I am an American citizen in Arizona and of Mexican descent, we have been Native Arizonan's for 5 generations. My educated family is proud of the liberators coming from Mexico to take back the land of our ancestors. Hopefully by my grandchildrens generation the liberation will have been complete. I am a US citizen, US college educated, and assisting the illegal immigrants push back the white criminals where they belong.
"Every time a US soldier is killed an Angel gets his wing!"
Nature has a way of working things out spend to much time complaining instead of coming up with solutions you lazy lazy fcker.... spend to much time with justification of things like oh I invaded that alien planet to support life who cares the only thing your consionse has a problem with is when you keep them alive and see them develop to be like you .... LIKE YOU
Humans don't grow exponentially, though. Yeast undergo continuous mitosis until they no longer have the necessary nutrients to do so. Humans are different. A couple isn't going to have 4 children, and then have each child pair up with another individual and have 4 more children.
I understand the point you're trying to make in this video, but it doesn't really seem appropriate to compare a mitotic-reproducing simple organism to a multicellular, intelligent organism such as humans.
lol...who cares, the sandwhich is only a certain size, the yeast still eat all of the sandwhich just as we will. with that said, there are ways to eat the sandwhich which change how long it lasts. hopefully our superior intelligence allows us to make use of those ways...so we can spread to other galaxies and CONSUME MORE....MUAHAHAHA
@derbigpr500 He's trying to illustrate that yeast grow uncontrollably until they die and of course this is the case because that's just what yeast do on their own. They're single cell organisms that have no intellect. He's trying to compare us to yeast and doing so by asking and trying to open our eyes to the problems of pollution and overpopulation, aka what killed the yeast. That my friend has everything to do with this video and exponential growth, fine example I must say.
@derbigpr500 In 1804 we reached 1 billion,1927 2 billion, 1999 6 billion, in 2012 we will hit 7 billion. In 2025 8 billion, in 2045 9 billion. More people added shorter and shorter time span, that means less researches for you and I. The current global financial crisis was one of exponential debt growth and look what happened - it imploded. Take the time to watch all of "Chris Martenson's crash course" especially the video on exponential growth it will help make it clear were we are headed
@godkingRoss Yes, but the point is: Will we (humans) use our brains to avoid our own extinction? If we don't, we are collectively no smarter than the yeast colony.
@Membrane556 You make some good suggestions. How did you arrive at the 3.6 billion figure? I think under a billion would be a better level for our population to stabilize at... but I know it's unrealistic without drastic government intervention or ecological catastrophe, neither of which is appealing.
We're burning ten calories of fossil fuel for each single calorie of food in the industrialized world. The growth of fossil fuel production has come to a standstill. It isn't whether we can mitigate the collapse, but how the collapse will play out.
the problem with this "vid" is that just intelligent people are able to understand it, and some more intelligent people are able to see that is a falacy.
I dont have to tell you that as intelligent people, we find, mostly, members of asian and white race.
So this vid can be used as a trojan horse to deccelerate intelligent population rate, while the actual problem is on black ignorant population rate.
World population from 1 billion in 1900 to almost 7 billion in about 100 years. World cannot sustain about 45 billion in another 100 years. World War 3 is inevitable. Just as the video says tottal colapse in numbers may occur.
Humans may be smarter than yeast, but in the end we all are living beings. So, as you said at the beginning - the bacteria will pollute themselves and die.
And so do we.
That's why people invented wars, famine and taxation.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice: Global warming is a hoax, for example only one thermometer is used to measure temperatures in the Arctic. A joke.
yeah, well i have an pet yeast colony and i feed him every weak flour sugar and water when he runs out of food i name him patrick so pretending "patrick" is the "earth" then we are a pet of a planet or, such as well then they will feed us once a week. i keep him in the fridge so thats why space is so cold
yeast can live longer then normal when scientists mutate one of there genes. same with rats and flies.. have they tested this on humans yet? when the fuck will we find out?
i think the american goverment needs to be discovering to scientific facts instead of fighting wars and giving all our money to israel
Technology isn't a solution if all it allows you to do is double to size of your lake. In reality technology can do so much more, like kill the lilies.
I would like to know the solution the maker of this video would put forward to combat exponential growth. Forced sterilisation to combat population growth, maybe? All right, we have a problem, what's the solution?
A first step is for a significant fraction of our population to begin to acknowledge and agree that indiscriminate exponential growth is a problem.
I support exponential growth in learning, care, and intellectual integrity. With the whole in mind, I support efforts that seek to grow better in quality while growing down in throughputs. I'd like to see more systems thinking, understanding of feedbacks and lag times, and innovation in inclusive, transparent, and open source government processes.
@looni3 The simplest solution is to just stand back and leave everything be. There will be overshoot, then collapse. Billions will die until we once again reach a balance or perish utterly. Those things that cannot go on forever don't.
That is the solution that we can now compare all other solutions against. Do we wish to make the hard choices we need to make or will we feel better about things (morally) if we just let the natural solution happen.
50 years ago when this problem was first discussed seriously there were some of us advocating ZPG (2 child family max). Today the only solution is NPG (negative population growth) with 1 child families for 3 or 4 generations. Of course we have to simultaneously reduce our consumption.
Physics tells us that every closed system will come to a steady state. Why not start working for it now.
Economists are too stupid to figure out what growth is.
If you are not subtracting the losses you are not accurately computing growth. What about DEMAND SIDE DEPRECIATION? How much do consumers lose on the depreciation of the supposedly durable junk they buy? When was the last time you heard economists mention
NET DOMESTIC PRODUCT
The nitwit economists only subtract the Supply Side Depreciation. The system depends on consumers being dumber than economists.
What a rubbish video. It massively oversimplifies. It implies that technology can only delay, not prevent an outcome. Technology enables us to turn a negative into a positive. Using the lake as an example, harvest the lily pads and use it for something useful.
I HATE videos that imply that we are all screwed. The difference between humans and yeast is that humans have the ability to REASON. We can work out our problems if we think of solutions instead of telling people that it is a lost cause
Good idea! We could kill our surplus population, make them into soilent green protein bars and eat them. Or we could start with birth control. Which solution would you prefer?
Technology can help, but as the video clearly shows, it can not replace birth control.
The colonisation project on the moon will demonstrate, what a paradise earth is. I suggest, that we give our planet a break and wait until travel in space will be possible before we overshoot and loose our chance to leave earth.
About the power of technology, in which you invest so much faith. Do you know of any technology that can break the laws of thermodynamics by recycling all the waste heat generated from any industrial process? Or create all sorts of resources at an exponential rate out of NOTHING?
This vid doesn't necessarily say we are all screwed. What it does say is that we are all screwed IF we continue in our present ways.
Growth figures do not reveal the dangers lurking behind its innocent and appealing mask. If corporates were to grow, then the *extent of appropriation of nature* also doubles - which means whatever corporates have contributed to the detriment of nature in the entire civilisation history of makind, also is going to get doubled in the next few years. This should be the most horrendous situation for any life species in this planet. What a tragedy this is turning out to be, perishing this way ??
crap, thats true, here the latinamerican people doesnt seem to understand that :S ( oh yeah, lets have 10 children, they'll add more workforce and wealth to our family)
From what I seen the ones breeding uncontrollably are the half brained idiots that can not take a hint from nature to not have kids especially those living in areas that are prone to disease and famine but that doesn't stop them they just continue to push'em out like rabbits and then you see them on late night TV asking to send them money to their country because they are starving!! Yes some people are dumber than yeast!!!
This is awesome. We really need to wake up as a species and realize that there is an overpopulation problem, and its only going to get worse until a) We all starve to death; b) Governments start forcing people to become sterilized; or, c) We experience a collective epiphany and each and every one of us makes an INDIVIDUAL decision to have two or fewer children. I for one am hoping for (c), so that we will never have to experience (a) and (b).
What about the 100,000 that die a year by big Pharma? What about the millions dying from aids and various forms of cancer, those who are sterile and those on birth control or the millions who die in wars and those who die of every other concievable thing theres not room here to mention, people dont just multiply they die every day too.
I can drive for miles where I am and never see a single soul. Theres tons of room where I live.
We still need proper public sanitation and Big Pharma medicines. Obviously, many people do benefit from and need their medications. But Big Pharma gets much-deserved criticism, for overcharging us for medical care, and overprescribing the most new and expensive medications, rather than old cheaper tried-and-true medications.
People still dying and "birth control" still may not be enough to "balance" high birthrates. But they aren't supposed to "balance." Nature prefer growth!
Actually the reason it dont work now is because the people are dumbed down and dont even know how to make bread much less garden or harvest seed. They are locked into a system that hooked them on the grid whereas everything is controlled by the stupid set up thats not working from top to bottom and those who have some land spend tons to make their weeds green, we are so ass backwards. We saw a guy today and laughed he had $250 rims on cheap truck, theres no purpose in anything we do
The reason what doesn't work? Big Pharma? "Birth control?" Technology? Big Pharma only works partially, works too much to take our money, not enough to actually heal and cure people. They say there's more money in treating people, than curing them. I don't want for "birth control" to work, because people are supposed to multiply, and to welcome all the more fellow humans to live.
And most people, including me, do not want to produce our own food.
I think you misunderstood me, it was talking about "multiplying" theres nothing wrong with multiplying whats never "counted" is that while we are multiplying people die everyday in huge numbers as well and I was simply "including the reality of" birth control in that many use it.
I dont at all promote big pharma, have you watched "Merck brings HIV/AIDS to America? Or BAYER vaccines contaminated with AIDS?
The way we have set up our situation was to our own downfall in about everything
obviously techno-elites will engineer a killer virus, inoculate themselves and a small loyal underclass, and then let the virus loose to kill the majority of the worlds excess and unsustainable population. problem solved.
Similarly any logical fact that shows that exponential growth leads to life choking itself out is countered by saying that those aren't actually facts, it's "the evil lying liberal media" trying to keep him from taking ten wives and having 100 children.
Quality of life is more important than quantity of life. If that means showing * some basic restraint * and limiting the number of children we choose to have, that's what we should do as responsible adults.
I believe it was Malthus who first used this model to explain why life cant choke itself out. It inevitably falls back into equillibrium when everyone starts dying of disease, and conflict over resources.
Now, having said that, just because it will probably eventually balance out, doesn't mean we dont have a problem.
And the "liberal media" is a faccade created by the right to excuse their failed policy. Ask Bill Kristol, founder of the PNAC.
Didn't I hear that Malthus said that overpop was necessary to prevent laziness? What a great idea to consider. Yet another great benefit to large families, not to mention how much better conditioned children from large families would be, to both survive and thrive in an increasingly pop world.
Human life, is the exception other "carrying capacity" nature rules. Human intelligence sidesteps "limits." A textbook suggests at current rate may not be long to "standing room only?"
I don't encourage polygamy, because I see it as impractical for most people. Polygamous relationships are needlessly complicated. Add 1 extra wife, and instead of he-she, now it's he-she, he-other-she, she-other-she. Polygamy would probably be a great idea, on some planet with 10 times as many women as men, but currently would let some men snatch up all the women leaving nobody for me
"Some basic restraint" is unnatural "family planning" lie. We're supposed to produce children
My point here is, most people in the world would PREFER to limit the number of kids they have. The average woman in Mali has 7 KIDS in her life. 25 or so countries have fertility rates of >5 children per woman. Now tell me, do you think that makes for a lot of material comfort? These are incredible economic and social strains. Contraception and birth control would be tremendous relief for these people.
Also, in many of these countries the women have little say in anything and aren't raised to believe that they have rights. Often they're only bearing children to satisfy the man's pride.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To FunnyDigestion:
Where do you get the idea that only men want to reproduce? Women also like the feel of sex, and quite often want to reproduce too, especially if they love their man. Often if they are closely bonded to one another, that's more reason they want to reproduce children together. And having children together helps more closely bond them together.
As explained to a child in the movie "Love Comes Softly," babies come when a man and woman love each other and their love overflows.
"babies come when a man and woman love each other and their love overflows." Now! Pronatalist, what about?... lets say, rape.Was that child made with love!?...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To FunnyDigestion:
If the average number of children per woman in Mali is 7, then maybe most women would rather not "limit" how many children they have.
Why the assumption that having many children is not good for material comfort? Comfort is all that matters?
Not everybody is yet indoctrinated with the "family planning" "gospel." Isn't it possible, that they feel "relief" not having to mess with experimental shoddy unnatural contraceptives? A few minor "growing pains" R better than hindering
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To FunnyDigestion:
Why do you assume that parents don't want children? Often that's the reason people refuse to use shoddy condoms. They want children and they want to get pregnant. Some women seem to even love being pregnant
And why should be having children, be made into something people do on a whim, rather than out of natural or religious duty/custom/tradition/natural order of things?
Children should always be welcome to come alive, not be subjected to some selfish whim, like buying a pet
Ignore this pronatalist guy, there's absolutely no point in arguing with him.
The foundation of his argument is that "let people come to Earth and be born" meaning that he thinks there's trillions of souls out there clamoring for host bodies and it's simply a galactic crime not to pop out 20 children who live at near starvation level, have no education, and no future.
No, technology can't increase ressources exponentially. Technology is all about using news ressources, and using ressurces more efficiencly. In both cases, you have limits. The efficiency of any process can go up with improved technology, but it will nerver reach, much less exceed, 100%. For instance, power plants were 5% efficient in 1905, 55% now, a 11 fold increase, but it can't go much higher than 70-75, thermodynamics forbid it. So remaining possible gains are small compared to past ones.
There's no need for 100% efficiency. With more abundant and cheaper energy, you don't have to squeeze every last power watt out of an energy-producing process. Look on Star Trek. Do they try to turn off every unused light? Of course not. Their energy is cheap.
Chemical processes, or burning fuels, likely isn't ideal for energy. Why? Because chemical reactants run out. Expensive human labor to mine more. Nuclear is more attractive, as it's so much more energy-dense.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Global warming, overpopulation, oil shortage, etc are all FRAUDS. Everyone MUST watch EnDGame on google video. It exposes everything in their system of evil.
god the world is so FUCKED!!!!!!!!!!.. the next 10 years are goign to see MASSIVE changes in the world. war, and severe social unrest in the 3rd world, wow, this problem is here and people are just going about there business like nothing is wrong. Damn, get some guns and other shit.
Don't believe the pessimism promoted by the lying liberal news media. They dwell on the excessive selling of bad news, while ignoring good news stories all around us. Why is the human race naturally perhaps moving towards somewhat denser and vaster population levels? It's a potent sign that humans are doing something right. We are already ADAPTING.
Get some guns? Maybe, as power-mad globalists hatch global tyranny conspiracies, and government can't be trusted with all the power.
How will people ADAPT to global warming? Somebody once joked to me that a warmer planet would lead to people wearing less clothes, leading to more breeding. (Maybe something like the sensual Eden-like planet of the Edo on Star Trek TNG?) It's natural cycles caused by the sun, and beneficial, history tells us.
Increasing pollution? More technology mitigates it. More flushing toilets don't "harm" nature.
Food and energy long term, are becoming more ABUNDANT. Pop hastens advances
Besides wearing fewer clothes, how will people adapt to other less humorous effects of global warming, such as killing the oceans through warming and acidification, desertification, decreasing crop yields, reducing glacier-fed water supplies, increasing the power of hurricanes, flooding coastal cities, increasing the spread of vector-borne diseases, and wiping out large numbers of other species?
Such as killing the oceans through warming? You really need to read more. Read the new book out by Roy Spencer, "Climate Confusion." Oceans have enormous thermal mass and may take very long time to warm, and the purpose of weather is to move heat from areas of more, to areas of less. Climate is largely self-regulating, contrary to all the current fad of needless gloom-and-doom
Hurricanes have dropped far short of "global warming" doom predictions,since 2005
More technology is not mitigating pollution. The world is far more polluted than ever before, not even counting greenhouse gas pollution. Please get your facts straight.
Food and energy are not increasing. Do you keep up with news of the real world or just watch Star Trek and read the Bible? What is an example of population growth from 5 billion to over 6 billion causing any advances?
•Pollution in the U.S. has been decreasing.—paperback cover of old edition of "The Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon
How is this possible? We the U.S. have more people than ever. But population growth has pushed along technology growth, and intelligent humans soon ADAPT.
Rising volume of human wastes merely requires more toilets to be installed in people's homes. It's easier to ACCOMODATE than to "control."
Look at all inventions since pop 5 billion. Computers, forums, DVDs.
I imagine that the recent growth of human numbers from 5 billion to now officially 6.7 billion, can be a bit "mind boggling." Especially to small minds that don't even much bother to try to understand the many great reasons to expect such natural expansion. But even the natural growth of our "huge" numbers, itself is a great advancement. It benefits so many more people, and shows we are indeed ADAPTING.
Adding more people doesn't help slow growth, but encourages it.
Who's really dismissing reality? World population continues to grow as we speak. I say that I understand why human populations tend to grow and grow, and I agree with most every reason that could be cited. I would like to possibly have a large family, and I encourage other people to have large families too. I know that makes the world more populated, but that too is great for the many.
A "stuck on" valve or "no valve," helps keep us on the right path, and preserve our freedom.
Have you no imagination or no vision? How are people to enjoy having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. By populating the globe naturally denser, so many more of us can somehow fit. As more people come alive, and more people rather like living, and of course also much like reproducing, the greater or enlarged population is very good and "great for the many."
People depopulate the countryside to move to cities, so they prefer.
But obviously, if people go on having so many babies, and are allowed to prosper, their "precious darling babies" may not see so much malnutrition and disease, but rather human numbers mounting naturally.
Increasing density answers the question of "where to put everybody" upon a planet that isn't getting any bigger, as the already "huge" human race continues to grow. Other means continue to add to amount of food and water. Already technology is used to desalinate ocean water.
And what about the electricity used to power the desalination plant? If you knew anything about "the technology," you'd know that every resource stems from another resource, and until we develop nuclear fusion, the Carnot cycle will be in effect for just about everything. Just because you're adding more water doesn't mean that you're not taking away something else. The overall efficiency is the exact same. Sustainability is about efficiency per organism.
We are already far too far along the improvement process, to backtrack and opine that it's no use to look to improve. That's already proven false.
What have you proven by your post statements, other than that natural world pop growth may be making nuclear fusion improvement, a necessary pop ADAPTATION? I have already suggested nuclear power may help, as cities grow larger and closer together, they need cheap abundant energy that is clean. Maybe better nuclear power is the answer
We could also provide more resource if NASA would open space for private exploration. There are tons and tons of untapped metals and other resources locked up in the asteroid belt. I dont argue against the need for NASA, but its about time we go after the asteroid belt.
Some pop phobics fear "standing room only," because humans may yet be too good at solving problems. I think that idea fell out of popularity, because nature presumably couldn't support "standing room only." Here's why I think "standing" is absurd. It's not possibly within the forseeable future anyway, as we aren't that close, and pops take time to grow. And humans are smarter than that, and would stack people into highrises instead.
How does more population preserve our freedom? They say that denying the right to procreate is but one small step from denying the right to life. Therefore, if people are to be free, they must enjoy the right to naturally populate themselves denser, if or as we are headed that way. "Huge" population levels of the world, isn't any excuse at all, to deny people of their children. It's so much easier and pro-life, to "scoot over a bit," to make way for our children. Be pro-life.
Free people are going to insist upon freedom to naturally reproduce as well. Thus, science and technology assists in allowing human natural increase to take it's natural course, of growing towards still huger numbers, more comfortably and safely, encouraged for the greater good of the many.
Much city growth came from people depopulating the countryside. I don't like to see areas "lose" population. Cool to move back to countryside at urban densities, as gets to be so many of us.
How does a more populated world, help preserve our freedom? For one thing, until very recently, most all of the previously more moral public, accepted human "natural increase" as completely natural, to be expected, to be God's will, and to be rather "good" for humans. Thus, it's not something to be "controlled" or manipulated, but rather population is what it is. By embracing and welcoming pop growth, we ADAPT to it more readily. A practical reason why I am pronatal.
Try the pronatalist mindset, the natural "welcome life" and be friendly position. If one seeks God and truth, it leads one to question many false population metaphors. Consider the "world bowl" cartoon I saw somewhere. The globe is depicted as a bowl, filling with human population, nearly to "overflowing," squeezing other wildlife towards the small brim. A population spigot is just "gushing" with more people coming to life. Turn it off? How? There's no faucet valve!
Oh the valve wont turn off pronatalist. Does anyone really expect people to exert self control and keep their legs closed? Not me at least. However when fossil fuels begin their decline (now) the poor and even middle class will find their subsidized existence brought back into the harsh reality of nature. Say hello to a higher mortality rate for the young and the old, like the good old days. Maybe if we are really smart we'll use them for fertilizer to grow more crops.
Do I expect people to exert self-control and keep their legs closed? No, not at all, especially for married couples that should most feel free to enjoy sex and its primal purpose, reproducing more people to also get to experience life.
So the valve is maybe stuck on? Well I would hope so, or that there isn't and never will be any effective "valve." Whatever happened to "the way of things?" If there is some easy valve, then power-mad Green Nazis will want to "control" it.
On PBS's Contact "A Popular Little Planet," they presented a metaphorical "door" into the world. A child knocks, "Can I come in?" But the noise and bustle of "overpopulation" party inside rises eerily. Other child says "It's getting kind of crazy in here. Why don't you try Neptune?," and shuts the door. Is that an acceptable answer to babies and the families expecting them? No other planets are admitting people just yet. Answer is to leave door OPEN or remove hinges.
Consider "forseeable future" or your and my lifetimes, and natural human population increases are more modest and imaginable. A few more billions. Then we can see more clearly for the additional billions perhaps to come after that.
The Earth isn't anywhere near full. By welcoming cities to grow larger, denser, and closer together, incredible additional numbers can somehow fit. Why impose pop control that most people don't want/can't accept,when we can populate denser?
Please not the "Peak Oil" lie. Don't be a patsy for greedy oil monopoly interenst and enviro-wackos. Human population is naturally growing so incredibly huge, surely we should develop all economically viable energy sources. Growing cities of people need cheap and abundant and dependable energy to power them. Nuclear, coal, hydro-electric dams, wind energy, combinations, whatever works best.
My equations end up infinity? Aren't you assuming infinite time, not "forseeable future?"
Don't call me pro-crowdalist, as you are jumping to unproven conclusions. I am for pro-childbearing, regardless whether it supposedly leads to "crowded" conditions or not.
The pro-life position does absolutely nothing to help "control" burgeoning human population sizes, so it would be prudent for at least some prolifers to explain why natural human population growth is still a "good" thing to encourage.
3 dimensions for absorbing pop growth: Outwards, Inwards, Upwards. Y not use?
The max desirable population of the Hawaiian Islands, is not a calculatable "fixed" number. As the global population naturally rises, it would rise as well. All countries have a duty to help the world hold more and more people, primarily by naturally populating themselves denser, with their natural increase—their very own children!
You look too much at current distractions, not the "big picture." People like reproducing so much? Fine. But on a "finite" sphere, we end up densifying
Cars have almost no space for people. Sitting capacity is rated, shoulder-to-shoulder. But traveling in a more "empty" car doesn't really help matters much. On most any long trip, a stop or two, just to get out and stretch, may be needed.
Spaceships assume the technical means, already are possible, lest the people would not have ventured to leave the Earth in spaceships, at least not long enough to colonize anywhere else.
10 billion is nearly the same as 6.7 billion. Huge=huge.
Actually, I tend to be a natural introvert. While I don't fear orderly, well-behaved crowds, neither do I tend to seek them. And many of my hobbies don't really attract me to crowds. Reading, playing video games, computer programming. But the "crowds" out there somewhere, help to make my hobbies much more possible.
What's my agenda? I am not convinced of any real need to impose anti-life population "control," going against nature and against interests of humans. Let enjoy life,sex
So what's on "the other side" of this metaphorical global "population vortex?" Perhaps a "frighteningly" highly populated world, in which the entire globe has perhaps populated more people than there are acres of land to go around. On Star Trek, they emerged on the other side, apparently okay, into normal space. But did they really? Were perhaps they also changed, such that they didn't really notice any change? I say it works itself out. People ADAPT to greater #s.
How will people ADAPT? People are already adapting. You must remember that the bad-news-obsessed media, quite often fails to tell things like they are. I don't see much progress towards humans maybe colonizing other worlds, at least not anytime soon. But technology has been pushing fowards by leaps and bounds towards possibly humans populating vaster and denser, if or as need be.
I don't ask people to use any "birth control," as there's so many good reasons for large families.
You didn't answer my question. Specifically, to say "technology" without specifics ignores the increasing oil prices, food riots, starvation, and depletion of fisheries, freshwater, and rainforests, to name a few, at a time of maximum use of technology. So please answer the question specifically.
I don't at all accept current gasoline price-gouging. How could gasoline be $1.30 only 5 years ago, but nearly $4/gallon now? Did they forget how to make gasoline? How long ago was hurricane Katrina? They haven't repaired anything by now? It's obviously market manipulation, and that enviro-wackos, oil corporations, and government collusion to prevent most oil from being drilled especially in U.S. for U.S. jobs.
Food is so abundant for people with money to buy it.Tech is growing
Population pessimist propagandist Paul Ehrlich claims that population "explosions" upon spaceships would be disastrous. I disagree for many reasons. Sure, supposedly, some journeys to plant new colonies upon other worlds may be long, but spaceships would be designed to be highly densely populated. While sci-fi depicts "spacious" spaceships such as Star Trek, crew quarters still tend to be small and population dense. Pop can still "overflow" to other ships and worlds.
There's a supposed admitted "flaw" in the "Demographic Transition" theory. What if some countries are already so densely populated, that they can't complete the transition to becoming a more wealthy country so well, so the people keep breeding naturally like some poor country? They get "stuck" with perpetually high birthrates? In spite of all the underlying rampant contaceptive peddling?
Relax and let "population vortex" tighten its grip. Accomodate=It works out.
In that episode, the vortex was just a mysterious vortex. I add the metaphor of finding seeming similarity to Earth's naturally-growing "population vortex." Resisting the vortex's tightening pull, caused the Enterprise to crash into its sides, and their destruction. Of course by adding the magic of "time travel," they get a do-over. I see a lesson in it, that the "unthinkable" option was actually the best one. Let baby booms grow around the world. Relax and let people come alive
Captain Piccard's "clone" that had returned from the past, kept referring to some other mysterious alternative action, that the real Piccard (of that time frame) demanded of him, but he seemed caught in the past. The other option was "unthinkable." But Piccard NEEDED another option, as resisting the pull of the vortex only seemed to tighten its grip, and the spaceship's engines were beginning to buckle.
What if they don't resist? They got pulled through—OKAY.
Option A: We fear natural change, we take to slaying one another to keep population from growing, and destroy ourselves something like in the days of Noah, before God judged the world with the Great Flood.
Option B: We fear change, but we fear telling the truth also, so we try to eliminate our populous neighbor countries, sinisterly pushing contraceptive imperilism, they call us "The Great Satan," we go to war
OPTION D: We really smartly ADAPT by encouraging families to stop at 2 children, making contraceptives and abortion services freely available, discouraging mass migrations, and thereby voluntarily reducing each country's population to a size that would support a good quality of life for everyone while not exceeding ecological carrying capacity.
That's isn't a 4th option, but just another rephrasing of Option B. Slay people through deception rather than more obviously attacking them.
The Population Vortex Metaphor: Episode of Star Trek TNG "Time Squared" had the ship caught into a mysterious suddenly-appearing vortex tugging at the Enterprise. Captain Piccard escaped in shuttlecraft, saw his ship explode, got thrown back in time. Real Piccard demanded of his clone—other option? Don't resist—Vortex mysteriously vanished
My option neither deceives nor kills anyone. Your option results in famine, disease, and a miserable death for millions and possibly billions of people.
Star Trek is science fiction, not science. It's also a TV show, where happy endings appear in exactly 1 hour. (BTW, how many babies are born on their space ship??)
Actual science has studied population growth and decline in all types of species. The concept of "carrying capacity" is Biology 101. You should learn about it.
What happens when pushing contraceptive coercion, isn't enough to convince everybody to be robbed of their God-given blessings of children? Since the motive is evil and false, why would it restrain itself to only the "milder" forms of coercion? Abuses unpunished, seem to invite all the more abuses.
BTW, how many babies are born on a Star Trek spaceship? Would be a huge number, were it a real "city" and not just a tiny flying "village." With no real work, births should be higher
You are the one who is dealing in falsehoods. My option does not coerce anyone, it does it require that "everybody" have no children, and there is no evil motive behind it.
As usual, you missed the point. The people on a spaceship must limit their fertility to avoid resource depletion and/or lethal levels of waste buildup. ITRW, Earth is our spaceship.
Any "option" that needlessly disparages human life, is coercive, and you must also consider what it leads to, when "leaders" other than you, follow you. What if the coercion doesn't sufficiently "control" fertility, what then? Population pessimist Paul Ehrlich calls for a "stop at 2" program lest "too many" people find they are good at nurturing children.
Generally in sci-fi, people do not need to limit fertility on spaceships, as spaceships are efficiently designed for density
we sometimes have too much desire for things that we know will endanger or affect something but we take the chance either we are curious or we are that hungry
Yes, we are either going to be forced to evolve and understand, or destroy ourselves. In my opinion, the problem is not overpopulation, but waste, pollution, and using non-renewable resources.
"In my opinion, the problem is not overpopulation, but waste, pollution, and using non-renewable resources."
Good point, however keep in mind that the former is a major contributor of waste, pollution, and the depletion of non-renewable resources. In fact, it is an accelerator of them (especially consumption of resources). More population mandates more substistence, the production of which leads to global warming (from toxins, CFC's, etc. released from industry).
We will reach a point in the near future where industrialized society will collapse or some calamity, natural or otherwise, will claim a massive portion of the human populace. Then things will be in balance and it will start over, so to speak. That, or will will be annihilated entirely. Either way, we cannot continue to advance at our current rate. When our population becomes too great to support, a holocaust will bring it back down to manageable proportions (or wipe us out).
(Note: I am not advocating a deliberate, man-made holocaust to reduce population; I used the term "holocaust" in reference to any disaster that would result in many human deaths, such as nuclear war or global starvation or a pandemic, not the Hitler-type holocaust.)
Irresponsible use of technology brought us: 1)DDT! 2)Asbestos, asbestosis and mesothelioma! 3) Super bacteria that are resistant to all known antibiotics. 4)The hole in the ozone layer! 5)Global warming! 6)Acid rain 7)Epidemic of heart disease and lung cancer due to widespread smoking. 8) Nuclear arms race! The moral of this is that: 1) We have a long track record of using technology irresponsibly. 2)If technology is increasing exponentially, then so are the problems it causes.
So are consumers who don't think or care and so are coporations who lie and deceive about their practices... it's nice to be able blame others for the problems in the world but we have to look at ourselves with a sharply critical eye as well.
so then you would prefer we go back to the days where there was no written language, life expectancy was 20-30 years, and people lived in isolated towns where there was routine inbreeding and massive disease outbreaks because they dumped sewage in the water they drank? imagine what life would be like without your precious computer, or telephone, or immunization shots, or disinfectants, or even running water?everything has good and bad, but you have to look at both sides.
Laratigergirl, life before the Industrial Revolution was not a shithole everywhere in the world from the dawn of our species. To make such vast statements glosses over any beauty in culture, and political, scientific, artistic, and academic advances, not to mention pisses on the graves of our ancestors.
we wouldnt be able to cotch our asses on computers..yes and we would have more sense in knowing that we are weak and not strong. and just live it naively and humbly whether there is a god or no god
the number of doublings of productivity since the begining of economic growth is about 30, the same as the number of doublings to go from a single cell to a medium sized mamal like us. The trick is inside the system, whether it blows up to collaps or reaches maturity. lots on my site, Phil Henshaw
The only problem is... the doctor can't give you a cream to rub on the yeast to kill them off. So what will happen in the future? Do you think the governments of the world will freak and go on mass slaughters to bring the population down?
True, I doubt this is the first time the population became so high. I bet every time the population gets too high a natural disaster occurs. Ice age etc. And thus we end up with 10,000 people left, who then repopulate and it happens all over again.
Exponential growth in the use of gasoline has led to the point where growth is no longer possible. We are at the point of overshoot right now. Our transportation infrastructure, of cars, roads, and gasoline supply lines, will be unable to adapt in time to provide a non-gasoline solution.
Gasoline is a non-renewable resource (more specifically, the oil used as the raw material). We are within months or years of maximum worldwide gasoline (oil) production. This is known as peak oil.
Well first of all nobody knows how much more oil there is. Secondly, in Europe we have put heavy taxes on cars that doesnt drive long pr. unit fuel (thats mostly because of the CO2 outlet though). Therefore the average length pr. unit fuel is increasing steadily. And furthermore there are subsidies for electric and brint cars. So there is a solution to the problem.
wow. I was WAY off the dollar bill question lol..
KillerWhaleSFl 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am an American citizen in Arizona and of Mexican descent, we have been Native Arizonan's for 5 generations. My educated family is proud of the liberators coming from Mexico to take back the land of our ancestors. Hopefully by my grandchildrens generation the liberation will have been complete. I am a US citizen, US college educated, and assisting the illegal immigrants push back the white criminals where they belong.
"Every time a US soldier is killed an Angel gets his wing!"
Diegolopolis 3 months ago in playlist * * USA Border Illegal Immigration Crisis
Nature has a way of working things out spend to much time complaining instead of coming up with solutions you lazy lazy fcker.... spend to much time with justification of things like oh I invaded that alien planet to support life who cares the only thing your consionse has a problem with is when you keep them alive and see them develop to be like you .... LIKE YOU
jimmybuffetWDWGDAS 3 months ago
be more happy please!
fgularte 4 months ago
awesome yet scary video...
amyntazoe 5 months ago
We need to get population under control or the future in the known space novels where the government strictly enforces fertility will happen.
Another thing the governments could decided to introduce a sterility bug maybe something along the lines of a bug that causes auto immune sterility.
Membrane556 6 months ago
Humans don't grow exponentially, though. Yeast undergo continuous mitosis until they no longer have the necessary nutrients to do so. Humans are different. A couple isn't going to have 4 children, and then have each child pair up with another individual and have 4 more children.
I understand the point you're trying to make in this video, but it doesn't really seem appropriate to compare a mitotic-reproducing simple organism to a multicellular, intelligent organism such as humans.
Jugz517 6 months ago
lol...who cares, the sandwhich is only a certain size, the yeast still eat all of the sandwhich just as we will. with that said, there are ways to eat the sandwhich which change how long it lasts. hopefully our superior intelligence allows us to make use of those ways...so we can spread to other galaxies and CONSUME MORE....MUAHAHAHA
scuzzulus 9 months ago
in one word ,NO!
flashkillerffff 9 months ago
Perhaps humans self regulate over-population by engaging in wars and allowing the proliferation of nuclear facilities?
@xdaemoon, Don't we need to do a better job caring for the earth first?
LererDesignStudio 10 months ago
Now is the time, to we should start to build another planet :)
xdaemoon 11 months ago
Yeast can sporulate when they get into stress, unlike people. So, they have an incentive to grow exponentially.
laosuwan 1 year ago
@derbigpr500 He's trying to illustrate that yeast grow uncontrollably until they die and of course this is the case because that's just what yeast do on their own. They're single cell organisms that have no intellect. He's trying to compare us to yeast and doing so by asking and trying to open our eyes to the problems of pollution and overpopulation, aka what killed the yeast. That my friend has everything to do with this video and exponential growth, fine example I must say.
rippinreefa 1 year ago
This is gay as hell
FavoriteVideos0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, we aren't smarter....we will overshoot the carrying capacity of our planet despite already knowing we already have too many people.....
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago
No we aren't smarter...we will overshoot the carry capacity of our planet despite knowing we already have too many people......
MrEnergyCzar 1 year ago 15
"Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?" Whats that have to do with exponential growth? I dont see yeast building computers or flying to outer space.
derbigpr500 1 year ago
@derbigpr500 In 1804 we reached 1 billion,1927 2 billion, 1999 6 billion, in 2012 we will hit 7 billion. In 2025 8 billion, in 2045 9 billion. More people added shorter and shorter time span, that means less researches for you and I. The current global financial crisis was one of exponential debt growth and look what happened - it imploded. Take the time to watch all of "Chris Martenson's crash course" especially the video on exponential growth it will help make it clear were we are headed
MrMaveri 1 year ago
Okay, so what part of this actually had to do with Yeast again? Does it exponentiate or something?
LazyOtaku 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GDP is probably gonna grow at at least 1% on average, so we are all dead!
MrTheLOLOL 1 year ago
considering yeast has no brain, i'd have to say we're smarter
godkingRoss 1 year ago
@godkingRoss Even with a brain, for some people on this planet I wouldn't be so sure..
LazyOtaku 1 year ago
@godkingRoss Yes, but the point is: Will we (humans) use our brains to avoid our own extinction? If we don't, we are collectively no smarter than the yeast colony.
finlarg 1 year ago
@finlarg
Unfortunately that is true.
I recommend we institute some aggressive family planning and encourage a two child policy as one was too few.
This means teaching about contraception and making it affordable and having government assistance for all for all forms of contraception.
Then work on space colonization and reducing the Earth's population to 3.6 billion.
Membrane556 6 months ago
@Membrane556 You make some good suggestions. How did you arrive at the 3.6 billion figure? I think under a billion would be a better level for our population to stabilize at... but I know it's unrealistic without drastic government intervention or ecological catastrophe, neither of which is appealing.
finlarg 6 months ago
We're burning ten calories of fossil fuel for each single calorie of food in the industrialized world. The growth of fossil fuel production has come to a standstill. It isn't whether we can mitigate the collapse, but how the collapse will play out.
allencrider 1 year ago
the problem with this "vid" is that just intelligent people are able to understand it, and some more intelligent people are able to see that is a falacy.
I dont have to tell you that as intelligent people, we find, mostly, members of asian and white race.
So this vid can be used as a trojan horse to deccelerate intelligent population rate, while the actual problem is on black ignorant population rate.
I am not a pussy, i will talk directly,
if you are white, plz have more than 4 children.
bananito3 1 year ago
Actually a bacteria do not need a partner to reproduce
hence the reproduction is in POWERs of 2. One bacteria produce another bacteria.
In the case of humans, you need a MAN and a WOMAN to reproduce.
If they have one children they are cutting their blood line pressence by a half.
If they have 2 children they presserve their numbers.
If they have 3 children they are indeed increasing the population by 1.
If we see races: blacks overpopulate by 4 and whites are disappearing by 1 or 0 childs.
bananito3 1 year ago 2
isn't yeast used to make beer? beer is a good product!
bohemianh 1 year ago
@bohemianh sup man
bananito3 1 year ago
World population from 1 billion in 1900 to almost 7 billion in about 100 years. World cannot sustain about 45 billion in another 100 years. World War 3 is inevitable. Just as the video says tottal colapse in numbers may occur.
rytis1 1 year ago
Still we will try our utmost to buy ONE more day
Our society is build on GROWTH without growth economy is bad
We will fight for oil in stead of reasoning how to live with less
We are like yeast, maybe the next generation eartlings will have more brains
racenemo 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
johan404 11 months ago
Wow, thanks this has changed the way i think of things. I can see much more clearly how we cannot see a problem until it is all ready too late.
cmd2tuts 1 year ago 2
Cannibalism will solve the world's problems.... although I don't think it'll suit the vegans.
That or time to look at new habitats. The ocean or the moon is plausible (although I know will be difficult).
Or a cull... and I ain't volunteering.
5*s though for the education.
ZupaSC 1 year ago
Humans may be smarter than yeast, but in the end we all are living beings. So, as you said at the beginning - the bacteria will pollute themselves and die.
And so do we.
That's why people invented wars, famine and taxation.
Oh, and in case you didn't notice: Global warming is a hoax, for example only one thermometer is used to measure temperatures in the Arctic. A joke.
LunkwillFook 2 years ago
yeah, well i have an pet yeast colony and i feed him every weak flour sugar and water when he runs out of food i name him patrick so pretending "patrick" is the "earth" then we are a pet of a planet or, such as well then they will feed us once a week. i keep him in the fridge so thats why space is so cold
tylerturtle14 2 years ago
yeast can live longer then normal when scientists mutate one of there genes. same with rats and flies.. have they tested this on humans yet? when the fuck will we find out?
i think the american goverment needs to be discovering to scientific facts instead of fighting wars and giving all our money to israel
IHyRaXI 2 years ago
Technology isn't a solution if all it allows you to do is double to size of your lake. In reality technology can do so much more, like kill the lilies.
I would like to know the solution the maker of this video would put forward to combat exponential growth. Forced sterilisation to combat population growth, maybe? All right, we have a problem, what's the solution?
looni3 2 years ago
A first step is for a significant fraction of our population to begin to acknowledge and agree that indiscriminate exponential growth is a problem.
I support exponential growth in learning, care, and intellectual integrity. With the whole in mind, I support efforts that seek to grow better in quality while growing down in throughputs. I'd like to see more systems thinking, understanding of feedbacks and lag times, and innovation in inclusive, transparent, and open source government processes.
danchay 2 years ago 6
God knows I suppose....
But I guess if there's any solution, it simply cannot be a comfortable one. People are addicted to nothing more than to comfort.
fckwhat 1 year ago
@looni3 The simplest solution is to just stand back and leave everything be. There will be overshoot, then collapse. Billions will die until we once again reach a balance or perish utterly. Those things that cannot go on forever don't.
That is the solution that we can now compare all other solutions against. Do we wish to make the hard choices we need to make or will we feel better about things (morally) if we just let the natural solution happen.
fluffymcdeath 1 year ago
@fluffymcdeath
I suggest Reading a book called the Moot in God's eye.
Membrane556 6 months ago
@looni3
50 years ago when this problem was first discussed seriously there were some of us advocating ZPG (2 child family max). Today the only solution is NPG (negative population growth) with 1 child families for 3 or 4 generations. Of course we have to simultaneously reduce our consumption.
Physics tells us that every closed system will come to a steady state. Why not start working for it now.
piggykaiser 3 months ago
Economists are too stupid to figure out what growth is.
If you are not subtracting the losses you are not accurately computing growth. What about DEMAND SIDE DEPRECIATION? How much do consumers lose on the depreciation of the supposedly durable junk they buy? When was the last time you heard economists mention
NET DOMESTIC PRODUCT
The nitwit economists only subtract the Supply Side Depreciation. The system depends on consumers being dumber than economists.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
What a rubbish video. It massively oversimplifies. It implies that technology can only delay, not prevent an outcome. Technology enables us to turn a negative into a positive. Using the lake as an example, harvest the lily pads and use it for something useful.
I HATE videos that imply that we are all screwed. The difference between humans and yeast is that humans have the ability to REASON. We can work out our problems if we think of solutions instead of telling people that it is a lost cause
scudFDL 2 years ago
Harvest the humans and use them for something useful?
Nilopollis 2 years ago 2
Well... with some humans that might not be a bad idea. Although, your perspective is somewhat worrying...
scudFDL 2 years ago
unfortunately Humans also have the ability to live in complete denial with the hope that technology will fix it all.
elstonieo 2 years ago
Good idea! We could kill our surplus population, make them into soilent green protein bars and eat them. Or we could start with birth control. Which solution would you prefer?
Technology can help, but as the video clearly shows, it can not replace birth control.
The colonisation project on the moon will demonstrate, what a paradise earth is. I suggest, that we give our planet a break and wait until travel in space will be possible before we overshoot and loose our chance to leave earth.
flamifer 2 years ago
@scudFDL
About the power of technology, in which you invest so much faith. Do you know of any technology that can break the laws of thermodynamics by recycling all the waste heat generated from any industrial process? Or create all sorts of resources at an exponential rate out of NOTHING?
This vid doesn't necessarily say we are all screwed. What it does say is that we are all screwed IF we continue in our present ways.
S1587915G 1 year ago
Do humans produce resources?
hitssquad 2 years ago
very interesting video! :-)
sciencoking 2 years ago 3
Yeast rules!
Boeu13 2 years ago
Growth figures do not reveal the dangers lurking behind its innocent and appealing mask. If corporates were to grow, then the *extent of appropriation of nature* also doubles - which means whatever corporates have contributed to the detriment of nature in the entire civilisation history of makind, also is going to get doubled in the next few years. This should be the most horrendous situation for any life species in this planet. What a tragedy this is turning out to be, perishing this way ??
CabcK 2 years ago 7
eeeh, leave e'm alone.
if they want to have babies let e'm, it's their choice how they want to do it
worthatronproduction 3 years ago
Why do comments posted on the site show ips & disappear? I love the piece "Already there" written by Rabelais.
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
crap, thats true, here the latinamerican people doesnt seem to understand that :S ( oh yeah, lets have 10 children, they'll add more workforce and wealth to our family)
MT12XD 3 years ago
FFS pronatalist is a nutbag.
FantasmaBAnco 3 years ago
From what I seen the ones breeding uncontrollably are the half brained idiots that can not take a hint from nature to not have kids especially those living in areas that are prone to disease and famine but that doesn't stop them they just continue to push'em out like rabbits and then you see them on late night TV asking to send them money to their country because they are starving!! Yes some people are dumber than yeast!!!
SvantzDoniker 3 years ago
This is awesome. We really need to wake up as a species and realize that there is an overpopulation problem, and its only going to get worse until a) We all starve to death; b) Governments start forcing people to become sterilized; or, c) We experience a collective epiphany and each and every one of us makes an INDIVIDUAL decision to have two or fewer children. I for one am hoping for (c), so that we will never have to experience (a) and (b).
insidiousspider 3 years ago 22
Great, now let's burn some rubber.
theannoyingdogpoo 3 years ago
No way! Lets fly rockets and then burn some rubber! But first, eat lots of fast food, re-produce and litter!
hughes111 3 years ago
a) probably will not happen
and b) is unlikely in economically developed countries with democratic governments
i propose the likely alternative d) which is a rebirth of nationalism and military conflict or racism and genocide
determinism89 3 years ago
Excellent Video...
theoildrum 3 years ago 2
What about the 100,000 that die a year by big Pharma? What about the millions dying from aids and various forms of cancer, those who are sterile and those on birth control or the millions who die in wars and those who die of every other concievable thing theres not room here to mention, people dont just multiply they die every day too.
I can drive for miles where I am and never see a single soul. Theres tons of room where I live.
KARStarla 3 years ago
To KARStarla:
We still need proper public sanitation and Big Pharma medicines. Obviously, many people do benefit from and need their medications. But Big Pharma gets much-deserved criticism, for overcharging us for medical care, and overprescribing the most new and expensive medications, rather than old cheaper tried-and-true medications.
People still dying and "birth control" still may not be enough to "balance" high birthrates. But they aren't supposed to "balance." Nature prefer growth!
pronatalist 3 years ago
Actually the reason it dont work now is because the people are dumbed down and dont even know how to make bread much less garden or harvest seed. They are locked into a system that hooked them on the grid whereas everything is controlled by the stupid set up thats not working from top to bottom and those who have some land spend tons to make their weeds green, we are so ass backwards. We saw a guy today and laughed he had $250 rims on cheap truck, theres no purpose in anything we do
KARStarla 3 years ago 4
To KARStaria:
The reason what doesn't work? Big Pharma? "Birth control?" Technology? Big Pharma only works partially, works too much to take our money, not enough to actually heal and cure people. They say there's more money in treating people, than curing them. I don't want for "birth control" to work, because people are supposed to multiply, and to welcome all the more fellow humans to live.
And most people, including me, do not want to produce our own food.
Show off cars/truck disgust me.
pronatalist 3 years ago
I think you misunderstood me, it was talking about "multiplying" theres nothing wrong with multiplying whats never "counted" is that while we are multiplying people die everyday in huge numbers as well and I was simply "including the reality of" birth control in that many use it.
I dont at all promote big pharma, have you watched "Merck brings HIV/AIDS to America? Or BAYER vaccines contaminated with AIDS?
The way we have set up our situation was to our own downfall in about everything
KARStarla 3 years ago
NO.
firedog501 3 years ago
Marx's basic analysis in Das Kapital. And this guy thinks he has come across some revelation.
reyter2007 3 years ago
some of you folks are definitely not smarter than yeast.
sappytrav 3 years ago 6
obviously techno-elites will engineer a killer virus, inoculate themselves and a small loyal underclass, and then let the virus loose to kill the majority of the worlds excess and unsustainable population. problem solved.
wyncko 3 years ago
Similarly any logical fact that shows that exponential growth leads to life choking itself out is countered by saying that those aren't actually facts, it's "the evil lying liberal media" trying to keep him from taking ten wives and having 100 children.
Quality of life is more important than quantity of life. If that means showing * some basic restraint * and limiting the number of children we choose to have, that's what we should do as responsible adults.
FaustianDeal 3 years ago
I believe it was Malthus who first used this model to explain why life cant choke itself out. It inevitably falls back into equillibrium when everyone starts dying of disease, and conflict over resources.
Now, having said that, just because it will probably eventually balance out, doesn't mean we dont have a problem.
And the "liberal media" is a faccade created by the right to excuse their failed policy. Ask Bill Kristol, founder of the PNAC.
Pskapompos 3 years ago
To Pskapompos:
Didn't I hear that Malthus said that overpop was necessary to prevent laziness? What a great idea to consider. Yet another great benefit to large families, not to mention how much better conditioned children from large families would be, to both survive and thrive in an increasingly pop world.
Human life, is the exception other "carrying capacity" nature rules. Human intelligence sidesteps "limits." A textbook suggests at current rate may not be long to "standing room only?"
pronatalist 3 years ago
To FaustianDeal:
I don't encourage polygamy, because I see it as impractical for most people. Polygamous relationships are needlessly complicated. Add 1 extra wife, and instead of he-she, now it's he-she, he-other-she, she-other-she. Polygamy would probably be a great idea, on some planet with 10 times as many women as men, but currently would let some men snatch up all the women leaving nobody for me
"Some basic restraint" is unnatural "family planning" lie. We're supposed to produce children
pronatalist 3 years ago
Oh, we're "supposed" to. Doesn't matter if you WANT to or not.
"Honey, shouldn't you use a condom?"
"Why whatever do you mean?"
"I don't want kids!"
"Neither do I. But we have to-- we're SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE CHILDREN!!"
"Oh well hurry up and come darling!"
FunnyDigestion 3 years ago
My point here is, most people in the world would PREFER to limit the number of kids they have. The average woman in Mali has 7 KIDS in her life. 25 or so countries have fertility rates of >5 children per woman. Now tell me, do you think that makes for a lot of material comfort? These are incredible economic and social strains. Contraception and birth control would be tremendous relief for these people.
FunnyDigestion 3 years ago 4
Also, in many of these countries the women have little say in anything and aren't raised to believe that they have rights. Often they're only bearing children to satisfy the man's pride.
FunnyDigestion 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To FunnyDigestion:
Where do you get the idea that only men want to reproduce? Women also like the feel of sex, and quite often want to reproduce too, especially if they love their man. Often if they are closely bonded to one another, that's more reason they want to reproduce children together. And having children together helps more closely bond them together.
As explained to a child in the movie "Love Comes Softly," babies come when a man and woman love each other and their love overflows.
pronatalist 3 years ago
"babies come when a man and woman love each other and their love overflows." Now! Pronatalist, what about?... lets say, rape.Was that child made with love!?...
PParranoidd 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To FunnyDigestion:
If the average number of children per woman in Mali is 7, then maybe most women would rather not "limit" how many children they have.
Why the assumption that having many children is not good for material comfort? Comfort is all that matters?
Not everybody is yet indoctrinated with the "family planning" "gospel." Isn't it possible, that they feel "relief" not having to mess with experimental shoddy unnatural contraceptives? A few minor "growing pains" R better than hindering
pronatalist 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To FunnyDigestion:
Why do you assume that parents don't want children? Often that's the reason people refuse to use shoddy condoms. They want children and they want to get pregnant. Some women seem to even love being pregnant
And why should be having children, be made into something people do on a whim, rather than out of natural or religious duty/custom/tradition/natural order of things?
Children should always be welcome to come alive, not be subjected to some selfish whim, like buying a pet
pronatalist 3 years ago
Ignore this pronatalist guy, there's absolutely no point in arguing with him.
The foundation of his argument is that "let people come to Earth and be born" meaning that he thinks there's trillions of souls out there clamoring for host bodies and it's simply a galactic crime not to pop out 20 children who live at near starvation level, have no education, and no future.
FaustianDeal 3 years ago
No, technology can't increase ressources exponentially. Technology is all about using news ressources, and using ressurces more efficiencly. In both cases, you have limits. The efficiency of any process can go up with improved technology, but it will nerver reach, much less exceed, 100%. For instance, power plants were 5% efficient in 1905, 55% now, a 11 fold increase, but it can't go much higher than 70-75, thermodynamics forbid it. So remaining possible gains are small compared to past ones.
Raminagrobisfr 3 years ago 2
To Raminagrobisfr:
There's no need for 100% efficiency. With more abundant and cheaper energy, you don't have to squeeze every last power watt out of an energy-producing process. Look on Star Trek. Do they try to turn off every unused light? Of course not. Their energy is cheap.
Chemical processes, or burning fuels, likely isn't ideal for energy. Why? Because chemical reactants run out. Expensive human labor to mine more. Nuclear is more attractive, as it's so much more energy-dense.
pronatalist 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is all just the kind of thing pushed by people who want us to kill all the muslims and chinese.
danieleriskay 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Global warming, overpopulation, oil shortage, etc are all FRAUDS. Everyone MUST watch EnDGame on google video. It exposes everything in their system of evil.
sniper479 3 years ago
god the world is so FUCKED!!!!!!!!!!.. the next 10 years are goign to see MASSIVE changes in the world. war, and severe social unrest in the 3rd world, wow, this problem is here and people are just going about there business like nothing is wrong. Damn, get some guns and other shit.
krist300 3 years ago
To krist300:
Don't believe the pessimism promoted by the lying liberal news media. They dwell on the excessive selling of bad news, while ignoring good news stories all around us. Why is the human race naturally perhaps moving towards somewhat denser and vaster population levels? It's a potent sign that humans are doing something right. We are already ADAPTING.
Get some guns? Maybe, as power-mad globalists hatch global tyranny conspiracies, and government can't be trusted with all the power.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
How will people ADAPT to global warming? Somebody once joked to me that a warmer planet would lead to people wearing less clothes, leading to more breeding. (Maybe something like the sensual Eden-like planet of the Edo on Star Trek TNG?) It's natural cycles caused by the sun, and beneficial, history tells us.
Increasing pollution? More technology mitigates it. More flushing toilets don't "harm" nature.
Food and energy long term, are becoming more ABUNDANT. Pop hastens advances
pronatalist 3 years ago
Besides wearing fewer clothes, how will people adapt to other less humorous effects of global warming, such as killing the oceans through warming and acidification, desertification, decreasing crop yields, reducing glacier-fed water supplies, increasing the power of hurricanes, flooding coastal cities, increasing the spread of vector-borne diseases, and wiping out large numbers of other species?
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
Such as killing the oceans through warming? You really need to read more. Read the new book out by Roy Spencer, "Climate Confusion." Oceans have enormous thermal mass and may take very long time to warm, and the purpose of weather is to move heat from areas of more, to areas of less. Climate is largely self-regulating, contrary to all the current fad of needless gloom-and-doom
Hurricanes have dropped far short of "global warming" doom predictions,since 2005
Let humans dominate
pronatalist 3 years ago
More technology is not mitigating pollution. The world is far more polluted than ever before, not even counting greenhouse gas pollution. Please get your facts straight.
Food and energy are not increasing. Do you keep up with news of the real world or just watch Star Trek and read the Bible? What is an example of population growth from 5 billion to over 6 billion causing any advances?
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
•Pollution in the U.S. has been decreasing.—paperback cover of old edition of "The Ultimate Resource" by Julian Simon
How is this possible? We the U.S. have more people than ever. But population growth has pushed along technology growth, and intelligent humans soon ADAPT.
Rising volume of human wastes merely requires more toilets to be installed in people's homes. It's easier to ACCOMODATE than to "control."
Look at all inventions since pop 5 billion. Computers, forums, DVDs.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6 (continued):
I imagine that the recent growth of human numbers from 5 billion to now officially 6.7 billion, can be a bit "mind boggling." Especially to small minds that don't even much bother to try to understand the many great reasons to expect such natural expansion. But even the natural growth of our "huge" numbers, itself is a great advancement. It benefits so many more people, and shows we are indeed ADAPTING.
Adding more people doesn't help slow growth, but encourages it.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Exactly. Pronatalist may be in touch with fundamentalist religion but clearly out of touch with reality. By definition, he/she is insane.
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
Who's really dismissing reality? World population continues to grow as we speak. I say that I understand why human populations tend to grow and grow, and I agree with most every reason that could be cited. I would like to possibly have a large family, and I encourage other people to have large families too. I know that makes the world more populated, but that too is great for the many.
A "stuck on" valve or "no valve," helps keep us on the right path, and preserve our freedom.
pronatalist 3 years ago
How is a more populated world "great for the many"? How does it "preserve our freedom"?
notanumber6 3 years ago
To nota number6:
Have you no imagination or no vision? How are people to enjoy having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. By populating the globe naturally denser, so many more of us can somehow fit. As more people come alive, and more people rather like living, and of course also much like reproducing, the greater or enlarged population is very good and "great for the many."
People depopulate the countryside to move to cities, so they prefer.
pronatalist 3 years ago
They do not enjoy seeing their "precious darling babies" die of malnutrition and disease?
Increasing density does not add to the amount of food, water, oil, or other resources needed to live, does it?
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
But obviously, if people go on having so many babies, and are allowed to prosper, their "precious darling babies" may not see so much malnutrition and disease, but rather human numbers mounting naturally.
Increasing density answers the question of "where to put everybody" upon a planet that isn't getting any bigger, as the already "huge" human race continues to grow. Other means continue to add to amount of food and water. Already technology is used to desalinate ocean water.
pronatalist 3 years ago
And what about the electricity used to power the desalination plant? If you knew anything about "the technology," you'd know that every resource stems from another resource, and until we develop nuclear fusion, the Carnot cycle will be in effect for just about everything. Just because you're adding more water doesn't mean that you're not taking away something else. The overall efficiency is the exact same. Sustainability is about efficiency per organism.
mastyrmynd 3 years ago
To mastyrmynd:
We are already far too far along the improvement process, to backtrack and opine that it's no use to look to improve. That's already proven false.
What have you proven by your post statements, other than that natural world pop growth may be making nuclear fusion improvement, a necessary pop ADAPTATION? I have already suggested nuclear power may help, as cities grow larger and closer together, they need cheap abundant energy that is clean. Maybe better nuclear power is the answer
pronatalist 3 years ago
We could also provide more resource if NASA would open space for private exploration. There are tons and tons of untapped metals and other resources locked up in the asteroid belt. I dont argue against the need for NASA, but its about time we go after the asteroid belt.
Pskapompos 3 years ago
To Pskapompos:
Some pop phobics fear "standing room only," because humans may yet be too good at solving problems. I think that idea fell out of popularity, because nature presumably couldn't support "standing room only." Here's why I think "standing" is absurd. It's not possibly within the forseeable future anyway, as we aren't that close, and pops take time to grow. And humans are smarter than that, and would stack people into highrises instead.
Much cheaper to mine on earth than asteroids.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
How does more population preserve our freedom? They say that denying the right to procreate is but one small step from denying the right to life. Therefore, if people are to be free, they must enjoy the right to naturally populate themselves denser, if or as we are headed that way. "Huge" population levels of the world, isn't any excuse at all, to deny people of their children. It's so much easier and pro-life, to "scoot over a bit," to make way for our children. Be pro-life.
pronatalist 3 years ago
You didn't answer the question: How does MORE population preserve our freedom?
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
Free people are going to insist upon freedom to naturally reproduce as well. Thus, science and technology assists in allowing human natural increase to take it's natural course, of growing towards still huger numbers, more comfortably and safely, encouraged for the greater good of the many.
Much city growth came from people depopulating the countryside. I don't like to see areas "lose" population. Cool to move back to countryside at urban densities, as gets to be so many of us.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6 (continued):
How does a more populated world, help preserve our freedom? For one thing, until very recently, most all of the previously more moral public, accepted human "natural increase" as completely natural, to be expected, to be God's will, and to be rather "good" for humans. Thus, it's not something to be "controlled" or manipulated, but rather population is what it is. By embracing and welcoming pop growth, we ADAPT to it more readily. A practical reason why I am pronatal.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acavideo (continued #3):
Try the pronatalist mindset, the natural "welcome life" and be friendly position. If one seeks God and truth, it leads one to question many false population metaphors. Consider the "world bowl" cartoon I saw somewhere. The globe is depicted as a bowl, filling with human population, nearly to "overflowing," squeezing other wildlife towards the small brim. A population spigot is just "gushing" with more people coming to life. Turn it off? How? There's no faucet valve!
pronatalist 3 years ago
Oh the valve wont turn off pronatalist. Does anyone really expect people to exert self control and keep their legs closed? Not me at least. However when fossil fuels begin their decline (now) the poor and even middle class will find their subsidized existence brought back into the harsh reality of nature. Say hello to a higher mortality rate for the young and the old, like the good old days. Maybe if we are really smart we'll use them for fertilizer to grow more crops.
Moonshield23 3 years ago
To Moonshield23:
Do I expect people to exert self-control and keep their legs closed? No, not at all, especially for married couples that should most feel free to enjoy sex and its primal purpose, reproducing more people to also get to experience life.
So the valve is maybe stuck on? Well I would hope so, or that there isn't and never will be any effective "valve." Whatever happened to "the way of things?" If there is some easy valve, then power-mad Green Nazis will want to "control" it.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acavideo (continued #2):
On PBS's Contact "A Popular Little Planet," they presented a metaphorical "door" into the world. A child knocks, "Can I come in?" But the noise and bustle of "overpopulation" party inside rises eerily. Other child says "It's getting kind of crazy in here. Why don't you try Neptune?," and shuts the door. Is that an acceptable answer to babies and the families expecting them? No other planets are admitting people just yet. Answer is to leave door OPEN or remove hinges.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acarvideo (continued):
Consider "forseeable future" or your and my lifetimes, and natural human population increases are more modest and imaginable. A few more billions. Then we can see more clearly for the additional billions perhaps to come after that.
The Earth isn't anywhere near full. By welcoming cities to grow larger, denser, and closer together, incredible additional numbers can somehow fit. Why impose pop control that most people don't want/can't accept,when we can populate denser?
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acavideo:
Please not the "Peak Oil" lie. Don't be a patsy for greedy oil monopoly interenst and enviro-wackos. Human population is naturally growing so incredibly huge, surely we should develop all economically viable energy sources. Growing cities of people need cheap and abundant and dependable energy to power them. Nuclear, coal, hydro-electric dams, wind energy, combinations, whatever works best.
My equations end up infinity? Aren't you assuming infinite time, not "forseeable future?"
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acavideo:
Don't call me pro-crowdalist, as you are jumping to unproven conclusions. I am for pro-childbearing, regardless whether it supposedly leads to "crowded" conditions or not.
The pro-life position does absolutely nothing to help "control" burgeoning human population sizes, so it would be prudent for at least some prolifers to explain why natural human population growth is still a "good" thing to encourage.
3 dimensions for absorbing pop growth: Outwards, Inwards, Upwards. Y not use?
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acavideo:
The max desirable population of the Hawaiian Islands, is not a calculatable "fixed" number. As the global population naturally rises, it would rise as well. All countries have a duty to help the world hold more and more people, primarily by naturally populating themselves denser, with their natural increase—their very own children!
You look too much at current distractions, not the "big picture." People like reproducing so much? Fine. But on a "finite" sphere, we end up densifying
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acavideo:
Cars have almost no space for people. Sitting capacity is rated, shoulder-to-shoulder. But traveling in a more "empty" car doesn't really help matters much. On most any long trip, a stop or two, just to get out and stretch, may be needed.
Spaceships assume the technical means, already are possible, lest the people would not have ventured to leave the Earth in spaceships, at least not long enough to colonize anywhere else.
10 billion is nearly the same as 6.7 billion. Huge=huge.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To acavideo:
Actually, I tend to be a natural introvert. While I don't fear orderly, well-behaved crowds, neither do I tend to seek them. And many of my hobbies don't really attract me to crowds. Reading, playing video games, computer programming. But the "crowds" out there somewhere, help to make my hobbies much more possible.
What's my agenda? I am not convinced of any real need to impose anti-life population "control," going against nature and against interests of humans. Let enjoy life,sex
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6 (continued):
So what's on "the other side" of this metaphorical global "population vortex?" Perhaps a "frighteningly" highly populated world, in which the entire globe has perhaps populated more people than there are acres of land to go around. On Star Trek, they emerged on the other side, apparently okay, into normal space. But did they really? Were perhaps they also changed, such that they didn't really notice any change? I say it works itself out. People ADAPT to greater #s.
pronatalist 3 years ago
How will people ADAPT to global warming and increasing pollution and the absence of food, water, fossil fuels, and other vital resources?
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
How will people ADAPT? People are already adapting. You must remember that the bad-news-obsessed media, quite often fails to tell things like they are. I don't see much progress towards humans maybe colonizing other worlds, at least not anytime soon. But technology has been pushing fowards by leaps and bounds towards possibly humans populating vaster and denser, if or as need be.
I don't ask people to use any "birth control," as there's so many good reasons for large families.
pronatalist 3 years ago
You didn't answer my question. Specifically, to say "technology" without specifics ignores the increasing oil prices, food riots, starvation, and depletion of fisheries, freshwater, and rainforests, to name a few, at a time of maximum use of technology. So please answer the question specifically.
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
I don't at all accept current gasoline price-gouging. How could gasoline be $1.30 only 5 years ago, but nearly $4/gallon now? Did they forget how to make gasoline? How long ago was hurricane Katrina? They haven't repaired anything by now? It's obviously market manipulation, and that enviro-wackos, oil corporations, and government collusion to prevent most oil from being drilled especially in U.S. for U.S. jobs.
Food is so abundant for people with money to buy it.Tech is growing
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6 (continued):
Population pessimist propagandist Paul Ehrlich claims that population "explosions" upon spaceships would be disastrous. I disagree for many reasons. Sure, supposedly, some journeys to plant new colonies upon other worlds may be long, but spaceships would be designed to be highly densely populated. While sci-fi depicts "spacious" spaceships such as Star Trek, crew quarters still tend to be small and population dense. Pop can still "overflow" to other ships and worlds.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6 (continued #3):
There's a supposed admitted "flaw" in the "Demographic Transition" theory. What if some countries are already so densely populated, that they can't complete the transition to becoming a more wealthy country so well, so the people keep breeding naturally like some poor country? They get "stuck" with perpetually high birthrates? In spite of all the underlying rampant contaceptive peddling?
Relax and let "population vortex" tighten its grip. Accomodate=It works out.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Where is this "population vortex"? It must be in the sand where your head is buried.
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
In that episode, the vortex was just a mysterious vortex. I add the metaphor of finding seeming similarity to Earth's naturally-growing "population vortex." Resisting the vortex's tightening pull, caused the Enterprise to crash into its sides, and their destruction. Of course by adding the magic of "time travel," they get a do-over. I see a lesson in it, that the "unthinkable" option was actually the best one. Let baby booms grow around the world. Relax and let people come alive
pronatalist 3 years ago
To notanumber6 (continued):
Captain Piccard's "clone" that had returned from the past, kept referring to some other mysterious alternative action, that the real Piccard (of that time frame) demanded of him, but he seemed caught in the past. The other option was "unthinkable." But Piccard NEEDED another option, as resisting the pull of the vortex only seemed to tighten its grip, and the spaceship's engines were beginning to buckle.
What if they don't resist? They got pulled through—OKAY.
pronatalist 3 years ago
I think you would make a more convincing argument if you referred to something in the real world. But thanks for the entertaining story.
notanumber6 3 years ago
The answer is evidently "No." Our urge to reproduce is too strong.
notanumber6 3 years ago 2
To notanumber6:
Our urge to reproduce is too strong?
Well that's for the good, so that all the more people can come to life and experience life.
What would be smart then, is to better ACCOMODATE our strong urges to reproduce, and welcome babies to push out naturally.
There is a natural remedy for powerful reproductive urges, welcoming pregnancies to naturally occur. The natural remedy for pregnancy is childbirth.
Relax and welcome the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To pronatalist: You prove my point.
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
No, I prove my point. Consider.
Option A: We fear natural change, we take to slaying one another to keep population from growing, and destroy ourselves something like in the days of Noah, before God judged the world with the Great Flood.
Option B: We fear change, but we fear telling the truth also, so we try to eliminate our populous neighbor countries, sinisterly pushing contraceptive imperilism, they call us "The Great Satan," we go to war
OPTION C: We smartly ADAPT/embrace
pronatalist 3 years ago
OPTION D: We really smartly ADAPT by encouraging families to stop at 2 children, making contraceptives and abortion services freely available, discouraging mass migrations, and thereby voluntarily reducing each country's population to a size that would support a good quality of life for everyone while not exceeding ecological carrying capacity.
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
That's isn't a 4th option, but just another rephrasing of Option B. Slay people through deception rather than more obviously attacking them.
The Population Vortex Metaphor: Episode of Star Trek TNG "Time Squared" had the ship caught into a mysterious suddenly-appearing vortex tugging at the Enterprise. Captain Piccard escaped in shuttlecraft, saw his ship explode, got thrown back in time. Real Piccard demanded of his clone—other option? Don't resist—Vortex mysteriously vanished
pronatalist 3 years ago
My option neither deceives nor kills anyone. Your option results in famine, disease, and a miserable death for millions and possibly billions of people.
Star Trek is science fiction, not science. It's also a TV show, where happy endings appear in exactly 1 hour. (BTW, how many babies are born on their space ship??)
Actual science has studied population growth and decline in all types of species. The concept of "carrying capacity" is Biology 101. You should learn about it.
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
What happens when pushing contraceptive coercion, isn't enough to convince everybody to be robbed of their God-given blessings of children? Since the motive is evil and false, why would it restrain itself to only the "milder" forms of coercion? Abuses unpunished, seem to invite all the more abuses.
BTW, how many babies are born on a Star Trek spaceship? Would be a huge number, were it a real "city" and not just a tiny flying "village." With no real work, births should be higher
pronatalist 3 years ago
You are the one who is dealing in falsehoods. My option does not coerce anyone, it does it require that "everybody" have no children, and there is no evil motive behind it.
As usual, you missed the point. The people on a spaceship must limit their fertility to avoid resource depletion and/or lethal levels of waste buildup. ITRW, Earth is our spaceship.
notanumber6 3 years ago
To notanumber6:
Any "option" that needlessly disparages human life, is coercive, and you must also consider what it leads to, when "leaders" other than you, follow you. What if the coercion doesn't sufficiently "control" fertility, what then? Population pessimist Paul Ehrlich calls for a "stop at 2" program lest "too many" people find they are good at nurturing children.
Generally in sci-fi, people do not need to limit fertility on spaceships, as spaceships are efficiently designed for density
pronatalist 3 years ago
why did i watch the whole video when i didn´t understand a thing?
CriticalBrainDamage 3 years ago
Watch it two or more times then, this is really important stuff.
sunny256 3 years ago 6
We are learning about exponential growth in school. I love to go yeast hunting with my friends. One time i got 500 lunabytes in one night!!!
xzigga 3 years ago
we sometimes have too much desire for things that we know will endanger or affect something but we take the chance either we are curious or we are that hungry
dondopa 4 years ago 2
Yes, we are either going to be forced to evolve and understand, or destroy ourselves. In my opinion, the problem is not overpopulation, but waste, pollution, and using non-renewable resources.
seapoidog 4 years ago 4
"In my opinion, the problem is not overpopulation, but waste, pollution, and using non-renewable resources."
Good point, however keep in mind that the former is a major contributor of waste, pollution, and the depletion of non-renewable resources. In fact, it is an accelerator of them (especially consumption of resources). More population mandates more substistence, the production of which leads to global warming (from toxins, CFC's, etc. released from industry).
Muaguana 3 years ago 2
We will reach a point in the near future where industrialized society will collapse or some calamity, natural or otherwise, will claim a massive portion of the human populace. Then things will be in balance and it will start over, so to speak. That, or will will be annihilated entirely. Either way, we cannot continue to advance at our current rate. When our population becomes too great to support, a holocaust will bring it back down to manageable proportions (or wipe us out).
Muaguana 3 years ago
(Note: I am not advocating a deliberate, man-made holocaust to reduce population; I used the term "holocaust" in reference to any disaster that would result in many human deaths, such as nuclear war or global starvation or a pandemic, not the Hitler-type holocaust.)
Muaguana 3 years ago
Great video!
djonova 4 years ago 3
EnviroWarrior10 4 years ago 2
You may add that: technology/science isn't the broblem. broblem is that politicians in governments are irresponsible.
Bmeson 4 years ago
So are consumers who don't think or care and so are coporations who lie and deceive about their practices... it's nice to be able blame others for the problems in the world but we have to look at ourselves with a sharply critical eye as well.
leifa1 4 years ago 6
so then you would prefer we go back to the days where there was no written language, life expectancy was 20-30 years, and people lived in isolated towns where there was routine inbreeding and massive disease outbreaks because they dumped sewage in the water they drank? imagine what life would be like without your precious computer, or telephone, or immunization shots, or disinfectants, or even running water?everything has good and bad, but you have to look at both sides.
Laratigergirl 4 years ago
Laratigergirl, life before the Industrial Revolution was not a shithole everywhere in the world from the dawn of our species. To make such vast statements glosses over any beauty in culture, and political, scientific, artistic, and academic advances, not to mention pisses on the graves of our ancestors.
seapoidog 4 years ago 4
we wouldnt be able to cotch our asses on computers..yes and we would have more sense in knowing that we are weak and not strong. and just live it naively and humbly whether there is a god or no god
dondopa 4 years ago
the number of doublings of productivity since the begining of economic growth is about 30, the same as the number of doublings to go from a single cell to a medium sized mamal like us. The trick is inside the system, whether it blows up to collaps or reaches maturity. lots on my site, Phil Henshaw
pfhenshaw 4 years ago 2
what r yeast
kikemallggh 4 years ago
google it
djcorpsman 4 years ago
The only problem is... the doctor can't give you a cream to rub on the yeast to kill them off. So what will happen in the future? Do you think the governments of the world will freak and go on mass slaughters to bring the population down?
tenchimuyo69 4 years ago
i think the nature will take care of it
djcorpsman 4 years ago 2
True, I doubt this is the first time the population became so high. I bet every time the population gets too high a natural disaster occurs. Ice age etc. And thus we end up with 10,000 people left, who then repopulate and it happens all over again.
tenchimuyo69 4 years ago
or we go extinct.
Laratigergirl 4 years ago
If you google video "The Money Masters"
Own thought on Gold-backed Money relates to Energy Availabity:
GoldStandard does not allow Fractional Reserve Banking!
Fractional Reserve Banking allows unfettered growth!
Unfettered Growth leads to global excess in energy demand!
Excess Energy/Economic Demand leads to UNPAYABLE FUTURE BILLS!
That's a disaster waiting to happen... 2009-2012? (downslope of Peak oil,2006-2007)
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago
Exponential growth in the use of gasoline has led to the point where growth is no longer possible. We are at the point of overshoot right now. Our transportation infrastructure, of cars, roads, and gasoline supply lines, will be unable to adapt in time to provide a non-gasoline solution.
Gasoline is a non-renewable resource (more specifically, the oil used as the raw material). We are within months or years of maximum worldwide gasoline (oil) production. This is known as peak oil.
newculture 4 years ago 2
Well first of all nobody knows how much more oil there is. Secondly, in Europe we have put heavy taxes on cars that doesnt drive long pr. unit fuel (thats mostly because of the CO2 outlet though). Therefore the average length pr. unit fuel is increasing steadily. And furthermore there are subsidies for electric and brint cars. So there is a solution to the problem.
Darinor 4 years ago