In parts of India where Zoroastrianism is still practised they "bury" their dead in a similar manner. They believe a corpse is corrupted by a demon and is thus made unclean. Burial means poisoning the ground with this corruption, and cremation means poisoning of the air so they dispose of their dead with the help of vultures. They leave their dead on a flat roof of a building called a Tower of Silence. The vultures take everything but the bones, the bones are left to be bleached by the Sun and gradually disintergrate after which they are washed out through coal and sand filters to the sea.

I quite like this religious tradition because it kind of makes sense ecologically. Vultures are incredibly important in the ecosystem and it seems strange that this bird has a reputation for being dirty or unclean when it is them that helps prevent the landscape from being covered in putrefying corpses. In the 90s vulture populations nosedived due to a drug used on cattle finding its way along the food chain. Something like a 99.5% population decrease. Sadly this burial tradtional pretty much went with them. Where previously corpses were stripped in a matter of minutes they now sat and rotted. Animal corpses also literally piled up, scavenging stray dog population exploded which had knock on problems, even shit like an increase in Tiger attacks (Tigers would venture into populated areas to hunt the Dogs).

Long story short I'd much rather have my body picked over by vultures than rot in a coffin or get turned into polluting gas. You know, assuming my organs weren't good for anything else.

From August through May I'm a biology professor at a local university that's about 20 minutes from my house. My hours change every semester depending on where the university needs me, but generally I'm only have to be on campus for 16 hours a week (it can be a sweet gig for you up and coming PhD graduates - @direpickle and @berticus).

However, I'm constantly urged to write more papers and so I do research on the side by working with other professors at other universities and colleges - mostly dealing with ecology-based topics. This forces me to do a lot of writing and reading at home on the computer when I'm not on facebook or VS. I also travel to the occasional biology conference in wherever the fuck for a few days.

But since it's summer, I'm given about 3 months of paid time off by the university and I now devote my time to research, chores given to me by my wife (@blahpook), hockey, paper writing, and video games.

Oh, and *quality.

Impressive: many of those were done on the first take (no skid marks).

Lame: Ford is associate stunt driving in with ecology.

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^shinyblurry:

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY



The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.

That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

The thing with looking at the danger of nuclear power is you have to make a more complicated comparison. It's not just nuclear power or "safe."

For fossil fuels you have to consider every:

* Oil spill, Oil Rig Fire, other fossil fuel related disasters (tanker truck fires, gas station fires, CO poisoning in houses, etc.) Recall for instance, in New Orleans during the flood the contents of refinery storage tanks were spread all over the city, and the Deep Water Horizons disaster that killed more people than Fukishima and caused fantastic amounts of ecological damage.

* The broad diffuse pollution of fossil fuel power stations and refineries (including particulates, global warming from C02, other heavy metals and nastiness released). This is released not only from power stations, but every tailpipe of the millions of cars in the world.

* The damage caused by getting fossil fuels out of the ground. Drilling, fracking, strip mining for coal, and the nastiness released from this.

* Wars. (ie. fossil fuels are running out, but we got enough fissile material to last a long, long time--not that there couldn't be wars over this too (lots of it is in unstable parts of Africa)).

In short, fossil fuels do a huge amount of damage, it's just not as acute and widely reported as when something goes wrong with nuclear, and doesn't carry the same, often irrational, fear that the media loves so much. For instance, some area of land infused with heavy metals is just as unlivable as an area of land infused with radioactive substances, but one we accept as normal pollution, and the other is worldwide, front page news.

The overall comparison is very complicated. My inclination is to think nuclear is better, but that's difficult because it involves mostly *potential* problems, not actual quantifiable problems as with fossil fuels. There will probably never be a good study comparing the two given how much irrational fear and corporate interest is involved.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are very nice and should always be part of the equation, but it's pretty well accepted that it can't actually come near to replacing fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of energy output at any cost.

@ghark and I think your urge to paint everyone with the same brush makes you miss the forest for the trees.

Forget for a moment about Democrats and Republicans, how should stuff like this work?

Canada has tar sands, and someone wants to extract the oil from them. Should they be legally forbidden from doing that, even if they legally acquire the rights to the land?

Once they extract the oil, it needs to be transported somewhere else to be refined. The biggest refineries are in Texas. Should they send it by boat? By truck? By train? Are those safer and less ecologically damaging than a pipeline? Should America legally forbid the importation of crude oil from Canada?

I'm definitely on the same side as the protesters when it comes to ecological concerns, but I don't see how blocking the construction of the pipeline itself solves any sort of ecological issue. The issue is that there's enough demand for oil that it's now profitable to extract it from fucking tar sands. The solution to that isn't to outlaw the extraction & transportation of that oil, it's to lower demand by taxing the bejeezus out of oil & gas, and use the revenue to subsidize alternative energies and/or public transportation.

Why is that an unthinkable, unmentionable strategy, even for environmentalist protesters?

A protest against Keystone XL only seems like something our corporate overlords would sponsor, so the conversation never moves on to substantive policy that would really make a difference.

That you (and other progressives) are treating opposition to Keystone as some sort of litmus test for who's "with us" and who's "against us" is just icing on the cake for them.

The more divided and demoralized we get, the easier it is for them to keep consolidating power.

I have outdoor koi ponds, and I'm into the fish-keeping hobby with aquariums also. With the right ecological setup and filtration/circulation system, I think this would make a great visual element / water garden area for a home, plus providing a swimming area that is cleaner and clearer than your average pond/lake.

If you're squeamish about swimming in a lake or pond, consider that your average public pool is saturated with chlorine/bromine and kid-piss... Pick your poison.

Although it's great for ecological reasons, I could never own such a "pool". I find the idea of swimming in a dark pond filled with frogs and salamanders rather unappealing.

One of the first things I messed around with in my first year of Ecology.

Another toughie are the Hydra, a genus that not only has remarkable regenarative properties, but also don't seem to age. Ie, they appear to be biologically immortal. They aren't quite as "cute" as the water bear though, they are basically jellyfish with a very simple nerve net that provides some basic behaviour that allows them to feed...and not much else.

makes me think about how modern civilization managed to clean up its act so long ago -- perhaps giving hope to our ability to continue and live in a more ecological and green society.

I know, I know... it's an ecological disaster, and workers are treated like shit, but that does looks very nice.

An ecological engineering catastrophy, that's Dubai!

All this right wing nonsense about the unregulated free market being our savior is just downright laughable. Especially when you consider the content of this very video.

These people aren't greedy, they are passionately recognizing that the interests of the people of the state are not being represented or sought by the government of that state.

To bring up the tired old neo-classical bullshit about "efficiency" is absolutely uncalled for.

Entertain the following scenario: The most efficient market processes are adapted, do we now live in a utopia? Or do we realize a society where joblessness is at all time highs, corporate profits are through the roof, and a crumbling social infrastructure and middle class threatens nations' abilities to pay their debts.
Sound familiar?

I would suggest that the neo-classical free(est) market mantra is about efficiency only, and ignores the human side of economics. Economics should not rule us, it should serve us. This is currently not the case, and the 99% are waking up to this nightmare.

Finally, I would note that judging by the unfolding ecological crisis, and the crippling of economies by outdated, overpriced, low EROEI energy sources, the movement to change economic theory and purpose will only grow stronger. If occupy falters now, it won't be long before it bubbles to the surface once again (without vast changes to our democracy and economic practices). Don't be fooled by the mainstream media, history doesn't always repeat itself, the youth and disenfranchised will be the vanguard and protectorate of a new era. It would seem to be inevitable.

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^ToastyBuffoon:
Unnecessary dramatic music aside, THIS is and should be the #1 focus with OWS. This country is being purposely torn apart through much of the media, leading the true victims into bickering and fighting with each other over your supposed "political beliefs" as the wealthy just sit back and laugh all the way to these corrupt banks. It sickens me to see what our government has become.

I disagree, perhaps your thinking is along the lines of "If we can accomplish one thing, this should be it." I think its a completely noble and ethical goal, and will make things better, but this measure alone is not enough.
I think many of the people on the streets are there for a lot more than this, money out of politics is a given, but what about electoral reform, national financial reform, and a general sense of discussion and debate about direction and goals of the nation, aka the common good.
A lot of people laugh when you use Star Trek as an example, but at this point in civilization's history, considering population and ecological stresses, I like to imagine that the enterprise would intervene, break the prime directive and give us a good talking to.
At this point in time, its way past due that we move the discussion about common good, and expand the range of our empathic sensibilities to a global level. Now, if I can claim that I've made a point with this rant, it would be that when the people take to the streets in a beautiful unfolding of common, peaceful democratic expression, the last thing we should do is narrow that movement to a sliver of its potential, put blinders on, and ask for less than we are capable of. Less than we now realize what we deserve.
When people realize that political organization is fun, empowering, and deeply meaningful, they will realize just how politically dormant our democratic discussions have been. There is plenty more to say, lets not arrest the discussion prematurely. (no pun intended)


very well put! my sentiments exactly