It's a shame that they didn't mention the negative effects of pesticides on the soil and environment.

For example there are pesticides that damage the soil and earthworms so badly that the soil becomes infertile.

I really want to see a serious commitment from developed nations on vertical farming though. You can eliminate so many issues, from water use, land use, and most of the transport problems - the office building next door could be a farm....and of course you don't need pesticides if you are growing things in a controlled environment.

We could give so much land back to mother nature. And perhaps we would stop losing 200 species of plants/animals each day.

At least they acknowledged that eating plants of any kind is more environmental than eating animal products. That's something we can all strive for ourselves. But it will require some government intervention or some really good start ups to start vertical farming. Where are my Tesla potato farms? :-)

I would suggest permanent infertility treatments for anyone that would do it...no matter what their age. There's no need for more babies, plenty are made by 'accident'. Anyone who can be talked into NOT making more people should be talked into that, they can always adopt if they change their minds, IMO.

That's why I put 'designed' between apostrophes, to indicate it's the wrong word.

Sex has EVOLVED for a purpose (or purposes). Cars are DESIGNED for a purpose. I think you know what I meant there.

If sex is done randomly, perhaps 1%, if done purposefully, with cycles, temperature, etc taken into account, it's much more 'successful' at causing pregnancy. (again, those apostrophes indicate 'success' may not be the right word for some, but is the one most people would use).

Because we're nit picking each other's wordings, the body was not "built". ;-)

Obviously, yes, that's what the terms indicate.

and that was the moment the entire human race became infertile... gulp
ha

... am I the only one who thought these guys were gay?

>> ^Stormsinger:

Too bad it doesn't cause infertility. Then we could improve the species -and- get our entertainment at the same time.

This is posted for the world to see...who says it won't prevent fertilization?>> ^Stormsinger:

Too bad it doesn't cause infertility. Then we could improve the species -and- get our entertainment at the same time.

Too bad it doesn't cause infertility. Then we could improve the species -and- get our entertainment at the same time.

That actually is an interesting point.

Given that he is Mormon, however, this incident comes across as willfully ignorant on religious grounds rather than a busy man with other priorities.

Make no mistake about Mormons and gay issues -- the very basis of their religion is procreation to bring forth souls from the pre-life. Being gay strikes at the foundation of their faith.

Does it make sense, given that they don't force infertile couples to divorce or refuse to allow the elderly to marry? No, of course not. Who said religion MAKES FRICKING FRACKING SENSE?


>> ^fritzo9602:

I like how if a politician isn't making a certain subject a priority, it means he's totally against it.

What jumped out at me about his original post was the religious belief of the need to make a biological child with an opposite gender person, how crucial that was to him.

But what if they had indeed been infertile? Would they have gotten divorced?

I hate this shit with such a flaming passion.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^mgittle:
The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is their reliance on growth.
I haven't watched the documentary you linked, but the only part of what you said I'd really contest is this part.
How is fiat currency reliant on growth?
Perhaps you meant it the other way around -- that fiat currency is just one more tool that's used to cajole the human race into participating in this "growth" whose value has become increasingly dubious?
That's how I see it, at least on the days when I see the face and not the vase. Most days I still see markets and capitalism as a positive net influence on the welfare of the human race, but their most fervent advocates sure do work hard at making me think otherwise.


Yeah, well put rearding the "fervent advocates". I did kind of mean it the other way around. Thank you for actually taking a second to understand my meaning rather than arguing literal points only (the literal-only thing being my definition for nerdiness).

It's not fiat currency alone that makes our economy reliant on growth. I should have been more specific, but such is life when you have to get to sleep...haha. Fiat currency just a part of the whole Fractional Reserve banking + legal tender law + fiat currency system. In my mind, the growth thing is probably tied most to the fractional reserve system. Hopefully none of this sounds condescending because I'm not sure how much of this you already know, but here's my understanding:

Because the money supply is variable and dependent on debt, an expanding economy is extremely good and a contracting one is extremely bad. Because banks are allowed to loan more money than they possess *and* charge interest, you run into a problem. Where do individuals get the money needed to pay the interest on their loan if it was created from nothing? You have to get it from the overall money supply, which is made up of money created by banks from other peoples' promises to pay.

Thus, with every new credit card swipe, mortgage signing, etc, more money is owed to banks than actually exists at any given time. It's only the time lag between borrowing and repayment that keeps the entire system from collapsing. This means that unless the total amount of debt continually increases at a sufficient rate, it's impossible for everyone to succeed in paying back their loans...there must be foreclosures. This is why people constantly get offers of new credit, *and* why recessions are such a bitch. It's very hard to get things growing again after the money supply decreases.

The system is also one in which individuals paying off debts have more money (less income goes to paying interest), but everyone paying off their debts leaves society with no money. Therefore, anyone who pays off their debt to increase their own personal financial security actually hurts the overall economy. It makes no sense for markets to rely on rational individuals' decisions if their individual decisions are bad for the economy in aggregate. For this reason alone, the system is extremely fragile.

Hope all that makes some sort of sense. Maybe I'm wrong in parts. I'm partially regurgitating the videos I linked earlier while adding in stuff I've learned from other sources. I've nor heard anyone refute the premise of the video, but I'm sure it's not infallible in its interpretation. I'd love to hear what other people think. It got sifted long ago but there was little discussion.

As for your comments about markets being a net positive, I don't disagree with you at all. It's when people rely on markets to solve every problem (including moral ones) and don't realize that there are some places markets ought not go that there becomes a problem. (Should courts enforce a custody contract between an infertile couple and a surrogate mother? ...and and endless list of other similar questions)

dannym3141:

Claiming that people should stop burning fossil fuels would HEAVILY dent the income of just about every country because of how much tax they can charge from it. Britain's economy is almost based on fossil fuel tax. How can you possibly argue that they are a politically influenced source over fossil fuel use when they criticise such a money earner?

Politics aside, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most abundant source of energy, and new supplies of it are being discovered all the time. I never said people should stop burning them.

I hesitate to even mention that "science" as a global community is above reproach in ways that hardly anything else can be due to the method of a scientist. If you are not performing science for truth and discovery, you are not a scientist, so you're not part of the community anymore. That's why it's above reproach. I'm sure you'll argue with me about that, but i know that you'd argue about the time of day if you were proven to be wrong.

I'm not arguing, but I am astonished you would believe scientists are above politics (and reproach), not because the scientific method is flawed, but because scientists are fallible humans with their own beliefs and interests. As W. Pennypacker said in so many words, governments reward scientists which confirm a pre-determined outcome (like secondhand smoke killing 100 billion people a year). Junk science is real; it may not be everywhere, but it's out there. And not just "the oil companies" which have "scientitians" in their corner.

Another thing, gang. Over the last few years, global warming hysteria has been relentless. It's the alarmists who declared, "The debate is over." There was even one smug a-hole who compared "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers. Classy! There was the faked data scandal. These are not the actions of scientists confident in their conclusions. Yet the lazy media continues to back the alarmists without question.

100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem:

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe


Do you really expect free people to surrender to THIS?

So to follow your logic.... if it is proved scientifically that being gay is not a choice, but is biologically inherent to the organism, you would treat their inability to have a child "normally" like an other infertile heterosexual couple?

Because your argument seems to hinge on the word "choice" if I read it correctly.

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
Yes I did, I'm averse to using the surrogate route to garner sympathy because it's biological.

They can't have it both ways... they made their lifestyle choice. Now they should live with it. If it's a man who fathers a child and then before bi/homosexual it's different. The kid has a mother and can rely on that psychological comfort.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
I'm just curious.... did you watch the video? Or just read the comments?

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
Homosexuals should not be granted the right to adopt.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Why would you say that?

In reply to this comment by Pprt:
Let me know when there's a petition AGAINST them getting this child.

The infertility is caused by the ambient heat generated by the laptop. The function of the scrotum is to keep the testicles at a slightly lower temperature than the rest of the body. This lower temperature is more ideal for spermatogenesis, and anything that alters that temperature homeostasis is bound to have negative effects on sperm production.

The cancer risk? I'd like to see the medical journal that proved this and look at their numbers to see what kind of confidence interval and power they're working with to try and prove this. Honestly almost everything can be linked to causing cancer, and from my understanding of this they probably are linking long-term physical damage (ie. Toasted Skin Syndrome) and how that can lead to faster cell turnover which can increase cancer risk.

@blankfist you have a unique talent for packing a huge number of factual errors and logical fallacies into so few words.

SS is solvent for 50 years according to every study done by organizations without a particular political axe to grind.

The commitment of SS is still on the books, and I fully intend to make sure that people like yourself don't try to force the government to break it.

People who put their money in 401k or IRA's and retired in the last few years lost their shirts, while their social security checks kept coming on time.

As for a Ponzi scheme, that's when you offer an investment that gives an impossibly high return (15% or something higher), and you pay the dividends with the money from new people coming into the system. It's completely unsustainable, because you've committed to a permanent, compounding return, and there's always going to be a finite number of new customers you can attract.

In social security, you're giving a fixed benefit to people until they die, while every new entrant to the workforce is automatically going to pay into the system. It does need some tweaking of the benefit/tax balance from time to time if you have population growth spikes (or crashes), but you have 65 years to deal with the problem before it becomes a crisis.

You'd only need major changes if something drastic happened, like someone inventing a longevity treatment that suddenly raised life expectancy from 75 to 375, or if a virus rendered 75% of the population infertile. Even so, the system could be rebalanced to deal even with extreme scenarios like those.

The only real threat to its stability is a political movement that seeks to break the system, either directly by phasing it out, or indirectly by refusing any attempt to raise taxes to maintain the commitment.

>> ^notarobot:
I appreciate Brand's appeal for rational global-problem solving as well as his research and his organization of information, but I share almost none of his enthusiasm for the topics he discussed.
Genetic engineering presumes that humans, in our 50-70 year life span know better than nature. Nature has been at the game of shaping genes, of us and every living thing on the Earth, for a long time. Once a gene has been modified it can stay way for eternity. There is no undo. It is arrogant for any human to believe that even the knowledge of how to meddle with genes should be the same as carrying the wisdom to wield that knowledge without error.

If you think something shouldn't be done, because nature knows best, you could carry that same argument to all aspects of our technology, and I doubt you want us to live in pre-stoneage time again. I don't see how nature knows anything, or cares about anything. Nature just functions through mutation and selection. At any time an invasive or disruptive species could evolve. The only safeguard on nature is that evolution moves quite slow.
We have been genetically modifying animals since the first wolf was domesticated. Just look at what kind of freaky dogs we have created since. Or highly productive farm animals that couldn't function in the wild, a dairy cow for example. Now we have the ability to speed up and improve this process. And granted, there is a difference, because now we can move genes into an organism that never were there before, like jellyfish genes in a mammal.
Most if not all species that we engineer have no competitive advantage in nature and will only thrive in our carefully managed farmlands. For potentially more dangerous applications, we need to take adequate precautions and thoroughly test species or build in kill genes that we could trigger. Or just make them infertile.

Though it is true that warheads can be dismantled (with significant effort) for use in nuclear power stations, the fact that the bi-product of fission reactors is weapons-grade material remains lost on most people.

This fact is not lost on many engineers. Many modern reactor designs cannot make weapons grade materials. The reason that many old nuclear plants can do this is because they were specifically designed to make the bomb material and produce energy in the process.
Weapons grade material can also be made without reactors by extracting the fissile component of natural uranium.

Geo engineering is the product of similar arrogance of as genetic engineering. It is fueled by a desire for a static environment. The fact is that the Earth has never stood still, and will never do so (except for that one time in film..).

Of course the Earth doesn't care what we do, it and life will go on no matter what we do, even after a full out nuclear war. The point could be made that we have been geoengineering for a long time now. Just look at our cities, farmland and pollution. The only problem is that some of our geoengineering is potentially harmful to us and nature. Therefore deliberate geoengineering is proposed to mitigate these problems. From a humanitarian view one would want to mitigate these problems to relieve human suffering, just like we try to eradicate horrible diseases.

>> ^Doc_M:
>> There is as I understand it a waiting list for people in the US to adopt newborn babies who are up for adoption. Think about it. If you were wanting a child and you could not have one for some unfortunate genetic or other reason, you'd want still to raise a child from infancy wouldn't you?

That kind of sounds like a plea to turn women with unwanted pregnancies into handy-dandy baby making machines.


Basically most completely infertile couples who wish to raise a child want an infant. And I don't doubt that if you told them "if you don't take this child it will be aborted," most of them would jump to and do many things to get the child. Most Americans (at least) by statistics don't like the idea of abortion and would like to raise an infant who would otherwise be so aborted.

I'd like to see your source on that. Last I heard, Americans were about 6.5 to 3.5 in favor of keeping abortion legal.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.