Sorry, I'm unclear why you are comparing killing a few hundred dolphins a year to killing the buffalo (which were slaughtered by the millions). I already said the international community should intervene if there was any threat to the continuation of the species by the hunting and no such threat has been shown. And livestock raising is as much of an ecological threat (see this U.N. report) if not more so than overfishing, seeing as it is directly tied to global warming.

I'm curious where you got the facts on Japanese cuisine? I'm also curious what you think the Japanese people should eat if not fish? Before replying, please read this incredibly well-researched essay about the state of food consumption and production in Japan. You'll also want to read this article about the state of maritime fishing which shows that Japan is not nearly as much of a culprit as you seem to be implying--many countries around the world rely on maritime fishing to feed their people--and that by properly managing fishing hauls sustainability can indeed be maintained. In Japan's case especially, because the population (and hence demand for food) will continue to decrease over the next 50 years.

I suspect you are not basing your opinions about Japan off of the evidence. Perhaps you read the articles about blue-fin tuna consumption (Japanese consume 80% of all blue-fin tuna caught and stocks are hitting dangerously low levels), in which case you definitely have an argument against consuming that particular fish but it seems a bit odd to extend that argument to say Japanese people should not be eating fish or that they somehow don't care about the environment.

I like Bill Nye. But this whole argument treats 'Africa' (as only one example of a region of the underdeveloped and exploited world) as the nebulous hell-region where bad things happen. He cites examples of these bad things, but then, in a characteristically bourgeois fashion, he focuses on the consumptive problems (not enough aid, not enough to eat, no enough medicine, etc). And who is responsible for this? The first-world, capitalist zones of power (the US, Europe, 'civilization', etc).

Why don't we actually look at the production-side of things. Why can't Africa produce its own resources? It once was able to, very efficiently and without problems. That is, until imperialism happened. We are taking about a continent that was broken up into artificial nations, where agriculture was transformed into cash crops, where millions were shipped off as slave labor. We are talking about a continent that has tried for hundreds of years to fight for liberation for itself, only to have these imperialist countries keep their stranglehold on its neck.

(go wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Cabral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

My point here is that the whole discussion of more or less foreign aid presupposes an Africa that cannot feed itself. The solution is not to continue a dependent relationship. The solution is a sustainable and liberated Africa, who has economic control over her resources, and political freedom for her own people. the solution is self-determination, not should the US try to feed more of the kids? (whose starvation is rooted in the US's wealth. )

/end rant

@Trancecoach

I think Jigga's making the argument on the collective level. Yes, we can all use self control to limit portion sizes.

But collectively, where the multimillion dollar funding of fast food marketing departments is geared towards incentivising larger portions as a method of eking out more profit from their saturated (excuse the pun) market size, it's quite likely that average calorie consumption goes up on the whole.

That doesn't excuse taking responsibility for your actions, and certainly you could tackle it with education campaigns rather than regulation or bans, but there's certainly a relationship here between incentives and national health.

And he's moving a lot of mass. Stop-and-going, accelerating and stopping that large mass would be quite arguably terribly inefficient economically (wear and tear; increased fuel consumption)---and big rigs being jerked to a stop is scary.

As a side issue, smooth slow traffic is definitely better for fuel consumption (and therefore emissions) than stop start traffic, even at a lower average speed.

Whomever discovered that beaver anal gland juice could be extracted for consumption is a true champion of industry (and imagination)!

It's a set-up for what's going to be ubiquitous in less than 20 years A10anis, cameras on every pole (wi-fi, infrared, audio, facial recognition software) and a cop's nose up every corner of your ass at the great cost of having ended the 'great experiment' -

Feinstein is only a shill for power-brokers and a miniature version of someone whose mentality of "I, Me, Mine" let's a few people dictate the their will over of every person on the planet who is not in their small circle.

Mind you, they believe that the bulk of humanity are not suited to dictate the course of the planet but hey; The same people who have chosen to guide the course of humanity's burst off the planet would keep us rhesus monkeys in small, manageable boxes while they romp freely around the globe with the bulk of our assets and the maximum amount of power to dictate further every aspect of our lives.

The real power they will not wield is to provide for the basic needs and education of the throw-backs of humanity who would rather perpetrate violence and promulgate fear to maintain arcane sensibilities and uncivilized backward ideologies which are anti-evolutionary and savage, using anti-evolutionary and savage people to enforce what looks like order, which is in actuality, the same barbaric practice of subjugation, imprisonment, and fear.

The solution is to limit expansion of population until these ideologies are stamped-out like the insectoid disease that they are, that of a limited perspective based on arcane patterns of thought. We could do this through compassion and education but the established powers see a different solution that will protect their interests-

People like Diane Feinstein and her ilk see the rest of humanity as dogs and cattle. Unprivileged, unworthy flesh with which to extort from them their labor, their minds and souls to their utopian ends, at the cost of our unique humanity.

The same virulence that atheist's have against the western Christan diaspora, these elites have for anyone not aligned with their totalitarian ends.

That they justify their courses of action with propaganda like this, fear-induced surrender to force and control, is against all that is humane and righteous.

Bombs in subways?? Solution: No one has privacy or freedom of expression or thought beyond that which exist behind their eyes and between their ears-Greeeeeat. Your world, not mine.

Next will come thought crimes, cordoned neighborhoods, etc.

Start now by getting some of the comparatively neanderthal segments of humanity into those boxes, limit THEIR freedoms through educating them to at LEAST the level of 17th-century socialization before turning the entire world into a forced labor-camp.

Bread and circuses only work for so long before the emperor's clothes are set alight by those less inclined to hear shit as well as being forced to eat it.

Anarchy would solve some of the discord in civilized countries.

Fucking China-Get those insects to stop cranking-out useless consumption items at an exponentially toxic pace as well-Their version of the world makes Orwell's look like a clam bake. How? Stop using it. Create artisans and craftsman again and develop in every human an appreciation for THAT WHICH LASTS, rather than I WANT NOW, FIRST!

Americans, Europeans drunk on technology, disposable clothing, instant gratification and entertainment are a herd of disposable mental midgets to the Diane Feinsteins of the world.

Sick dance we're learning....I just hope we can stand the dervish without blacking-out.

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.

So what he's saying is do cocaine because it lasts longer, allowing your dopamines to replenish and decreasing consumption? Gimme some cocaine NOW.

@artician

Even if the models for the decline of empires are inexact, poorly sourced or even exaggerated, they are doing so to combat the overwhelming force of the status quo that feeds us a constant stream of comforting, mind-numbing bliss through mass media, mostly delivered though TV news, advertising and cleverly veiled in the actual entertainment that the audience enjoys.

It's hard to mount a comeback against a presupposed cultural truth supported by any form of economic interest. The tobacco industry, for example, mounted powerful misinformation and doubt as scientific evidence slowly leaked out that smoking was harmful. People just don't want to hear that the way they live and what they "know" to be true is going to change and that personal choice is going to have to be limited to some extent.

The same is true for global warming, deforestation, species extinction, pollution, etc., etc. You can resist the "ineffectual mumblings" of Hitchens, Chomsky and the like, but you do so to at your own peril. People like you are the do-do bird in this scenario. People like you are the 2 pack-a-day smoker who thinks they've been smoking for 20 years and feeling fine so why quit now. "Screw the scientists, they're all out to make themselves rich so they concoct these cackamamy experiments to 'prove' they need more research funding." Okay, it's your right to dismiss the advice of people smarter than you.

This video follows the same vein as Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist series (which I suggest you watch or rewatch for shits and giggles.) The idea of consumption tax seems a lot easier for our system to adopt than Joseph's idea of a "Resource-Based Economy." It just sounds more fair that those consuming resources pay back into the system and less airy-fairy than some socialist "to-each as to his need" idea. And let's face it, it's right on a social level. It's just too hard to get there based on our current economic and political structure.

Our wasteful way of life is just unsustainable. I don't think anyone can deny that the ponzi scheme of FIAT money is eventually going to collapse because the balance of wealth is way out of whack AND ONLY GETTING WORSE. And the USA is at the top, and yet owes trillions in funny money that they can only pay back if they stop building missiles and tanks. But I think we all know that when the shit hits the fan, we're going to want to get behind those tanks to ride out the storm of resistance from the 99%. Not the privileged 99% in the west, the 99% of destitute, impoverished poor that build the toys, sew and clothes, glue the plastic Walmart crap, and GROW THE FOOD that we want.to have cheap. We're doing this all on the backs of the "free slaves" in undeveloped countries: Columbia, Bangladesh and on and on.

Search your feelings, Luke. You know it to be true.

Great video.

Not sure I agree about a return to the gold standard and their consumption based tax system, but it was definitely worth a watch.

Also, they spoke a lot about classical economists and even mentioned FDR, but not a mention of Keynes, or about how the most successful states (in terms of equality and citizen happiness) follow a more socialist stance

Notice the officer who equates rape and murder with marijuana consumption.

Deadweight: 165,000 tonnes
Engines: Twin MAN ultra-long stroke diesel engines, rated at 32 MW each, with fuel consumption of 168 g/kWh[19]
Propellers: Twin propellers, with 4 blades, 9.8 m in diameter-per da wiki, some big-ass engines.

"But people use it to get loaded! Think of the children! Now there are two drugs to use!"
Seriously, that's Samuels main argument against legalisation?
First of all, hell yes, people want to get high. Weed isn't healthy but it's certainly healthier than alcohol.
Second, legalisation would also mean a higher likelyhood of age verification. Dealers don't check for ids, store might with the right laws in place. Works for alcohol, doesn't it?
Third, they already have weed available for consumption. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it everywhere. You don't add it to the available drugs, you just change how you handle it.

The only good argument I know against legalisation is this: What kind of industry would the weed industry become in a country where favourable legislation can be bought by the highest bidder? Worse than the tobacco industry?
That's where it may become scary.

i think a more basic explanation is that humanity at this stage of our evolution is generally very self interested. and given the opportunity, humans gravitate towards self-interest.
it's really just another example of our present stage of evolution which, on a planetary timeline, is still in it's infancy.

On a grand scale, our overall tendency towards self-interest and our complete lack of species awareness is causing the rapid consumption of our ecosystem.

A more evolved understanding of species behavior suggest that cooperative behavior, rather than competitive, is much more beneficial to all, including the individual.

Everything good in our lives has come through a process of sharing, not competition. Whether it is language, art, science or mathematics. We are products of a communal effort, yet we continue to glorify the more primitive instinct -- competition.