lets revolutionize the whole world - watch zeitgeist addendum and zeitgeist moving forward we can eliminate poverty - debt -polution and war -bring abundant wealth to everyone and keep the earth clean
1) Localize the American food industry (a sneaky way to kiss globalisation goodbye). 2) Re-urbanize the USA (there aint much cheap oil left). 3) Review all 'theories' of economics by real scientists and scholars (todays 'top' economist (Stigliz, Krugman, Rubini) are a thereat to [sic!] humanity). 4) Move all R&D money out of biotech into AI research (we need terminators (androids) not GMOs). 5) Built a real space-station or something similar.
@akkonburike 1) Localise the American food industry (urban permaculture, biodynamic agriculture). 2) Move toward High Density dwellings 3) Move towards a "Resource Based Economy" / Zero-Growth Economy. 4) Move all R&D out of weapons and put it into renewables. 5) Revitalise current planet before looking for another one.
@LazarusCato It looks like you're pointing at pretty-much the same: The space-station we mentioned is a classic example on how-to supercharge any R&D efforts into efficiency/renewables (going into outer-space is a neccessity for the survival of mankind anyway). However, you messed with the -_- Terminators: Building a clonable AI is a way to compress millions of years of R&D into (!) mere seconds (the classic kurzweil-ian approach to ^_^ everything).
Refreshihng to see intelligent talk about the problems we face instead of Al Gore and his "global warming" carbon tax /cap & trade bullshit. Gore doesn't give a shit about the enviroment as you can see by his own "carbon footprint" ... the only thing he cares about is personal PROFIT! Of course we must look after this planet better, and we can, but filling the coffers of Al Gore and his pals through a thieving "carbon tax" is not going to help anything.
Lie. I'm guessing you're repeating something you heard.
> and that its "bad for the environment."
Misleading.
> Al Gore ... stuttered his way into stupidity.
Link?
> global warming is all about new profits!
Even if true, that doesn't effect whether it's happening or not. That said, do you really think the companies aren't profiting from denial? How does that add weight to your argument?
The course you advocate is irrational speculation, the cause of our current predicament, housing bubbles, the south-sea crisis and every other crash in production. A global ecological crash is not something the world population would recover from without severe, unnecessary (perhaps you feel it is necessary?) hardship, to put it mildly. As has been said before: "The world will be fine. The people will be fucked."
The limits on production likely will be lifted in future, but we do not know where that must stop, or even if it is already in excess of the finite capacity. Once it is lifted, once it is clear production is sustainable, we can change course. At the moment, we are in free-fall with the likes of you pretending there is no ground.
That expansion of capacity can continue without limit is a faith position. There certainly is a limit to production, right now. There are finite amounts of unprocessed stuff in the ground. There is a finite capacity of the biosphere to be permuted away from its current condition. It is a dynamic system ruled by physics, not a magic supermarket driven by God's will or true Americanness or business high-fives or whatever.
The idea of infinite expansion is magical thinking, and dogmatic. The fact that we have not found the upper limit or yet observed dramatic consequences of exceeding it does not mean it doesn't exist.
nice video, a little mild towards the elite which I believe is VERY WELL aware of the impact of sustaining such a class in a society, environmentally and socially.
End the Federal Reserve, the IMF, and all the illegimate debt that is drowning the nations of the world and there will be plenty for everyone. This world of scarcity is an artificial construct of the bankers' alchemy. To achieve their oligarchal vision they need to get you to want less people on the planet, under the guise of overpopulation, and sustainability. It is no accident one of the panelists was from JPMC. The oil cartel founded the East Anglia CRU. Don't think less humans, but less debt
Paul, this climate change is a trap. The establishment wants world government/governance and need a global crisis to get us to accept their government. like the US today, this world government will be run by them. And no they don't care about the planet. They just want to rule it and you're helping them by perpetrating this hoaxes. You know this crisis will require some form of world government. But you also know we the people are not ready. But the establishment IS ready to harvest this power.
Well this was interesting, but at the end of the day all they had to contribute was a Cap and Trade solution for the enviroment, and a coops for local economies.
These are weaksauce reformists ideas that ofc will never work.
Because there are ppl out there who WANTS to be rich, and they will figure out a way around any reformist hurdles u throw at them.
The monoploizing greedy few are the real problem. They are the ones who are polluting the natural resources and creating this fear of shortage. They are the ones who are interfering with natural human progress and forcing certain countries to live in an impoverished state. This planet has the ability to give everyone everything they will ever need to live. But that is not acceptable for the elite, they want you to live off them.
The stupid concept of "overpopulation" is nonexistant. It is a propaganda designed to put scare into the market to justify "supply and demand," aka HIGH PRICES. There is no such thing as overpopulation, there is only unfair and cruel practices of distribution of resources. The "powers that be" took it upon themselves to steal from the masses to create a scarcity and monopolize each industry to create this "problem."
I don't buy this crap this group is spewing out. The ecological system, when left alone, will flourish to no end and have more than enough to sustain life on this planet. This concept of "climate change" is still unfounded. There are two sides to this story and no one person or group can conclusively say one way or the other WITHOUT substantial research. The lady has some great ideas about home grown food, land ownership and cooperative businesses.
@StarcrossedPacific How about all the other "mountains upon mountains of peer reviewed publications" that say otherwise. Remember there are two sides to this "problem."
@StarcrossedPacific How about all the other "mountains upon mountains of peer reviewed publications" that say otherwise? Remember there are two sides to this "problem."
@StarcrossedPacific Are you serious? You mean to tell me you're buying into the propaganda that these "elitist" control freaks are trying to spread? They're saying carbon dioxide is poisonous and that its "bad for the environment." Al Gore was questioned during a hearing in congress back in 2009 about his "global warming" theory (crap) and his need of funding and he just stuttered his way into stupidity. He could not answer the tough questions. This global warming is all about new profits!
@fury350z uhh...I'll take scientific opinion over yours any day. Try typing in "scientific opinion on climate change" into wikipedia. Carbon dioxide is known to be a heat trapping greenhouse gas. Every organization and academy of science either agrees (overwhelmingly) with the statement made by the IPCC, or in a few cases, holds a non-committal stance. There is also near universal support among scientists in the relevant fields. Don't tell me they're all "in on it".
@radscorpion8 uhhh....its your life. if you choose to be in denial, so be it! i could spoon feed you all the evidence in the world and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference because you did not find it for yourself. so if you believe wholeheartedly that Co2 is that BAD, then we should start reducing it now by first putting you and your family to rest. sound like a plan?
@radscorpion8 oh and btw, wikipedia?? ha ha ha...really?? you find your info in a website that ANYONE could edit online?? all your credibility is lost, right out the window!! this is not a subject you look up in "wikipedia" in 5 mins and come to this elementary conclusion that all this bullshit (global warming) is right! do you even know the people behind this global warming hoax?? probably not.....get serious, because it is SERIOUS!!
@fury350z I don't understand why you're talking about Gore. AGW isn't an invention by him, it's a scientific theory that is over a hundred years old. I'm also still waiting for you to name some peer reviewed studies that show that the theory of AGW is false. Also judging from what you're writing, I'm pretty sure I've done more research on (physical) chemistry than you have.
@StarcrossedPacific <<<Funny, I was thinking the same thing! You brought no argument and you're calling me brainwashed?? You brought no proof and you're criticizing me?? I sent you the congressional hearing vid that your boyfriend Al Gore was in and that wasn't enough?? That was just a fluke that I found that on youtube. There are other, much more damning evidence, too much to show or share here. Don't be lazy, put down the xbox, Look it up!! PROVE ME WRONG!!
I agree, with the current paradigm and economic/ political system overpopulation is an issue because consumerist centric capitalism runs deep. Consumer culture needs to be substituted or curtailed in some way whilst profit orientation and shareholder short term interests will have less influence. These are the main problems that are causing a lot of the imbalances, whether ecological, social or economical. A shift in this paradigm is quintissential, the system is disfunctional
Just recently in France, a white man with three kids told me there are too many people on the planet. So, why did he have those kids? Male white right? Crazy. No idea how I stayed calm for the meeting. I not only didn't have kids, I gave the USA back to the First People and moved to Europe, my roots!
As long as there is a pyramid of power (resources/food/money) and desire to get to the top, no matter how good are intentions, it will unbalance everything and fail sooner or later.
I really enjoyed this video, there are too few people speaking in this open and honest manner. I'm glad that there are people with the intelligence and power to actually make these ideas heard in larger circles outside of the "hippies" and "treehuggers".
Lets listen to womb obsessed freaks!Their key word is never fair equity but stop having babies.Basically you can be single and poor and get a thumbs up!?*& Castrate yourselves first before ordering the number of kids!
With the concept of shared ownership of resources in mind we have created Esser's Peace in Southern Missouri. It is not religious but spiritual in the sense of having the purpose of healing the individual and society so we can live on a healthy planet.
Until we create a society in which we are soverign citizens of earth & we live with an economy that serves us & aids our survival instead of we, as workers, serving the economy that is an insatiable monster, we will not be free, happy or well.
I personally wonder if these discussions are victimized by their own over-thought, and needs to include a perpetually growing constituency of expanding "holisticism". I wonder if a problem unique to North America is that the idea of lower impact options to fossil fuels has so much emotional baggage tied to it via Hippies, Malthusians, and lefty demagogues that these same options are about as culturally attractive as cross-dressing. Nobody discussed cell-phones displacing landlines.
@dankbot420 -"Magic Juice" is a fantasy fuel that costs nothing, is non-toxic, and requires no modifications to our existing institutions - cars, gas stations, roads, tax structures, etc. Will the environmental movement struggle to support it because it does not demand any cultural sacrifice i.e. it encourages commuting to sprawling suburbs that may or may not use sustainable building materials, discourages local organic agriculture while encouraging the 3000 mile Caesar Salad?
@dankbot420 Is "Magic Juice" the only sustainable option "our" fantasy image of stubborn middle America will accept because it does not require any evidence of its use -because it's the only thing that does not carry the "Scarlet E" badge of "shame" that suggests the wearer is supportive of everything "Green" -including some of the nuttier stuff that comes from elements of the "Green Family".
@dankbot420 -One of Ronald Reagan's first acts as President was to pull down the solar panels installed by Carter -He did not need to do that, they were up, and producing -did his co-existence with them send some kind of threatening message -like "the hippies are right"? -with all their baggage -just a thought.
The earth can handle all the growth . Earth was here before all of us and it will be here after us.. there is no such thing of the of over farming, the Mayans and Olmecs
Aztecs farmed corn thousands of years ago.. and they steal plant corn in the same lands .. and they produce in abundance ...
@soulresistor Thats true the earth was here before us and nothing we can do can effect it, we should drop hydrogen bombs on it and it will be fine, ancient civilizations had wars too so this is no different.
I was pleasantly surprised by this discussion. It was intelligent and not littered with absurdities. It was a good start. I would like to think that this was the appetizer in a meal of multiple courses, wherein each course is an act of exploration that opens up new dimensions of perspective and experience building one upon the other, thereby leading those involved into new realms of understanding where thought can be converted into comprehensive tangible sustainability in manifestation.
Actually both overpopulation AND overconsuption are ruining the planet and defeating the possibility of creating an equitable society. After all, if we want people to be well off and live in equality, there needs to be many more resources then there are people. Once there is scarcity, it will create division and inequality. We need to cut the population AND fight to take back control of the economy and society from the wealthy
When Everybody has future-gen. rep-rap style robots, ppl could agree plans on the web; billions of regular people each making a high-tech & highly crafted component, sending to make stadia, pyramids, space ships etc.
Way better than anything capitalism could produce.
A kind of emerging distributed Artisan production with common ownerships, copyleft.
Grass roots movements and co-operatives that are more inclusive of stake holders into the shared ownership model should be one of the first steps. By including the people in the environment that are impacted, into the equation, it makes for a more responsible and informed society at large. Profit orientation also needs to be redressed through more educational/ socio-behavioural changes (institutional and activism) that promote sustainability over consumerism.
@mcamelyn technological change does not redress wealth inequalities nor solve resource depletion. Fact is with the existing paradigm and economic structure, Intellectual Property rights and planned obsolesence of tech/ rnd stiffle real innovation and efficiency. Throw in political lobbying/ monopolies/ negative externalities and your technological change is a moot point.
@1marcelo Because overpopulation wouldnt be an issue if income was distributed in an equitable way and long term sustainability of natural resources was built into the economic system. Birth rates taper of once economies/ societies mature. Poverty is correlated to overpopulation
@wiqid I'm absolutely in favor of equitable distribution of income. Not only because it would be fair but also because people with higher incomes can afford better education and reproduce less. However, overpopulation is still a problem by itself. Ecology studies the distribution of living beings and when one species changes its distribution and number as humans do, it becomes a problem for the ecosystem. Even if population stabilizes in 50 years, we are still too many for the ecosystem.
Lets start thinking about ideas, putting them in the comment boxes --even if they seem somewhat ridiculous,or difficult to accomplish --that would improve life for people-I have ideas or partial ideas and when I watch this my brain gets stoked and I want to put in the comment box here and I like to get input and hear others ideas--youtube is a good place for think tanking-brain storming collaboration- I'm glad to see people like this thinking about these issues--
1. Overpopulation (poor's problem) is not threatening human survival. (check footprint metrics)
2. Overconsumption (rich's problem) IS threatening human survival. (check footprint metrics)
3. Population is projected to stabilize in roughly 40-60 years. China and India are having already far less than 2,1 children per woman, the further increase is due their scale and their population structure
@Alexopolux It is not only the CO2 footprint that is threatening human survival. That's a huge oversimplification of all the ecological problems the planet is facing. The cause of most of these ecological problems is overpopulation. Having said that, equal distribution is probably part of the solution.
@1marcelo Totally agree, climate change is not the only ecological problem, but the only one truly global - as far as I know. Moreover, the footprint is not a metric for CO2 emissions. It rather tells you how much land, water, etc., inputs a given economy/individual uses, and how much of the natural waste sinks. The rich world uses roughly 80% of the global resources, only the US 25% in spite of being just 3 % of the world population. Having said that, check out my former post again please.
@Alexopolux I think we mostly agree but one has to be careful when analyzing correlations. The fact that poverty and large families correlate does not prove that inequality causes overpopulation. Overpopulation is mainly caused by an unconrolled biological tendency to reproduce plus the huge increase in longevity and survival, mainly in wealthier populations. Therefore, I think overpopulation is the cause, not inequality, although I also think inequality makes the problems worse.
@1marcelo I did not make that correlation. We have to understand that population grow is just one variable (+ technology and affluence), and it is by now not the alarming one at the GLOBAL level - even Paul Ehrlich already accepted that. Population control must be in the receipt of any plan of economic development, but those poor countries that still have growing population rates (Sub-S-Africa and SE Asia) are rather a threat to themselves than to the global ecological stability.
@Alexopolux Paul Ehrlich? Seriously? He knew nothing about ecology, no matter how genial he was. Nobody will convince me that a species that grew from 20,000 individuals to 7 billion in just 60,000 years is not damaging the ecosystem just by the sheer increase in number and geographical expansion.
@1marcelo I mentioned Paul Ehrlich because he was the most prominent scientist who warned about the "population explosion", so I believed it would have some appeal to you. I cannot repeat myself for ever. Here my final attempt. Population is a problem for poor countries, but is already globally on the stabilization path. Man-made capital (consumer and producer goods) is rising (meaning more depletion/pollution), and is the short-term problem we have FIRST to tackle - along with justice.
@Alexopolux The problems with poor countries is the interference of foreign capitalist robber barrons! NOT POPULATION! Where are you getting your info??
A "problem" has different levels. The one you mention is for sure in the bill. Yet, abusing elites have existed since at least 10000 years. It just happens that the current one is dominating the entire world - bad for us. What I've saying is that population is by now NOT the global ecological threat. But the depletion of natural sinks, mainly due to the US and China (both consume almost half of the global resources). I get my info., from different sources cause I study the subject.
@Alexopolux "A problem has different levels??" Is that what you're learning in school? I'm not going to entertain this conversation. Thanks anyway, I appreciate your feedback.
@Alexopolux Neither one of those concepts has anything to do with anything. If you're going to use reference to prove something, know it well and make sure its relevant, otherwise you're just discrediting yourself.
This discussion is interesting but it completely ignores technological change. They presume that because a resource is scarce today it will always be scarce or it will limit development. In fact, societies change. Maybe 100 years ago they were worried about where they were going to put all the horses. Now, with VR, people may not need to travel as much reducing demand for cars. It's ridiculous to say that society is going to stop moving forward because one or two resources dry up.
It would have been nice RNN if you could have included at least one non-malthusian in this group for some balance, perhaps maybe some real-world experience and not just misty eyed intellectuals tilting at windmills.
i watched a documentary called "money as debt" it explains very well how fractional reserve/ debt based money fuels endless economic growth and how interest free money can lead to sustainable economy. great documentary!
lets revolutionize the whole world - watch zeitgeist addendum and zeitgeist moving forward we can eliminate poverty - debt -polution and war -bring abundant wealth to everyone and keep the earth clean
MrIzzyDizzy 5 months ago
Ignorance or purposely looking the other way?
cityguyusa 6 months ago
Suggestion: read Erich Fromm´s "To have or to be". It enters some philosophical issues but applies every bit into practice.
willibo12345 8 months ago
1) Localize the American food industry (a sneaky way to kiss globalisation goodbye). 2) Re-urbanize the USA (there aint much cheap oil left). 3) Review all 'theories' of economics by real scientists and scholars (todays 'top' economist (Stigliz, Krugman, Rubini) are a thereat to [sic!] humanity). 4) Move all R&D money out of biotech into AI research (we need terminators (androids) not GMOs). 5) Built a real space-station or something similar.
akkonburike 8 months ago
@akkonburike 1) Localise the American food industry (urban permaculture, biodynamic agriculture). 2) Move toward High Density dwellings 3) Move towards a "Resource Based Economy" / Zero-Growth Economy. 4) Move all R&D out of weapons and put it into renewables. 5) Revitalise current planet before looking for another one.
LazarusCato 8 months ago
@LazarusCato It looks like you're pointing at pretty-much the same: The space-station we mentioned is a classic example on how-to supercharge any R&D efforts into efficiency/renewables (going into outer-space is a neccessity for the survival of mankind anyway). However, you messed with the -_- Terminators: Building a clonable AI is a way to compress millions of years of R&D into (!) mere seconds (the classic kurzweil-ian approach to ^_^ everything).
akkonburike 8 months ago
Refreshihng to see intelligent talk about the problems we face instead of Al Gore and his "global warming" carbon tax /cap & trade bullshit. Gore doesn't give a shit about the enviroment as you can see by his own "carbon footprint" ... the only thing he cares about is personal PROFIT! Of course we must look after this planet better, and we can, but filling the coffers of Al Gore and his pals through a thieving "carbon tax" is not going to help anything.
luvmyctd 8 months ago
> eugenics fans
> womb obsessed freaks!
Huh? So your plan is
Fecundity
???
Profit!
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
@MustacheVerra
> The establishment wants world government/governance
They succeeded long ago. It's just not democratic government. That's a poor justification.
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
Comment removed
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
Comment removed
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
Comment removed
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
@fury350z
> They're saying carbon dioxide is poisonous
Lie. I'm guessing you're repeating something you heard.
> and that its "bad for the environment."
Misleading.
> Al Gore ... stuttered his way into stupidity.
Link?
> global warming is all about new profits!
Even if true, that doesn't effect whether it's happening or not. That said, do you really think the companies aren't profiting from denial? How does that add weight to your argument?
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
@fury350z
The course you advocate is irrational speculation, the cause of our current predicament, housing bubbles, the south-sea crisis and every other crash in production. A global ecological crash is not something the world population would recover from without severe, unnecessary (perhaps you feel it is necessary?) hardship, to put it mildly. As has been said before: "The world will be fine. The people will be fucked."
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
@ukeuwatch you're wasting your time. these alex jones peons aren't interested in rational reasoning, they already have their minds made up anyway.
StarcrossedPacific 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StarcrossedPacific Sure, but there are other people reading who may still be able to think.
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
@fury350z
The limits on production likely will be lifted in future, but we do not know where that must stop, or even if it is already in excess of the finite capacity. Once it is lifted, once it is clear production is sustainable, we can change course. At the moment, we are in free-fall with the likes of you pretending there is no ground.
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
@fury350z
That expansion of capacity can continue without limit is a faith position. There certainly is a limit to production, right now. There are finite amounts of unprocessed stuff in the ground. There is a finite capacity of the biosphere to be permuted away from its current condition. It is a dynamic system ruled by physics, not a magic supermarket driven by God's will or true Americanness or business high-fives or whatever.
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
@fury350z
The idea of infinite expansion is magical thinking, and dogmatic. The fact that we have not found the upper limit or yet observed dramatic consequences of exceeding it does not mean it doesn't exist.
ukeuwatch 9 months ago
nice video, a little mild towards the elite which I believe is VERY WELL aware of the impact of sustaining such a class in a society, environmentally and socially.
sinekonata 9 months ago
End the Federal Reserve, the IMF, and all the illegimate debt that is drowning the nations of the world and there will be plenty for everyone. This world of scarcity is an artificial construct of the bankers' alchemy. To achieve their oligarchal vision they need to get you to want less people on the planet, under the guise of overpopulation, and sustainability. It is no accident one of the panelists was from JPMC. The oil cartel founded the East Anglia CRU. Don't think less humans, but less debt
MTL911Truth 9 months ago 2
tea partiers are mis-informed...fuck you!
hamblin31 9 months ago
Paul, this climate change is a trap. The establishment wants world government/governance and need a global crisis to get us to accept their government. like the US today, this world government will be run by them. And no they don't care about the planet. They just want to rule it and you're helping them by perpetrating this hoaxes. You know this crisis will require some form of world government. But you also know we the people are not ready. But the establishment IS ready to harvest this power.
MustacheVerra 9 months ago
new economic thinking is Permaculture!!! dont fucking interview economists...
Daka12s 9 months ago
Well this was interesting, but at the end of the day all they had to contribute was a Cap and Trade solution for the enviroment, and a coops for local economies.
These are weaksauce reformists ideas that ofc will never work.
Because there are ppl out there who WANTS to be rich, and they will figure out a way around any reformist hurdles u throw at them.
Ex0dus111 9 months ago
The monoploizing greedy few are the real problem. They are the ones who are polluting the natural resources and creating this fear of shortage. They are the ones who are interfering with natural human progress and forcing certain countries to live in an impoverished state. This planet has the ability to give everyone everything they will ever need to live. But that is not acceptable for the elite, they want you to live off them.
fury350z 9 months ago
The stupid concept of "overpopulation" is nonexistant. It is a propaganda designed to put scare into the market to justify "supply and demand," aka HIGH PRICES. There is no such thing as overpopulation, there is only unfair and cruel practices of distribution of resources. The "powers that be" took it upon themselves to steal from the masses to create a scarcity and monopolize each industry to create this "problem."
fury350z 9 months ago
I don't buy this crap this group is spewing out. The ecological system, when left alone, will flourish to no end and have more than enough to sustain life on this planet. This concept of "climate change" is still unfounded. There are two sides to this story and no one person or group can conclusively say one way or the other WITHOUT substantial research. The lady has some great ideas about home grown food, land ownership and cooperative businesses.
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z so having mountains upon mountains of peer reviewed publications on climate change that all support the mainstream theory is "unfound"?
StarcrossedPacific 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StarcrossedPacific How about all the other "mountains upon mountains of peer reviewed publications" that say otherwise. Remember there are two sides to this "problem."
fury350z 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StarcrossedPacific How about all the other "mountains upon mountains of peer reviewed publications" that say otherwise? Remember there are two sides to this "problem."
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z give me some sources then.
StarcrossedPacific 9 months ago
@StarcrossedPacific Are you serious? You mean to tell me you're buying into the propaganda that these "elitist" control freaks are trying to spread? They're saying carbon dioxide is poisonous and that its "bad for the environment." Al Gore was questioned during a hearing in congress back in 2009 about his "global warming" theory (crap) and his need of funding and he just stuttered his way into stupidity. He could not answer the tough questions. This global warming is all about new profits!
fury350z 9 months ago
@StarcrossedPacific Do your research. I did mine. Start here, look up CARBON DIOXIDE.
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z uhh...I'll take scientific opinion over yours any day. Try typing in "scientific opinion on climate change" into wikipedia. Carbon dioxide is known to be a heat trapping greenhouse gas. Every organization and academy of science either agrees (overwhelmingly) with the statement made by the IPCC, or in a few cases, holds a non-committal stance. There is also near universal support among scientists in the relevant fields. Don't tell me they're all "in on it".
radscorpion8 9 months ago
@radscorpion8 uhhh....its your life. if you choose to be in denial, so be it! i could spoon feed you all the evidence in the world and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference because you did not find it for yourself. so if you believe wholeheartedly that Co2 is that BAD, then we should start reducing it now by first putting you and your family to rest. sound like a plan?
fury350z 9 months ago
@radscorpion8 oh and btw, wikipedia?? ha ha ha...really?? you find your info in a website that ANYONE could edit online?? all your credibility is lost, right out the window!! this is not a subject you look up in "wikipedia" in 5 mins and come to this elementary conclusion that all this bullshit (global warming) is right! do you even know the people behind this global warming hoax?? probably not.....get serious, because it is SERIOUS!!
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z I don't understand why you're talking about Gore. AGW isn't an invention by him, it's a scientific theory that is over a hundred years old. I'm also still waiting for you to name some peer reviewed studies that show that the theory of AGW is false. Also judging from what you're writing, I'm pretty sure I've done more research on (physical) chemistry than you have.
StarcrossedPacific 9 months ago
@StarcrossedPacific We're taliking about GLOBAL WARMING!! Keep up!!
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z well I should have known better than trying to talk to brainwashed people.
StarcrossedPacific 9 months ago
@StarcrossedPacific <<<Funny, I was thinking the same thing! You brought no argument and you're calling me brainwashed?? You brought no proof and you're criticizing me?? I sent you the congressional hearing vid that your boyfriend Al Gore was in and that wasn't enough?? That was just a fluke that I found that on youtube. There are other, much more damning evidence, too much to show or share here. Don't be lazy, put down the xbox, Look it up!! PROVE ME WRONG!!
fury350z 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jag10 U really dont have a clue, do you?
wiqid 9 months ago
@1marcelo
I agree, with the current paradigm and economic/ political system overpopulation is an issue because consumerist centric capitalism runs deep. Consumer culture needs to be substituted or curtailed in some way whilst profit orientation and shareholder short term interests will have less influence. These are the main problems that are causing a lot of the imbalances, whether ecological, social or economical. A shift in this paradigm is quintissential, the system is disfunctional
wiqid 9 months ago
@solbomotion...WTF?
whowweeemandude40 9 months ago
These people are fools, fooling the public.
...Government lackeys...
jag10 9 months ago
you hit it on the nail Paul,
"Ownership" for the individuals, not rich, poor, white, black, male, female,
ownership for each individual, which of course goes against mass consumerism and group conformist identities.
cool70200 9 months ago
sustainable development = eugenics.
jag10 9 months ago
Just recently in France, a white man with three kids told me there are too many people on the planet. So, why did he have those kids? Male white right? Crazy. No idea how I stayed calm for the meeting. I not only didn't have kids, I gave the USA back to the First People and moved to Europe, my roots!
slobomotion 9 months ago
this was fantastic thanks!
norehct 9 months ago
As long as there is a pyramid of power (resources/food/money) and desire to get to the top, no matter how good are intentions, it will unbalance everything and fail sooner or later.
toto20091 9 months ago
I really enjoyed this video, there are too few people speaking in this open and honest manner. I'm glad that there are people with the intelligence and power to actually make these ideas heard in larger circles outside of the "hippies" and "treehuggers".
Devilock79 9 months ago
What they are talking about sounds close to a Resource Based Economy. Lets all push for that for equal resources and a change for human existence.
cactuskiwi 9 months ago
eugenics fans are unsustainable, go sacrifice yourselves to the earth godess
BluesdesJours 9 months ago
Lets listen to womb obsessed freaks!Their key word is never fair equity but stop having babies.Basically you can be single and poor and get a thumbs up!?*& Castrate yourselves first before ordering the number of kids!
400yearAfricanplan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Details of Esser's Peace can be found here at IC.org and on FaceBook.
TheCommunalSolution 9 months ago
With the concept of shared ownership of resources in mind we have created Esser's Peace in Southern Missouri. It is not religious but spiritual in the sense of having the purpose of healing the individual and society so we can live on a healthy planet.
Until we create a society in which we are soverign citizens of earth & we live with an economy that serves us & aids our survival instead of we, as workers, serving the economy that is an insatiable monster, we will not be free, happy or well.
TheCommunalSolution 9 months ago
I personally wonder if these discussions are victimized by their own over-thought, and needs to include a perpetually growing constituency of expanding "holisticism". I wonder if a problem unique to North America is that the idea of lower impact options to fossil fuels has so much emotional baggage tied to it via Hippies, Malthusians, and lefty demagogues that these same options are about as culturally attractive as cross-dressing. Nobody discussed cell-phones displacing landlines.
PovertyLabs 9 months ago
@PovertyLabs huh? Please elaborate.
dankbot420 9 months ago
@dankbot420 -"Magic Juice" is a fantasy fuel that costs nothing, is non-toxic, and requires no modifications to our existing institutions - cars, gas stations, roads, tax structures, etc. Will the environmental movement struggle to support it because it does not demand any cultural sacrifice i.e. it encourages commuting to sprawling suburbs that may or may not use sustainable building materials, discourages local organic agriculture while encouraging the 3000 mile Caesar Salad?
PovertyLabs 9 months ago
@dankbot420 Is "Magic Juice" the only sustainable option "our" fantasy image of stubborn middle America will accept because it does not require any evidence of its use -because it's the only thing that does not carry the "Scarlet E" badge of "shame" that suggests the wearer is supportive of everything "Green" -including some of the nuttier stuff that comes from elements of the "Green Family".
PovertyLabs 9 months ago
@dankbot420 -One of Ronald Reagan's first acts as President was to pull down the solar panels installed by Carter -He did not need to do that, they were up, and producing -did his co-existence with them send some kind of threatening message -like "the hippies are right"? -with all their baggage -just a thought.
PovertyLabs 9 months ago
China will fix this problem, everyone else is too stubborn.
yuri35435 9 months ago
Keep shedding light on ignorance!
MarkoKraguljac 9 months ago
The earth can handle all the growth . Earth was here before all of us and it will be here after us.. there is no such thing of the of over farming, the Mayans and Olmecs
Aztecs farmed corn thousands of years ago.. and they steal plant corn in the same lands .. and they produce in abundance ...
soulresistor 9 months ago
@soulresistor Thats true the earth was here before us and nothing we can do can effect it, we should drop hydrogen bombs on it and it will be fine, ancient civilizations had wars too so this is no different.
yuri35435 9 months ago
how much growth can the planet sustain? how about none? humans should reproduce at a quarter of the rate they're doing now!
economists who keep operating within a mindset that clearly fucked up the whole world are crazy to me...
notthere83 9 months ago
I was pleasantly surprised by this discussion. It was intelligent and not littered with absurdities. It was a good start. I would like to think that this was the appetizer in a meal of multiple courses, wherein each course is an act of exploration that opens up new dimensions of perspective and experience building one upon the other, thereby leading those involved into new realms of understanding where thought can be converted into comprehensive tangible sustainability in manifestation.
monterock100 9 months ago
Actually both overpopulation AND overconsuption are ruining the planet and defeating the possibility of creating an equitable society. After all, if we want people to be well off and live in equality, there needs to be many more resources then there are people. Once there is scarcity, it will create division and inequality. We need to cut the population AND fight to take back control of the economy and society from the wealthy
adammarxist 9 months ago
15:50: Wrong! Daly makes the order very clear:
1. Fix the Scale (ecological limits/sustainability),
2. Distribution (justice) and just after 1-2,
3. Markets (efficiency)
Alexopolux 9 months ago
Comment removed
Alexopolux 9 months ago
When Everybody has future-gen. rep-rap style robots, ppl could agree plans on the web; billions of regular people each making a high-tech & highly crafted component, sending to make stadia, pyramids, space ships etc.
Way better than anything capitalism could produce.
A kind of emerging distributed Artisan production with common ownerships, copyleft.
Capitalism = a drain, fraud, ignored, irrelevant.
Replicate & distribute our robot Messiahs freely.
Will be interesting to see this sector grow IMO.
marsCubed 9 months ago
Grass roots movements and co-operatives that are more inclusive of stake holders into the shared ownership model should be one of the first steps. By including the people in the environment that are impacted, into the equation, it makes for a more responsible and informed society at large. Profit orientation also needs to be redressed through more educational/ socio-behavioural changes (institutional and activism) that promote sustainability over consumerism.
wiqid 9 months ago
@mcamelyn technological change does not redress wealth inequalities nor solve resource depletion. Fact is with the existing paradigm and economic structure, Intellectual Property rights and planned obsolesence of tech/ rnd stiffle real innovation and efficiency. Throw in political lobbying/ monopolies/ negative externalities and your technological change is a moot point.
wiqid 9 months ago
@1marcelo Because overpopulation wouldnt be an issue if income was distributed in an equitable way and long term sustainability of natural resources was built into the economic system. Birth rates taper of once economies/ societies mature. Poverty is correlated to overpopulation
wiqid 9 months ago
@wiqid I'm absolutely in favor of equitable distribution of income. Not only because it would be fair but also because people with higher incomes can afford better education and reproduce less. However, overpopulation is still a problem by itself. Ecology studies the distribution of living beings and when one species changes its distribution and number as humans do, it becomes a problem for the ecosystem. Even if population stabilizes in 50 years, we are still too many for the ecosystem.
1marcelo 9 months ago
Lets start thinking about ideas, putting them in the comment boxes --even if they seem somewhat ridiculous,or difficult to accomplish --that would improve life for people-I have ideas or partial ideas and when I watch this my brain gets stoked and I want to put in the comment box here and I like to get input and hear others ideas--youtube is a good place for think tanking-brain storming collaboration- I'm glad to see people like this thinking about these issues--
catgumart 9 months ago
How can they talk for 27 minutes about sustainable development without even mentioning overpopulation?
1marcelo 9 months ago
@1marcelo
Because :
1. Overpopulation (poor's problem) is not threatening human survival. (check footprint metrics)
2. Overconsumption (rich's problem) IS threatening human survival. (check footprint metrics)
3. Population is projected to stabilize in roughly 40-60 years. China and India are having already far less than 2,1 children per woman, the further increase is due their scale and their population structure
Alexopolux 9 months ago
@Alexopolux It is not only the CO2 footprint that is threatening human survival. That's a huge oversimplification of all the ecological problems the planet is facing. The cause of most of these ecological problems is overpopulation. Having said that, equal distribution is probably part of the solution.
1marcelo 9 months ago
@1marcelo Totally agree, climate change is not the only ecological problem, but the only one truly global - as far as I know. Moreover, the footprint is not a metric for CO2 emissions. It rather tells you how much land, water, etc., inputs a given economy/individual uses, and how much of the natural waste sinks. The rich world uses roughly 80% of the global resources, only the US 25% in spite of being just 3 % of the world population. Having said that, check out my former post again please.
Alexopolux 9 months ago
@Alexopolux I think we mostly agree but one has to be careful when analyzing correlations. The fact that poverty and large families correlate does not prove that inequality causes overpopulation. Overpopulation is mainly caused by an unconrolled biological tendency to reproduce plus the huge increase in longevity and survival, mainly in wealthier populations. Therefore, I think overpopulation is the cause, not inequality, although I also think inequality makes the problems worse.
1marcelo 9 months ago
@1marcelo I did not make that correlation. We have to understand that population grow is just one variable (+ technology and affluence), and it is by now not the alarming one at the GLOBAL level - even Paul Ehrlich already accepted that. Population control must be in the receipt of any plan of economic development, but those poor countries that still have growing population rates (Sub-S-Africa and SE Asia) are rather a threat to themselves than to the global ecological stability.
Alexopolux 9 months ago
@Alexopolux Paul Ehrlich? Seriously? He knew nothing about ecology, no matter how genial he was. Nobody will convince me that a species that grew from 20,000 individuals to 7 billion in just 60,000 years is not damaging the ecosystem just by the sheer increase in number and geographical expansion.
1marcelo 9 months ago
@1marcelo I mentioned Paul Ehrlich because he was the most prominent scientist who warned about the "population explosion", so I believed it would have some appeal to you. I cannot repeat myself for ever. Here my final attempt. Population is a problem for poor countries, but is already globally on the stabilization path. Man-made capital (consumer and producer goods) is rising (meaning more depletion/pollution), and is the short-term problem we have FIRST to tackle - along with justice.
Alexopolux 9 months ago
@Alexopolux WRONG!! Where do you get your info?
fury350z 9 months ago
@Alexopolux The problems with poor countries is the interference of foreign capitalist robber barrons! NOT POPULATION! Where are you getting your info??
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z
A "problem" has different levels. The one you mention is for sure in the bill. Yet, abusing elites have existed since at least 10000 years. It just happens that the current one is dominating the entire world - bad for us. What I've saying is that population is by now NOT the global ecological threat. But the depletion of natural sinks, mainly due to the US and China (both consume almost half of the global resources). I get my info., from different sources cause I study the subject.
Alexopolux 9 months ago
@Alexopolux "A problem has different levels??" Is that what you're learning in school? I'm not going to entertain this conversation. Thanks anyway, I appreciate your feedback.
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z Have you heard of what it is called in science "causal chains"?, or more recently "wicked problems"? - And you are welcome.
Alexopolux 9 months ago
@Alexopolux Neither one of those concepts has anything to do with anything. If you're going to use reference to prove something, know it well and make sure its relevant, otherwise you're just discrediting yourself.
fury350z 9 months ago
@fury350z Ok. Many thanks.
Alexopolux 9 months ago
Fantastic
afare1 9 months ago
This discussion is interesting but it completely ignores technological change. They presume that because a resource is scarce today it will always be scarce or it will limit development. In fact, societies change. Maybe 100 years ago they were worried about where they were going to put all the horses. Now, with VR, people may not need to travel as much reducing demand for cars. It's ridiculous to say that society is going to stop moving forward because one or two resources dry up.
mcamelyne 9 months ago
It would have been nice RNN if you could have included at least one non-malthusian in this group for some balance, perhaps maybe some real-world experience and not just misty eyed intellectuals tilting at windmills.
MTL911Truth 9 months ago
22:40 ......Van Jones had an idea like this....
dankbot420 9 months ago
i watched a documentary called "money as debt" it explains very well how fractional reserve/ debt based money fuels endless economic growth and how interest free money can lead to sustainable economy. great documentary!
pdhahan 9 months ago
i think it may have been even more educational if they just broiled and consumed this banker on the spot ;) j/k
jogayot 9 months ago
Wonderfully interesting discussion! :)
voicubogdan84 9 months ago
one simple solution of intelligent being...global voluntary 1-2 child policy
GohanMH1 9 months ago
@GohanMH1 watch money as debt
pdhahan 9 months ago
@GohanMH1 Voluntary, simple, and global to boot? It would be an elegant solution! But voluntary? Hardly.
6of6 9 months ago