Pretty much what @Mordhaus said.

There's no way to sustain the numbers we have today without changing 99% of people's habits, most effectively starting with breeding habits.
With the need for only 10% the power required today, you would never need to use nuclear power at all, or hydro. You could supply it on wind and solar with a small fossil fuel peak power generator system.
The planet MAY survive....but I don't count only extremophile bacteria as really 'alive'. Worst case scenario, we could be Venus 2.0, in my eyes, that's not alive.

This is far too late a reply. My mind was on Venus, my heart was on Mars, and my nether regions were on the good planet Vaseline, in the Proctor & Gamble constellation.

I miss this place.

I miss you.

Think of me as a stiletto in your boot.

If threatened, I'll be a razor tongue that cuts without thinking.

Happy Drunken Irish Bastard Day - yes...my people can say that....

The people of Earth!

Ahhh ha ha ha ha!



xoxoxoxo

Could be found on one of our gas giants. Maybe even Venus.

Come on, it's written by the guy who adapted Fight Club, ffs.

Fun video.
But I believe in surfacism.

Venus may gets its due farther out in the future but mars comes first simply because we don't boil or get crushed.

It is the same reason the bottom depths of the ocean haven't been probed.

Since we won't be terraforming planets this century, if ever. I say colonize the moon first.

We have to bring nearly everything with us anyway, air, water, food, building supplies, etc. The moon is closer, so incredibly cheaper to ship to. Also, it's possible to send a rescue mission or send up unexpectedly needed equipment, not so on other planets.

Cloud cities ignore the insurmountable problem all Mars colony ideas have ignored, radiation. As far as I know, Venus is like Mars and has no magnetosphere, meaning little to nothing to protect from solar radiation. Being above the atmosphere, or on Mars without one, makes it worse. On the moon, you could expect underground colonies and few surface excursions, and the rock could provide the protection and seal in atmosphere. That could also be done on Mars....but why?
Also, as I understand it, they have found water on the moon, so one less thing to ship to space (although there's all the water we need already flying around Saturn if we can harvest the rings).

If they're really thinking 'cloud cities', why isn't anyone making them on earth? It would be like making more of the one thing no one has manufactured yet, more 'land'. The same could be said for underground colonies. Come on, science, get to it!

Uhmm.. there is one reason we are targeting mars and not venus.. water. We are not colonizing anything if we have to bring our own water. Mars will not be a colony until we find the glaciers we are looking for.

Your video, Should We Colonize Venus Instead of Mars?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 10 Badge!

I don't want either Mars or Venus.

I WANT THEM ALL.

Why don't we *promote Venus?

Your video, Venus Williams and The Best Ball Boys in the World | ASB, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Venus Flytraps: Jaws of Death has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Venus Flytrap Devours a Fucking FROG has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Carnivorous plant sundew eating fly time lapse has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

How flesh-eating pitcher plants trap insects has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

David Attenborough: Carnivorous Plants has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

For a Venus Flytrap

The process continues until all that's left of the insect is its hard exoskeleton. (Unlike humans and other vertebrates, who have an internal rigid skeleton made out of calcified bone tissue, insects and arachnids use a more flexible, external exoskeleton to both protect and form the framework for their bodies.) Once the nutrients are depleted from the acidic bath, the plant reabsorbs the digestive fluid. This serves as a signal to reopen the trap, and the remains of the insect are usually either washed away in the rain or blown away by the wind.
See more @ http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/venus-flytrap4.htm

Also before and after video http://youtu.be/pFGoZMld_Gs

I couldn't even make it to the full minute mark. I think the video posted and related where Sean Carroll responds to the idea of a fine tuned universe is a good response.

This video is likely made by the same sort of people who once argued that "just a few feet in either direction and life on Earth couldn't exist". Of course the Earth doesn't have a circular orbit, and our Sun's Goldilocks zone extends from just past Venus (Earth side) to past Mars. Leaving both Earth and Mars well within the habitable zone.

My bigger problem with the video is you are trying to get to point Z, and saying it had to go through A-Y first in specific order. This is an argument used frequently against Evolution. The huge odds you'd have to go through to get to a modern human in the time allowed is greatly against modern humans forming when they did. Problem is you are working from the end result back, rather than the starting point and going forward, and it you are also discounting some other forces of nature. I used to quote the mathematical problem myself when I was a Creationist, though an Old Earth one as I was long of the opinion that Young Earth Creationist make Christians look stupid.

I may be an atheist, but I have no problem with a God of the Gaps if people want to believe that. I however don't believe that Jehovah is that God (there's too much evidence against Him, such as the fact He couldn't or wouldn't reveal himself beyond a tiny little backwater tribe, not to people in the Americas or Asia or Europe, but to one tiny group of people, either He's a Racist, which makes Him unworthy of serving, or He's not any more real than any of the other so called Gods). Whatever, or Whomever may have kick-started the Universe into existence didn't do it for some divine plan for mankind. The arrogance that it takes to assume the Universe in all it's glory was created just to awe man, or for whatever other reasons related to man and our involvement with Jehovah is arrogance beyond belief.

EDIT: Perhaps the better related video would have been http://videosift.com/video/Pure-Imagination-1

First....nice, nice.
Second. I get your point. They should have been more clear that they are intentionally ignoring any other forces, such as the force exerted by the objects on the planet and each other, and the pull of the observer, and the pull of the milky way, the sun, the moon, Venus, etc. Because those forces are completely inobservable, even with top notch equipment, it's simpler for most to not mention them at all. They have no bearing on what they're teaching, and the smart children who see farther into the details are smart enough to know what this experiment is designed to show, and what it ignores....or at least smart enough to ask the right questions, while the less science/math minded would only be confused by the mention of them while also ignoring them. it's not exactly the same thing as teaching that 5/0=0, when it's really infinity, the exact opposite of 0.

This experiment was about what's observable, not what's mathematically provable at the tiniest detail level. Those details are for higher level physics. I will agree, it's a disservice to not mention that clearly, but I think it's implied by the parameters and the intent (teaching that acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass).
EDIT: Also, please remember that for all intents and purposes, they are releasing the objects from the same point, so they still 'hit' at 'exactly' the same time because their forces are in line, off by what, perhaps <.0000000001deg?. As you said, all solved by equivocating 'exactly' to 'nearly exactly' or 'approximately the same' or even 'observably exactly the same time'.