Way too long, didn't watch, but I must disagree with the description.
Population control is hardly removed from the debate. IMO it's just ignored when it's brought up because the vast majority of people won't even consider not having children to the point where when China tried to take action and limit couples to one child the world called them draconian monsters instead of intelligent.
I personally often say I think every problem facing humanity and the planet is a function of overpopulation, and I'm not alone. I admit, I'm rare in that I put my money where my mouth is and had a vasectomy in my twenties before having children. I'm of the belief that no other action could possibly have the positive effect that not adding to the population does, but I also bought a full solar system over a decade back and try to grow most of my own food, and I drive well under 5000 miles a year.
There's no reason to abandon population control in favor of technological fixes or vice versa, indeed I believe maximising both won't fully solve our issues that have taken over a century to create, but I also believe not acting in every way possible to mitigate our damages leads to certain doom for most species.
I also think none of this will make a whit of difference in the grand scheme because way too many people have decided making any lifestyle sacrifices or not wastefully living above their means is intolerable even if it means their children suffer for it.

For some idea of how much energy could conceivably be extracted this way, see:

https://www.withouthotair.com/c16/page_96.shtml

In a nutshell, the numbers in this video sound extremely bogus. It's unlikely that anything like our current fossil fueled lifestyle would be possible using only geothermal energy.

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

Sounds word smithing, bending the original meaning of gender to give legitimacy to ones lifestyle.

Its like taking the definition of dog and morphing its original definition to include any 4 legged animal.

But hey the left control the education system ( and media) and hence control the language of the day.

Next time you seem me walking my elephant just be politically correct and say thats a nice dog you have.

I believe it's a matter of personal identity.
The people in these clips are VERY involved in projecting their identity. You look at these people and you know right away exactly who they want you to see them as.

"Conservative" is part of that identity.
It's "Conservative" being sold as a brand, an image, and a lifestyle. The details of the Republican platform are secondary. In fact, you can project anything you want onto it. It doesn't matter what's behind the label.

People are looking for a sense of inclusion. It's reassuring to know that you can howl the right words in a crowded space and hear your pack howl back. If the words you howl are shocking to another group...well that's all the better, it fits your personal identity.

Jeez.
Facts on the situation are certainly unclear, and I'd question any unfounded assumptions of mental health issues or serious drug problems. She's holding a phone and dancing. If she were a professional street performer, we'd evaluate her talent instead of judging her lifestyle. Enjoy it. She's not bad, and the dubbed audio makes it delightful.

What?! Transmorpher posted a set of pro vegan videos that claim to be "up to date on the latest nutritional and health research"? Never seen that before, at least this one doesn't claim moderate meat consumption will absolutely give you cancer.

Almost like veganism is a *cult instead of lifestyle or health plan.

People die from a lot of things. We are talking about a possible rise of up to one percent over the lifetime average. That is statistically irrelevant.

The propaganda is that this doctor is the founder of a radical vegan organization that uses any statistic to promote a vegan lifestyle. No different than Fox News using vague facts to promote it's agenda.

For newts, even the .1% will go down before the rest of the world.
When I moved here, N California, I would see newts and frogs constantly, even a >1' long giant tiger salamander in my greenhouse. Now, 19 years later, I still see some frogs, but no newts or salamanders....hardly even any banana slugs.

I always figured I could just go full Morlock and live a nice cannibalistic lifestyle underground if I survive civilization's death throws.....but I'm probably old and soft enough that I won't.

Arcata, being our college town, is the most expensive town here. I would consider other nearby towns if being cheap is important. Try Blue Lake, where I am (I'm outside town), it's more rural but under 10 miles from Arcata.
We moved here 25 years ago....back then, a 1000 square ft house with an acre cost us $800a month. I've owned my home since then, so I'm out of the rent loop, but poking on craigslist looks like around $1500-$2000 for a decent house, with some more, some less depending on what you get. Nice 2-3 bedroom homes seem to be about $500000 now with some property.

Our gas is the most expensive in the country consistently, over $4.

Beyond that, it's pretty cheap. Property tax is 1%, food is reasonable, entertainment is mostly nature and community, fishing, hunting, hiking, boating, surfing, diving, even back country skiing 1/2 hour up hill, so free, although there are paid events too, we even had GWAR play a few times in Eureka, but no opera or ballet.

My wife and I live on $30k....we have 4 cars, pets, vacations, a large pond, hot tub, etc. Because I have room, I grow a lot of our produce and we have around 40 fruit trees. We aren't putting any extra in the bank, but aren't depleting our savings either.

We are the marijuana capital of America, if you know the right people, it's maybe $100 an oz for A grade, $10-20 a gram for wax/oil.

All in all, it depends on your lifestyle. It would be easy to spend all you save living here on gas, or easy to not have a car at all if you're in town and will ride a bike in the rain. While there are certainly cheaper places to live, I'm not sure there's better. Our forests are gorgeous with skyscraper redwoods, the ocean is cold but clean here, the rivers unspoilt and full of fish, our air is some of the cleanest in the lower 48, water is too, and our summer daytime temperature is mostly 70-75 F, winter is low 50's- freezing, but we have very few freezing days.

Mckinleyville, just above Arcata, was (still is?) the largest town in California with no police, only highway patrol. They got a multiplex before police!

We have a ton of immigration from the bay area, but more often than not they move back because they miss the fast pace and abundant services and entertainment....I didn't.

Hope that helps. We love it here, but we're slow paced and super cheap bastards. If you are too, come check it out.

My mom didn't marry my father. I never knew him. I was placed with my Grandparents because my mother wasn't done with her fun 70's lifestyle.

My Grandfather was a violent alcoholic who was only able to get money because my Grandmother was disabled and he was paid to be her caretaker for part of the week. We ate from the garbage sometimes at Safeway (Randalls). We supplemented our income by picking up cans on the roadside. I lived right on the border of the Tohono O’odham reservation and had to go to their school for 5 grades.

Then we moved to Texas, I had to go to a reform school in Killeen for one year because they couldn't find room for me in the regular school and we lived too far outside the city. The next year, after being in multiple fights and failing the 6th grade because I couldn't concentrate on my studies, I was allowed to go to a smaller country school on hardship.

Every single one of my immediate relatives had some type of drug issue or were mentally ill. All 3 of my Uncles were criminals. I had major problems with trust and making friends because of these and other related issues. I played football primarily to hurt other people. I suffer to this day from anxiety and depression.

Yet, thanks to nonexistent government programs designed to prevent me from succumbing to Inter-generational Poverty, I somehow managed to be the first person from my family to go to College, not be addicted to drugs, have a completely functional and non-abusive marriage that has lasted almost 20 years, and managed to make a quite successful career in computers that allowed me to retire early when I started having health issues.

Yes, I thank the government every single day for all they did for me, because there was no way I could have overcome the hand I was dealt without their help. I would have just been poor, white trash like the rest of my family, since no one can strive for a better life or aspire to anything unless they have the hand of Big Brother to lift them up.

But it does prioritize freedom of choice...the customers. Freedom to discriminate against others based on race, sex, sexuality, age, or religion in public business is a freedom most people don't want to foster.

I do agree, there are exceptions, like the one you mentioned. Forcing a women only spa area (or any other business where group nakedness is part of the service) to allow people with a penis to enter is touchy (pun intended)....far more than allowing them in a rest room....and above my pay grade, so I won't be opening a women only spa, at least until that's well settled.

Edit: no one is forced to participate in a lifestyle, period. First, creating an object used by someone who's 'lifestyle' differs from yours is not participating in it, second, you are not forced to remain in business. If you CHOOSE to have a public business you are required to operate it according to the law and not discriminate against customers based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, .... with very few specific exemptions.
Bigots got over having to make cakes for interracial couples, they'll get over this bigotry too.

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....

I look at it differently. In a business, especially any creative business, the decision to pursue or participate in a particular transaction/venture should heavily prioritise individual freedom of choice. On the whole, I'm on board for requiring that business not decline service to people based upon attributes they are born to. Even there however, gender segregated spas are something that I still think should be allowed. That's not an arbitrary choice, up here in Canada a spa is under fire for declining access to a spa based on someone having a penis.

More succinctly, I think everyone should have as much right to think, do or act however they like. Equally though, people should have the right to not participate in other people's lifestyles as well.

People walked right into this themselves. No, the data wasn't stolen, because it's part of the general online business model to collect and sell it. A few people raised alarm about this for years. No one listened.
Even now nothing will change, because:
1) We've allowed the collection and sale of user data to become irreversibly entrenched into the world economy, and
2) The same majority of the populace who already showed apathy in the face of privacy-advocate's concerns will not change their lifestyles over this.

Thanks, but a life without bacon is not one I want to live. I know the risks and accept them. I know the costs and offset them.
You can still try to convince them. Maybe at least then they won't have 10. Idiocracy is prophetic, trick them into watching it.


My large but finite footprint with no kids is smaller than a Sudanese with 2 kids who each have 2 kids who each have two kids in perpetuity. In the short term, lifestyle changes might be useful (but nearly impossible to sell), but long term, absolutely nothing works but population control, so it's more important imo. Also, since having no children is self beneficial, it's easier to sell to the selfish.