Added: 2 years ago
From: cookingupastory
Views: 7,427
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (44)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I WANT TO DESTROY HUMMANS

  • Whats up with those gay beads.

  • like it , caryn

  • 3,824 views on this video. Not enough people care about these issues. People will start caring when it starts majorly affecting their daily lives, and by then it will be too late. With large corporations running the American government I have little hope of a better tomorrow. Maybe our middle class Western lives will continue to be comfortable for the next 50 or even 100 years but it's not sustainable and nobody cares.

  • industry made the mistake of producing too much food and hence too many people.

    a global one child policy is required to restore the balance.

    0.5-1billion is the population level we should be aiming for.

  • @walter0bz but theres enough food to feed one and a half times the population of the planet, so its not an issue of the population but how the food is dispersed

  • @flashmercury -

    But the food depends on Fossil-Fuels (fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, storage).

    when these run out, the amount of food goes back to pre-industrial levels.

    Solar power requires diverting land away from food production, wheras fossil-fuels freed up land for food (feed person instead of horse, plastic instead of wood so cut down forest and grow more food, and fertilizers..)

  • @walter0bz Thats right most people don't realize the boost in production fossil fuels have made to our food supply. Most also don't realize that for the first time in Australian history in 2008 they couldn't produce enough to feed there own people. The USA that same year didn't have enough to sell to all who wanted to buy from us. We had to short some countries. There were riots over food in Pakistan. Now imagine no tractors, or fertilizer. Imagine trying to pick the bugs off 1000 acres of beans

  • @o0lBobl0o -

    BILLIONS will starve, not just millions.

  • @walter0bz Evil comes out in the dark. Before things get so bad that we're all starving we'll start killing each other. Like carrion beetles when the carcase is gone we'll eat each other till there are only a few left, and they will go find a new carcase.

  • @o0lBobl0o -

    thanks for the correction. You're right, people will instinctively go into war mode before they starve.

    Billions starving is assumes some radical turn around in human nature.

  • @walter0bz You're right though, billions will die.

  • @o0lBobl0o "most people don't realize the boost in production fossil fuels have made to our food supply."

    Please enlighten us.

    .

    "imagine no tractors, or fertilizer."

    Why would there be no tractors or fertilizer if fossil-fuels were expensive (as Peak Oil theory predicts it will be)?

  • @hitssquad -

    Fundementally, I view food and energy as interchangable. eg's 'fuel','electricity' reduces need for manual food-powered chores; plastic/metal/concrete frees land from growing wood for growing more food, then there's 'biofuel', etc etc.

    My analogy for people who view the world in purely monetary terms would be that Renewable energy from the sun is like a steady income, whereas fossil fuels are like a lottery win or inheritance.. spend as fast as you like, fun till it runs out.

  • @walter0bz "energy from the sun is like a steady income"

    Yes, it's welfare, and like all forms of welfare, it traps its recipients.

    .

    Once upon a time, there were no landowners. Land was communal welfare. That changed. The steady-state welfare of the sun can change, too. All that need happen is that someone take ownership of Sun-Earth-L1 (SEL1): google. com/search?q=sel1+sun+earth

    .

    Further, society might expand to fill the innermost solar-system with satellites - enough to blot out the sun.

  • @walter0bz "whereas fossil fuels are like a lottery win or inheritance.. spend as fast as you like, fun till it runs out."

    Does the solar-welfare go away, if people burn fuel for awhile instead?

    .

    How much shale-oil is in place?

  • Comment removed

  • @hitssquad

    >> "Does the solar-welfare go away, if people burn fuel for awhile instead?"

    - No, but if you had as many kids as you can afford with a lottery win, then they go back to a steady income (fixed same amount in total, not extra added per kid), the extra ones starve :)

    Ok so there's still the massive output that misses the earth, but I think anyone counting on Type2 carrying capacity should wait till they can breed IN orbit.. put resources saved on 2nd+ child into the space programme

  • @hitssquad

    >>"Further, society might expand to fill the innermost solar-system with satellites - "

    - I'm all for that, (not blotting out the sun of course) but you probably know my view here.. overpopulation & resource depletion on earth are more likely to crash civilization before we achieve such a leap.

  • @hitssquad

    >>"Yes, it's welfare, and like all forms of welfare, it traps its recipients."

    .. and a lottery win doesn't ever trap or destabilize people ?

  • @walter0bz "I'm all for that, (not blotting out the sun of course)"

    Why not blot out the sun?

    .

    "but I think anyone counting on Type2 carrying capacity"

    No. I mentioned it as a threat to your utopia, not as a promise. Your guarantee that this won't threaten your utopia is that it *might* not?

    .

    "but if you had as many kids as you can afford with a lottery win, then they go back to a steady income"

    Then you might end up wealthier per-capita, since people tend to produce more than they consume.

  • @walter0bz google. com/search?q=juliansimon+"prod­uce+more+than+they+consume"

  • @walter0bz not necessairly. your right in your arguement but small farms with intensive farming produces the same amount as the same land used in industrial hugh input farming. Breaking up these giant farms and making them labour intensive would allow more people to stay rural rather than head to the city. Food production would also be environmentally stable and continue to produce enough food. Studies have shown this ha its not just my opinion

  • @flashmercury

    >>"Breaking up these giant farms and making them labour intensive would "

    ... make food more scarce. we used the industrial methods because it made food more abundant.

    There was continual upward population pressure throughout history, whoever bred & fed the most soldiers would end up in control of the largest amount of land.. . I remain skeptical about any studies indicating that primative techniques can match fossil-fuel enhanced agri. Physics.. more energy=more complexity

  • this guy assumes good. what if you assume evil? what if you assume the new world order wants to do as they say: depopulate the earth 90%, leaving only 500 million people or so. lookup georgia guidestones. look into alex jones on prisonplanet. watch world according to monsanto. see fluoride deception. watch food, inc. see codex alimentarius, which will outlaw all organic, small local fresh farmers. see natural news website. so many people are so dangerously asleep. are you?

  • colloidal silver is ultimate antibiotic.

  • 2300 milion hamburger but what about the milion of lives of cows and pigs. Like they died for nothing. Like sow many product with meat in supermarket. Thrown away when time is overdued

  • That really irriates me to I mean can't they sell it cheap or give it away to people so they can eat?

  • evan, with all due respect you have no clue.

  • ROFL!!

    Cooking up a story is right! This guy is nuts. Dude, capitalism practically ensures that there will never be a shortage of food. If prices of food go up, more people invest in farms, and food increases. TA-DA! capitalism saves us.

    The only way that people will go hungry is with idiotic government intervention and price controls.

    Paul Roberts is thus refuted.

  • @evangrogers how does the means of capital ensure supply of food?

  • If people need food, it becomes very profitable to grow food and take care of food related industries (fertilizer etc). If people are allowed to become farmers, and reorganize their factories and use their land for food generation, then they'll make money doing so.

    This guy is making the mistake "we make X amount of food, and we consume Y amount of food. X/Y (with a few things added) means we'll run out of food in Z years".

    Humans are MUCH more flexible than that.

  • Looking at the entire political, cultural, agriculture &nutrition pictures as they relate 2 each other it is quite evident that there r gigantic "human" errors everywhere, mostly in the way our society does business & is arranged. Hunger is widespread, not because of over population but because of short term thinking, greed & other insanity. Its about short term, narrow thinking, greed, extravagant waste &poor planning on an enormous scale. Left hand not caring what the right hand is doing.

  • @Video

    Pretty interesting. Although he seemed to "villainize" the system for putting out hamburger.

  • "we're in an experimental stage right now,"

    In 2008 for the first time Australia could not feed it's own people.

    Deserts are growing at an ever increasing rate,

    The mountains of Kentucky are being blown apart for the coal inside.

    Slash and burn farming has become a way of life for a growing number of people.

    As Glaciers dwindle and ice packs are lost our need for water only rises.

    What will help? a drastic reduction in population.

  • If we change things we won't be able to produce the volume of food we have come to depend on. If we don't change things the system will fail. either way we starve

  • Many schools of thought here, many involve change.

    Some studies are saying organics can produce more nutritious food than is being grown today. Some say we (especially for many of us in the US used to large portions) if we cut back the amount we ate, less would have to be produced. Also, much food is thrown away, unused, for various reasons. (cont.)

  • (cont.)

    These just touch the tip of the food system iceberg. It's a very complex issue, but one that can be dealt with in a positive way. As Mr. Roberts says (in part 2) there are no quick solutions, we're in an experimental stage right now, and it's time to 'expand the discussion'. I hope to help him do that right here.

  • @o0lBobl0o No thats actually completely wrong. Changing the way we create food using smaller farms, intensive labour and less input of fertilizers and pesticides will result in more food on a global scale

  • superbugs so we can eat meat and get cancer and heart-problems? yay...

  • balance of life. if you change some thing it will be a problem to some thing else.

    he goes a little off topic alot. where did he get the bells from..? I want some!!!!!!! :)

  • A couple from Hawaii presented them to him when he was about to start speaking at the Organicology event in Portland. I thought they were beautiful too!

  • you can get protein from raw vegetables like leafy greens. Eat kale. As if there would be protein deficiencies.

  • Question. How about milk. Say I had a cow or goat. I milk the animal do I have to do anything to the milk i.e. kill bacteria before I can drink it. If so would you know how to do this? I'm talking from a strick SHTF moment.

    Thanks & take care.

  • raw milk should be fine if the cow or goat is healthy. Farmers only process it so the milk lasts longer on the shelves. Raw milk doesn't last very long so that's why they process it. However I would do more research on this if you were to consume it.

  • Thanks for the info. I'll have to look into shelf life of raw milk and etc.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more