The leak itself is newsworthy, but not 10% as newsworthy as what they leaked, which is proof that every single Republican Supreme Court judge lied outright under oath in their confirmation hearings when they all said “roe v wade is settled law and established precedent and will not be overturned by me”. The first chance they got, they took off that paper thin mask and revealed their agenda to legislate from the bench based on personal opinion not science, fact, or established law. They should ALL be impeached tomorrow for perjury during their sworn hearings.

Time to add 5 more liberal judges to the bench by June 1 and rehear the cases. It’s legal, and the only way to negate the liars, rapists, and religious zealots that Trump improperly installed by stealing two seats with McConnells help and filling a third with a drunk rapist. Turnabout is fair play.

MAY!? This IS the decision, they may rewrite the explanation slightly, but without a few assassinations, “accidents”, or criminal charges, this is how the vote will be reported next month, they already voted in Feb as I understand it, it’s just not official until it’s published but rarely are votes changed, and soon abortion will likely be 100% illegal in any state led by Republicans. Anybody know Barrett’s address? What about Kevanaugh? They, and any state representative voting against personal autonomy, should be doxed at every abortion clinic entrance so the now choice less women, many rape or incest victims, can make themselves martyrs and not just suicide statistics. There will be no exceptions now that they can write the laws that way.

We know this is a real draft because they instantly started looking for the “leaker”. You can’t “leak” a fake decision.

I hope women will start a sex strike in every red state. No nookie until they can control their own womb and it’s contents. It’s the ONLY logical move unless they want to be incubators with no autonomy.

Pretty certain that, if you disagreed with their decision, “wait and see” would not only be a terrible idea to you, it would also be an insult to your intelligence.

I’m petitioning Newsom to boycott any state enacting new laws restricting abortion, “new” meaning in the last decade. California does a shitload of business, we shouldn’t be doing it with states that are removing rights from women.

I just can’t fathom, with overpopulation being the root of all major problems humanity and the planet face, why so many idiots still think they should “be fruitful and multiply”, and should force that on their neighbors too. It’s the height of stupidity, and their children will pay the price for the lack of thought their parents put into the decision. We need to abort 9/10 embryos (or get 10 times better at stopping fertilization in the first place), not increase birth rates by double.

(Before you try the “but it’s murder” nonsense, legally and scientifically those things inside wombs aren’t people, and even if they WERE, one person cannot enslave another even in life or death situations. If they could, we would force live organ donations, transfusions, etc with the donor having no right to refuse.)

Bobby, you are such a dishonest and gullible tool.

You had to go back over a decade to find one Democrat say something 1/2 as dumb as what Republicans put forth daily and as their party stance....and at the time "Johnson's office said that he was a tremendous deadpan and used a facetious metaphor to draw attention to the potential negative impact caused by the addition of 8,000 Marines and dependents to an island of 180,000 people." He never thought you could capsize an island.

So, an obvious joke about overpopulation "capsizing" an island vs an actual inquiry about the forestry dept having the ability and authority to change our orbit. Ghomert was NOT joking....he's a moron and it's time for him and any other moron who believes the big lie but doesn't believe science to walk away from politics.

When your team claims Jewish space lasers cause most forest fires, they aren't joking. When they say Democrats derive magic power from eating live babies, it's not a joke. When they claim that all mass shootings are false flag hoaxes and the dead are fake people, they aren't joking. When they say vaccines contain tracking microchips and mind control serums, they aren't joking. When they go off about the horrors of large corporations buying up property to rent out while making big profits by calling that socialism, they aren't joking. When they say Italian satellites magically changed paper votes from space, they aren't joking. When they say long dead Hugo Chavez rigged the election from beyond the grave, they aren't joking. When they say you should inject bleach to fight a virus they say is a hoax, they aren't joking. Time for your party to walk away from politics and directly into a mental ward, young and old alike.

So sad that's the best you guys have got. Cry me more of those sweet sweet tears of anguish.

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.

Food shaming? I know all about that.

Apparently all I eat is grass, my teeth will rot, my bones will be weak, and I'll die 6 times in a row from protein deficiency. That's just on the daily. Despite me never eating meat in my 51 years of life (Indian parents).

The real clever people like to tell me that I'll make the cows go extinct, and the next person will tell me that the cows will overpopulate the earth if we don't eat them.

Don't worry about doing a degree in nutrition, just tell someone you don't eat animal foods, and they'll become a dietitian in about 4 seconds :-)

Just what the planet needs....more people living longer.
How about we defuse the overpopulation bomb before we try to live forever.

Ah... But Grasshopper. You look at it the wrong way.

Behold!

https://videosift.com/video/Bill-Burr-Final-Solution-To-Overpopulation

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

@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.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

And if that describes the cart narc?

Some people are unlovable.

It's not ok that our numbers are growing. Overpopulation is the number one problem that causes almost every other issue, including anger and intolerance.

I spread broken glass outside my wall to convince those mad buggers to move along....keep their blood off my nice clean walls, thank you very much. ;-)

That's the second video this week of wild animals getting so fed up with human messes that they started cleaning up themselves. I wonder how long before they get fed up with human overpopulation and start working on it....soon, I hope. I'll pay real money to see the Duggars eaten alive by weasels.

Your video, Bill Burr - Final Solution To Overpopulation, 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 achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 31 Badge!