Sounds great, but their timeline seems way too optimistic to me. Still, the opportunity for profit just might be what is needed to push us into becoming adept in space as a truly space-faring species. This announcement, as well as a Japanese company's intention to build a space elevator by 2050... I just wish I could be around to see it. Maybe science will have invented an anti-aging pill before then.

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^shinyblurry:

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY



The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.

That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:

"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom

>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY

I see it coming... ESL pro Leauge for the elderly. And I even see my own future. In 2050 bragging about how we used to play Quake 3 with our own Hands... Not this new Age hippity hop neural control interface.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Russians have crap, numbers-wise, for their next generation of workers. Birth rates are down and death rates so high that they stand to lose more than 20% of their population by 2050. Putin said of this in 2006, "The most acute problem of contemporary Russia". They're trying to up the sexcapades to get kids pumping out more. They even had a kiss-fest in Moscow and a 'day of conception' in June, offering prizes for babies etc.


It's like Panda's...soon we'll have russians in zoos and people will be shoving them together yelling "SAVE YOUR SPECIES!!!"

Russians have crap, numbers-wise, for their next generation of workers. Birth rates are down and death rates so high that they stand to lose more than 20% of their population by 2050. Putin said of this in 2006, "The most acute problem of contemporary Russia". They're trying to up the sexcapades to get kids pumping out more. They even had a kiss-fest in Moscow and a 'day of conception' in June, offering prizes for babies etc.

It's our fault these unfortunate wretches are alive in the first place, so I suppose in some twisted maneuver of fate we are somewhat responsible for them: African population in 1909, before Westeners starting pumping in meds, cash and social programmes, ~100 million. Population projection for 2050.. 2 BILLION.

We need to let nature take its course.. if our civilization falls it will lessen the eventual horrors of Africa.

Oh @netruner, how I love thee.(seriously, no sarcasm. I think you're one of the most valuable members of the sift.) Yes, I realize that both parties are to blame. Some more than others. I made my earlier comment based on an article I read the other day that discussed the dems turning down a bill that would amount to a balanced budget by 2050 (and even be pulling in several billion more than we'd be spending, from what I remember) because republicans didn't want to raise taxes, though now that I think about it, those taxes were probably on large businesses and loopholes.



What we really need is a law that says no member of congress shall be allowed to receive any money from any lobbying firm, business or individual who is a high-level employee (board member type guys) of any large company worth over "x" amount of dollars. Loopholes need to be closed, but social programs also need to be cut or seriously re-vamped. What REALLY needs to happen is to close behemoth and redundant federal offices that are better left to states or that sates already have.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Whites are already minorities, both by corruption and deliberately erasing American principles and history. Or didn't you notice that Whites are exempt from equal protection under the law ("hate crimes") when the assailant(s) are Black? Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights. And right now, you know as well as I do if you utter anything a minority finds offensive in 'polite' company--including demonstrable facts--our vicious, retarded 'multi-cultural' society-keepers will escort you to the street. And really, what is a "minority" anyway? Women outnumber men and yet the former remains a minority. Whites are already minorities in California. There is no "reverse affirmative action" there.

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war.

This is a retarded argument; I know you didn't create it, but yeah, it's out there, and "they" will believe anything as "they" have never been taught differently. These "clever" lefties who claim Whites were trespassers in primitive centuries the world over is ridiculous. Back then there were no unified nations with solid borders, language and culture in the New World to invade, just warring Indian "nations". They forget that England and France, countries filled with White guys--were at war with each other for centuries. And let's not forget all the Asian nations, each one a cultural gem...that wants all other Asian peoples destroyed. The Chinese and Japanese are mortal enemies, and neither likes Koreans.

Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

If Mexican and African minorities are the future for America, I don't expect any respect of Whites' rights, or right to exist, just like now. There's a whole poor-me victimization industry out there. They create enemies (and excuses) out of whole cloth.

If you want a glimpse of America's fucked-up future, look at Mexico. Mexicans are fine people and Mexican immigrants who assimilate have enriched America, yet somehow their original cultural model in Mexico is simply fucked, an entire nation with enormous natural resources yet run by kleptocrats and drug lords. Anyone concerned with American 'plutocracy' should view the shit going on down yonder.

You sort-of asked but I'm telling you--all of you--anyway. When the White American population falls below 50%, it's Game Over for American principles. America in 2050 will be an even bigger parody of what it is now. Detroit is the future of America. Brokeass idiot California is the future of America. Americans all over are voting with their feet right now. They're leaving liberal meccas and moving to business-friendly states with low taxes (don't expect to hear anything about it on CNN or MS-DNC). But it can't last. Soon there'll be nowhere to run.

I've already made peace with the idea that there will be a civil war, hopefully States against the federal leviathan. And I fully expect DC to turn a war of principles into a racial thang to save its ugly ass.

This isn't about racial "superiority" in the slightest, but if you'll direct your attention to the screen, which races have invented the most advanced tech, including the best kinds of government (so far)? Don't answer that, you'll just be nailed to the cross of tolerance.

I'm Jewish (by blood, not faith) so I figure I'm screwed anyway. I guess I can scooch to Israel. Observe that many of the new kickass technologies were invented by Israelis, while Silicon Valley is stuck holding its dick with eco-green bullshit. "Next year in Jerusalem!" Nice and peaceful over there.

Really, I don't overly give a shit any more. The wrong people now control schools that shouldn't even exist, so the generations coming up are ignorami. The wrong peeps run most of the media and entertainment that arguably appeal to the worst sides of humanity. Freedom is hard work. Who wants that?

Getting angry at me for telling the truth will just waste your time. I already know how you FEEL. Those loudly announcing that neurosurgeons and witch doctors are cultural equals in the name of multicultural tolerance now run the show. And when the show ends they quietly go see the neurosurgeon.

Libertarian ethos ain't gonna save us. Neither will socialism. Mayhap it would be better if the world ended next year.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.
It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?
Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.
And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.
And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^chilaxe:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Yogi" title="member since May 15th, 2009" class="profilelink">Yogi, If we downplay the countless ineffective protests that waste everyone's time and cost billions, we're cherry picking in order to create a desirable narrative.
Too bad Tea Partiers learned this secret weapon... since protesting is so effective, they're going to be unstoppable.
How many of those protesters who derive their happiness from their hopes for society instead of from themselves are going to be just as unhappy in 2050 as they are now, and as they were in 1970, protesting for the exact same causes?


Sorry but I answered your question...there has been many protests that had great affects without creating a movement. That was what was posed to me I answered it, you want to change the question now to what about the feelings of the protesters who failed or the number that has failed? I don't care move the bar all you want.

I would point out though in the 70's and 80's was the greatest time for change in our nations history...not the 60's. We had the Women's movement, the eco movement, and several others and we can see their effects today. Just take any university, it was 99% white males, now it's half women and mixed races that's an accomplishment and it wasn't won easily.

Small protests have their place as well as big protests, you decided that no small protest has ever done anything and I corrected you.

@Yogi, If we downplay the countless ineffective protests that waste everyone's time and cost billions, we're cherry picking in order to create a desirable narrative.

Too bad Tea Partiers learned this secret weapon... since protesting is so effective, they're going to be unstoppable.

How many of those protesters who derive their happiness from their hopes for society instead of from themselves are going to be just as unhappy in 2050 as they are now, and as they were in 1970, protesting for the exact same causes?

Fisheries policy, like the agricultural policy, is all about individual countries trying to protect the jobs of their people. Too many short term politicians pandering to their electorate result in too many short term decisions against the long term sustainability of our fisheries, which we're really going to need come 2050 when the world population hits 9 billion.

Fishermen are still behaving like hunters roaming further and further afield when they can't find fish locally, instead of acting like responsible farmers who have to protect their land if they want it to continue producing food. Except that irresponsible farmers are over-using fertilizers and herb/pesticides which are washing off into the ocean, some of which act like fish hormones decreasing their ability to reproduce, and others create oxygen depleted algal blooms in which fish can't live.

Sometimes I wish I had an orbital ion cannon and a C&C interface to the world. Then we'd see who makes stupid decisions on my watch...

@Matthu : Oh lord and lady where do I start with you.

1) The founding fathers wrote The Constitution as a living document. They realized, 234 years ago, that shit changes. Mountains move, rivers redirect their flow, and the prevalence of a thought changes. When they wrote "All men are created equal" they meant, at the time, "All white land owning men are created equal." If you want to go around touting an unreasonable idea that our current or future freedoms are explicitly stated in the document you set yourself up for failure just on that note.

2) Preaching and Prayer are too different things. It's the difference between a fire and brimstone sermon and "As I lay me down to sleep." One would, yes, be happening at Park 51, but not the one you fear.

3) Are most Muslims fundamentalist? No, just as most Christians aren't either. And if you have to say "I could be wrong" 99% of the time you will be. Just a little Pro-Tip for ya.

4) Christianity is mainstream, I will admit this. But I rally against stopping this community center for the same reason you seem to want to ban churches: We have freedom of religion, yet we are acting intolerant of anything that isn't the mainstream. We claim to fight for minorities while at the same time trying to limit them or outright eliminate them.

5) I got new for you: Despite your claims Christianity is still King of Kings in terms of religion. Where do you get 80% by 2050, and what sources to they cite? Please, enlighten me!

6) I am, however, going to agree with you on what is happening to women. But it's not Islam's fault. It's our (men) meat heads, not religion, that is the cause. You see it in America where it's a monumental even to have some position filled by a woman that isn't a sexual one. Islam.is.not.to.blame. We are inherently fucked up as a species, driven both by sapience and instinct.

I posted to my blog earlier my other thoughts on this so I'll just leave that link there .

Maybe effective treatments using regenerative medicine (stem cells) will be available starting around the years 2030-2050.