Slashdot Mirror
Armed Man Takes Hostages At Discovery Channel HQ
An anonymous reader writes "The manifesto of the man holding the Discovery Channel hostage with a bomb has been released. He has fired shots and taken hostages. His main complaints are about overpopulation, religion and civilization. He wants them to avoid encouraging people to produce more 'disgusting human babies,' to get people to accept 'Malthus-Darwin science,' reject civilization and its 'disgusting religious-cultural roots,' and to stop 'ALL immigration pollution.'" The man has now been shot by police, and the hostages have been freed.
It's always refreshing when Atheists are the psychos. I'm mean, c'mon! This guy is a representation of all atheists, right? :)
eliminate yourself first and maybe others will follow.
This disturbed jerk has provided the Pave the Earth right wing with a new Emanuel Goldstein.
"SEE? We told you all the environmentalists hated humanity! This is all the proof we need that global warming is a hoax and that Yellowstone Park should be sold off to create timeshare resorts!"
well, obviously the guy was deranged, but some of his points are valid.
The problem is that most countries rely on ever increasing population for their economy to strive and the politicians to do well (starting with social security that is not funded by people other than the ones who get the money).
The world clearly could do better with a decreasing population, but most governments encourage exactly the opposite, so indeed right now humans are going to spread until they've taken over all the resources available and at the expense of pretty much all other lifeforms on the planet.
I'll be dead before then, but thinking about it makes me sad.
Overpopulation is a silly concern. The only reason why people starve is because of corrupt governments, otherwise the industrialized countries could easily, easily feed the poorer nations. When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help, think about it, while its pretty nice to have 5 extra hands helping out on your tiny farm, it becomes 5 hungry mouths to feed when you become industrialized, 5 large college tuition bills, more clothing, etc.
Not to mention that if space ever becomes an issue people will simply have fewer kids to save themselves space in their house/apartment.
There are legitimate things to be worried about, but overpopulation isn't one of them.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The food supply curve is not exponential. It has exceeded exponential growth for a century, but only by consuming ever increasingly scarce resources to do so. Soil quality and aquifer levels are dramatically declining, soon even oil based fertilizers (that will become prohibitively expensive with peak oil) won't be enough to keep up production.
Malthus was failed to account for technological advances and declining human fertility. But he also failed to account for destruction of the soil and irrigation systems from over production. His ideas were far from perfect, but they do have merit.
What sucks about this is this guy has got a point, but that's lost because his actions are plain nuts and will drown out most mainstream discussion. But the point is that we are at a point where we are deeply concerned with climate change and resources on this planet, and people think that it's not at all irresponsible to have 19 children, and then the media encourages it!
China may be run by dictatorial fuckwads, but they have a point with their laws on having children. The entire society can't sustain it's population now, so adding another billion hungry mouths over 20 years is just going to fuck things up even more. With the scientific information I've been seeing as of late with global warming, potable water, oil, etc, I can actually envision near future where first world countries start considering birth limits. I understand the personal liberties some people feel they have a right to, but there comes a time when your insistence on having more children affects me and my family. If just you, me, and your spouse left on the planet, and there is only enough food to feed 3 people, and you and your spouse go and have a child without asking me, someone is going to have to give up food. You just impinged on me and my ability to stay alive by having a child. This is not a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, this is good old fashioned primitive instinct of I want to live.
This guy might be an insane fuckwad, but he has a point. We should not be glorifying having 19 children when every new child strains our resources. Sure, we need to have babies to keep the species alive, but without resources to sustain them, there will be a huge population crash.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
This guy is not a teabagger despite the fact that he hates immigrants. He isn't a liberal despite the fact that he likes the environment. He is a dead crazy guy because he took hostages. He didn't need any help from political partisans to achieve his stunning degree of lunacy, I'm pretty sure he got there all on his own.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Talking about limiting population growth is politically untouchable because of religion.
Everyone knows what the problem is. Nobody will deal with it.
Nature fixes overpopulation through starvation. We are in equilibrium with the cheap energy.
If the cheap energy ends, ultimately nature will fix things - no problem.
Mother nature is a real bitch when she's angry..
..don't panic
Where Malthus got it wrong was in not forseeing the economics pressures that drove innovation that in turn increased crop yields so that food supplies could indeed grow exponentially.
And where many economists get it wrong is in not realizing that this is not sustainable. You can print exponentially much money and delude yourself into believing that there is perpetual growth, but food production and population growth invariably will hit a wall. We're still growing because we're using up finite resources at an enormous rate; once they are gone, human populations will crash.
Space isn't the problem per se. The photosynthetic limit is more the issue. It takes many hectares of land to feed each human. It is not a question of having enough room for people themselves, but rather having enough of all the inputs it takes to keep a human being alive. We cannot eat stones or air, and yet plants are able to convert minerals and gasses into carbohydrates, proteins, and fats that we can. There is vast debate on just what the sustainable human population is. I have seen serious attempts by scientists to estimate and the uncertainty is huge. I have seen estimates from scientists with decent reputations ranging from 500 million to 20 billion. But no one disagrees that a maximum exists.
There is also no doubt that many problems would be greatly simplified if the human population were, say, cut in half.
My problem is not with that core idea. It is with the people who would impose it. But I think voluntary population reduction (I've had a vasectomy and have no kids) is a very good thing.
One way or another, the human population will arrive at a stable, supportable level. But will it do it with or without terrible suffering?
And all of that said, it is pretty clear this person was not sane. The list of "important animals" in particular almost seems like a joke. I know of no test to empirically asses the relative "need" the Earth has for humans, "froggies," or squirrels.
Some of his points are valid, but I don't think telling any lifeform that their babies are disgusting is good marketing, considering any successful species is pretty much hard-wired to love babies..
which is totally what she said
Given that you and your wife are having 6 or more children, I am curious of whether you ever considered overpopulation.
Do you think each of your children should also have 6 children?
What fraction of your resources do you expect your children and grandchildren to use.
What do you think the maximum occupancy of the earth is?
Someone who wants to see shows about real science and nature, and not a bunch of stupid melodramas about boneheads building crappy motorcycles?
This guy should have shot whichever person at Discovery was responsible for American Chopper.
This guy is not a teabagger despite the fact that he hates immigrants. He isn't a liberal despite the fact that he likes the environment. He is a dead crazy guy because he took hostages. He didn't need any help from political partisans to achieve his stunning degree of lunacy, I'm pretty sure he got there all on his own.
The mantra of fanboys everywhere goes something like "never miss an opportunity to associate a nut with any group you don't like. It furthers the whole 'us against them' bullshit that is so easy to exploit. This is so important that a false association is better than none."
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Drown them in the bathtub, you dirty breeder.
> This is why radical atheism should be considered to be a religion. Blind faith in ANYTHING can bring irrationality. Yes, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but avoiding touching a stamp could be considered to be a hobby.
Avoiding touching a stamp is not a hobby: it is OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) -- a mental illness.
Likewise that man's defining characteristic is not religion -- he is mentally ill.
Blind faith is not the bringer of irrationality: blind faith is irrationality in itself. Saying this mad man is a man of faith is a tautology, IMHO.
And let me object to the "radical atheism" label, while we are at it. How many degrees of "no god" are there to make someone a radical atheist?
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
I'm sure the Right will be just as understanding about the fact that this man does not represent liberal environmentalism as the Left was over the fact that Michael Enright's drunken attack on an Arab driver didn't represent conservative opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.
Karma's a bitch.
Considering the guy who attacked the arab while drunk worked as part of a group supporting the ground zero mosque and was a devout leftist, you're going to have problems running that one by. This guy however takes many points of the hyper-leftist environmentalism an ran straight forward with them.
But hey, what does it matter? The left have been screaming wildly and blindly for the last year that all members of the tea party are conservative, and racist.
Om, nomnomnom...
No, most of them are just a burden. People need education and upbringing to turn them into resources, otherwise they're only good for dumb manual labor which can be replaced by automation (and a lot of them are actually a big negative, as they consume resources and cause problems, called "crime"). Turning people into productive resources requires a very large investment of time and energy.
And no, we don't have plenty of food. Fresh water is dwindling, oil is dwindling (needed as fertilizer), desertification is increasing, arable land is decreasing (for some strange reason, most people want to live in places where food grows well, so farms are constantly being turned into subdivisions). Wild spaces like the Amazon are disappearing.
We need to stop the population explosion until we have the technology to build giant space habitats and terraform other worlds. When we can do that, then we can have lots of kids to fill up all that space.
I applaud this man for doing his part to eliminate the surplus population by dying.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Are you Mormon, by chance?
Some of his points are valid,
WTF? Some of his points? Are you arguing that civilization/technology is bad ... on an internet forum? If you're arguing that we need to "reduce the surplus population", well, you first buddy.
Malthus was wrong. Overpopulation has not lead to unsurmountable obstacles, nor is the human population growing out of control. The worlds population is better fed than ever before (more people are overweight than underweight). Diseases are better controlled than ever before. High population density is usually a sign of a wealthy area, these days. This guy was a tool, and the only good thing about him is that he's dead.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You know who else screams wildly and blindly besides the left?
more war == less humans. It comes out equal in the end.
You're kidding, right? A modern war does not reduce the net world population except in the very short term. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. After the two bloodiest and most destructive wars in recent history, WWI and WWII, the population tripled within two generations, as pointed out by our illustrious manifesto writer du jour.
Heh. It's funny that you can completely accept that Maltheus was overreacting because he failed to allow for the advancement of technology, and in the same breath claim that we're all doomed because we're running out of X. Maltheus would have been proud.
Except how can a person be illegal? That's what I don't understand.
Good.
This guy was a nut, sure. Protect innocent civillians, ok. Kill him on the spot?
It's not the first time US 'Law Enforcement Officers' have killed someone on the street for a supposed crime. What happened to criminal jurisprudence?
Somebody who cares more about protecting the environment than about making profits for shareholders would be in violation of their fiduciary responsibility to the company's shareholders, and would quickly be removed from their job by the Board of Directors. Of course, this only applies to publicly held companies, so if you can find a privately held company or government operation to supply you with all of your energy needs, you're home free. Good luck with that.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Besides, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Christians are abortion clinic bombers and all catholics are child molesters.
You and your anchor baby ain't no worse than mammals, so let's start by killing you at the Discovery Channel.
Clearly Al Gores hate speech has gone too far. We need these sorts of videos banned, or at least labeled. Not even the columbine kids wanted to sterilize people!
See, that's the thing though...his base intentions are actually quite noble; it's the completely bassackwards way he went about trying to accomplish his goals (as well as how he attempted to present his arguments) that are crazy.
Living With a Nerd
Malthus merely got pushed out and the curve extended. We found a new resource (oil) that allowed the curve to move substantially. Unless we find another resource to replace it, we'll eventually hit the curve again.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
but crazy or not, a man died.
Man, I don't even know who Malthus is, but you should probably research a little bit before you talk.
First, more people are not overweight than underweight. That might be the case in your country, but I assure you that your country does not constitute anywhere near the majority of the planet. The number of obese (dangerously overweight) people in the world number about 300 million (from WHO). The number of malnourished (dangerously underweight) people number over 900 million (from the Wikipedia article on malnutrition).
Maybe you are right about diseases being better controlled. But I for one can't find any data on the rates of pandemics. So who really knows. Our understanding is better, but our odds of world wide contagion is much higher due to the international travel.
Finally, here is the list of the largest cities by population density. Stop me when you find one that doesn't have a huge poverty problem: Mumbai, Kolkata, Karachi, Lagos, Shenzhen, Seoul (maybe here?), Taipei, Chennai, Bogota, Shanghai, Lima, Beijing, Delhi, Kinshasa, Manila, Tehran, Jakarta, Tianjin, Bangalore, Ho Chi Minh City. Well, that's the top 20 anyway. There is wealth in many of these cities, but for the vast majority they also have crushing poverty.
That guy may have been a tool, but he was crazy and is now dead. There's nothing we can do about him. But education is available for the rest of us. Please make use of it.
Maybe women are hard-wired to love babies (mostly), but I don't think men wanting lots of sex translates to them "loving babies" at least in the abstract.
Once they show up though, something kicks in. I guess either you're going to respond with love or you're not. When my daughter was born, I was flying back from a show and feeling complete dread. When I walked in and saw my wife holding her, you could almost feel the tectonic plates in my brain shifting. 20 years later, it doesn't change. I see my accomplished, beautiful daughter and I still see the little purplish monkey-looking thing my wife was holding that morning.
Now when she was 13 she was a total snotty pain in the ass, but I still would have jumped in front of a bus for her.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"introducing and integrating new groups has not destroyed the things that made Australia great."
Introducing and integrating is great. The US, for one, is a country where the introduction and integration of new groups has led to adaptability, resilience, and strength far beyond many ethnically monolithic nations. However, what the poster above was referring to is when outside groups do not integrate and what he fears is if and when they fundamentally change those things that make a country great.
IMO, this is the crux of the current illegal immigration debate in the US, though it is frequently couched in other terms. Australia assuredly has fewer problems with this as they are surrounded by water. Furthermore, they do not share a porous land border with, for instance, an underdeveloped and corrupt nation where the kidnapping, torture, and murder of travelers, citizens, police, military personnel, journalists, and even public officials is a daily occurrence. In addition, I do not think the Australian government is actively assisting in the isolation of those immigrant groups by inhibiting their assimilation the way the US government has done and still is doing.
The US and many other countries have done an excellent job of integrating their immigrant populations in the past. However, there are new issues to contend with. Unprecedented levels of illegal immigrants are pushing for isolation within their new borders, whether geographically or through language segregation, and even receive assistance from vote hungry politicians. Those politicians are catering to non-citizens and in doing so are not only ignoring and violating established laws with impunity but are also endangering their true citizens' lives, their property, current and future financial prospects, and even the national economy. Furthermore, wide and growing support for subversive political ideas, like the "Reconquista" of the southwestern US, give a glimpse into the radical departure from the norm that new immigration problems have taken.
In short, immigration is nothing new to the US and many other countries. However, the motivations and subsequent interactions of immigrants with their new government and their new neighbors have radically changed. Don't make the mistake of equating similar situations, especially in light of glaring evidence that the circumstances and results are fundamentally different from your past experience.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.