Depop vs Xhumanism: DWD the new DWI? Together, cause over 50% of all auto deaths

Drunk driving accounts for 33% automobile accident deaths (US)
Distracted driving accounts for 18% automobile deaths.



Over 3,000 people die *every day* automobile accidents (Worldwide)
Thats a million humans killed every year just from auto accidents.



Meanwile, fertility and birth rates are on the decline..



However, people are living their individual lives out unhealthier "longer" artificially thanks to vaccines, STD cures, drugs, donors' blood, transplants, dialysis, surgeries, prosthetics, geriatric care, life support, etc.

Is there anything wrong with all this technology and artificiality of life... Is it helping or hurting the human population & humanity.... and what about the environment for generations to come what will their lives be like?

reply to post by tropic


NOFX (punk band) did a song that said something to the effect that since 33% of accidents are caused by drunk drivers, and the other 67% by non-drunk drivers...

The drunk team seems to be doing better.

Life is fatal. Nobody comes out of it alive.

However, it seems to me that, for every scientific advancement that prolongs life, there are five that shorten it. Bottom line: The vast majority of people in my generation (baby boomer) and younger will see shorter life spans, due to pollution in the air, the water, the food supply (including GMOs), and bad pharmaceuticals.

I don't remember epidemics of cancer, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders when I was younger. Now, it is endemic. I know so many people, including myself, who are sick before their time.

As far as car wrecks go, they are actually less fatal than previously, thanks to advances in safety devices such as safety glass, seat belts, air bags, and body construction.

I think those that do live longer, are not living well.

I was a bit confused by your thread title, but I put in my two cents anyway.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

However, it seems to me that, for every scientific advancement that prolongs life, there are five that shorten it. Bottom line: The vast majority of people in my generation (baby boomer) and younger will see shorter life spans, due to pollution in the air, the water, the food supply (including GMOs), and bad pharmaceuticals.

Really? Life expectancy continues to go up if you look at the facts. If you go off the church of alternative health then we are all doomed- but what religion does say everyone is going to be fine?

I don't remember epidemics of cancer, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders when I was younger. Now, it is endemic. I know so many people, including myself, who are sick before their time.

Endemic???
Anyways, do you remember the internet when you were younger? Do you remember as a child having all the information about what is going on in the world and the country at your fingertips? Didn't think so.

OP: I sort of understand what you're getting at, but I think a lot of this is very intentional. The previous century was an experiment to see how long science could keep humans alive, now we seem to be in the "stress" portion of the experiment where those behind the curtain see just how much external stress man can accept before that lifespan recedes. Eventually there will be a balance found in which mankind's lifespan is optimized for maximum corporate profit while simultaneously being sold just enough gonad irradiating, organ destroying, brain altering consumer based CRAP to also maximize that aspect of corporate profit. You can either make the corporation $2 Million by living until you're 80 and avoiding the tertiary harms, or you can make the corporation $2 Million, living until you're 60, but purchasing a lot more harmful crap to make up for the dent your untimely demise would otherwise leave in the corporation's bank account.

Originally posted by Superhans
Do you remember as a child having all the information about what is going on in the world and the country at your fingertips?

We called it a newspaper and together with the World Book Encyclopedia and a cool little thing called the nightly news, we somehow managed to put together news and events... including annually updated stats on deaths, birth rates, and whatnot. This isn't the information age, it's the "By God I need something glitzy to distract me... come here Google and entertain me! *clap*clap*" Age.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

We called it a newspaper and together with the World Book Encyclopedia and a cool little thing called the nightly news, we somehow managed to put together news and events... including annually updated stats on deaths, birth rates, and whatnot. This isn't the information age, it's the "By God I need something glitzy to distract me... come here Google and entertain me! *clap*clap*" Age.

lol srssly?
Back then you did not have access to the same amount of news papers.
The encyclopedias were filled with errors and much of it was obsolete by the time you got your hands on it.
With nothing digital, the statistics on death disease and birth rates were behind and erroneous.
You have to be seriously dense to think that the information was even close to comparable to what it is now. You are confusing it with nostalgia, this is the information age.

Originally posted by Superhans

lol srssly?
Back then you did not have access to the same amount of news papers.
The encyclopedias were filled with errors and much of it was obsolete by the time you got your hands on it.
With nothing digital, the statistics on death disease and birth rates were behind and erroneous.
You have to be seriously dense to think that the information was even close to comparable to what it is now. You are confusing it with nostalgia, this is the information age.

You think so? Clearly your sphere of experience spans about 2 decades, max. We actually had more newspapers which carried actual news not that long ago. I remember clearly being in high school in the 1990s, needing to write papers for current events classes and finding invaluable information inside the crisp, inked pages of the numerous major (as well as local) newspapers my very small town's lone news stand sold. If anything, I found the information to be much more useful then than most of what is presented in your online "information age". You see, before the internet, you actually had to have something of worth to say before you could find someone willing to present it to the public. People didn't give two craps about the nonsense that is presented as information by much of today's interwebs. Well over half of the crap this so-called "information age" contains is little more than sweat drenched ramblings and online pissing contests between acne riddled punks that think they're "special" because they can hack a computer, cause minor chaos on a website via organized DDS attacks, or produce the latest image of some barely of age female celebrity's wardrobe malfunction within minutes of her experiencing it on some Hollywood red carpet. WHOOPITY DOO! When 50% of the supposed "information" available is some variation of the mother's basement dwelling virgins from 4Chan's "Rule 34", 30% is electronic posturing from absolute human failures that believe "pwning" somebody online is even remotely worth the drag on electricity and bandwidth their E-penis size demonstration used up, and another 10% is dedicated to fantasy sports and online gambling... well, excuse me if I'm not all that impressed.

You see, the only thing the internet has brought to the world is an illusion of intelligence. I know absolutely nothing about the human nervous system... but you give me 20 minutes on Google and by God I can BS my way through enough to look like a freaking endocrinologist on the internet. Doesn't mean I actually learned anything whatsoever in the process, however. A well trained chimp can copy/paste their way through a dissertation that is relatively intelligible. Take a guy, dump him in the middle of a library and tell him "Write me a paper on proper concrete mixture design and testing procedure" and he'll learn something. He won't be an expert at it just from reading the material from books, be he sure as hell will know a lot more about the topic than some dweeb who used Google, dumped the data from a webpage into Word, and then resumed his thrilling hobby of talking about how impressive his "skillz" are with the females despite spending roughly 18 hours of every day logged into a computer somewhere.

Oh, and that "outdated" information found in encyclopedias? Outdated doesn't automatically equal incorrect or flat our erroneous. Check out the crown jewel of the information age someday... wikipedia. User driven, user generated information which is about as reliable as a back street taco vendor in Tiajuana. I'd much rather err on the side of outdated facts than rely on opinionated nonsense which may or may not even be factual.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

I remember clearly being in high school in the 1990s, needing to write papers for current events classes and finding invaluable information inside the crisp, inked pages of the numerous major (as well as local) newspapers my very small town's lone news stand sold. If anything, I found the information to be much more useful then than most of what is presented in your online "information age".

Like I said, you are confusing useful information with nostalgia. The you just kind of padded it with a long misguided rant about anonymous and 4 chan. I did find it funny how you go out of your way to talk about people who spend much time on the internet and people who have some sense of self importance on the internet while being a moderator on above top secret.

You see, the only thing the internet has brought to the world is an illusion of intelligence. I know absolutely nothing about the human nervous system... but you give me 20 minutes on Google and by God I can BS my way through enough to look like a freaking endocrinologist on the internet.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you are conflating different issues. Yes 20 min on google and you could BS people into thinking you are a doctor, but that has nothing to do with the information age. You could have spent 20 hours at the library in 1980 and done the same thing. Has nothing to do with the information age, just some lame attempt to form an argument about how somehow your nostalgic memories of life before the net mean that information was more readily available and better.

Doesn't mean I actually learned anything whatsoever in the process, however

Again, nothing to do with the information age. You can skim a book or a 5 year old encyclopedia and produce the same kind of glib understanding.

A well trained chimp can copy/paste their way through a dissertation that is relatively intelligible. Take a guy, dump him in the middle of a library and tell him "Write me a paper on proper concrete mixture design and testing procedure" and he'll learn something.

Do you take the time to really look at what you are posting? This is some of the most ignorant stuff I have seen today and once again you are wrong on this. A dishonest person could copy and paste their way to get a paper done but the same type of person could just go to the library and plagiarize until he has a paper. All the technology has done is speed up the process (and add measures to detect plagiarism I might add). If you honestly think that information is magically better just because it comes from a book and not the net then you need to take a good look on how you evaluate data for yourself. There have been plenty of crap books made before the net and there have been good internet articles.

He won't be an expert at it just from reading the material from books, be he sure as hell will know a lot more about the topic than some dweeb who used Google,

Google is just a search engine, do you even have the slightest idea of what you are talking about?

Oh, and that "outdated" information found in encyclopedias? Outdated doesn't automatically equal incorrect or flat our erroneous.

No, that is why I said behind and erroneous, perhaps you would have understood it better if I wrote a letter and mailed it to you? But outdated information is exactly that, outdated. It has little use outside looking it up in historical context.

Check out the crown jewel of the information age someday... wikipedia. User driven, user generated information which is about as reliable as a back street taco vendor in Tiajuana. I'd much rather err on the side of outdated facts than rely on opinionated nonsense which may or may not even be factual.

Again, you are confusing things. The information age and the internet are NOT google and Wikipedia. This would be the same as me claiming that you used to get your news from the funnies section of the news paper.
Your encyclopedias are outdated before they hit the shelves, they take years to produce once they finally decide to print another addition.

The only reason there were more news papers back then is because the news paper industry is a dinosaur that does not know its dead yet. Many of them have gone digital because its cheap and easy to update. If there is a error in the story, they can fix it on the spot and they don't have to wait until it prints again.

I think you simply do not completely understand what you think you are against. There was a point in time where if we had this same discussion you would be telling me that the printing press is a tool of the devil and good for nothing.