testmypatience 1 point2 points ago

I'm uncertain it is just about that. I am thinking that the displacement of trees to man-made structures and setups are possibly the purpose. My step grandfather told me that most of the farms in IL used to be forests and that they were all torn down (where the fields were) to create the land and for the homes and structures.

In doing this, the air is changed a bit and so is airflow. This is a possible other thing to consider.

[–]LaszloK 14 points15 points ago

too subtle

[–]iorgfeflkd 11 points12 points ago

Also, beavers.

[–]cydonia90 12 points13 points ago

This reminds me of the artist Blu, both in style and subject. Link to a piece: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2883412850_3a371276bb.jpg

[–]MyDaddyTaughtMeWell 4 points5 points ago

That's what I was thinking, but the lines are a bit cleaner than a lot of his work. One of my favorite things is his wall-animation MUTO. I don't know if you've seen it, but it's awesome.

[–]JavaLSU 248 points249 points ago

And after painting this with supplies that were made in a factory and sold in a store, the artist promptly went to the local coffee shop, got a 6 dollar latte, then went back to his loft apartment and uploaded the image to the internet on his macbook that was made in a factory in Japan China.

[–]wierdaaron 105 points106 points ago

Don't be silly.

MacBooks are assembled in China.

[–]JavaLSU 12 points13 points ago

doh!

[–]space_manatee 102 points103 points ago

It is perfectly reasonable and valid to criticize the system from within the system as there is not a reasonable way out of it and we all live in it. Those (such as yourself) who try to point out the "hypocrisy" in the artist's statement in a sort of "gotcha!" moment do nothing to add to the ideas being presented by the artist or to any sort of real debate on the issue.

It is a most fallacious strawman.

edit user jwd52 posted the correct fallacy, tu quoque or the appeal to hypocricy: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/z0j4f/humans/c60ge17

[–]RPrevolution 8 points9 points ago

It's not a straw man to say the artist is a hypocrite if he/she lives beyond so-called needs by contributing to the consumerism that eats up resources. I don't know the artist, but that's the argument. Criticizing something that one contributes to when one has other options is hypocritical

[–]1000jamesk 2 points3 points ago

Yeah! If he's so worried about the environment, why doesn't he just make his own clothes, ride his homemade bamboo bike to work, pick his own coffee beans everyday and roast them with his solar-powered oven? Shame on him for buying a computer to do things, he should just make his own!

"Contributing to" implies there's a viable alternative to it. There really isn't.

[–]columbine 5 points6 points ago

It's perfectly possible to get outside the system, but it is so monstrously unpleasant that few of its biggest critics even try. Doesn't mean they can't criticize it, but it does tell you something that their simplistic message likes to skim over.

[–]junkit33 5 points6 points ago

It is perfectly reasonable and valid to criticize the system from within the system as there is not a reasonable way out of it and we all live in it.

Is it really reasonable?

If we live within it, and there's no way out of it, then why is it wrong? And if it's not wrong, then why criticize it?

It's not the hypocrisy that bothers me so much with crap like this, it's the underlying sentiment that we are evil and awful creatures. When, it reality, it's just our nature.

[–]jeredditdoncjesuis 70 points71 points ago

So you're saying you can only make a statement like this when you paint with mud and live in a treehouse?

[–]RPrevolution 3 points4 points ago

The statement can be made this way, but to avoid hypocrisy one needs to lead a lifestyle compatible with the view conveyed

[–]Neb3000 14 points15 points ago

"And when I finally got to work today, I ate my Subway sandwich, and I drank my Coca-Cola Classic, and then I ate my Sunchips and I thought about the weekend when I'd fill up my Ford van with Mobil brand gas and drive to the Clear Channel venue and I'd drink myself a Budweiser and play my Fender guitar through my Fender amplifier and tell the kids with a straight face through a Shure microphone and JBL speakers that corporate rock is for suckers."

[–]Uhrzeitlich 32 points33 points ago

Can he have Fiji water, too? That would complete the circle of hipster hypocrite.

[–]abutterfly 18 points19 points ago

hipstercrite?

[–]soundhaudegen 39 points40 points ago

Don't know why so passive-aggressive but I don't see where the artist exempts himself from being a human aswell.

[–]chuggles 19 points20 points ago

Shockingly few times is passive-aggressive actually used in an appropriate situation.

[–]Dildo_Ball_Baggins 19 points20 points ago

After painting this with supplies that were made by hand in his treehouse, the artist promptly went to a field and picked some tea leaves and brewed a tea by the river, then went back to his treehouse and smiled at what he'd achieved that day, knowing full well that someone would take a picture of his work and spread his intended message throughout the Internet.

[–]NotInMyGarden 8 points9 points ago

And he'll die of dysentery or tooth abscess at 23 because he reject modern medicine.

[–]jwd52 11 points12 points ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Maybe worth skimming though.

[–]GarbageElitist 1 point2 points ago

And when I finally got to work today, I ate my Subway sandwich, and I drank my Coca-Cola Classic, and then I ate my Sunchips and I thought about the weekend when I'd fill up my Ford van with Mobil brand gas and drive to the Clear Channel venue and I'd drink myself a Budweiser and play my Fender guitar through my Fender amplifier and tell the kids with a straight face through a Shure microphone and JBL speakers that corporate rock is for suckers. Uh... Yeah? -Bomb the Music Industry

[–]scoped22 9 points10 points ago

What choice did he have?

[–]S-Flo 3 points4 points ago

macbook that was made in a factory in Japan

China, you mean China. They have too many labor laws in Japan for anyone to deal with both Apple's pricing and their bullshit manufacturing process (Seriously, who the fuck machines their aluminum like that? There's only a slight advantage in durability and it's incredibly wasteful.)

[–]kerklein2 2 points3 points ago

  1. You have two options to make it out of a single piece of aluminum. Machine it or die-cast it. Die-casting has a horrible surface finish which would require plating or conversion coating and then painting. The paint will scratch off and your computer looks like shite. In addition, die-casting would require post-machining anyway, so it'd probably end up being more expensive at the end of the day.

  2. It's not really that wasteful. The aluminum is first extruded to within a few millimeters of the outer dimensions, so it's just hogging out the inside. And don't forget that aluminum is the most recycled material on the planet. You think they are just throwing all those chips away? Nope.

[–]mathees 3 points4 points ago

$2000 reddit machine

[–]ncklgrs 10 points11 points ago

Mine has a pornography feature as well, is that because I have Windows?

[–]touchedbyanupvote 5 points6 points ago

for how much he's apparently eaten, he looks a little malnourished...

[–]Timecook 3 points4 points ago

Gross, but this is why a 22 year old can buy a decent house for 17 grand. :/

[–]NotAPro 9 points10 points ago

Thanks. I clicked on the picture, on my phone, right in the middle of my desk, and before it could load, my boss came over to talk to me. He kept looking at it and giving me weird stares...

[–]ihadthatcoming 2 points3 points ago

Looks a bit like a Shel Silverstein drawing to me. Anyone have a poem to go with it?

[–]unclesammy101 18 points19 points ago

Who is the artist?

[–]MyDaddyTaughtMeWell 2 points3 points ago

I could be wrong, but it looks very much like the work of Brazilian street artist blu.

[–]Soogoodok248 1 point2 points ago

I was thinking the same thing. I did not know he was from Brazil, though. TIL

[–]Dark1000 6 points7 points ago

or beavers.

[–]dingus_tron 40 points41 points ago

Humans are terrible creatures. Help to stop this problem by killing yourself.

[–]goldflakes 19 points20 points ago

Unfortunately, most ways of killing one's self are also harmful to the planet. A rope made from nylon will take a very long time to biodegrade, a lethal drug could poison the surrounding ecosystem, etc. I used to think the best solution is to go into the woods and stab yourself with a stick, but think of all the little creatures that can use that wood that you've now stained with your terrible blood. The best thing would be to go into the woods, lie down in an area where you won't cause much damage (e.g. don't lie down on a tree sapling), and never get up for any reason. This way you can be a source of fuel for a bear or maggots or, if no fauna bothers you, the plants that grow from your corpse.

[–]TheIcelander 2 points3 points ago

Hemp rope would biodegrade after it's served its usefulness. Just be sure not to break the tree limb you're hanging from. Or you could find a sharp rock and slit your wrists.

[–]MBSquared 0 points1 point ago

The rope already exists. Using it will not effect its cycle.

[–]scruffy01 706 points707 points ago

I don't buy into that "Evil humans destroy nature!" shit. I really don't

I am more impressed with a city than I am a forest. Trees make sense. How 200lb creatures can make thousand foot high structures is mind boggling.

Also, yes we are bad for the environment right now, but getting better every day. It isn't like we have some insatiable hunger for destroying nature. We just have needs. Needs that we are working to ensure that they take less of a toll on the planet. I bet in 500 years or so the planet will be healthier than ever.

And to be quite honest Earth isn't some sacred rock we should be sworn to protect. We should ensure that it can suit our needs and that's it. We know millions of lifeless planets, but only 1 civilization. In my book that civilization is more special than the planets. Earth should be our launch pad, not our savior.

This is all just my opinion. Unpopular as it may be, I stick by it.

[–]JohnScribbles 587 points588 points ago

We should probably do a better job of keeping our "launch pad" healthy if we ever want to get to the point where it can serve the purpose of its namesake. The concept that earth exists only to suit human needs seems selfishly species-centric to me, and it contributes to the ignorance that perpetuates anti-sustainability and anti-green tendencies. Sure, some of us are trying to make an effort, but to be confident that this indicates a healthier earth in 500 years seems naive to me. The capacity for human destruction seems too volatile to ever trust that five centuries of cautious self-regulation will not be interrupted by at least one instance of catastrophic set-back.

I get what you are trying to say, but I really disagree with the position it leads to. Humans are an elevated species but I'm not sure that affords us the privilege of sole proprietor of all that is natural. Nature as a sum is a greater force than the human species and if we continually contest its stability I am almost sure it will eventually respond in inverse proportionality.

If we really want to last long enough to populate another planet, we're going to have to learn to populate our own safely. I think one of the best ways of doing that is to not have an outlook that finds the natural earth of lesser worth or majesty, but rather to have a mindset that marvels at it. Marvel at the fact that of those millions of lifeless planets, this one did something those didn't; it made us, it made life. I think if anything were to be sacred, it would be that.

[–]kitcatcher 16 points17 points ago

I think it's okay to be selfish - as in "I want my kid to be able to see a real bear someday" or "I don't want to breathe toxic waste like they do in China". I think we need to motivate some of the selfish fucks to get on board with this whole "air-water thing" too.

[–]spundnix32 187 points188 points ago

TLDR: Stop being a selfish entitled brat. The Earth is not here just for humans. Keep the Earth clean for future generations.

[–]Anus_Blender 45 points46 points ago

The Earth is here for mice and dolphins too.

[–]Langly- 3 points4 points ago

The dolphins can leave though, the mice are extradimensional, though it does wreck their experiment.

[–]Speculater 7 points8 points ago

Earth will exist with or without us. We are the Earth experiencing itself.

[–]scruffy01 24 points25 points ago

The Earth isn't here for anyone. It can't actually chose anything as it is just a rock flying through space.

We are passengers. And every single passenger has a responsibility to push their limits to greatness. Which is what we should do.

[–]aspiringvoiceactor 25 points26 points ago

What the fuck are you talking about?

Where do you get that we have a responsibility for anything?

We have a drive to keep our species alive and if we don't change the way we interact with the environment we're going to poison ourselves.

We don't exist separate from the biology of the earth, we exist dependent on the biology of this earth.

If we don't change we are going to die.

[–]Izzen 0 points1 point ago

If we only had the drive to keep our species alive we would still live in caves, jerking off and throwing shit at ourselves.

We are not primates, we have evolved, we have the capabilities to extend ourselves far beyond this planet AND keep this planet safe, progress is a constant process, its slow and sometimes the means arent pretty, humanity has made mistakes and we try to fix them by changing.

You want to keep our species alive? What do you think it will happen when the sun goes out? or when the Earth core has gone cold enough to loose the gravitatory force over the moon? Do you think just by "being green" we can do something about it? NO, HELL NO.

Earth resources are at our disposition, its up to us to use them wisely and make the best out of them or be complete idiots and destroy the planet.

Progress takes time, its a long term change, we wont evolve one day to another.

[–]ichabodguitar 14 points15 points ago

I don't think I can agree with you on any of this. Saying that we have a responsibility to some amorphous thing like "greatness" sounds like zealotry to me.

[–]DankBeard 10 points11 points ago

Manifest Destiny.

[–]ichabodguitar 9 points10 points ago

My thoughts exactly.

[–]PissedOffYoda 50 points51 points ago

We do? Define "greatness". Is it conquest? Exploration? Destruction? Kindness? Stewardship?

[–]Baladas_Demnevanni 4 points5 points ago

Intelligence, according to some.

[–]Xandah 11 points12 points ago

Service to Allah, Buddah, Jesus, or FSM according to some. Eating the most hot dogs, running the fastest, climbing the tallest mountain. It's all arbitrary and it's all only great to other people (and only to people of like minded cultures). The only thing that I can think of that people of every culture can agree on is that human beings should strive to do is to ease suffering. Be it through ending crime, poverty, pollution, starvation, opression, or whatever. Suffering is a universal problem of being alive and sentient and we are the only species that's able to identify that fact.

[–]Anus_Blender 11 points12 points ago

And every single passenger has a responsibility to push their limits to greatness.

What does that mean? Is that a metaphor?

[–]DankBeard 3 points4 points ago

It doesn't mean anything, it just sounds real nice. Which is why he has so many upvotes.

[–]bw1870 8 points9 points ago

And every single passenger has a responsibility to push their limits to greatness.

Don't push that bullshit on me, man. Most of us never come close to pushing our limits, and that's OK too.

[–]RetrospecTuaL 6 points7 points ago

That's a load of bull right there mate.

[–]science87 9 points10 points ago

We are already learning to populate this one safely, the fact that we acknowledge the problem and we are actively seeking solutions is the biggest step already taken.

[–]trust_me_no_really 22 points23 points ago

This feels overly optimistic to me. We generally only react if there is a crisis. Other than that, we are generally pretty lazy. Not to take away from people doing good work, but if it isn't going towards someone's yacht, then it probably isn't getting much support.

[–]poopinston 3 points4 points ago

JohnScribbles appeals to our righteous persona. It’s ideal, almost philosophical. But he’s speaking to a cloud – a hypothetical situation. It’s a “well, if I were in this position I’d do this” sort of speech. He’s thinking that the course the human race is running now will destroy our “launch pad”. But really, there are doctorates and scholars who devote their life to for example, clean energy. There are also the set number of people/businesses that couldn’t care less about the repercussions of their actions for future generations, but they’re working with what is most practical. Example: You don’t want to spend 3x the amount of money for…. A generator that converts an expensive chemical to sustainable energy (picture Batman’s project in the last movie) when they could just burn fossil fuels and bam, they have their product.

There’s the ideal, and there’s the practical. Neither are extreme measures, it’s only the minority of people who actually take idealism or practicality that far – to the point of dismissing any consequences that isn’t legal. Which is why scruffy’s perspective is legitimate. Find a way for renewable, self-sustainable energy (using my example from before) to be completely affordable, it’s not like CEO’s or any of their employees are doing it; physicists, biologists, and all other types of scientists are on the job. You can’t completely dismiss scruffy’s opinion until you’re the one making steps to improve means for your own planet.

What scruffy’s POV enlightens me with is that happiness in your life is right in front of you, a resource – choose to utilize it.

John Scribble’s POV says to me you can make happiness last longer, for everybody and we can recycle that happiness if we work together. Yeah… one day, when we evolve in our consciousness of ourselves; when our motivation is collectively inclined to work for the common good objectively… but for now we live in an individualist, capitalist, self-idealizing society. We’re disorganized because each person or small group of people are on their own sh!t, they’re doing their own thing and we’re convinced it’s the right thing to do, for ourselves. Individualism, capitalism, we all share these same concepts to one degree or another, so unless you or anybody else can figure out the “master plan”, then we can either say nobody’s an idiot because we’re all in the same position, or everybody’s an idiot because we can’t seem to figure it out.

*I'll edit grammar later, at work.

[–]JCelsius 8 points9 points ago

I am more impressed with a city than I am a forest.

While cities can be impressive, forests and as ecosystems are impressive in a different, if not greater, way.

Trees make sense

A forest isn't just trees, it is a web of plants and animals interacting in often amazing ways. That's part of the reason it's so damned impressive.

We know millions of lifeless planets

We don't know much about the galaxy, let alone the universe so really there could be life and even civilizations out there that make ours look like an ant colony.

This is all just my opinion. Unpopular as it may be, I stick by it.

It's an extremely stupid and shortsighted opinion and I hope one day you realize that.

[–]gobacktozzz 149 points150 points ago

Photosynthesis is more mind boggling than a sky scrapper.

[–]joekaras 46 points47 points ago

Yes! Think about what a tree is and what it actually does. No human-created system even comes close. There's a TED talk by the designer Bill McDonough where he makes this point rather poetically and convincingly.

[–]AscentofDissent 9 points10 points ago

For the lazy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo

...and cause I wanted to watch it.

[–]onFilm 80 points81 points ago

I'm sure you're confusing "needs" with "wants".

[–]incredibadass 18 points19 points ago

I think this picture is just an interesting way to depict being high. Ingest trees, shit bricks.

[–]A_Little_Fable 4 points5 points ago

Everybody has needs, having needs doesn't excuse you from consequences.

And the only countries that give a fuck about global warming are rich first world countries (which I assume you are part of). Back where I live people would laugh at me if I recycled (the trash trucks put it in the same place anyway). So no, I don't think things will be better in 500 years, since there will ALWAYS be poor countries. We don't live in a fairy tale.

[–]holyzombijesus 21 points22 points ago

That's an incredibly childish opinion to have. I think you need to see more of the world.

[–]sweetjesusonfire 5 points6 points ago

It is, isn't it? How can this be rated so high??

[–]holyzombijesus 2 points3 points ago

Reddit loves counter-culture opinions no matter how ridiculous they really are. An upvote often means "interesting" and not "I approve".

[–]mudpizza 165 points166 points ago

Unpopular as it may be, I stick by it.

I'm afraid it's extremely popular, that's even exactly the problem.

[–]cmmargulis 9 points10 points ago

Beam me up Scotty, this guy does differentiates himself from reality.

[–]Styrak 35 points36 points ago

We know millions of lifeless planets, but only 1 civilization. In my book that civilization is more special than the planets.

The same can be said about planets capable of supporting life.

[–]Blaster395 8 points9 points ago

Except the arguable possibility of several moons in the solar system containing their own life.

[–]schugi 6 points7 points ago

Unfortunately, there's only one "sacred rock" for our civilization to thrive on and the only way life has thrived so far is co-existence. Sure humans are extremely important and I believe in environmental strives when it works with mankind's progress. Regardless, planetary life is still so extremely rare when compared to all other planets and this is the only environment we will have for a very, very long time. It's taken us thousands of years to begin to comprehend the complexities of our own home planet, yet we can undo it all with in a few very short years. I'm not trying to warn people of anything besides just treat the earth they way you would treat your own god damn home.

edit: gramar

[–]silverwolf761 11 points12 points ago

We should ensure that it can suit our needs and that's it

What a very human perspective that is. Fact is, most of us aren't even trying to do out part to "go green". What occurs only occurs because we're getting to the point where we HAVE to do it and even then there are powerful organizations halting progress every step of the way because it may slow their next billion of profit. We like to think warm, fuzzy thoughts on how our footprint is shrinking and we'll (in the not-too-distant future) be converting a single fart into all of humanity's power needs. At our current rate IT'S A DREAM, and even worse it'll never happen if people (en masse) don't work towards something similar. It won't "just happen" especially with current decreases in scientific funding and current holdouts for the status quo. I find the idea that the planet will be "healthier than ever" hilarious and dangerously idealistic.

Working at Costco for the summer showed me just how wasteful people and organizations can be. The amount of things that simply get thrown out and the quantity of unneeded product that that one warehouse facilitates the sale of is staggering. That's one warehouse out of... I don't even know how many (and I've been told by management that it's a pretty small one comparatively) by one company.

Having lived in a small town for most of my life gives me a bit of a different perspective than many seem to have. Man-made structures and attractions don't impress me, but I can say it's neat to think of how they came to be. If I were to go on a vacation somewhere, it'll be where natural phenomena is the main attraction, not something fake like Vegas.

[–]random_doodler 10 points11 points ago

I want to say that our a lot of our 'needs' really are not needs. I understand your position but We aren't quite at the point yet where the earth can be a 'launchpad'. In order for that to ever happen we need to be a bit more mindful about how we use our natural resources. As it stands now, we can run out.

[–]CaptainNoBoat 71 points72 points ago

For a minute, I thought you were making a joke because this was actually upvoted. This whole passage from you would be a brilliant quote for the optimism and ignorance of humans that will bring on future environmental problems.

I don't buy into that "Evil humans destroy nature!" shit. I really don't

You don't have to call it "evil." Humans aren't trying to destroy the environment(Well, most aren't). It's called capitalism. It's called consumerism. It's called 7+ Billion people who each require 1000x more resources than your average mammal. 7+ Billion people who tear up the land and segregate animal and plant population, essentially raping biodiversity with the cities and roads you're so fond of.

Also, yes we are bad for the environment right now, but getting better every day. It isn't like we have some insatiable hunger for destroying nature.

What is getting better, exactly? Sure, our methods and strategies are getting better - but any environmental scientist will agree that this is a DIRE and very serious time for the environment that cannot be "fixed" by us within any foreseeable future. You do know that humans have already caused centuries of irreversible damage, right? - That if we stopped all pollution today, we would still have a carbon increase for two hundred years? Other aspects of the biosphere don't even have a coherent timeframe on how long it would take to restore - it might never happen.

And to be quite honest Earth isn't some sacred rock we should be sworn to protect. We should ensure that it can suit our needs and that's it.

Okay, now I'm starting to see that "Evil humans destroy nature shit" you were referencing.

We know millions of lifeless planets, but only 1 civilization. In my book that civilization is more special than the planets. Earth should be our launch pad, not our savior.

No surprise here. There seems to be a trend among people like you, that believe the environment is infinitely resilient and technology/industry has few consequences: "If we do happen to make a big oops, and kill all that is living, we'll simply move to another planet!" Look, technology is very impressive and I fully support astronomy, NASA, etc. but these pipe dreams need to stop when also talking about the environment. The technology to do such a thing will not come about until long after we have to save ourselves from a massive environmental problem, or we're all dead.

This is all just my opinion. Unpopular as it may be, I stick by it.

It's a dangerous opinion. In all honesty, do you know a lot about environmental science? Biology, Ecology, Atmospheric science, soil science? It's not just a bunch of bullshit. It is accredited scientists trying to figure out just how bad the current environmental situation is. If you read into it, you might figure out just how delicate this time in human history is.

[–]SeisGurl9 18 points19 points ago

The last part of your statement is the answer: he doesn't know about all of these things and most people are like him, which is why he got so many of upvotes. They won't know because they don't want to know because nobody's forcing them to know because those same people that could don't want anyone to know either so that they can keep on with the status quo and getting their big bucks. It's a terrible cycle and I don't know where this guy actually thinks that things are changing… He hasn't exactly said how so either…

It's pure ignorance.

[–]irrationalNumber 14 points15 points ago

It's pure ignorance.

And the problem is that, most of the time, it's willfull ignorance.

People don't want to educate themselves or find out facts. They would rather just make up a fantasy reality where we can dump waste into rivers, pump gasses into the atmosphere, throw garbage wherever we see fit, where the economy and money are more important than the only known habitable planet in the cosmos, and there be absolutely no consequences at all.

[–]alyssajones 10 points11 points ago

Well said, thank you!

[–]Bipolarruledout 58 points59 points ago

I'm not sure you understand what the word "need" means.

[–]All_Things_Excellent 16 points17 points ago

And to be quite honest Earth isn't some sacred rock we should be sworn to protect.

You do realize how much we owe to nature don't we? I'm not saying it's sacred in some pantheistic sense, but it seems quite obvious to me that everything we are and have done, and could do, couldn't be so without it. I think it should be treated with more dignity than what you've described above.

[–]treemusicman 65 points66 points ago

oh yea, we "need" television and 4000 calories a day and 3000 sq ft of housing.

[–]whoooooooooooooosh 22 points23 points ago

I hate these arguments.... It takes little to fulfill human needs. However, life is more than just needs.

[–]holyzombijesus 23 points24 points ago

The author chose to use the word need, not treemusicman. That's his whole point - the absurdity.

[–]mondodismo 15 points16 points ago

Termites can build comparatively larger and taller structures.

[–]steamed__hams 6 points7 points ago

I am more impressed with a city than I am a forest. Trees make sense. How 200lb creatures can make thousand foot high structures is mind boggling.

You should probably think that over a little more. The fact that trees even exist is mind-blowing. What are they made of? Where did that matter come from? Why are they shaped that way?

Buildings are easy. They are built from items that were already here, and are therefore perfectly predictable.

[–]notimportant23 6 points7 points ago

Actually we only know around 786 planets, not the millions you assume we know.

[–]cberra88 19 points20 points ago

That's a pretty selfish view. You make some excellent points, yet lack a desire to ensure our launchpad is still here in a 100 years for future generations. I think that's the main idea of environmental awareness. What resources we take from the earth now, does not affect us, it affects our children.

[–]Enti_San 13 points14 points ago

I think you sir should visit other places/countries to readjust your thinking about the civilization that you venerate so much. Perhaps you have never been around an industrial area, and seen the amount of pollution it created, or knew some green areas that turned into buildings. It is not about regarding Earth as a sacred place but about the human greediness and avidity that are unfortunately taking over moderation and values. I don't think we could have a longer existence if we ensured that Earth is suiting our needs, but rather the other way around, suiting our needs to the ressources that we have, because as you might know, we are growing exponentially, ressources however are just not following that same rythme of growth. If we continue with this hyperconsumption pace, I dont think we would live to the next 500 years without facing a chaotic disruption of our growth.

[–]mmatique 12 points13 points ago

Because the planet is just for us, right? You've got tunnel vision like the rest.

[–]unclesammy101 44 points45 points ago

How on earth can you think a city more impressive than a forest? If you were flying high over the earth and all of a sudden saw a city in the distance what do you think it would look like in comparison to a forest? To me possibly impressive, but not in a good way, more like a malignant growth.

We are not getting better everyday. Our insatiable appetite for growth at all costs is leading to companies racing each other to drill oil in the Arctic even as the ice melts at an unprecedented rate. Describing this sort of attitude as "we just have needs" makes me wonder about all the people that think this way and then have kids that will inherit this legacy.

WE are not protecting some sort of sacred rock. WE should be protecting ourselves. The Earth will do fine - it will survive whatever happens to us - but the way we are slurping up resources means that this planet will become humanless faster, not lifeless.

Thanks for inspiring me to write, hope some of the comments here change your sticky opinion.

[–]modestmajesty 1 point2 points ago

someones awfully pessimistic about their home. Cities are far from being or resembling a malignant growth, as their is far more order and purpose in them than in any forest, at least at a macro, view from "flying high over earth", scale.

As far as the rest of your speech goes, yes, I agree. some things are getting better, many are getting worse.

[–]RPrevolution 2 points3 points ago

How on earth can you think a city more impressive than a forest?

People have different tastes, it's part of being human

If you were flying high over the earth and all of a sudden saw a city in the distance what do you think it would look like in comparison to a forest?

City-like instead of forest-like.

To me possibly impressive, but not in a good way, more like a malignant growth.

Yes, the technological advancements that have allowed humans to support a larger population with lower prices and better quality are malignant, let's get rid of them.

We are not getting better everyday. Our insatiable appetite for growth at all costs is leading to companies racing each other to drill oil in the Arctic even as the ice melts at an unprecedented rate.

Wherere's your evidence that it will cause a cataclysmic event? (no appeals to authority).

Describing this sort of attitude as "we just have needs" makes me wonder about all the people that think this way and then have kids that will inherit this legacy.

There are better societal structures that would reduce pollution and so forth. I favor freedom while respecting NAP, I assume you favor restricting freedom?

WE are not protecting some sort of sacred rock. WE should be protecting ourselves.

I can agree with that, we just disagree on what the threat is. I see it as giving government more power over our lives because that can negatively impact our lives sooner than a cataclysmic event.

The Earth will do fine - it will survive whatever happens to us - but the way we are slurping up resources means that this planet will become humanless faster, not lifeless.

What do you recommend?

Thanks for inspiring me to write, hope some of the comments here change your sticky opinion.

Not yet :p gotta do more convincing

[–]wagz7 10 points11 points ago

Anyone else think of wall·e?

[–]irapeninjas 47 points48 points ago

I would drink with you

[–]scruffy01 8 points9 points ago

As a ninja, I may have to decline your offer.

[–]jscoppe 27 points28 points ago

Funny to think a ninja is just as susceptible to Rohypnol as anybody else. We put them up on a pedestal, but inside they're just like you and me.

[–]Cruithne 6 points7 points ago

Unless they've done a Wesley and built up immunity to rohypnol over the course of the years.

[–]Dildo_Ball_Baggins 3 points4 points ago

Chloroform is plan B.

[–]PORN_TITLE_RATER 9 points10 points ago

5/10

[–]G4m8i7 1 point2 points ago

"does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"

[–]Stupoopy 3 points4 points ago

I. see. you.

[–]d3r3k1449 14 points15 points ago

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[–]ax8284 3 points4 points ago

You obviously do not understand the very basic functions of our biosphere. Human's are at the mercy of nature, not the other way around.

[–]notimportant23 13 points14 points ago

When a child leaves his mother's home to go off to college, I hope he wouldn't burn down his "launching pad" on the way out the door...

The same can be said about the Earth.

The Earth IS sacred, and there is plenty in this Holy Garden to go around.

[–]narco-polo 9 points10 points ago

I am more impressed with a city than I am a forest. Trees make sense. How 200lb creatures can make thousand foot high structures is mind boggling.

To me it's the other way around. Trees are fucking alive man, and they grow flowers of many colors and give fruits. They also enable us to breath by giving us fucking OXYGEN. Buildings are just a bunch of concrete, not interesting or amusing at all.

[–]QueEs 6 points7 points ago

And that's not even mentioning all the different kinds of medicine that has been found in the leaves, roots and bark of the many, many different kinds of trees. Trees are pretty amazing.

[–]adent1066 16 points17 points ago

Nice try, Republican National Convention.

[–]starfish_fellatio 11 points12 points ago

Nice try mr. Romney

[–]PassionateFlatulence 8 points9 points ago

Dumbest shit ever. If it's not human in origin than fuck it!

The problem is that so few people actually have enough concern for the environment to question the constant expansion of human territory. Humans' insatiable appetite for infrastructure will continue until only the tundras, deserts, and seas are the only relics of the natural world.

But hey, preserving the lush forests, plains, and jungles aren't our concern so long as we can make a profit while shitting on the living creatures that call those places home. Fuck me right? Fuck yall

[–]cathyblues 6 points7 points ago

where is it from?

[–]Technicoloured 5 points6 points ago

Efficiency-making 10+ building for every tree eaten.

[–]AndyMaite 3 points4 points ago

Can anyone tell me the Artist please or is it just street art by anonymous?

[–]MyDaddyTaughtMeWell 1 point2 points ago

I could be wrong, but it looks very much like the work of Brazilian street artist blu.

[–]Natten 2 points3 points ago

To be fair, he only ate 4 trees and made ALL those houses.

[–]Cerylidae 1 point2 points ago

I dig it, but I have one complaint; these environmental messages about 'humans' ignores the differences of responsibility between humans, and so obfuscates blame and essentializes environmental destruction as some tragic thing that is inevitable among humans or that is an inherent quality of humans. This is incorrect. While all humans, like all organisms, use resources in their environment, compete for these resources with other organisms, and have impacts on their ecosystems, the widespread destruction, destabilization of the ecosystems, overuse of resources, pollution of the air and water, and extinction of species is a thing that has disproprtionately (not solely, but disproportionately) come from a certain type of human culture. Namely, it has come from industrialized humans living in mass societies, practicing an ideology and cultural narrative that places themselves as separate from and in opposition to or ownership of the nonhuman environment, and having social structures in which those who benefit the most from the activities that cause this destruction and make decisions over them are not held accountable to or embedded into the concerns of the communities (both the human communities and biotic communities) that they are affecting. Let us be clear about that; the problem is not humans. The problem is industrial mass societies- and not just any industrial mass society (we've yet to see if this latest experiment in greening industrial society can work, though it shows some promising results), but those organized socially in a certain way and practicing a certain ideology in regards to their socio-political ecology.

[–]beachjustice 2 points3 points ago

The picture is great but the title is stupid and misleading. The art shows what we're currently doing, not something that defines human beings.

[–]chungdy 2 points3 points ago

that's good, free housing

[–]Jambz 1 point2 points ago

Waiting for the painting showing beavers doing the same thing. Damn those beavers.

[–]MegaSquishyMan 14 points15 points ago

Bet the person who created that lives in a house...oh wait...its an artist so maybe not

[–]kabomlamma 5 points6 points ago

the person who painted that should be forced to paint it again but only using his fingers and his blood

[–]PercyChuggs 9 points10 points ago

I get it, but I would like to say this: Humans can't live in trees. Well, hippies can, but I don't consider them human.

[–]redditlovesitself 29 points30 points ago

Four legs good, two legs bad. We get it. Gaiaist bullshit.

Animals and trees are not more important than people. That doesn't mean we should shit where we eat, and in fact it argues strongly that we shouldn't. But the planet wouldn't be "better off" with us gone, because humans are the only beings on this planet capable of assigning meaning, or beauty, or rationalism.

[–]aspiringvoiceactor 4 points5 points ago

We should change because people are important.

If we don't we'll be looking at the biological collapse of our 'little' spaceship and end or massive destruction of the human race

[–]redditlovesitself 6 points7 points ago

As I said, don't shit where you eat. Until we make it to the stars, which should be a priority for the long term growth and survival of the human race, this is the only planet we've got.

[–]Gen_McMuster 3 points4 points ago

this guy!!

I like people who can be environmentally conscious without being an irrational, smug pain in the ass

[–]aspiringvoiceactor 2 points3 points ago

Amen to that.

[–]doft 0 points1 point ago

How does the ability to assign meaning, beauty, or rationalize better the planet or improve the lives of other species that live here?

[–]Stevules 3 points4 points ago

Eat trees shit houses erryday

[–]calisonic 3 points4 points ago

You realize most lumberjacks replant two trees for every one they cut down.. or else they'd be out of business.

[–]Uono 4 points5 points ago

Breaking News: Trees Grow Back

[–]snipersteve 9 points10 points ago

Yes, because I'd give away my house in a second if only someone would trade me a tree for it.

[–]snario 2 points3 points ago

[–]han-sh0t-first 2 points3 points ago

'dem legs.

[–]Sle 1 point2 points ago

Straight from every Facebook wall everywhere.

[–]PrinklyWenis 1 point2 points ago

What happens to this poor man if he gets diarrhea?...

[–]lightfingers 0 points1 point ago

cough stone houses cough

[–]FreakLawyer 1 point2 points ago

Bricks will be shat.

[–]BeaverCheese 2 points3 points ago

Beavers are way worse...

[–]Bloodysneeze 0 points1 point ago

The subject is tired and overdone.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]breadschtick 3 points4 points ago

I just think it looks cool.

[–]WeylanYutani 7 points8 points ago

The irony of posting this on a internet forum, from a computer.

[–]Nielsio 5 points6 points ago

That is the premise of the movie The Lorax.

A critique and economic analysis here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9e9csZLJ1w

[–]goldflakes 5 points6 points ago

Sponsored by Mazda.

[–]feelin1245 1 point2 points ago

Little Boxes made of Ticky Tacky...

[–]kneeonbelly 1 point2 points ago

Joe Rogan on people as bacteria.

[–]officialchocolateman -1 points0 points ago

This picture makes people seem like assholes. We're not.