*doublepromote someone else finally telling the truth, even if it is just a fictional tv character. I’ve been saying the same thing since around 2000. If we went all in, halted all co2 emissions and all methane emissions 20 years ago, and invested in methods to catch and sequester what we already emitted, we might have avoided the tipping point where we are no longer in control….but instead we increased emissions every year, flooring it towards that cliff and hitting the nitrous button.
*quality if inconvenient truths

That tipping point was reached well over a decade ago when methane started to melt out of permafrost and the deep ocean where it has been frozen for eons. It’s capable of causing warming >80 times as much as co2 short term, >25 times as much long term, and is boiling out at rapidly increasing rates. Pre 2006 it’s estimated around .5 million tons per year…2006 it was measured at 3.8 million tons…by 2013 that was up to 17 million tons with the trend increasing. More recent estimates are hard to find, but it’s agreed that as temperatures climb not only are hydrates melting much more rapidly, bacteria are also accelerating decomposition in the thawed permafrost, and they emit methane. The Arctic is warming up to 5 times faster than the average global temperature. It’s likely over 50 million tons per year by now if not much higher.

Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt=1 billion tons) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve in one shot….game over.

Bear in mind, 1 cubic meter of hydrate contains >160 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure.

The amount of increase from bacterial emissions in rotting permafrost is debatable, but even the lowest estimates are insurmountable.

This is only one of dozens of KNOWN feedback loops already in action, and there are definitely unknown feedback systems we can’t predict.

This does not mean there’s nothing to be done, we can still mitigate the damage somewhat, maybe slow the rate of change enough that some animals and plants more advanced than bacteria survive long term. It does mean a massive >99% culling of humanity, a total shift in civilization from a money based civilization to one focused on survival, and likely an unavoidable mass extinction rivaling any previous extinctions.

This "business" has been out of control for eons. It's a fact of life we are all condemned to die so there is no such thing as "lucky" to live through anything.

Worlds end everyday here on earth at an average that lasts about 80 years. Some peacefully, some not so much. The question is, did you make someone's dream come true while you were here? This, Worlds on Earth Con? To be held from when you get here until you leave. Sign up now. Space is unlimited.

And now, this...

Music and art culture is eons ahead of AI. Sitting in your brain just waiting for the day you need it most. And we all welcomed it in.

When an infant or child needs something but can't or doesn't know how to communicate it's needs, they will make their problem your problem. They do this by crying or acting out until they get what they need, be it a diaper change or a glass of water or just a hug.

Women have been trying to communicate for eons with little results. Now they are making their problem, your problem.

You may be able to look to them for bravery if that's what you're lacking.

You do understand, do you not, that the terrors of Mathew and Timothy (Jesus and Paul) were all things they saw happening at the time, right? You do grasp, I hope, that these issues are the normal human condition, and have been issues since civilization started, eons before anyone ever heard the name Yahweh, and a constant since men have built stationary houses.

Pretty hilariously hypocritical for him to warn against "this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts," when, from an outside viewpoint, religion is what does that far more often and effectively with a supporting community to enforce the subjugation.

Uh......slavery didn't start in the 1700's. It likely began in Mesopotamia as an industry, but probably existed long before cuneiform existed to record it.

Even sticking to Africa, Egyptians used slaves extensively eons before this.

Most active slavers in 18 th century Africa were Arabs or Europeans. Africans traded/sold POWs from other tribes caught during tribal warfare, and later began to actively participate in the European slave trade. They absolutely were not the sole kidnappers, however, nor were they the first.

Isn't it so much more fun to actually exchange information and points of view, rather than getting snotty? I love it.

Maybe we are talking a bit at cross purposes. (Like, that has never happened before on teh intertubes, right?)

I try not to "re-edit" or "re-imagine" videos. I'm sure I do it -- I often do things that I later complain that other people do. This comment goes back more to your first response to me, however it applies to this comment, too. The idea that the video would be better if it this'd, or that'd, or it fails to do this other thing that it wasn't even trying to do. The concept of being conscious of "the bigger picture" is what I am addressing here.

However, isn't it just YOUR vision of what the bigger picture is that you say is missing? Because for me, I see a bigger picture being addressed quite nicely -- the vision that the video maker set out to address.

I wonder if the nebulous nature of your instinctive dislike to this video is indeed EXACTLY what the video maker was setting out to illuminate? Or rather, decided to be not obsequious to? Like women have been taught to be obsequious for eons?

I notice that you are sure that your difficult-to-describe instinctive reactions are "correct." What if it is actually your own internalized and unexamined sexism? I know you say thunderfoot bugs you, too. I also know that all my impassioned information about how women across cultures and time are expected to "tone it down" wasn't addressed in your response to me.

That is the elephant in the room here, as far as I am concerned. Sure, "condescension" is gender neutral. The whole video, though, is about sexism and the unconscious ways that it leaks out. I don't see you addressing that in your response -- except maybe, MAYBE, it is this nebulous and difficult thing you are struggling to understand and maybe, MAYBE, it needs to be examined and understood.

So maybe look at your feelings through that prism?

I say this as someone who has their own internalized sexism (towards men and women both) that I am constantly trying to identify and own and uproot. Racism, too. I so want to be the person who, like Stephen Colbert of old, who doesn't see race. And yet I do and I am mortified by it and I try to push through that lizard brain instinct and the training of my youth.

Something to think about maybe?

Or not. Maybe it just is as simple as you don't like the humor in the video, and I do. There are differences in taste, after all.

I suspect, though, that it is much more complex than that -- as you said, "maybe I'm going into it with the notion that I'm going to be offended anyway."

In first world countries....yes, or close to that much. Agreed. Not world wide.

Mechanized harvest is accepted in "natural" old school farming. Agreed, it would fall under the "industrial farming" methods, but is one of the least damaging.
>1000 acre farms do not count as "family farms" in my eyes, even if they are owned by a single family. So is Walmart, but it's not a mom and pop or family store.

Again, mechanization is not the same as industrialization, but does still do damage by over plowing, etc. I'm talking about monoculture crops, over application of man made fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Grain was farmed "by hand" since farming existed with few problems, but more work involved. The work it takes to rehab a river system because industrial farming runoff contaminated and killed it is FAR more work than the extra work involved in farming using old school methods (which does not mean everything is done with hands, tools and machines have been in use for eons).

Roundup doesn't "break down" completely, and doesn't break down at all if it's washed into river systems and out of the UV light.

Once again, machines aren't all of "industrial farming", they are one of the least damaging facets, and they are not unknown in old school, smaller farming techniques. BUT....overuse of heavy equipment either over packs the soil, making it produce far less, or over plows the soil, making it run off and blow away (see the dust bowl). If it was ONLY about machinery, and ONLY industrial farming used machines, you would have a point, but neither is true.

No, actually overproducing on a piece of land like that makes it unusable quickly and new farm land is needed to replace it while it recuperates (if it ever can). Chemical fertilizers add salts that kill beneficial bacteria, "killing" the soil, sometimes permanently. producing double or triple the amount of food on the same land is beneficial in the extreme short term, and disastrous in the barely long term. (See 'dust bowl')

Man power is far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. Also, the people would use no more resources because they're in the field than they would anywhere else, so there's NO net gain to the energy used or demand on the environment if they farm instead of sit at a desk, but machines don't use energy when idle, so there is a net loss to the energy required if you replace them with pre-existing people.

Yes, you quoted it directly, buy your characterization of what that meant was insane. You claim they said Monsanto worked on the project (and other things) because they're evil and want to do evil and harm. The video actually said they do these things without much care for the negative consequences to others, and that makes them evil. I hope you can comprehend the distinct difference in those statements, and that your portrayal of what they said is not honest.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

Please allow me to disagree on all points.....

1) Humans are absolutely animals. Some may have the mentality of vegetables or minerals, but they are still animals.

2)Instinct can be difficult to ignore, and dangerous to ignore as well. Instincts developed because they helped our ancestors survive better than those who did not possess them. Those that had less developed instincts, didn't have them at all, or ignored them died off.

3)Not all people have a conscience (or lack an ability to experience empathy...essentially the same thing), sociopaths and psychopaths for instance usually lack one at all, and many of those that DO have one consistently and intentionally ignore it.

4)I don't believe there have been psychological experiments on lions to see if they really experience empathy or have a 'conscience' or not...and I'm not at all sure what one would look like. Simply stating that other animals don't have empathy does not make it so.
For example, people have said for eons that dogs don't have emotions, but that's simply wrong, and nothing more than a self serving excuse to abuse them and ignore their needs. Actual study and brain scans have proven they DO have the same type of reactions in their brains that humans do to emotional stimuli, conclusively proving the claims that they don't have emotions false...lions could be the same, simply unstudied rather than emotionless/lacking empathy.

Give a fuck whatchya heard
Yeah fuck whatchya heard
Fore this real shit kicked your whole click to the curb
What, what...
But you don't hear me though

Run up bitch ta da death get gripped my steeze is ballin' out
Of control whatchyou know 'bout bubblin'
Hustle bones comin' out my mouth

Hustle bones comin' out my mouth [repeat]

That hot lic a shot
Never not strapped
Wit a Glock tongue cocked
Run it back
That knock a cop off unconscious Molotov
Cocktailin' sound bomb a snitch
Flat line of chalk drawn round the clock
Too many marks dropped ta count the stiffs

Stuck on the fence
How does it feel
It don't make sense
Nothing is

That rip you a new one trick I'm the true one,
And only never know me never will no son
Leave ya laid out ta fade out
Show a cunt the door
Hit and run
Hustle bones comin' out my mouth

Hustle bones comin' out my mouth [repeat]

That can't wait ta blast
Blood stained knuckle brass gives a fuck sick wit it flav on
That ex con
Hard to da bone
Darkness from the zone
Mastered and pushed far beyond

Eons beyond the line never crossed,
By dem punks livin' soft while I ride that bomb
Dr. Strangelove
Into the sun
Look no hands megatons
Rode like man we can't lose
No shit, no shit

That hit it till it drip wit
Da blood of the raw way
It was fore dem forgot
Why doin' dirt, make slang sound tough gong original
fuck da wrong way
Only one real way to work
That shit out da
Beat street spit
Über freaked heat lit
Hell flame to your brain
Blood thirst
What what...
Run it back, run it

Run up bitch ta da death get gripped my steeze is ballin' out
Of control whatchyou know 'bout bubblin'
Hustle bones comin' out my mouth

Hustle bones comin' out my mouth [repeat]

Criminal intent anti-legal ill
Thief in da night peel your life back spin the wheel
[x4]

Run it back, run it

Um...no
The Jews that invaded Palestine were illegitimate because they were illegal immigrants invading what was essentially a British 'colony'.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the USA didn't take as many as we might have. Those are two separate wrongs.
Palestine was not invaded because it was 'safer'..it was invaded because they wanted to own it. If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries, not one single place all the way across Europe....kind of like the Syrian refugees are doing. If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...we would laugh at their faces as we blasted the shit out of them...why did we support Jews doing the EXACT same thing without a gun forcing (edit: most of) them out of their homes like the Syrians had?
Palestine did NOT have a SIZEABLE Jewish population, it was close to 5% before the invasion. It also wasn't closer by far than any other country in Europe. It only made perfect sense because their religious leaders told them to go there and 'take back their ancestral homeland'.

I never said those in the 40's were not that desperate, nor did I ever suggest we 'change history'. You need a reading comprehension refresher. I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming). I also say those in the 40's after the war and all those coming after that had NOTHING to flee.

The difference being that the Arabs had been there for centuries, living peacefully with a small Jewish population as part of their 'country', yes, peacefully. It wasn't until the Brits ignored their own immigration laws and allowed the Jews to invade by the thousands that conflict broke out. Today, non Jews are not full citizens in the land that the Palestinians lived on for eons, and what's left of the native Palestinians are held in a concentration camp.

If things being bad where you live is a legitimate reason to take another country, all of Africa should be taking Europe today, along with much of Asia. In fact, we may as well forget countries if that's the metric, all countries treat some group poorly.

The invaders gained more land than they had at the outset (they had NONE at the outset, they lived in what had been British ruled Palestine, and was now reverting to Palestinian rule...) but the Jews wanted their own Jewish country and stole it from the people who had never had an army, using American weapons purchased mainly with American money (or given to them for free) while the Palestinians were barely supported by their neighbors, who had never been their allies. It was not "civil war' it was an invasion. Those fighting came from elsewhere to steal the land, it was not just the native Jews fighting, it was mostly invading Jews.

Yes, of course they refused. If Mexico took Texas, then the UN said "OK, it's yours, just don't take New Mexico", yet the Mexicans were already settling in New Mexico with their army protecting the settlements, I really don't think the US would accept the UN plan either. It was ridiculous and a plan based on stealing from Peter to pay Paul back for somethin Ringo stole. WTF?!?

Yes, that counts as 'stealing land' using overwhelming force, then fighting over it, then stealing MORE land, then subjugating and dehumanizing the locals, then stealing MORE land, and more land, and more land, and whining and crying that they're the victims.

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.
When a 'smaller' invading force uses it's international contacts to become a violent racist bully, uses it's overwhelming force to steal land for decades, pushing the locals into the sea or concentration camps, kills tens of thousands and imprisons millions in horrendous conditions for decades and claims they want peace, yes, they need to return all the land they gained with their evil behavior or expect the leftovers of their genocide to strike back until one side is wiped out.

They were not a nation when they did this. They were an invading horde of Europeans trying to create a religious nation on someone else's land.

Gonna have to disagree here. Not that you are incorrect, but the assumptions might be incorrect. First, technological advances occur rapidly when one is found and they tend to ripple in every advancement. Consider that human "advancement" is really just centuries old. Second, and I am not entirely sure of the Star Wars universe on this matter, but Star Trek technology has the ability to warp time and time travel. This means in theory that if their universe saw people doing this over and over, the technology could have spread and spread in the same eons. In essence, the technology of their pantheon could be trillions of years old (Ie., Scotty gives shield upgrades to save whales, shields have now been upgraded to Scotty's timeline even further than before. But Scotty has to go back in time for some other event, gives newest shield information which increases his own time's shield power further, cycle continues indefinitely when Scotty is killed by a younger version of himself...)

Quick, somebody call Eon Productions!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.