Human governments can learn a lot from nature, including the natural Emergent orders of ant colonies. These are anarchic systems which adapt into collective (i.e., socialist or communist) or transactional (i.e., capitalist) forms of functionality in the absence of central control.

First, calling David Suzuki "Colonel Sanders" is embarrassing to the entire human race.

Also, to the suggestion in the comments above that 'technology will save us', ..one of the major points of the video is that it buys us 'two minutes'. It has, and it won't keep buying us comparable time. Actually, part of 'science saving us' is this video itself. Population models, and everything we know about life on this planet tell us that we need to radically change how we do things, or widespread famine, war, and environmental and social destruction are inevitable. If you want science to save us, you need to start listening to it.

..and about colonizing other planets. There is no planet we could ever get to, EVER, that would, in its current condition, support a human colony. We can't seem to turn around a one degree change in Earth's global temperature. It is not rational to assume that we could make another planet suitable for human life.

@Yogi, @enoch, Consider the fact that, had the American colonies not seceded from England (not unlike what the Confederates attempted to do from the Union, eh?), the British Crown would have ended slavery in the American Colonies without war and far sooner than it did. So, for those who say that it was right to "end slavery now no matter the cost," was the American Revolutionary war a good thing, given that it prolonged slavery for as long as it did?

The Civil War cost ten times what it would have cost the Federal government to simply buy all the existing slaves and free them. Already at that time, importing new slaves was illegal in all of the states, including the South. So that would have been the end of it. What if, say, 6 southern slave owners refused to sell no matter how much money they got (doubtful, but let's say they were crazy)? Would the Civil War have been worth it because of these six guys?

It would not have been worth it to either the North or the South. Their own neighbors would have set them free.
And southern legislators would have changed the laws to free them. If history shows us anything, it shows us that all politicians have a price.
The US bribes governments all over the world (it's called 'foreign aid'). Do you really think the southern governors would have been any different than all politicians throughout history?
Even now, do you prefer to bribe and threaten "rogue" countries or engage in so-called 'necessary' Iraq-style invasions?
The likelihood falls clearly on the 6% of southerners who owned slaves to take the money and retire rich rather than having to go to war.
Even explaining some math to them may have moved things along, like how hiring low wage worker was cheaper than the cost of keeping slaves.

> ""Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work."

More private school wisdom? So sad. I actually grew up in a colony.

> "They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please)."

They were upset about a 3% tax dude. 3%.

> "Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept."

This from the guy who says he pays little in taxes?

I can't speak for them, but I know quite a number of folks who would find it quite laughable that you think that you contribute your "fair share" to the roads you use as compared to that which they contribute relative to their use of the roads. But I guess that you can convince yourself of anything with enough confusion.

""'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.""

Like I said, you may enjoy your station. Some statists are actually benefitting from the system.

Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work.
There were many non-British in America, from many different places, when the British colonies were established. They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please). That's what the private schools taught me.
Oh, then I guess you're writing to yourself...I'll stop responding now unless you direct a reasoned question at me...as you've repeatedly implied you would.
Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept.
'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.

"The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.""

Um, is this really what they taught you in those private schools you attended? Yikes! The redcoats were the British army/police. The colonies were British (until a small group of colonists claimed otherwise).

"You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points"

I have done no such thing. Like I said, you've done nothing to interest me in correcting any of your errors in thinking.

"Well, I'm confused."

Yes, I'd say so.

"shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous"

If serfdom make you happy, then by all means, be a serf! For me, there are many legal ways to avoid the non-duty. Just ask Romney and practically any/every crony and rich non-crony, and anyone who's actually paying attention. In the meantime, I've far better things to do with my time than attempting to argue you out of the kind of thinking which conduces the bottom of the social ladder.

Yes, I know. It's not technically a jellyfish, but a colonial animal.

I don't care. It looks like a jellyfish and stings like a bastard.

@bcglorf - That was the original intent of the 2nd amendment, to allow the people to keep the government in check. They wanted to mitigate the possibility of any heads of state from becoming overzealous and using their power against the people. The British tried to put an embargo on firearms and tried to disarm the colonies in order to leave them defenseless against the British military, and the revolutionaries didn't want that to happen to the people again.

Checks and balances were a major part of the planning of our government. If the three branches somehow failed to keep each other in check, it would be up to the people to defend themselves from tyranny.

Nowadays local government is more likely a threat to individual citizens than is a tyrannical dictator, but the constitution doesn't seem to help much on that front. The only thing that seems to keep police in check, for example, is the video camera. And even then, innocent people end up dead, and cops end up with relatively light or no punishment.

That's human nature for you.

It's like watching an ant colony!

Whoa...death is not a tragedy or suffering, it is natural and for the love of, sorry the pun, I hope not to live forever. That punishment would be unbearable. Who the fuck would be stupid enough to want that?

And we raised the standard of living off the suffering of others. Slavery, colonialism, racial oppression, for fuck sake we made the holocaust and nukes to prove we like to taste suffering. Now being showered to death by gas and being melted but alive by radiation--that's fucked up.

Capitalism isn't much better. And we are only able to sit at our tables with smiles and a good life because we have abundance (At others' suffering.) What happens when that lifestyle runs out? I mean really runs out. Will we still be so civil? I say fuck no...

1) Don't be confused, and think that I've decided the casting of ant colonies for art is justified. I'm pointing out that the issue is more complex than many, including yourself, may realize. I find the video disturbing... and unlike our resident @ant have not voted for it.
2) Please look up Godwin's law. Using Nazi analogies generally undermines your argument.. it just makes it hard for people to accept that you have thought things through.
3) But hey, assuming that you have thought things through, let's continue with your analogy:
Perhaps the holocaust analogy does work, but to be sure the fire ants are not the Gypsies, they are the Germans. Fire ants are rapidly spreading across the world, drastically reducing both the abundance and diversity of native species. This includes native ant species, as well as a huge range of arthropod prey, potentially plants (through seed consumption), and even small vertebrates (e.g. lizards and ground nesting birds).
If you are arguing from a pacifistic stance, that violence against another creature is never justified, even if it is in the defense of others more helpless or in self-defense, I thoroughly respect that position. Although any violence turns my stomach; I cannot say that I agree.. for sure, the next time I get an infection, I will take antibiotics; the next time I see purple loosestrife, I will tear it from its roots.

Red Hot Nickel Ball vs. Ant Colony in 5..4..3..2....

The description indicates that this is a "fire ant" colony. Although it's not certain, these are likely invasive 'fire ants'.
Setting aside for a moment the obvious argument that humans are also an invasive species, there are several reasons to kill invasives, and this was not a particularly nasty way to do it.

Now, he also casts carpenter ant colonies, which are likely indigenous to his area.. that, in my opinion, is weaker ethical footing.

@ant isn't pleased.

Perhaps, non-coincidentally, the finished cast of the colony doesn't look too dissimilar from a piece of coral.