Browsing All Pitches
Devolution of Man

Pitch Devolution of Man

Despite all of the technological, medical and scientific advancements made by mankind over the past millennium, we are now seeing a rise in those who seek to unravel these creations of human achievement. Whether it be those who worry more about obesity than famine, those who worry about mandating lower energy usage when many still have no access to housing and running water or those who perpetuate fear over life saving vaccines, this is a human devolution. I think we as a species should embrace what we've accomplished and encourage innovation, not stifle it.

28 Mar 2011

Subroom: Millennium Development Goals


Comments

tsname, common sense is not compulsory related to intellectualism. you don't "allow" people to argue you by exposing their point of view because you accuse them of pompous intellectualism, but you allow yourself to "simplify" like you say, and point people that you don't even know personally as antiacapitalistic or haters of americans? I wouldn't say this is a very objective or democratic approach, and I do think that this is precisely the self-centered attitude that is creating war, imperialism, fanatism and ignorace about human resources. I can respect that you don't have the time to consider any other country policies than those who belong to your own country, but then you will have to accept that your vision is culturally limitated to the smallness of your geographical, social and political reality, therefore you are not approaching the issue the way we're trying to discuss it here. if you are really interested about it you cannot justify your passport as the border of your statements because as it is said in the name of this cartoon website, there is more than one truth. drop in the buckets, if are many , overload the bucket spilling on it, put a bucket under the dropping sink and check it yourself. it wouldn't be the first time that protests change the social and political and economical reality of a country and by extension of the world (you can ask north africans right now ;-)), another issue is the fact that your government, like any other, castrates, manipulates or masks some realities to avoid change. that's not only happening now and in the US, is happenning since always and everywhere, because such is human nature and hegemonic maintaining basic rules. And if cheating boycotting population in your country is as simple as changging packages or registers that's a sign that your population is severely manipulated by communication media, which is typical of a corrupted capitalistic system (not of a capitalistic system). check berlusconi or chavez's governments to see what I mean, as I see you don't accept to check your own government. the defeated attitude of the well accomodated western stereotype is very convenient for single individuals, and a choice, but certainly not the way to reach a better world, and associating people that do believe in a change with dirty protesters or the analfabetism of wasted american celebrities is simply a sign of instrumentalised provincialism. with all my respect :-)

01 Apr 2011

Rachel: "You seem to think our work is not benefficiary to the public"
Deckard: "Replicants are like every other machine: they can be a benefit or a hazard. Their benefit is not my problem.
The dialogue is from Blade Runner. I am a big fan of sci-fi, whose true value as someone said, is noth that it envisioned the car, but that it envisioned the traffic jam,
That just about sums it up: I am a cartoonist. Blade Running is what we do, hunting down things that try to pass as the real thing :-)

01 Apr 2011

Spiros: Ha, exactly why we need to consider the good and the bad of every thing.

Miguel: You sure love intellectual babble. By education and trade, I am a scientist and engineer, so I have no time for long winded prose with big words that can't be simplified. Call me simple, but I find it easier to connect with my audience when I talk with them, rather than talk at them, which is something the entire scholastic community should consider. Simply, I will not allow people to talk at me by showing off their intellectual prowess for their own benefit. What you fail to realize is that a boycott to a company is merely a drop in the bucket to the entire consumer base that they hold. All a company needs to do to increase their income is to repackage, rebrand, or simple release a new product through smart ad campaigns and those people who boycotted their brand just got replaced. The same can be said for "world don't buy gas day." It does not matter if the entire world stops buying gas on Thursday, because when Friday rolls around everyone is buying gas again. It does not affect the "oil mafia," it does not even serve as a slap on the wrist. The same goes for protesting, I feel that protesting does absolutely nothing to get any sort of message across. All it does is make a certain population feel good about themselves for doing "something" to "change" whatever it is they feel is wrong. Wrong, while protesting used to be quite effective in the US in the 1960's, it is not effective now. And yes, Miguel, I am using the US as my example because I live in the US, and I have a grasp on the issues that are happening in the US. I cannot argue on a global level because I don't know the social and economic struggles in India, Philippines, and Turkey to name a few. While I can jump on Google and fake it, I will not. And who is to say that what you're arguing for is something the entire Earth wants? I think your stance on corrupt capitalism and dirty energy is myopic on your part. There are children who are going to bed hungry, girls being raped and experiencing genital mutilation, and entire cultures experiencing genocide as we speak. But alas, coal energy is evil and Nestle's cookies are the cookies of oppression.

I will leave it at that, great discussion by all, Spiros, good job, Miguel, I hope you don't feel as if I'm picking on you because I am not.

01 Apr 2011

tsname: the very same technology that allows us to discuss this matter here, is the very same technology that allows the celebrity to promote its anti-scientific viewpoint. Come to think of it, the technology made possible the celebrity :-)

01 Apr 2011

sorry, I forgot to comment about the boycotting and the global turning off of light (that's just a simple example) and so. by turning of the lights coordinately you are not objectively making a concrete action wich directly will make our planet a better place, but you are telling the company that you are not intended to pay the abusive bills they impose to population. this lack of consume is going to create loss of incoming and make them rethink about prices. this affects economy, economy affects people, people affects earth.you get the chain?coordination and common sense is the key.I don't know about your country, but yes, we talk about millions of people boycotting products. you can ask Nestle for example about some economical consequences related to that boycott. is not about enterprisers seeing any light, if you read carefully my post you would have understood that we talk about loosing money, and that's the language wall street listens an understands, otherwise the boycotters would rather use the language of common sense, which ufortunately very rarely is spoken by the enterprising world, and from less to less also from the politician world, which is functionning in order to satisfy the economical hegemony of enterprisers despite democracy. now that's what I call corrupted capitalism, not capitalism, see the difference?in every system there's corruption, but we must feel responsible by the corruption affecting our lifestyle in concrete.forget about america, we talk about the global system here. america is already behind chinese also because of that loss of ethics in production and market system, wake up, the world is changging, is not about our little and provincial patriotism anymore, xx century is over and, hey...after all, there are governments that have fallen down because of a cartoon! insn't it great?:-D

01 Apr 2011

dear tsname. About the cheating enterprises you are precisely giving the reason to my arguments. that's the point, a system based in manipulation of data, of mass media and private economical interests which don't have anything to see with human needs. you got it!. About hating amercia or capitalism please, don't make imperialistic marxist speeches, you sound like Stalin talking about the communist haters, the haters of the people and bla bla...I think we have moved a bit from that world war and is kind of ridiculous to fall into those old stereotypes.first of all because the only thing I hate is demagogy and oportunistic ignorance, and you should make distinction between capitalism and corruption. Second, because I'm not even interested in US, I'm talking about the world in general and the exploitation of resourses (what make you think we are all speaking of your country all the time?is so selfcentered and repetitive :-P).
Regarding the stupidity of analfabet american celebrities talking about the killing of whales, the coming of the extraterrestrians or the pharmacological poisoning, well, that does not have anything to see with what is beong discussed here, it looks to me like a local problem you have to deal with in your society where show bussiness and social politics don't have a clear border between them, sadly, and then again, if you allow me, is a consequence of that devoluted society you are living in, we are living in, product of that superficial mentality of technological wellbeing despite of ecological, social and intellectual distruction.The world is a small place, we have to learn to live in it in respect of each other, and to do so is necessary to travel a little bit and meet new alternatives to live, otherwise you get stuck, uncapable to contrast information, and the results is a distorsioned idea of being attacked as a culture or flag.but that's a selfcentered-limited perception. thanks for your comment :-)

01 Apr 2011

While this cartoon may not have anything to do with the situation in Japan, based on Spiros' comments and general comments that have popped up all over the media regarding radiation coming from Japan, I agree with Alex because there seems to be a turn in American society from hard fact-based science, to popular celebrity/pseudo-science. It's a shame, the US tried very hard to get people, children mostly, to be interested in science, but glamor and aspirations of being famous have won out. Now science for some reason has been likened to "big pharma" or "evil corporations." I also agree with Alex in that we should be so lucky that we have the privilege to even have this debate through use of electricity and telecommunications technology. Which is based on, of all things, real science, and not some celebrity with no scientific background, telling us to not eat this or not do that.

Spiros: are you really nitpicking such a tiny little symbol on a cartoon? If Alex was really trying to tie in the emphasis of this cartoon with that of Japan, that atomic symbol would have been bigger and the scientist would be wearing something much more substantial than a lab coat and eyeglasses. And, for all intents and purposes, the Bohr model of the atom is an obsolete depiction of the atom, if you had a better scientific background, you would know that the electrons form, simplistically, a shell or a cloud around the nucleus, rather than some ideal orbit.

Miguel: I see where you're coming from; you hate capitalism, you love socialism. You talk like a person who hates America and all it stands for because it has so much and you have so little because in your eyes, everyone in America is of the bourgeois class, raping the land and not caring about the future. Do you honestly think a corporation cares that a group of 1000, 10,000, even 100,000 people are boycotting their product? Do you honestly think they will "see the light" and change their ways? Hell no. What is their bottom line? Money. And they will do every little thing they can to cut as many corners to save money. Of all places, I have seen this in action from a tape dispenser that I use at work. There is a sliver of plastic cut off the dispenser not bigger than half an inch, but that half inch just saved the company a few million dollars in production costs, material costs, and shipping costs. Now in the end, that is a pretty good cut as less material means less production energy consumed and less shipping energy consumed. Do you know that if McDonald's can save just $0.01 on every one of their big macs, they company saves well over $100M EACH DAY. So don't you think corporations would do their damndest to lie and cheat as much as they can so they can save more money at the expense of the consumer?

What difference is it going to make if every body stopped using power for one hour? The result of everyone shutting down their electricity use, and the subsequent power surge that will cause havoc on the power grids due to everyone turning on all of their electronics, mostly at the same time, could be detrimental. Think of electricity use as a garden hose, we control the amount of water going through the hose at all times and there's an average use per hour. Suddenly we stop for one hour, and everyone turns on their appliances, and now the demand on that garden hose will cause it to rupture. Stupid idea based on stupid feel-good ideologies. I live in Los Angeles, and now that the city has mandated firm regulation on watering lawns by only allowing people to water 3 days out of the week, taxpayers must spend their hard earned money by fixing water mains that are breaking all over the city because of a reduction in the demand in water. So instead of using so much of the precious resource that we have, that water main is gushing with thousands of gallons of water per hour, and now we have to spend money to pay for the crew to fix it, the part that needs to be fixed, the tool that need to be used to fix it, etc. As with scientific breakthroughs, both the pros and cons must be considered before wholeheartedly adapting to it.

Please don't take me to seriously, you'll only upset yourself.

31 Mar 2011

Alexander, you're very talented. I'm a big fan. Do you take requests for cartoons?

31 Mar 2011

Miguel: Why not join the debate with a cartoon as well? :-)

30 Mar 2011

I see your point but I think you are not considering the real point of the necessary change. the ecological energy sources ARE sustainable to the proper needs of the planet.the problem is that a few people don't want to renounce to certain privileges not regarding the future of the planet or the rest of the population, then again, and here's the real problem, if less than one third of the population abuses of the planet resources for unnecessary purposes (like havin 4 cars per family or turning on accesories longer and higher than the needs, letting the sink of water running improperly, etc.) every source will be unsustainable, and is a fact than wether we like it or not, ecological resources are the future. This mentality, which is not naive or hippie but 100% scientifical is what is lacking in the wall street elite club, which has leaded to a world of completely unequal distribution and unnecessary waste of resourse by a few privileged protected by wrong enterprising laws. and this is not about private property or free market or capitalism in itself when adapted to the human needs. is about the cancer of the abusive law of the market from which the capitalistic system itself is getting to the end of its time, because precisely for the free market, the future of the economy is clearly chinese and brasilian, western countries have started their sunset since long ago, and all those mega-economical monsters are taking possession of the system because their enterprises produce faster and cheaper, not regarding either certain principals of human rights in many cases, but that's another issue. all this in the name of money, and as "genesis" used to sing, this is the world we're living now.So is about consuming what you need, not wasting what you don't, unfortunately and specially in the extreme capitalistic countries people thinks they are going to live for ever and don't care that much about future generaations. that's what I call a "devolutioned society". if we are not then is our duty to think about something else than our bourgeois live standard, because we are just throwing stones to our own roof, as we say here.And still, think about why is more expensive to buy an ecological tomatoe than an industrially grown one, and you will realise that if we have not already started a better sustainable way of living is because enterprisers don't want us to do so. their incoming is their incoming and they don't seem to give a damn about anything else. I think that is wrong, honestly. and is not about anticapitalism, is just common sense.

30 Mar 2011

Miguel,

Actually nuclear power isn't cheap. The cost and liability insurance that goes into building a nuclear plant is nearly always subsidized by whatever government approves of it. In that sense I think, even if you discount the huge costly clean up and danger that results in an accident like Japan, the actual cost of nuclear power is a lot higher than oil or coal. Wind, solar, ethanol all require subsidies to compete with the cost of energy produced from oil and coal. The technology to allocate many renewable sources of energy are just not financially sustainable on their own merit yet. Self interested businesses will turn to renewable energy when it's profitable to do so. At the moment, the costs associated with it are just too high.

30 Mar 2011

Alexander, have you ever wondered why the alternative sources of energy and the ecological products are more expensive than nuclears, genetically modified seeds, pesticides and chemically trated products?

30 Mar 2011

Ι myself would take the "take off the lights" thingie more seriously if they didn't plan it on a Saturday, when most companies, public services, industries and such, are closed anyway

30 Mar 2011

Miguel,

I think all your concerns are valid, but I'm actually a strong believer in capitalism. I think free markets and free trade help everyone involved and also does the best job of bringing those in the third world to the same opportunity levels as first world countries. I don't think of any of this energy used as wasted, because everyone has to pay for their use of it. I think turning off lights is the right thing to do if your energy bill is too high and you want to reduce your utilities bill, but I still don't see light bulb use as the most responsible culprit for pollution. I don't think oil as a source of energy is sustainable, but I'm also not a believer in peak oil. While there is only a finite amount, like with any other product, scarcity is going to raise the price over time and with higher prices comes the search for new and cheaper sources of energy. At the moment the cost of energy produced from solar and wind (and nuclear and corn) is far more expensive than from oil or coal. I think newer technology will produce cleaner emissions, but I don't think subsidizing energy sources which aren't financially feasible are the right way to go about it. I think we have roughly the same goals, but we're going about it from different perspectives. Thanks for the comments. :)

30 Mar 2011

I don't think that turning off the lights for an hour is ridiculous, this is the way you force some enterprises to give up speculation in the prizes of their electrical companies, and it eventually works because enterprises only listen to people's needs when people threatens them with no consuming their products. boicotting some products by not buying them and buying others, as a protest for the unhuman way they might be manufactured is not ridiculous at all I think.The scientific achievement of western society does not have anything to see with the waste and abuse of the natural resources by less than 1 third of the population. Being counscious with those facts and fight for re-distribution, a reduction of pollution and elimination of energy resources which prove themselves not to have a way out, because of their expiration date, like petrol, or nuclear energy, which progressively degenerates the life quality of living creatures for the sake of some technological confort reserved to a minority, all those fights are the highest degree of evolution of western society, which has arrived, in the degeneration of the capitalistic lifestyle, to the end of an era. the dilema now is to change to alternative ways to maintain our quality of live in respect of our health and other forms or life or die. as simple as that. maybe you wont see that but your sons or grandsons will, and they wont have your same perspective, believe me. We don't have to create misunderstanding . distiguish well between speculation and scientific data. the lifestyle of consumption we are dealing with today is not sustainable, and there's nothing devolutioning in that but precisely the opposite.
nice cartoon ;-)

30 Mar 2011

My cartoon response is up: http://www.cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/2219 :-)

30 Mar 2011

Great idea, a cartoon debate. They tried it over at ToonPool.com a while back (they called it ToonBattle), but it didn't really work there, because people didn't understand what was going on and the cartoonists didn't understand what they were supposed to de exactly. I think our platform is better suited to making it work. I'll think about it. If you guys have any ideas about it, do share!

30 Mar 2011

Same here, thanks for the "more than one truth" :-) Come to think of it, I should have responded with a cartoon instead (wouldn't that be a neat idea? A cartoon debate!) One of the next days I just might, and you are of course welcome to challenge it with comments or cartoon if you wish :-)

29 Mar 2011

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree regarding the merits of certain technologies. Honestly, the tiny atom I drew was an after thought to make the flask look more science-y. I never intended for it to refer to nuclear power. I'd still say it's pretty innocuous in this cartoon. I've seen a lot of other cartoons elsewhere that have made me a bit queasy with melting or mutating people and death. I also think the caricature of a dirty hippie is as fair as the caricature of a greedy businessman. While I agree that being against certain lightbulbs doesn't make one a luddite, exaggeration and political cartooning go hand in hand. Thanks for the comments and interesting discussion.

29 Mar 2011

I will agree with you that the Earth Hour Day is rather ridiculous, but being critical against aspects of technology doesn't nessecarily make one a luddite! It is interesting that of all the possible symbols to depict technology, you picked the atom, now of all times. Across the Pacific, your irony would be rather lost right now (and if things go wronger still, you won't have to cross the Pacific to wake up and smell the radioactivity, god forbid).As for the stereotype of the ecologist as being a dirty hippy, i still find it...well...a dirty trick :-) Oh, while on the subject of dirty: The gulf of Mexico sends its eternal thanks for all the first world prosperity currently residing in its waters :-)

29 Mar 2011

Actually, I wasn't trying to defend nuclear power, but technological advancement in general. In America, there are cities which are banning plastic bags and others want to ban certain types of light bulbs, some celebrities are telling people that life saving vaccines cause autism and other groups think certain foods should be banned, restricted or regulated, because they are unhealthy. The cartoon is more about the international Earth Hour day where millions are asked to turn out their lights for an hour or more to help the planet. I find it ridiculous, because there are still many in the world without housing, let alone electricity. As for being physically dirty, I was merely drawing a caricature of an American hippie. I personally think it would be a better goal to bring prosperity and opportunity to the third world, rather than sacrifice and demonize human achievements in the first world.

29 Mar 2011

Quite interesting timing promoting the "Homo Atomicus" while Japan exhales radiation like hell! And of course anyone raising (justified as it turns out) doubts and objcetions has to be drawn as physically dirty too, eh?

29 Mar 2011

This is quite an unusual subject for a cartoon. I wish there were more of this kind. My vote

29 Mar 2011

Leave a comment

Please Login to leave a comment