Ahhh yes, the Culture / Star Trek / super happy awesome future ending.

It's possible this may come to pass. I'd love to think that we may even see the beginnings of it in my lifetime.

The way I look at it, there are essentially two issues that need solving.

1: population growth needs to actually reverse. Ideally over the next few generations, the population would drop by a few billion. (note for the idiots in the crowd, I'm not talking about genocide or some draconian laws, I mean simply that people will choose to have less kids and the population will drop naturally).

2: energy. We need fusion. There are no two ways about it. We either develop fusion or we abandon our energy rich lives (cars, electronics, media, home appliances, etc)

Both of these are tough tasks, but with enough political will and some ingenuity, they are not insurmountable.

I am simply not that optimistic that we as a species can get our shit together enough to see this come to pass. Collectively, we can pretty terrible at adapting to change... just look at the media or transport industries for an example.

Any new economic model will meet with extreme resistance.

I don't think that "Anonymous" exists as such any more, but i do believe in the ingenuity of a bunch of people on 4chan if they decide they want to do something. But it's kinda (obviously) limited to "whatever you can do, over the internet, before you get found out." So a lot of the threats are empty. The biggest threat i'd consider to be releasing information about the employees, because i think that is something that could possibly be done and could possibly be damaging. By comparison, DDOSing/otherwise taking down or altering a website for a few hours is mostly meaningless.

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

ingenuity? dont tell me about outlets... tell me about back bacon

Congratulations! Your video, The Ingenuity of British Electrical Outlets, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 11 Badge!

Your video, The Ingenuity of British Electrical Outlets, 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 is so misleading. It makes me sad. Of course "The Answer" is hogwash, but to say that "Positive Thinking" and the so called "Law of Attraction" are the same thing is a lie.

The Answer, by John Assaraf and The Secret, by Rhonda Byrne (whom Ehrenreich references) are not representations of what most people consider positive thinking, nor does it have much to do with the idiocy of firing those that warned about the dangers of out-of-control sub-prime mortgage loans.

In other words, this video confuses many separate philosophies and psychological principles, some of which are real, and some of which are false.

There have been numerous studies on positive thinking, meditation, and mental practice that point to positive gains in actual performance. Retorhic and references to George W Bush, don't make this video accurate, though they do garner applause, as evidenced by the number of votes and promotes this video has earned.

Research points to the following benefits of positive thinking:
Increased life span
Lower rates of depression
Lower levels of distress
Greater resistance to the common cold
Better psychological and physical well-being
Reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease
Better coping skills during hardships and times of stress

Positive thinking SHOULD NOT be confused with blinding yourself to realities and dangerous actions, as in the George Bush example given, nor should it be confused with "The Law of Attraction," as in the numerous references she gives to people getting things simply by thinking them.

Positive Thinking is a very powerful force that can lift one into a self reliant and full life. Positive thinkers impact the world with invention, ingenuity, and an uplifting influence on their community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_visualization
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156028/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clear/positive-thinking_b_3512202.html

You're conflating two different points.

1 - Is overpopulation a problem that needs to be addressed?
2 - If it is a problem, is it possible for us to address?

We've been competing for less and less resources ever since populations started growing. Nobody in this thread has offered any evidence for why suddenly at and above 7 billion it will really become a problem this time. My hypothesis is that the past shows that the change in living standards from increased populations will be gradual and not cause some kind of cataclysmic hunger or global food war. Where is your evidence to the contrary? I've shown examples recent and past where the world has dealt with respectively, (1) high commodity prices and (2) dealt with proportionately much higher population growth than what we are experiencing today.

Society has continually shown the ability to drastically grow agricultural yields, tap deeper and harder to access water and energy reserves and substitute different inputs when a commodity becomes scarce or expensive. With global birth rates barely above replacement and global population plateauing, where is your evidence that with the ingenuity of the many people that have come out of poverty since the end of the Cold War, that we won't be able to handle a historically relatively mild proportionate growth in population?

Every time I see someone channelling Malthusian scare mongering such as this video, I always see the same tropes -

(1) The word exponential bounded about with some kind of mystical reverence;
(2) An over-abundant use of analogies while being absent of any historical basis for their argument; and
(3) A complete lack of plausible solutions to the problem because their argument is grounded in emotion and intuition rather than practicality.

This is an amazingly informative infographic, but it's a little hard to appreciate it when we're spoiled by so many amazing visualizations nowadays. It's not fair to compare them - the greatest infographics of today stand on the shoulders of yesteryear's innovations, of course - but really, this kind of ingenuity impresses me so much more: https://twitter.com/DanAmira/status/434407260890992640

Now that's Texas ingenuity boy howdy!

This is heartbreaking. Kenyan ingenuity is amazing (as it is everywhere in the world where people can't just throw away things and buy new). The vehicles they use would have been condemned decades ago here in the UK, but without a big spares network, dealer servicing or even a garage to work in they keep them running.

He's following his dream and good for him. It's just so painfully obvious that he's never going to get there. Anyone who looks at what he built and even think 'maybe...' is obviously completely oblivious to aeronautics!

There are some great examples of awesome, life changing technologies which have been created out of scraps in the African bush, like the kid who built windmills in Malawi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8257153.stm

But it seems for every person who does great things, others fall by the wayside.

I'm glad I don't have to live like they do in Kenya, but I wouldn't mind a bit of their spirit. Dude's built more than I have...

@VoodooV
when i use the term "extreme nasty" i am not referring to a civil war but rather the american public finally reaching its boiling point.

it started bubbling with the tea party,and if people recall it was NOT the rabid christian rightwing fascist group it is today.
they had real grievances and rightly so.

but they got co-opted by private monies.

then occupy blew up and they too had real grievances and since the power elites could not co-opt them like the tea party they were systematically shut down by targeted governmental edict.

thanks Obama.

for years the poor and working poor were disenfranchised,made irrelevant in a political system that only used them as talking points to garner sympathy during an election cycle.

but now the middle class are finding themselves falling into the ranks of poor and working poor and ALL have been made irrelevant and inconsequential.

the american public has been kept in a constant state of fear for over 25 years.
fear of brown people.
fear of losing their job.
losing their house.
hell they even fear their own neighbors!

while the beautiful and poetic nationalism of american exceptionalism and ingenuity sound great,most americans are aware its all bullshit.
the political system is corrupt and sick on its own hubris and greed.

the american public know that this government no longer serves their interest.just look at the data.time and time again the public has a strong opinion on a subject and yet our elected officials vote to serve their masters.
war in iraq? americans shouted NO!
bank bail out? resounding NO!
the examples over the past (especially the past 15 yrs) are staggering.

so while i admire your optimism in still using the political system to enact positive change.i just dont see it ever becoming a reality.
mainly because the system is rigged and not in our favor.

so that leaves only ONE option:take to the streets.
refuse to go to work.
keep your purchases to a minimum and trade with each other.
refuse to feed the beast.
clog it with bodies.
clog the streets..halt business from operating properly.

but avoid violence.

thats what the state uses and to give it reason to engage in violence will only serve to beget more violence.

make those in power afraid.
remind them who they really work for and that if they dont the whole fucking thing is gonna come crashing down.

its the only real option i see and if it comes to pass you will see those who wield power do so..and it will be very nasty.

see:the labor movement
see:civil rights
see:anti-war
see:woman sufferages

Ah, interesting... very different & spirited vocal from Ann Wilson. Cool stuff. And yet - although Ann Wilson is singing live - the rest of the band is faking along to a pre-recorded backing track. Not uncommon in those days for TV guest spots. (And, of course, de rigueur along with "vocal support track" for any aspiring ingenue pop star these days.)

Also, check out Luke Skywalker, faking it on lead guitar! Complete with, uh, some sort of concealed light saber weapon...

if only we could apply this sort of ingenuity to solve the actual problem instead of the symptoms

I'd like to know more about this.
Was that Spielberg? Or a look-a-like?
Was it cut between different sources (guy interviewing recorded interviewee in response to some DVD extra dialog from the director)?

RE: "All the people I met at Dreamworks were, and still are, AWESOME!"
-> It is rarely the people that work at a company, rather than the people who manage the company, that are absolute shitheads.

So, if the interviewee knows Spielberg and the CEO of DWS, I could see it being a case of attempted pro-nepotism, sure. That shouldn't get a ban for life, especially since the video seems to be tongue in cheek.

Even if he paid these people to say these lines without their knowledge of the use... Not really a ban for life. Maybe 20% ingenuity and 80% stupidity on the guys part.

Regardless of all of the above, it takes imagination, creativity and openly thinking outside of the usual formula to create something like this as an introductory video for application to a specific company. That kind of outside thinking and (most importantly), the ability to conceive, produce and complete such a project, is exactly the kind of people companies, any company should be looking for.

But that's all pending on the full story, and based on what I see here. If he held Spielberg in a small storage unit at gunpoint and forced him to say these lines: definitely a ban for life from the organization.

Also: the Jurassic Park theme is shit.