@RedSky - You aren't reading what I'm saying.

I'm talking about finding an equilibrium in which humanity can thrive economically, socially and environmentally.

I'm only saying that things like environmental damage, fracking, certain food production techniques, the current flavor of resource wars, and the fact that a massive proportion of our current population really can't feed itself are all evidence that the effort required to sustain current and future population levels doesn't fit my definition of finding balance.

The only point of no return I'm talking about is that at some point it will be essentially impossible to get to that place of balance that I favor. It's a nebulous concept for sure, but I do think it is relatively imminent and at the very least that we are heading in the wrong direction - especially in light of the notion proposed by this video where exponential growth can give you a false sense of security right up until just before you hit it.

I actually agree with you and think that earth could sustain an arbitrarily large population of say 20 billion or even more.

But we'd have to spend more of our time and efforts competing (sometimes violently) for the resources, we'd have to shape ever larger proportions of the natural world to our own narrow needs, we'd have to put up with a much less pleasant environment, and since it will be challenging enough to just get the resources to feed and clothe your own people, there is a really good chance that unfathomable (billions) quantities of human beings will be marginalized by this system and spend most of their time suffering.

Again, a far cry rom my definition of equilibrium.

As for your notion that vague global threats don't cause change, for starters I'm not sure that's true - there are significant popular environmental movements around the world and also some threshold of self interest can be breached. For example if you look at negotiations over things like the Kyoto protocols you will see that developing nations who are much more susceptible to environmental changes like shifting climates and rising sea levels are significantly more likely to sign on. It's no coincidence that Bangladesh and a few other island nations were the only countries to ratify the thing.

But there are also educational and social strategies that can have a huge effect. I think that you'd get a lot of mileage from just increasing women's rights around the world.

(Because I know you won't really read any links: Texas VOTED to REMOVE Capitalism from their textbooks. Yes, you read that correctly. Texas, REMOVED the word Capitalism from their textbooks because of negative connotations. Instead, you should use the term Free-Market Enterprise. So yeah, good thing those pesky liberals didn't vote to keep the word capitalism in the textbooks . . . )

You do know we have an education BECAUSE of liberalism. Much like everything else conservatives hold sacred . . .

You WILL mind dumb kids when they can't pay their taxes to support your liberal/socialist social security checks later in life, or the roads you have to drive on.

You WILL mind dumb kids when statistically speaking, less educated men are more likely to commit violent crimes and less educated women will have more children, which means more food stamps. You know, the things conservatives hate spending .5% of our annual government budget on.

So while us "liberals" have been petitioning for more teacher freedom, higher pay to attract better teachers, been against standardized tests and against for-profit schools, you conservatives can keep trying to hawk your proven to fail for-profit "capitalist" schools.

Oh, and I hate to tell you, but public schools don't teach kids to hate capitalism. Neither does the Lego Movie either. Turn off Fox News once in a while and step outside. Maybe talk to a total stranger (which means putting the gun down for a minute and not Standing Your Ground). Which coincidently, would diminish greatly with a robust liberal education. (In case you didn't get the play on words, as in teaching kids more than how to recite words and flip hamburgers. It's called A Mile Wide, An Inch Deep.

But hey, you would know all this if the Texas School Board wasn't eliminating pieces of history because they don't fit their current political agenda.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/texas-school-board-approves-controversial-textbook-changes/954/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20131122-texas-education-board-approves-science-books-that-fully-cover-evolution.ece (They wanted to prevent evolution from being taught despite the piles of evidence supporting it.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html You want to talk about "bias"? Yeah, conservatives are trying really hard to rewrite history in their favor by making sure no experts ever have a say in the selection of textbook material, but people who "feel" like there is a bias. You know, because truth has a well known liberal bias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/education/texas-education-board-flags-biology-textbook-over-evolution-concerns.html?_r=0

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the facts don't bear out in your case. Except, that our system is going downhill, but it's not because of their "liberal" education, that's for sure.

It should not be directly audible. It should be on all roads, subliminal, for instruction on how best to serve our country.

You know every time I drive through here I wonder if we should replace the television with something better, Hey! there's a WalMart right there. If that isn't a serendipitous coincidence I don't know what is!

Authorities stated that the Roto-Rooter truck seen speeding away from the area was just a coincidence.

Why didn't Lincoln buy the slaves before the war starts?

In his own words: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” ~Lincoln
&
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” ~Lincoln

He went to war to prevent secession, not to free the slaves. He was not looking for peaceful solutions to end slavery. And yes, most taxes the Federal government collected at the time came from the South. Coincidence?

Either this is a very well executed viral or an amazing coincidence. Either way colour me impressed.

What a coincidence as I have a similar reaction to all things Family Guy

More than human meaning more than the sum of (human) parts. And I didn't say corps are inherent to governments, I just used the fact that they're a product of a collection of humans - like governments - and serve their own interests that more than likely don't coincide with the interests of their (human) parts.

@Trancecoach

I never said people don't have self control, but if it were as simple as "eat less and exercise," no one would be unhealthy or obese. Instead, we're looking at a majority of the population that's overweight.

http://www.nourishinteractive.com/system/assets/general/images/nutrition-facts/portion-control-larger-portions.png

I'm not saying that it's the only reason for weight problems, but as the original article I posted points out "No one eats one and one quarter of an apple." Portion size increases provide correlative data that coincide with weight problems in developed countries. I've yet to see any data that suggests that people in the world, collectively, suddenly have less self control.

I'm no dietician, but I'd say that the low-fat food crazes of the 1980s and 90s played a role as well: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/low-fat/

Typical low-fat options replace the fat (and protein in some cases) with sugar which is burned quicker by the body.

I could go on and on, but I stand on the position that it's NOT just a simple matter of self control. AND even if it is, people have varying levels of self control that need to be accounted for: http://cess.nyu.edu/caplin/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Measuring-Self-Control-Problems.pdf

Surely, you don't think everyone has the same level of self control as you?


Edit: One last thing, sometimes people rely on food labels to restrict their diet and come up short because nutrition facts are often unreliable: http://nutritionovereasy.com/2011/04/can-you-trust-the-nutrition-facts/ Self control without good information is a bad mix.

Ugh, Pat Condell.

This guy's not interesting, insightful or funny. He happens to be right some of the time, but that more by coincidence than anything else. He's really just a dickhead.

What a coincidence. I'm sitting here licking a lollipop!

Every system has coercion.
The specifics may change, but they're all based around gaming the rules to get ahead, and preventing others from catching up.

Even if there are no government rules, you end up with private rules, set by the private owners of things you depend on, or things you have to work around or work with.

Deregulated systems are great, but they have one major flaw. Over time, you will end up with a monopoly. It's 100% certain. One business will always grow at least a tad quicker than others, and given enough time, will displace the others.
Especially when larger size creates beneficial economy of scale, and makes for prices that no one else can beat, which only accelerates the growth, leading to the inevitable.
This was the case for the U.S. in the "Rockefeller/Morgan/Vanderbilt-esque" days, and it is becoming the case to day in China.

(China is an amusing example. They have essentially wild-west capitalism and no effective labor laws. It's a bubbling brew of mega rich and mega poor. Much like pre-ww1-ish USA.)

Most economic crises we've had were the result of a few influential agents acting in their own best self interest, while their self interest did not coincide with national interest.

Local optima vs Global optima, mathematically speaking.

For example, oil speculation leads to higher oil prices, which means you can then sell your oil options for a good profit. It's quite good for the speculator.
It just isn't good for the rest of the nation, as higher energy costs drive down everyone else's profits/revenue.

In a more cartoonish sense, you can for example: get land real cheap by purchasing all the land around it, land-locking the access, and not agreeing to a public easement.
Then the land owner of the center-plot is holding worthless land, it's useless to anyone else, and the only possible customer is you.
You get to set the price, because it's you or nobody.
*Also, this is a real example that happened in my neighborhood.

-scheherazade

So it's just a coincidence that countries with low income inequality tend to be more regulated?

Look it up if you don't believe me. start here

Crazy. I'm a doctor of clinical psychology, but I just today learned about this girl by way of the recent VSauce episode! And here's the NOVA episode about her. Strange coincidence...

Somewhat ironic: Aslan is Turkish for Lion, and is also the name of the Lion in C. S Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, a character who represents Jesus, at least in parts. COINCIDENCE? probably. but still!

I think the outrage is not that it paints Jesus poorly, but that the implication is that he is "merely" an extraordinary man rather than the Son of God and our Saviour. You know, kinda like how calling a stick figure Muhammad somehow diminishes his glory.