I don't think anyone's advocating forced population control here.

I only think that people are advocating that a greater emphasis on family planning be incorporated into your prescription for everyone to "control his own activities and teach his neighbor the virtues of his infinitely sustainable choices."

Doing this too fast would be demographic suicide for a lot of complicated reasons, I don't think anyone is denying that, but a very significant organic reduction over the course of a few centuries would be beneficial for humanity and could be reasonably attained. It's certainly less far-fetched than mass colonization of Mars or Venus in the same timeframe.

And that's an important distinction here. We aren't really concerned about the environment here. We're concerned about what's best for us.

The environment is going to shrug us off and incorporate all our plastic, CO2, and evidence of narrowing biodiversity into a few more strata and continue doing its thing. It has survived mass extinctions before.

It's ridiculous to think that we can even destroy the environment. Our population size and its destructive effects would be reduced to insignificance long before we hit a point of no return and the biosphere's existence is even slightly threatened.

We should be framing the argument in terms of how to achieve an environmental equilibrium in which humanity can live in a comfortable and humane manner.

I think we're a lot closer to a point of no return with regards to achieving that goal.

For my money I'd say that exponential population growth isn't pointing us in that direction, and living - as I do - in a rapidly modernizing "second world" country tells me that bringing all eight billion of us to affluence too quickly poses its own significant dangers.

Let's not forget that this videos two main points are that we are demonstrably in a period of exponential growth, and that exponential growth from the limited perspective of the inside can be deceptive. Points of no return that seem far away are in fact very close.

No.. that's a different argument entirely. Religion at least has a baseline of morality you can fall back upon and say that it can promote at least a modicum of good.

This broad, however, literally preys upon those who are in a grief spiral, offering promises of comfort through nothing more than deception.

Don't get me wrong, push comes to shove, I'll tear apart religions with the best of them.. but I can at least see a small merit in religion.

Definitely would.. if only she hadn't turned down the offer to take the Randi test.

From Wiki:

"In 2012, the James Randi Educational Foundation awarded Caputo a Pigasus Award for being, in its view, the "psychic" performer who fooled the greatest number of people with the least effort in the preceding year. A Pigasus award was also given to TLC for continuing to air the show.[59] In an article published by Wired Magazine the organization's founder James Randi explained why he believed shows like Long Island Medium were deceptive and potentially harmful to its participants:

Why do these pseudo-psychic spectacles bother those of us at the James Randi Educational Foundation? First, and foremost: They are not true. [...] But much more importantly to us, such performances seem to prey on people at their most vulnerable moments — those who have suffered the loss of loved ones — and these mediums use such grief to make a buck. Psychologists tell us this keeps the grieving stuck in their grief, rather than going through the natural stages of acceptance that are healthy.
—James Randi[1]

In June of that year, Caputo appeared in a commercial for Priceline.com in which she portrayed herself "connecting" with the late Priceline Negotiator character previously played by William Shatner.[60] However, this commercial has sparked controversy, since the commercial appears to make light of the Native American belief of smudging.[61] JREF President DJ Grothe issued a statement decrying Priceline.com: "It is difficult to watch the show and not feel heartbroken for those who are desperate to hear from the departed... and even more so if they are being manipulated by a charlatan." Grothe urged the organization to have their new spokeswoman take the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge and prove her paranormal claims."

I hate to say it, but because of how dumb some people are, I actually think there is a decent chance that there was no deceptive intent. I'd be willing to bet someone in charge honestly thought that the tall cup held more than the other.

I don't think it's really that bad to come to the correct answer in 10, even 15 minutes to what is essentially a vague guessing game?

Numbers in ascending order isn't really a Black Swan scenario, this isn't something people couldn't fathom existing, it's just an arbitrary rule he decided on in a system all the people were familiar with, numbers.

All it really showed was people are slow to activate their critical thinking skills when randomly stopped in the street, once they get warmed up with a few throw-away guesses, there reasoning becomes more complex.

I don't see anything unusual about that, especially since half the problem was actually just deceptive word play.

@VoodooV

what strawman?
if you are going to accuse someone of using a deceptive tactic at least understand the terminology bubba.

and you are correct.
i did just make a statement and did not clarify my reasons.
so let me clarify:

you compared the imminent threat of hostages who are in danger of physical harm or death to a possible dissident who may..or may not..be plotting harm in the future sometime as somehow being similar.

this is a logical fallacy.
your analogy is flawed.
and it does not stand.

i didnt feel i had to point this out due to the fact that @Yogi had already given you an example of executive abuse of powers.

i mean really..how do you surrender to a drone?

i apologize if i stepped over some imaginary line,or if you think i am attacking you in some fashion.

i am not....but ill refrain from engaging with you in any fashion if that is your desire.

I can't really speak for Systema, and there are certainly some people in aikido who focus on mystic nonsense.

But the base underlying principles are sound. I've been taken apart by a 73 year old man literally half my size. I've also trained with other people in various jujutsus, and both of us have found something to learn from the other.

I don't really think it's self-deception. Maybe for some people, it is, but I'm under no illusion about how well I'd do against one of the UFC guys.

Besides, people seem to think that Aikido practitioners are somehow restricted to the demonstrated techniques. IMO, those are merely teaching aids, the "finger pointing at the stars", if you like

Ultimately, debating martial arts on the internet is even more pointless than debating with creationists. You really need to experience each art to understand it. If it isn't for you, that's fine; find something else that is.

It is true that MMA is not the be-all end-all of martial arts,and in fact "two persons of equivalent weight competing willingly on neutral ground" is quite far removed from "actual trouble" (key words: "two", "willingly").

That being said, two things:
1) There have been 'no-hold-barred' fights / underground duels recorded since at least the 1920s, some of them very violent and bone-splitting (famously: Kimura Vs Gracie), and 'soft' aikido-style systems never won anything.

2) More importantly, systema does claim a number of things, including being a martial art in the military sense, and being the product of an elite military force, to which it was reserved (i.e. it was secret). It also claims to have semi-mystical roots dating from the middle ages, and bonker stuff like 'paralyzing soft punch' and 'healing punch' (this is claimed by its actual founder - you can look it up). Of course none of those claims have been substantiated.

So systema is either:
- An elite martial art with Fist-Of-The-North-Star like powers, yet no one heard of it before or beside (not pre-USSR historians, not recognized Russian martial artists, and not actual Russian elite military officers), and was/is super-secret, yet can be somehow taught to anyone.

Or:
- Stuff made up by two guys out of the army.

You decide.

If your goal is "studying" and "bettering yourself", shouldn't that involve something that's honest with its claims?

I agree with Velocity5, it is, indeed, self-deception.

This video is self-deception, same as Aikido and every other martial arts scam.

Prove these techniques in an MMA match or GTFO.

Stop putting astrology nonsense out into the world.

That really brought a smile to my face. I personally don't know how to act around people I meet in every day life, so interactions with disabled people have always been extra difficult. I do my honest best to be a kind person to everyone, but I fail miserably in that (phobias and avoidance, nothing mean, ever). I dig Russell Brand for his insane dip into celebrity and then the rationalization and intelligence to come out the other side seeing things as they really are for everyday individuals (politically, etc).
This video just makes my day because he's so wonderful to this girl, and she makes my day for pursuing her goals so honestly (or deceptively, in terms of affection).

*dead -- "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content..."

Title was deceptive...thought something completely different...

The controlling group of men who made the decisions on Vietnam thru to Iraq, with all the bombing, drug running, kidnapping, sponsoring of death squads, torture and mass slaughter of civilians (not to mention spraying toxins on poor ghettos at home, shooting student protestors etc etc.) are in the same league. Start with the 'terror bombing' of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you like (Curtis LeMay's words not mine). The Bush family were in from the start.

If you take this as a 'Regime', then the numbers are right up there and, as stated, operating from a dramatically more comfortable position. The historical villains mentioned all had backgrounds that any psychiatrist would ring alarm bells about and their societies were in tatters when they came to power.
But Dubya for example? Privileged draft dodging frat boy living in the most comfortable place and time in all of human history.. how many did he kill in a deceptive money grab? Oh yeah, they 'don't count dead babies'. Even the hawks are conceding its in the millions now, and that's just the last 10 years of near 70..

The information in this video is deceptively incomplete. Modern major-release movies are enormously expensive to make and a big part of their profit calculation includes the worldwide market. In fact, country-specific versions of these films are often released in overseas markets, sometimes with new characters/scenes added just for them.

So while it's perhaps culturally interesting to see whether a particular flick was popular with Americans, the economic side of the movie business cares not.

It's almost quaint that someone would report only U.S. box office totals today - particularly when using that data to call a film a bomb. Here's the real bottom line for these "bombs" (total worldwide grosses as of 9/2013 - and counting):

After Earth $243m ($130m budget)
The Lone Ranger $243m ($215m budget)
Elysium $213m ($115m budget)
Turbo $157m ($135m budget)
Red 2 $120m ($ 84m budget)
White House Down $153m ($150m budget)

Heck, even Mortal Instruments ($66.6m, $60m budget) and The Internship ($83m, $58m budget) have made millions.

These movies are almost all profitmakers - often enormously so. Just, you know, not as much as we were hyped to believe in the States.

(That said - R.I.P.D. was actually a bomb! The only real one here, I'd say. But I think the film companies will survive.)

*dead
"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content."

Commercially deceptive, eh?