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).

It has nothing to do with "efficiency". It has to do with the fact that people are generally immoral and feel entitled to things that don't belong to them. Whatever justification you want to give it, it is theft and anyone who pirates is a thief and a criminal.

As far as SOPA, it's a terrible bill and it deserved to die, but clearly something further needs to be done. Software and music/media piracy is pretty much socially acceptable at this point. I also agree with the assertion made by some that content provides may be driving (immoral) people towards piracy, and they need to listen to their fans and implement a smarter business strategy.

>> ^rottenseed:
Humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, are energy efficient. That is to say we are perpetually seeking the most effective way of obtaining what we want/need. This subconscious cost analysis which factors in time, labor, and value will ALWAYS result in getting free stuff without leaving the comfort of one's own home. Even to the degree that we can justify "stealing" in myriad ways.
What companies that produce what we call "intellectual property" need to realize is that the business model has to be changed in order to take that justification away from us. If their products are offered at a reasonable price, are easy to obtain, and are advertised as such, it gives the consumer less leverage. In most cases we'll do the right thing.
Unfortunately I don't see blockbuster movie titles going straight to internet for sale anytime soon, even though it would be good for business. We just have a problem of old business running up against new technology, and old business is trying to strong-arm the people into helping keep itself alive. The best thing that comes out of this is the rise of the independent films/music. We'll go back to what making movies/music was all about.

Humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, are energy efficient. That is to say we are perpetually seeking the most effective way of obtaining what we want/need. This subconscious cost analysis which factors in time, labor, and value will ALWAYS result in getting free stuff without leaving the comfort of one's own home. Even to the degree that we can justify "stealing" in myriad ways.

What companies that produce what we call "intellectual property" need to realize is that the business model has to be changed in order to take that justification away from us. If their products are offered at a reasonable price, are easy to obtain, and are advertised as such, it gives the consumer less leverage. In most cases we'll do the right thing.

Unfortunately I don't see blockbuster movie titles going straight to internet for sale anytime soon, even though it would be good for business. We just have a problem of old business running up against new technology, and old business is trying to strong-arm the people into helping keep itself alive. The best thing that comes out of this is the rise of the independent films/music. We'll go back to what making movies/music was all about.

The title should be more "30-Story Building Assembled in 15 days". I'm willing to bet more than 15 days went into prefabricating all the parts. I'm also skeptical of some of the claims: 5x more energy efficient (than what, and how is it measured?).

Still, pretty neat. I wonder what it would be like to stay in that hotel.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Nope, there's no "alarmists". Man made climate change is real. Outside of a bunch of morons (fox, qm and the like) who don't understand the science, there's no debate. The rest of us have accepted the facts of the science and are trying to figure out what to do about it.

>> ^criticalthud:
i think we should no longer suffer fools on this topic

While I agree with you guys, there are still fools on both sides. While the climate deniers scare me, what also scares me are the people who would use the fact of man-made climate change to their own ends. Not to mention the silly fucks who think we need to just rush headlong into a solution. I think the general scientific consensus is also that we need to be very careful about the ways we try to manipulate the environment to fix our problems.


Regarding the solution, you're absolutely right. I'm really not sure what the solution is, hence my "trying to figure out what to do about it". At a small scale there are lots of things we can do that will make the world a better place generally, reducing waste, being more energy efficient, encouraging public transport or biking, but I have yet to see a solution that addresses the larger national and corporate scale problems.

Is the music Tenacious D?

I did a big paper on the evolution of bipedalism in school. Lots of advantages to walking upright on two legs. Mainly it's more energy efficient - you get more distance per calorie. The first form of hunting used by humans was exhaustion hunting. We'd stalk other mammals (which are all quadrupedal) for days until they collapsed first, because they need a lot more rest than we do over time/distance.

Even better, break it in half and put it in a small saucepan with a lid, then it's even more energy efficient (less surface area for heat loss). It's almost as efficient as not cooking at all, and much tastier!

Neat stat about the size of LA. Even more amazing now how "little" space that humanity takes up physically when you consider the vertical dimension. I wonder if most of these population problems will be solved with turning the earths volume into its surface area. I also wonder if it wouldn't be more energy efficient to live below the surface. It is more difficult to do trivial things, but much easier to do more complicated things...at list least close to the surface where there isn't super pressure yet. And why don't we have bubble cities under the ocean yet! I want my underwater bio-dome!

I'm fairly sure splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen via solar power and storing the energy isn't a new idea for energy?

My dad's been mentioning it years, and i'm fairly sure he didn't work it out himself. In fact, i think i saw a program with a guy that built an 'energy efficient house' who had huge tanks storing both hydrogen and oxygen from this process.

Thorium reactors, designed about the same time as uranium ones, produce very little waste and are far more energy efficient and safe. The US has a huge stockpile of thorium, enough to last for a very long time. They were shelved as a concept because they don't produce weapons grade byproducts...

http://videosift.com/video/Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor-Google-Tech-Talk-Remix

This is why there is no energy independence. Good ideas are buried for one reason or another and ignored. The only thing to give up here is the ability to nuke the planet a few thousands more times, the science is done and they are relatively cheap and quick to build...

The same for dozens of other good ideas that are buried. They don't fit with corporate or government plans and are forgotten. I daresay there wouldn't be a politician who'd even heard of a thorium reactor for example.

This comment interested me so I did a little morning time research. You are right in stating that this technology has been out there for a long time. One of the major down falls of conventional SOFC's are that they require a high operating temperature. The efficiency of SOFC's limitations lie in the material they use because of the high operating temperatures. The bloom box claims to have solved this problem with a fairly cost effective solution for what materials to use (melted sand = glass?). They were always made from ceramic before, I don't know what improvements glass have over ceramics. I don't know if their claims are all true. Too early to tell since it was just "released".

That all being said, I don't understand what the hoopla is about, either. You'd still need to bring some sort of natural gas to each "bloom box". Let's say tomorrow, we took out all the power plants and replaced every home and business with one of these devices. Let's say they operate at 70% efficiency (10% more than traditional SOFC's), would this be more energy efficient than a power plant. Would it cost us any less natural resources to run our planet? Those questions are a little more difficult to find out. Gotta do some more research on power plants. Somebody with a degree have any insight?>> ^joedirt:
You guys are total suckers and idiots.
This is like ancient technology. It is just a solid oxide fuel cell.
The only thing interesting is that they have existing fuel cell installs at eBay and google.
This won't be cheap or better. All it does is capture the big green energy investors and also it uses tax rebates in places like California to let rich people subsidize their electricity.

Here are some articles and white papers to get us started. I've not read any of these to cherry pick them, I've simply picked them from Google. I read the first para to make sure they were relevant. Just searching for white papers alone is difficult. I had to sift threw carbon guilt bullshit, op ed pieces about a professor who took part in a study, and other stupid shit.

New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible

Why and how do scientists study climate change in the Arctic? What are the Arctic climate indices?

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible


Here is a link to the study that Doug Stanhope's bit was referencing:

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis

Here is the section that was highlighted on Stanhope's bit:

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Top 100 Best Ways to Save The Environment

100. Live a 1st world lifestyle slightly more energy efficiently
...
9. Work and live only during daylight hours
8. Grow your own food / collect your own rainwater
7. Live in a house with no active heating/cooling
6. Live a 2nd world lifestyle
5. Live a 3rd world lifestyle
4. Live in the jungle
3. Have less kids
2. Have no kids
1. Kill yourself

OK, yes, being energy efficient is great, and my wife and I are currently hunting for a house to buy and renovate, with the idea to make it as energy efficient as possible. BUT... you've gone a bit overboard on some of your ideas.

To suggest that everyone should have tiny windows is insane. Windows are brilliant for a large number of reasons:
* Free light
* Free solar heating when it's cold (including heating up a large mass like a brick wall to radiate heat inside the house)
* (most importantly for me) Removes the feeling that you're living inside a tiny box... large windows overlooking a garden or nice view can turn an otherwise normal room into a peaceful oasis.

Definitely do all you can to reduce heat loss from the house through them when it's cold, or heat entrance to the house when it's hot... but getting rid of windows is NOT the way to live. Not in any sane sense of having quality of life. And suggesting that people have sheets of plastic over their windows really is a little horrendous. That's utilitarianism taken to extreme. It may work, but your house will resemble a shanty town.


LED lights would be great to have except that there are NONE that are anywhere near to bright enough to replace even moderately bright incandescent bulbs at a pricepoint less than $100... so until they become a logical choice it's compact florescent for our house at present.

You haven't really even touched on passive heating/cooling, and you're very much only thinking of keeping a house warm when it's cold rather than cool when it's hot. I live in Melbourne Australia, today the temp is going to be 44C (111F), which is STINKING hot by anyone's measure. But it also gets down to single digit temps (40s F) in winter... so we have to have homes that can be good both ways.

One of the best ways to keep a house cool is to keep air moving through it. If you have vents/windows up high you can have them open to vent off hot air that rises, and window down low open to draw in cooler air from outside. This is one thing our current house lacks. It may have lots of windows we can open to let air through, but being that they are all about midpoint through the wall it is infuriating to have the house too hot and yet a change has come through and it's lovely outside but you can't coax the air through the house.

* Insulate as much as you can afford.
* Build the house (when you're doing so from new) such that it takes best advantage of the sun for the given times of year.
* Install Solar Panels for electricity
* Use an on demand gas hot water system (so you're not heating a large container of water and have it sit there), and even better have it be a backup to a solar hot water system
* Install Rain water tanks
* Use dual flush toilets (amazing that they are not common in the US)
* Use evaporation cooling over refrigerated
* Use as much passive heating/cooling as you can.

Crying foul of how inefficient things like stoves/fridges are is a little pointless, as other than getting the most energy efficient ones you can when buying, what can you really do about it?

Definitely think about energy and insulation and actual energy usage, but you don't have to live in a sealed, windowless box in order to live efficiently.

my house was built in 1956, its in fantastic condition and i have been slowly updating to make it more energy efficient. one thing i have yet to replace, because they are so fucking expensive and my house has so many of them, is the windows. when i had the inspection done the dude even told me not to open them because they are so old he thought the panes would crumble if handled too roughly. where i live its not uncommon for it to be 106F + in the summer and currently its 10F right now and dropping. so... we experience a bit of extremes and my energy bills are always high. (though much much lower than any apartment i ever lived in)

tell me more about this plastic. i think the plan i had originally was to slowly replace a window or two at time with solar windows. but theyre horribly expensive and i decided i dont really like how dark they look from the outside. kind of an eyesore. especially on a yellow house.

for my birthday a few years ago my stepdad came over and installed some insulation in the attic, which is great. and i bought a new AC and furnace with all kinds of extra fancy filters after i found out my asthmatic son is also allergic to everything in existence. that seems to have cut my energy bills by about a 1/4 and seriously reduced the amount of trouble he has with his asthma which has also saved me money on medicine. i dont even want to think about what kind of grossities were hanging out in a 50+ year old AC unit.

i also discovered some awesomeness last winter. i put electric blankets underneath the fitted sheet on all of our beds in the winter. turn them on about 5 minutes before we lay down and the bed is toasty warm when you get in. and most of the fall and winter you can shut the heater off at night. our blankets have timers on them, so they stay on for about 30 minutes. the bed stays warm all night and the hot air isnt blowing into the house all night making us all stuffy nosed and dry in the morning.