Crash Course: Chapter 3 - Exponential Growth by Chris Martenson

[MrPentatonicScale]

yea the "hockey stick" thing has to do with the order of magnitude of the y-axis. in a world of touch screens made in asia, visual stimulation is a prerequisite in order to educate first worldistan. welcome to the 21st century you gasoline burning shitheads

[AngeliqueEU]

See bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515

Population growth ...

[qwert4327able]

Population growth and viral growth in general only behaves exponentially in the short term until the limits on resources feed back on this and it eventually stabilises.

[SlashDotDash121]

@qwert4327able I bet that will be fun for us

;)

[qwert4327able]

As a maths student I have to say this is wrong. The sudden shift in the hockey shape graph is due to economic and technological development meaning that carrying capacity of the earth increasing - this is due to medicine advances etc. and being able to produce more food - this is especially true in places like india.

[freierz]

That said, it's true we live in crucial times, because it's true that if the rate of population growth stays the same, we will soon reach the carrying capacity of the earth. I don't see why you need to appeal to manufactured concepts like the hockey stick shape being inherent in exponential growth in order to prove this point.

[freierz]

While I agree with the ideas being presented here, I'm afraid I'm one of those 'mathematicians' who will complain about the presentation of the concept of exponential growth. There's no such thing as a "hockey stick" shape in exponential growth graphs - even if you CAN set a maximum on the dependent axis.

The fact of the matter is, population has a hockey stick shape because the rate has increased in the last couple hundred years due to medicine and the like.

[pietrosperoni]

According to UN studies the world population WILL NOT keep growing in an exponential way. As Hans Rosling explains in his videos (on TED and youtube) as life expectancy increases population growth decreases. We thought it depended on women education bu then studies came on Islamic countries. And now we know that when health gets better, child mortality drops, life expectancy rises and families shrink. Apart for the wrong example, all Chris says about exponential growth is very important

[GohanMH1]

voluntary 2 child policy now

[x966x]

i think everyone has missed the point;

This isn't something that is going to happen, it's happening now and we have no way to stop it. You can only survive the transition.

[howitzer24]

Saying we will overgrow the earth is like saying someone will willingly drive off a cliff. Look into demographic transition theory to see what really happens. As a society becomes more technologically advanced its birthrate goes down. It becomes more expensive to have children.

[spilder]

Interesting video. However, can you explain to me why the doubling time between 1 billion and 2 billion is not 70 years as is often quoted for a 1% per year growth rate. Surely if it takes 100 years to go from 1 billion to 2 billion the rate is static (or not 1%). i.e. 1 billion divided by 100, then multipied by 100 years to get another billion.

[Marcello777]

Population is the key. Just gotta erase at least 4 billion people and we'd be set.

[99bugout]

Ok Professor, OK professor, so what are you saying? Too many friggin people coming? Gilligan.. Find a remote island with a few hotties.. And produce your own population...

[carriedavisP]

eh ChrisMartensondotcom, if you really want to develop in basketball, you must start following a serious workout. I used widely known workout over at (50-inch-vertical(dot)com). I haven t even told this to my college teammates yet ha

[warrenkavanagh]

watch the other videos before you copmment ppl



[Gizziiusa]

4:50. they may be finite resources, but they are renewable. you make it look like they cant be replenished by adding words like "limited". You sound and act like Al Gore and his inconvient truth rubbish. FAIL.

[EconomicsCafe]

To get to 2 billion population from 1 billion population would take 70 years not 100 years.

[EconomicsCafe]

@EconomicsCafe

@ the 1% given of course

[Joe11Blue]

The UN is also a fan of Eugenics, so I would take their opinion, and estimates on population growth with a grain of salt.

[bullsnutsoz]

@Joe11Blue yes this is so true, they seek to eradicte 90% of us . This will not happen ; we will readicate 100% of them and a few more that were even thinking of this genocide. hhahahahah

[AngstromJohnny]

@bullsnutsoz they are you sure they are the fucus you should have

from where I sit I see that we are the ones that are doing it to ourselves

keep partying, and multiply, and let me know how many cups of water you can extract

from a gallon bucket and where is this renewable coming from

GOD, give me a break, the natural order of life will trim the heard, if history taught us anything

we are f!@#$%^&

[ACDC7369]

...and that this is how the world has been all throughout history: riddled with conspiracies, corrupt government and madmen holding the reins of power. Our current time is no exception, and to believe so would be a huge mistake.

[ACDC7369]

there are more trees on the planet than there were in 1920. species extinction is mostly due to social darwinism, not human activity.  the author of this video has a radical agenda

[bugsz1]

@ACDC7369 Huh? Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Time for you to squeegee your third eye.

[ACDC7369]

Your comments about out of control population sound like the world-governmenters that are trying to implement mass sterilization, forced abortions and eugenics. Nice try Hitler, but population growth is not unsustainable, no matter what you've been brainwashed to believe.

[bugsz1]

@ACDC7369 The video is about exponential growth. How in the hell do you think this is teaching eugenics or brainwashing?

[ACDC7369]

@bugsz1 one doesn't need to implement a radical political agenda to explain how exponential growth works. must be easy for you to simply say that i'm wrong without actually refuting anything i said.

[cougar776]

WE ARE ALL SOOOOO FUCKED!!!!!!

[enemdy]

the point of no return - total collapse is coming!

[gunthaarz]

Water is destroyed by corporations. Forests are cut to produce palm oil for cosmetics, soy for cattle feed, all of these related to unecessary consumption and has nothing to do with the number of people but to do with YOUR consumption!

[TheSpanishJob]

Capitalism is defined as a non intervention system, being the individuals the owners of they own rights. Our system is highly manipulated... so why are you blaming Capitalism? We don't live, and havent met Capitalism!! Because of this intervention, bubbles appear and the poor cannot start their business cause these are overtaxed or illegal or because goverment inflation. The gov is the one who has created the fiat money, and the one that keeps you being poor! Search in youtube Ron Paul.Save USA

[gunthaarz]

@TheSpanishJob you are confusing capitalism with free market economy. Capitalism inevitably means consolidation of everything on a few hands, those with the largest capital base.

[TheSpanishJob]

@gunthaarz wealth is infinite, so it cannot be consolidated on a few hands. You can fix your bike and you would have created wealth without making anybody poor.

Btw, i know very well what capitalism meens, maybe you're confusing capitalism with corporativism.

[gunthaarz]

@TheSpanishJob Wealth is infinite?? Only if you believe resources are infinite and can be extracted and consumed at any rate you choose. Which aint true.

[TheSpanishJob]

@gunthaarz Wealth is not resource dependent. You can create wealth without spending resources, for example by caring for a baby (and can be paid for it!).

BTW empirically is imposible to run out of a resource, cause as we run out of a resource, prices increase, so it's more profitable to develop a substitute (which can be developed by others, so wealth is not consolidated on a few hands as you defend). I.e. Crude Vs hydrogen.

What resource is not available after 4500000 years of evolution?

[gunthaarz]

@TheSpanishJob Wood.

[TheSpanishJob]

@gunthaarz are you seriously saying that there's no more wood available in this planet? Can't you see the trees?

[gunthaarz]

@TheSpanishJob you've never seen the miles upon miles of clearcut rainforest?

[ACDC7369]

@gunthaarz water is an infinite resource. so is food. if we ever run out of oil or coal, prices would go through the roof and the free market will simply find a replacement fuel because it would be extremely profitable. most of our resources are simply renewable and the non-renewable ones will be replaced naturally.

[bugsz1]

@ACDC7369 God I wished I lived in YOUR world.

[TheHarumori]

@ACDC7369 Water is only infinite if you assume the environment that makes it so continues to exist as it has previously. How is food an infinite resource? Food prices fluctuate in price the same way other commodities do too. While I don't agree with everything this man says, your views seem to be very optimistic.

[ACDC7369]

@TheHarumori Youre forgetting 2 important things: the H2O cycle & the oceans. There will never be enough people populating this planet for H2O to ever be a concern - especially as our technology continuously advances.  Food is an infinite resource because we have the capability of continuously producing enough of it. Commodity prices fluctuate very little actually - it is the fiat currency they are based on which fluctuates in value. Actually I'm not very optimistic I am just saying...

[TheHarumori]

@ACDC7369 Water cycle and oceans still does not guarantee the water supply if the equilibrium that exists is disturbed though. You're also assuming that the pace of our progress will be faster than the pace of degradation. That's what I was trying to say. Your statement about food production puzzles me as well. People have starved even when food supply is plentiful many times throughout history. I think we are working from different base assumptions.

[ACDC7369]

@TheHarumori How will the equilibrium be disturbed to a point where it will negatively affect our ability to have enough water? And what pace of degradation are you referring to? And people have starved throughout history because the technology didn't exist to prevent it from happening. People starve today because of socialism, not because there isn't enough food.

[TheHarumori]

@ACDC7369 Pure capitalism has also caused people to starve when govt thought that interfering in the market in ANY way was wrong. Which is worse, socialist decisions leading to shortage or food not being distributed for the sake of blindly following "natural" forces of the market? The end result is the same: a failure of govt to live up to the main responsibility to protect the citizenry. As for the water, try to investigate yourself a little. A true scholar studies even the opposition.

[ACDC7369]

@TheHarumori please give me one example of when a free market system caused people to starve? government is not responsible for feeding people, and when you give it that power, you also give it the power to starve people. i am asking you to please show me how you came under the impression of how the equilibrium of the hydrologic cycle will be disturbed to the point of upsetting our ability to get h2o? the answer is it won't because these are baseless scare tactics.

[TheHarumori]

@ACDC7369 The Irish potato famine, pretty much any economic crisis before the New Deal? And maybe you're not American but the Constitution clearly states that the govt. look after the "general welfare." Maybe I'm reading into it too much but making sure your citizens don't starve in the streets seems to come under general welfare. And if the climate changes severely the hydrologic cycle works in different ways including the possibility of major atmospheric loss.

[ACDC7369]

@TheHarumori The Irish potato famine was caused by mold not by capitalism. Any economic crisis before the New Deal is too vague of a statement. I am American, and I also understand that "general welfare" did not mean in the 1790s what it means today. Nobody in America is starving. There is no evidence that catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere will occur.

[MrAzdaz]

@ACDC7369 The impact of the irish potatoe famine whoever was.Add and bigotry  and racism to the list also.File under disinterested genocide.

[MrAzdaz]

@MrAzdaz Apparently the word general welfare didnt apply if you were irish at the time. The english would have rather the irish race ceased to exist and not even use them as qausi slave labour they hated them that much.Certainly the wernt going to lift a finger or spend money trying to resolve the crises. The only response was to start large cheap labour projects to build up the structure of their conquered land so they would have nice roads and railways when the irish finally dissapeared.

[ACDC7369]

@TheHarumori ...these are scare tactics designed to get people to psychologically accept the peaceful transition into a one-world totalitarian government.

[TheHarumori]

@ACDC7369 With sharp lookouts such as yourself, surely you will help keep the rest of us from falling into that trap of world dictatorship run by the unholy future alliance of the UN, the grey alien lizardmen, and the one who shall later be called Imperial Highness Sarah Palin.

[ACDC7369]

@TheHarumori must be easy to sit back and make sarcastic comments and strawman points instead of actually debating anything i say. do some research

[TheHarumori]

@ACDC7369 It is not hard at all when dealing with... people... like you. I do research quite often actually, my specialty is military and political science with a focus on Constitutional law. I guess that's where my grasp of democracy and strategy comes in handy when seeing the fault in your strange paranoia about world dictatorship. How can I debate? If you feel vulnerable you'll accuse me of encouraging Nazi style eugenics like that other poor fellow. Who's using fear tactics now?

[ACDC7369]

@TheHarumori The US is not a democracy its a Constitutional Republic. Forced population control is advocated by Obama's science czar. It's not too unrealistic of an assumption to assume that this could happen in the future. The goal is to make sure it doesn't. I'm not paranoid, Ive just accepted that this is how the world is.

[FamilymanCA]

I believe you need to watch Demographic Winter to see if your understanding of population growth is actually climbing or declining. After you watch it I would like to see if your research data and graphs here change significantly!

A challenge for you!

Neil Gertner

[ExquisiteDoom]

I was suggested to watch this and right now i'M not impressed, world population will keep raising just because the math shows it does? Doesn't he understand anything at trend analysis? Just because a trend is heading one way, does not mean there aren't what i like to call "frictions". These frictions are economical frictions. There are various seminars right here on youtube that debunk the overpopulation scare, the user LibertyInOurTime has several of them on his account. He needs to be honest.

[KurzLuppii]

@ExquisiteDoom

Keep watching... watch all the chapters.

[ExquisiteDoom]

@KurzLuppii Maybe if you can convince me that he's not making more wild generalisations..

[KurzLuppii]

@ExquisiteDoom

Chapter 6 is where it gets good.

Though I think maybe you should realize that the first few chapters are to give those without a mathematics background the ability to wrap their head around the whole issue.

[ExquisiteDoom]

@KurzLuppii Very well, okay, i'll do it. It's just that i've heard enough frauds in the past and this one has every aspect of misinforming the person watching so far. Perhaps i overeacted.

[LazyOtaku]

At our rate we're gonna need another planet, and fast! I heard they found water on the moon...I wonder how long its gonna take for them to colonize it and drain it of all its resources...Look out mars! We're hungry!

[triforcelink]

so, just how fast is this 'ceiling' growing? way back when, the thing that looks like a limit to us now, was actually wayyyy lower. You could say that we have always been growing fast, and it has always looked like were about to hit that ceiling.

[triforcelink]

im starting to think that everything grows exponentially... or maybe we just observe things that look like they're growing exponentially, even so, this growth could stop at any time (as oil prices go up, less people use it)

[10speech110]

This population growth graph shown here is so zoomed out as to be useless. Worldwide, population growth is slowing in recent times, and slowing at an increasing rate. Go to wikipedia and look at the article for world population for starters. Any reliable sources will tell you world population is going to stop increasing at some point in the next century.

[mintoo2cool]

@10speech110 why dont you point us to the source

[dragonmaster2guy]

I'm currently in a college Ecology class studying this information and I agree with a lot of this info. Still I know personally that the person writing this hasn't responsibly presented this information. We have many varying opinions on how many people the earth can sustain, and they differ by BILLIONS. Also the "J" shaped curve of exponential growth is probably not something an expert would have used. It's more likely they would have used Verhulst's logistic curve ("S" shaped") it fits better.

[brucer51]

really?

You assume the S curve because of what data? It represents a steady state at the top of the curve. a parabolic curve is more descriptive of system growth with limited resources. The exponential curve only represents the up side--not the down side that can be smooth if we do some sort of planning or quite steep with a crash (see Easter Islane)

[dragonmaster2guy]

The reason the "s" shape curve seems more representative of the true picture is because we've already hit the inflection point of population growth. We hit it around 1988. It doesn't matter so much that the rise is being calculated as a percentage in the sense that the "s" curve represents the big picture. It would probably have been a good idea to show the Verhulst's curve and then focus in on exponential growth.

[mstaff657]

The problem lies with responsible nations feeding the irresponsible (out of control breeding) nations.

[bccfl]

Population is not increasing exponentially at all. The UN's best estimate is that it will peak at around 9 billion in the middle of this century and then enter a decline. This guy's Mathusian thinking simply doesn't hold up to scrutiy. If you want to talk engineering terms, what has happened is a STEP function, not an exponential function.

[exposingcrooks2009]

This guy, Chris Martenson is a CROOK. He is spreading his videos (material which he stole from experts) in a way to increase his exposure. Now on his website he is charging money $500/ hr to speak with him hahaha. And he is charging for lectures. He is even claiming now that he predicted all of these economic problems. THIS MAN IS A LIAR AND A FRAUD. THIS GUY IS AN UNEMPLOYED WEASEL LOOKING TO EXPLIOT THE MISERY OF OTHERS.

[TheWestAspen]

OK, so a guy researches ideas while unemployed, develops an overall conceptual idea, then communicates it, and wants to charge for his research and compilation. How does this make him evil, is this not what professors in todays university system do? A crook deceives and takes, how is this FREE video series a taking. If you know he is fraudulent, then report it, otherwise, this is free speech.

[shade1978x]

@TheWestAspen Hey, time is money. If the guy is devoting a lot of time to something that others may find value in, then it's legitimate for him to ask for money to get access to that information which he spent a lot of time gathering.

[EuropeanAmericanMan]

Love the videos however as someone who was once an engineering student, the rate of change is rarely ever constant in real applications. If it was we would not need calculus.

[sweYoda2]

@EuropeanAmericanMan Ehh... so what? It still grows exponentially regardless of rate..........................­...

[peapack]

This guy has 3 kids--are any of them adopted, or is he contributing to the problem?

[sjuurd]

You cannot change the problems yourself, the system has to crash in order to reach real change. Just wait and enjoy life :).

[zstowasser]

i really hope that is not true!!

[lwanatt]

when one brings a new life into the world it is equivalent to extinguishing another due to the static carrying capacity of the planet, of this i am well awair, but if your children are more evolved than average this should technically be a good thing, ive been wrestling with this idea the past few days, the logic seems flawed in some way but i cant locate it

[zstowasser]

i like your idea of the new ones being more evolved so somehow their resource use and rates of invention will be different than the past. but i dont understand your statement of a static carrying capacity? isnt it dynamic based on population and resource use?

[lwanatt]

my mistake was in the use of the word static, the carrying capacity of the planet is indeed in constant fluctuation, modified by technological evolution and human evolution. As far as for calculating carrying capacity we are determining how many humans the planet could sustain untill the death of our star calculated with current nutritional requirements and harvesting ability. This number is probably lower than our current population already, we are using topsoil faster than it can replenish.

[zstowasser]

he probably figured this out after he had his kids.. I hope!

[jtully79]

The people that consume the most are the developed western nations who almost all would measure a negative population growth if you took out immigration. The poor nations at present are recording the highest growth but then they consume the least so if their standard of living remains the same then Earth can support many more of them.

[perfectbark]

True, however, the developed world with lower growth rate is now exploiting the developing nations with their exponential growth rate, all the while exploiting their abject poverty, using their resources, and using their land as a garbage dump.

[jtully79]

The point is that if we tried to extrapolate an average population growth over any decent length of time we could easily get it drastically wrong... that is because many other things are at play... such as disease (the plague from 541-700AD which started in Emperor Justinian's rain and caused Europe's population to decline dramatically... and again the black death in the 14th century caused a decline in Europe by 50-60%).

[jtully79]

If there were 1 million people in 1 AD and population grew at 1%pa then today in 2010 the population would be approaching 480,440,852,956,700 people (i.e. ~480 trillion). A few things to note here is that there were many more then 1mln people in the world in 1 AD. Estimates suggest ~200 million but this could easily vary up or down by as much as 50mln.

[pongqi]

Great stuff, changing my mind a bit

[GuyandLori]

I was just getting interested when I realized...darn, just another overpopulation scare tactic. Hey! Nice try though!

[chemchert]

I have to politely disagree. if you were at all interested you could skip to 17a and watch till 18, I guarantee you'll refind your interest. This series of videos is certainly not intended as a scare tactic or some random doomer theory. I believe you cannot ingore the facts of especially the before mentioned parts. please take a look. thanks.

[brucetse23]

I totally agree with you and I think that your concept is more approch to the 'time wave zero'theory by McKenna suggest in 1980s

[UnrealGeeMan]

I can only c the American flag on a Nuclear missile when listening to this.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

"Hard physical limitations?"

Economics doesn't work like that. Whenever the supply of any good drops, its price increases, encouraging conservation and the use of alternative resources. You don't "turn a corner and run out of oil" - you see the price of oil rising over a long period of time, making alternative resources more competitive by the day and facilitating a "soft" transition from the old to the new.

[ramon66]

I don't think the issue is "running out" of oil. It's about taking a look around at who will suffer as the prices skyrocket. As far as making alternatives, I'd recommend looking up Jevons Paradox on this topic. I would not say a "soft" transition is in line for most :( But I do see where you are coming from. I'd imagine it being a gradual decent (stairs) then a nose dive crash. Either way, still not good. We are addicted to easy energy. Every try pushing a car to work? :D

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I agree there will be problems. What I am saying, is that these are entrepreneurial problems. The interaction of human beings in regards to rational allocation of scarce resources, is hardly a new phenomenon. ; )

The main threat, in my sort of cynical estimation, isn't that the resource is running out. It's that politicos worldwide will use the opportunity to cause mayhem. "Green and red politics" are usually what lets statists get away with the most shenanigans.

[ramon66]

No shit ;). it's tough to know what to do. too many options. and then you add the lunacy of charging 5cents a plastic bag. Did you know they actually cost fractions of a cent? Now, i think it's better not to just keep producing waste. I do not like the thought of being taken advantage of when it's "eco friendly"

Before, they used to pay you for bringing a bag. Now, they just "don't charge you". lol

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

"[Retailers are] charging 5cents a plastic bag. Did you know they actually cost fractions of a cent?"

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by the term "actual cost". Would this be the cost that you, as the observer, think the good should have?

"[...]Now, they just 'don't charge you" [for bringing a bag]"

That sounds like something more attributable to the shitty economy in general. Otherwise, wouldn't firms want to provide a greater incentive, rather than a lesser one?

[christo930]

This is simply not applicable to oil as it wouldn't be to food (as a whole). Oil isn't just any ole commodity, it is the life blood of modern life and modern food production. Furthermore, high oil prices will not in and of itself produce a viable alternative the way it does with other commodities, because there is no viable substitute. Massive conservation could help, but would have a massive impact on our economy. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between petroleum price and the dollar

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I'm not saying that there are alternatives which will do the job just as well as oil right now, in regards to cost/benefit analysis. However, I am saying that, as the cost per benefit of oil rises above that of an alternative mean for the attainment of any given end, then the alternative mean will replace oil for the attainment of that end.

There's considerable political protectionism going on, to prop up the oil against competitors, but even that is a temporary proposition, and people know it!

[christo930]

Right now there aren't any viable alternatives, none. The closest thing we have is biofuels, and that would take decades to scale up to even 5%.

Anyway, you should watch the whole thing. Chris is not political at all and criticizes both sides and is not alarmist and lays out the inability for the collapse of the monetary system. The crash course is about our ever increasing debts and how it will affect the future. You really should watch it, it's very good.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

Of course there aren't any viable alternatives right now. Oil is used worldwide, precisely because it provides a lot of benefit at relatively small cost. But when that changes, there will be tremendous incentive for everyone and his dog to make the change as smooth and painless as possible, barring political intervention.

That's really the idea that I'm trying to get across. The majority of the shit that we're in for, will not be directly attributable to the decline of oil itself, -

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

but rather to the interventionist cluster fuck that politicos worldwide will be able to get away with because of it.

Absence of oil is a problem, but it isn't THE problem.

The myth that someone can borrow and spend their way out of debt is the problem.

The myth of the magic multiplier is the problem.

And, most fundamentally, statism - the myth that murder and theft, when performed under the correct auspice, in the right manner and against the right people, is virtuous - is the problem.

[christo930]

I see inflation as being the biggest problem. Inflation taxes poor people the hardest, robs society of savings and the capital investments made possible by savings. The only bright spot in the oil problem is that we waste so much oil that conservation can have a huge impact. We are going to have to travel less for work which will improve life. Even 50mpg cars drop to 0mpg when idling in traffic. We have the infrastructure to allow people to work from home and we should do it.

[christo930]

We have set up society so that it needs cheap oil, not just energy, but oil. So while there may turn out to be viable alternatives, they won't be as cheap as oil. Unless someone can invent a new battery, we are in for some serious readjustments. We have had, essentially, free energy for quite a long time. I think we are going to go back to living in cities and manufacturing things locally, which isn't a bad thing. But the transition is going to be painful.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I will agree that there's a transition in store regarding oil consumption, and also that inflation, when combined with monetary oligopoly, is destructive of persons and property.

So, what course of action do you propose? What have you done about it in your own life, and how do you counsel others to do the same?

[christo930]

The biggest thing is to get out of debt. Even though inflation erodes your debt, it also erodes your earnings so the less money you spend on interest, the more you have left. I live in a city with access to public transportation and am able to take it to work. My oil heater broke and so when I replaced it, I replaced it with gas. Your investments should be outside of the US in non dollar denominated assets.

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

That sounds very reasonable. But if I may make a suggestion, you might also look into the commodities.

The Free Lakota Bank is a private bank, that accepts deposits of gold and silver only, and that operates on a full reserve standard and without deposit insurance. Meaning it has at least the capacity for honest dealings.

Then there's the commodity-backed Liberty Dollar. It's a private currency, that has repeatedly come under attack by Federal authorities for threatening to break their cartel.

[mrzack888]

future wars? the NWO ruling elites would love to have a depopulation war

[TBonePickensetc]

There is no N.W.O. - Only the Price System. That system rewards bad behavior with money. Google Technocracy technate for an actual alternative based on energy economics as in energy accounting. This is not a monetary system.

Technocracy technate design considers our closed thermodynamic system and its limits

Google Technocracy and thermodynamics -

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I think you're being overly cynical. How do you milk cows, after they've killed eachother?

[pshinspections]

The reliance on evolution is the flaw of your presentation.

[europarl]

This has the gilette syndrome - first one blade, then after some time you get 2 blades, then 3... and you can calculate that by 2050, say, it will have 100 blades... which is nonsense. The fertility rate in Europe is already well below 2 per couple. The only reason the European population is growing is due to immigration and immigrant offspring.

[4scheveningen]

In Math you are ignoring the most important factor which is

the Exponential growth of UNFAITH.

As long as the culprits ( the Banksters and all sub-managers who were in the know about these false derivates etc ) are not VERY PUBLICIZED IN JAIL, . . . .

FED people included,

UNFAITH in the financial system and FAITH - Monies

will grow exponentially anfd prevent recovery.

Sorry for the Guys and I know several of them but the rewards they received are OUR DOOM.

[jarocho57]

Me encanta leer guerra entre intelectualoides. Entre para practicar mi ingles y la verdad es que tenemos que hacer lo complicado sencillo y no lo sencillo complicado.

Los paises del Primer Mundo son los que sacan la mayor tajada del SISTEMA ECONOMICO GLOBAL . NO EL TERCER MUNDO, sino de toda la HUmanidad, nos estamos comiendo unos a otros. Ahora con su famosa influenza que le echan a Mexico y los laboratorios como Roche-Glaxo y demas abusan con sus virus para ganar mas dinero. Que me dicen ?

[thefutureanotherday]

y=e(x)

[SATANSbankers]

As the Chinese curse goes, "may you live in interesting times."

[TimTrimT]

Boy there are some unintelligent people commenting.

Thanks for the good vid. Comprehending fnite resources isn't hare. And to the people commenting that some countries haven't been exploited fully yet as a cause for shortage - you belong with your bacterial cousins in a petri-dish. I don't want you gobbling up a planet I must share with others. Eat your agar agar like a good germ until it's all gone.  Idiots.

[panthy22]

Ok first of all , it sounds like a propaganda, that we don't have enough sources of oil, water...etc. Well the fact of the matter is that

1. there are still many countries havce not expolited thier resources yet

2. Water is generatble, we consume it, its ture, but it regenerates it self all the time

3.With a rapid advences in technology, we'll find new enrgy resources

4. food shortage, there many lands tht cant be cultivated coz they want keep their prices stable

Its greadiness

[muslimon32]

Eugenics propaganda! The Earth's carrrying capacity is not based on numbers of PEOPLE over RESOURCES available. The determinant is the advancement of our technology. Unlike animals, man can make technological advances. For example, if we were still burning wood as the main source of fuel instead on oil, the carrying capacity wouldn't support the population. If Clean nuclear or more advanced energy systems were available, the carrying capacity would instantaneously supersede the demand. Bullshit!

[duuOZeloT]

You are right:

"If Clean nuclear or more advanced energy systems were available, the carrying capacity would instantaneously supersede the demand."

The important word is "if".

[offsprng46]

If?

Last time I checked, we do have nuclear power available. Now, certainly there is a small but influential cabal of anti-technology, anti-industry, anti-development, pro-genocide fascists, who labor under the delusion that the comparatively tiny problems nuclear power presents are insoluble. However, this slime-mold of economically and socially parasitic ecofascist elites is most definitely not arguing on the basis of scientific fact, but on their own pretended ideological terms.

[polyzygote]

nuclear power is based on a finite resource base and is hence non-sustainable, just as is fossil fuel power. that is a scientific fact. fusion could change the game, but it is years away from fruition.

i fail to see how advocating ecologically sustainable human life on earth is akin to fascism & genocide, but hey slime-mold doesn't have eyes :)

oh, and hurdling insults at those you disagree with is simply a sign of insecurity, recognized as such by most readers of your post.

have a nice day

[offsprng46]

Strictly speaking, the universe itself is a finite resource base; a non-renewable resource. Thus, our existence is ultimately non-sustainable - but what of it? Human beings are not animals; we can transition to new resource bases as we develop but before we run out of older stocks (wood -> coal -> oil & gas -> nuclear fission -> nuclear fusion).

By the way, even putting fusion aside, do you have any idea just how much fissile and fertile material exists on this planet & in this solar system?

[polyzygote]

"Human beings are not animals"

ok, class dismissed

[offsprng46]

While the human species is a part of the animalia kingdom, we exhibit several material traits which are unique to us; therefore, in the corporeal sense, we are not animals. These traits are:

- An ability to proactively reshape our environment to meet our needs (e.g., irrigating the plains states for agriculture).

- The ability to discover universal physical principles and apply them to our own ends (i.e., nuclear fission).

- Creative capabilities: cultural, artistic, and economic.

[offsprng46]

- The use of "fire;" in other words, the capacity to increase the energy-intensity of our species' activities, so as to better enable the use of the individual's creative abilities.

- The development of economic capital (e.g., tools).

- The ability to consciously shift from lower- to higher-order resource bases (e.g., the progression from wood-burning to fossil fuels, fossil fuels to fission, fission to fusion).

And there are many other such material distinctions between humans and animals.

[offsprng46]

The denial of these patently obvious distinctions and the insistence that our species has no fundamental differences with lower organisms is not a rejection based on the scientific method, but is rather a religious belief.

No animal has ever created a work of art. No animal species has ever developed culture or economy. No animal species has ever consciously altered their activities in a progressive manner. No animal species has ever proactively increased the "carrying capacity" of its habitat.

[offsprng46]

No animal has ever created an invention, developed tools, or discovered a universal physical principle. In short, unlike human beings, animals are not beings of the mind.

They are not miners, builders, farmers, artists, or anything else of the sort - they are feeders and hunters merely. Beavers, for instance, do build, but they build no differently today than they did a millennium ago; they cannot consciously alter their behavior to enhance their welfare.

How is this not obvious?

[polyzygote]

"How is this not obvious? "

i am not disagreeing with any of your points except for the one about humans not being animals, which you seem in the first line of your very long (winded) answer to have corroborated. i'm not sure what you mean by corporeal sense, either we are or are not animals, which is it?

[offsprng46]

"i'm not sure what you mean by corporeal sense,"

Corporeal (adjective): having, consisting of, or relating to a physical material body as a): not spiritual; b): not immaterial or intangible.

"either we are or are not animals, which is it?"

We are animals in the biological sense - motile, heterotrophic, eukaryotic, sexually reproductive, multicellular organisms. However, the matter of corporeal mind and the characteristics listed above show we are distinct from animals in many other respects.

[polyzygote]

the main problem with your thinking is that it is old school. it is reductionism and incredible hubris at it's worst. ever heard of holism?

you think that human beings stand apart from the rest of the world, but mother nature is going to teach you a lesson. you don't, you are part of the living world, bound closely to it in ways we are only just barely beginning to understand. try reading some basic ecology, and maybe some primers on ecological systems theory.

[offsprng46]

"the main problem with your thinking is that it is old school"

This is the logical fallacy known as "argument from modernity." Whether my positions are "old" or "new" is wholly irrelevant to their veracity.

"it is reductionism"

Well, generally it is necessary to reduce complex systems and ideas to their constituent parts in order to understand and evaluate them. Such is the nature of the universe.

"and incredible hubris at it's worst."

No, but your position is self-loathing at its worst.

[offsprng46]

"you think that human beings stand apart from the rest of the world,"

Yeah, because we do. Are you a chunk of rock in a big iron sphere orbiting a typical yellow dwarf star, or a unique, sentient individual?

"but mother nature is going to teach you a lesson."

Well, she is a total bitch...

"you don't, you are part of the living world"

If you consider the world to be the physical planet itself plus the organisms residing thereon, but that's just arguing semantics.

[offsprng46]

"bound closely to it in ways we are only just barely beginning to understand."

Another distinction between humans and lower organisms: we're not bound to the earth. We can leave it if we choose.

Look, I'm an atheist (in more than one way). I'm not going to get into a theological discussion. If you can make an argument for your position in rational terms, fine. However, if you're going to try to pass off the dogma of your neo-pagan earth-worship cult as fact, I'm going to smack you down hard.

[offsprng46]

"try reading some basic ecology, and maybe some primers on ecological systems theory."

I have; in fact, I just took a whole grad-level course on the topic. It's a bizarre amalgamation of bona fide applied science, but is mostly creationism-type pseudo-scientific dogma. It's become more an ideology or religion than anything else now. Applying ecological concepts to humans is dubious, as doing so makes the demonstrably false assumption that we're not fundamentally different from other life forms.

[polyzygote]

"The development of economic capital (e.g., tools)."

birds and apes have both been observed to use tools.

"The denial of these patently obvious distinctions..."

i did not insist that there were no distinctions, please don't put words in my mouth.

[offsprng46]

"birds and apes have both been observed to use tools."

That is not DEVELOPMENT, it's merely gathering that which is readily accessible in the natural environment.

[polyzygote]

actually, i amgoing to disagree with some of your points on non-human animals.

"An ability to proactively reshape our environment to meet our needs"

even simple ants do this, there are many other examples, you even mentioned beavers yourself.

"Creative capabilities: cultural"

many apes have culture, they invent tools and techniques, ways of bathing, ways of preparing food and even rudimentary language which is passed down to children.

[offsprng46]

"even simple ants do this, there are many other examples, you even mentioned beavers yourself."

The difference there is that we do it consciously and proactively; likewise, we consciously improve our methods of creation. We use our MIND to drive our own progression, in other words.

"many apes have culture"

No. They have more complex relations than many other species (maybe even "proto-culture"), but that's not culture proper. Culture requires symbolic thought and social learning.

[offsprng46]

Oh, and by the way, please answer this question, which you ignored:

"By the way, even putting fusion aside, do you have any idea just how much fissile and fertile material exists on this planet & in this solar system?"

Well, do you?

[polyzygote]

as for the quantities of materials for fission available on earth. that isn't the question, it is how we can get to them and how quickly we can do so. uranium for example is already in quality decline as the best reserves are being depleted.

but then the real question is to what end. do we really need to have a mad rush for more power, or is it time for humans to pause for a moment, take a breath, and think about we will do with that power. what are the ecological consequences of more growth?

[offsprng46]

"it is how we can get to them and how quickly we can do so."

Well, duh. Of course we're depleting the amount in existence (just as the sun's nuclear fuel is being depleted at a rate of kilotons per second), starting with the highest quality reserves first. That's why we must increase the capital investment in extraction. This is a basic concept in physical economy.

"to what end"

We create or determine our own ends - the advance of culture, the arts, science, and knowledge, perhaps.

[offsprng46]

"do we really need to have a mad rush for more power,"

Yes. We've failed to adequately invest in new generating capacity for decades; the physical economy is now literally breaking down as a result. Without new capital investment, billions will die terrible deaths and civilization could even be destroyed.

But I suppose you think those are good things, don't you? After all, human beings are a plague on the otherwise pristine "mother earth," right?

[offsprng46]

"it time for humans to pause for a moment, take a breath, and think about we will do with that power."

Well, the world-wide computer network you lament the evils of technology and industry on is one example of what we've done with it in the past, hypocrite.

Or, how about developing the 3rd world and ending poverty? Maybe space exploration and colonization? The possibilities are only limited by the constraints which we impose on our mind, and I refuse to construct such a prison camp therein.

[offsprng46]

"what are the ecological consequences of more growth?"

I cannot answer that question, as it proceeds from a false premise - we humans reside not in the biosphere, but in the Noosphere*. Just as the the emergence of life turned the geosphere into the biosphere, so too did the emergence of mind transform the biosphere into the Noosphere. Far from being some synthetic abomination, this is the natural progression of the development of the earth.

*(nous: "mind") + (sphaira: "sphere") = Noosphere.

[highdecibel]

Energy is just one such resource. There is only so much water. More people = less water rations. There is, ignoring demographics, I believe enough water on the earth for every person. But at what population does this become a problem.

[offsprng46]

Ever hear of desalination? Do you know how much fresh water could be generated from, say, a new Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized water reactor?

Didn't think so. Suffice it to say that it's a hell of a lot; certainly more than enough for these anti-technology eco-idiots to stop wetting the bed over some looming environmental calamity.

[danpt2000]

I'm posing this question because most of the time when Humans present new technology, or new energy alternatives that promises to solve our most pressing problems tends to be overly optimistic. We tend not to see the underlying costs of such new technologies and alternatives until its too late.

[offsprng46]

Well, nuclear power is not a new technology at all. It has been used for 6 decades now, and we know how to use it quite well.

As for the "hidden" costs of such technologies, I could say exactly the same thing about their benefits, and we would both be correct. However, that is not really the point.

The point is this: do you believe we can solve our problems, or should we just regress back into dark-age conditions? Those are really the only two options due to entropy.

[danpt2000]

Sorry, youtube did not post my question, which was "How much net energy does such a water reactor require to generate 1 gallon of water?"

[offsprng46]

Who cares? Energy is not the operative factor - power is. As for the EROEI of the newest nuclear reactors, it's a ratio of about 30-35 to 1.

[joeyjay86]

Great video; but I think it may be too dry ,,which is why you have no comments? Certainly relevant to all from global warming, to pop. growth. I like it!