They say with overpopulation and scarcity of food, we will have to eat insects. Protein shakes seem like a great option.

*promote (got me by 5 min)

When a man doesn’t love a woman very very much
He signs away his paternal rights and jizzes in a cup
Then with lots of money and scientific genius
Hormones, pain and of course, um… Jesus

The process begins the way god intended
With a transvaginal ultrasound
With a wand longer than a ukulele
When it comes out of my body, it makes this sound (pop)

I give myself daily intradermal injections
An acute blood thinner and estrogen concurrence
Cryopreservation through hormonal activation
And none of it’s covered by insurance

Then I’m knocked out and you’re removed
And combined with a stranger’s come
And as the saying goes
You win some, you lose some/you dispose of the defective ones in a hazardous waste bin

And then you’re frozen until I’m certain
It’s time to unthaw you into a person
Then you’ll expire or you’ll make the grade
And that, my darling, that’s how babies are made
(It’s so easy and natural)

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t say a word
Mama’s gonna freeze you til she gets rich

And when that day finally arrives
You’ll be constructed in a petri dish
With sperm donor 8w6-3
The silent partner of our family

So hush little egg baby don’t be sad
Just because I never fucked your dad

VERSE 2:
I know there are orphans everywhere
But I’m going to pretend that isn’t real
Don’t look at me like that just cause I admit it
You had kids and you knew the deal

Yeah I feel guilty about overpopulation
And ruining the environment for forever
But Osama Bin Laden had 20 kids
So fuck you or whatever

Sadly procreation is not a meritocracy
And we need to prevent a real life Idiocracy
Though it may be the ultimate form of narcissism
It’s also a way to re-reverse reverse Darwinism

Gonna mute the sound of that ticking clock
I just need the sperm now I don’t need the cock
My ovaries are like hey girl I’m over here
And I’m all like shhhh

I want all the stuff I don’t need a bucket list
It doesn’t make me greedy it just makes me feminist
Now I’m thinking back through all the guys I’ve dated
If they heard this song they’d fucking hate it

CHORUS:
Hush little egg baby don’t you cry
You’ll have the best genes mommy can buy

I don’t want to wait until I get in dire straights
My friends say if I want kids I should go out on some dates
But these working bitches don’t have time to leave it to the fates
The world deserves more Riki’s and the world deserves more Kate’s

So hush little egg baby dad’s are overrated
He did what mattered when he masturbated

BRIDGE:
Hush little egg baby just hold firm
Mama’s gonna buy you designer sperm

And if that sperm gives you random traits
Mama’s gonna test your dna

And if your dna doesn’t make things clear
Mama’s gonna just have to live in fear

And if that fear turns into guilt
Mama’s gonna hold onto what we built

And if I hold too tight as to suffocate
I’ll buy you lots of things to overcompensate

And if that overcompensation’s too transparent
I’ll pretend it’s somehow better with no male parent

And if you say but mom who’s my dad
I’ll say I don’t know and it’s just too bad

And if that badness forms a hole in your heart
I’ll want to make it up to you but won’t know where to start

I’ll probably start by saying it’s just you and me
And there’s no such thing as a normal family

So fuck being normal and let’s do this shit
Momma’s gonna freeze you til she… gets…. rich

This is the entire list of factors responsible for the california drought:

Overpopulation.

@newtboy
Firstly, people who worry about other people's sexual attraction to human adult non-relatives usually have sexual problems of their own. Therefore, they disqualify themselves to be taken seriously at that debate. The more you argue against the LGBT community, the more likely you are to be sexually harmful.

Secondly, dude, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I live in a country that faces a future where a majority of the population is senior citizens because we made it to expensive and impractical to even have children. I wish my government could do more to encourage women to have children and support them raising them without sacrificing their careers. Right now, my best hope for a nation that isn't dominated by senior citizens is immigration.
I'm less worried about global overpopulation in the west because we have (or at least should have) access to birth control.
The only people in the west that are willing to have more than a handful of kids are the religious nutjobs and the mentally questionable/ill. Here's something most women know and agree on:
Vaginas aren't clowncars.

Because this isn't that hard, and frankly, it's not even that creative.

Granted, there's some skill in the animation.
And there are some sorta funny (in a really dark and twisted way), vaguely inventive, ways of killing people, but it's nothing a bunch of stoned teenagers couldn't come up with.

The point is that what game developers do requires knowledge and skill, but they're not geniuses.*

You could try putting them to work solving the great issues of our time (climate change, overpopulation, poverty, hunger, Justin Bieber, etc), but they really wouldn't do any better than the people already working on those problems.

BTW, in case you weren't grossed out enough before, @ 2:02 the two characters are a father and his daughter.

* Well, some of them are, but they're geniuses in their field.

The really tricky part about all this is that, though the wages and conditions are frequently horrible, the workers there do at least have jobs and that makes them much better off then they would likely be otherwise. You don't frequently see reporters asking the workers "Are you glad you have this job?" With the exception of the rare cases of actual forced labor, they are free to quit. They can't, though, because the alternative is worse.

It's not really individual western consumers fault that this is the situation, nor even the global corporations commissioning the work, nor the local factory owners. We are all under the pressure of capitalism. If the factory owner decides to install fire extinguishers or whatever or increase his workers' wages, the contract will go to another factory owner who didn't. If the corporations insist on only doing business with factory owners like the former, one of their competitors will opt for the latter and put them out of business. If we as consumers decide to only purchase from companies who treat their employees well, we will have to buy less and there will be fewer manufacturing jobs in the third world, and the people will be out of work.

There is no solution. Capitalism and overpopulation are at the root of all this, but the alternatives to capitalism have all proven to be even worse so far and overpopulation may well be insoluble.

Aw. Now I'm all depressed. Still. Bad as things look, in most ways they're better on the whole then they were in previous centuries. True, the population continues to grow exponentially, but literacy and education are on the rise worldwide too, and hopefully they will hold the key.

Genius video. As for topic, it's all for the best I believe. Less use for humans means less humans right? Overpopulation is number one problem in the world, so that helps. Worst case though is never adjusting our economy and ways of thinking, which leads to massive poverty and all the useless people slowly dying out and rioting all the way - which is going to happen most likely.

I'm not trying to be a hater, but I do want people to get what they deserve...and in this instance I believe those that ignore and deny that AGW is real and in part their fault (and every thing I read and all actual scientists I talk to agree that nearly ALL scientists agree that AGW is real and happening now, contrary to your claim that only 4% agree) deserve to have their offspring eat them alive when the food runs out due to their denial based actions.
Really, you claim you personally spoke to "most climate scientists"?!? So now I know for certain that YOU are just a bold faced liar, because that's an impossibility. ;-)
But I already did my hair and put my party dress on, I'm crashing your party! I'll hide among the other scientists and you'll never notice me until the lampshade hat goes on and I climb onto the bar to dance badly to Bolero.
I am 100% certain that either you or Obama has made a mistake here...4% is an exaggeration of the number of scientists that DON'T theorize that AGW is real, not the other way around. Someone got the wires crossed.
It's a poor argument, when presented with facts that are contrary to your theory, to reply with 'who cares what you think'...but perhaps the best argument against my statements that you have?
I do walk to work, in my own yard. I have a vegi garden and an orchard. I do eat mostly just my own vegis, but not completely, there's also chicken and pork that I don't raise myself (but source locally). My beef intake is miniscule. I drive minimally, well under 5K per year (still adding to the problem, agreed, but far less than average), I don't have children (the best and most useful thing one can do for the massively overpopulated planet IMO) and try at every opportunity to convince others to not have them either, I do have solar panels AND hot water tubes, I do grow >90% of my (and my wife's) food. Most of those things I do because they save me money, because as I said, I have no personal incentive to "save the planet" for more than 40+- years, and I also don't think it's possible at this point. I can try to not add to the problem as much as possible, but at the same time I don't let my methods rule or ruin my life. It's my opinion that the time to minimize AGW was in the 80's, when it was completely ignored, and that now it's far too late to minimize things, the system reacts slowly and the last century of CO2 (and others) will continue to effect the system long after we stop adding more...and I think we're already to the point where that unavoidable rise in temp will melt methalhydrates, giving us boiling oceans on fire and at least another 5 deg of near instant temperature rise (likely far more). The tipping point was back when we could avoid that, and I have been convinced by data that that time came and went long ago and now we're hosed.
I will concede that the ONN is a GREAT place for 'news'.

And don't be a hater man... I don't have any children (unlike all the other people contributing to "overpopulation," or whatever your idea is about people with children).
In any case, I spoke to most climate scientists. They disagree with your points.
And the only party I have is the one you are not invited to. But there's a good number of scientist invited though.
The 4% statistic is in the report that Obama cited.

Maybe what I say is asinine in your view, but who really cares what you think?

And what exactly are you doing to fix the problem? I don't know, but there's a good chance I have less of a carbon footprint than you do. Unless of course you walk to work, eat vegetarian, have no children, drive electric, etc. have solar panels at home. You know, the basics.
Take deep slow breaths.
Don't buy plastic.
Or smoke.
Grow my own fruit in the yard.
But let's not jump to conclusions. What do you do (besides attacking people's views online)?

Congratulations! Your video, Colonel Sanders Explains Our Dire Overpopulation Problem, 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 10 Badge!

I'm advocating passivity because I don't recognise overpopulation as a threat, more an inconvenience, and one that we couldn't really prevent even if we wanted to.

I don't see what's preposterous or optimistic about taking widely accepted birth rate data and projecting based off that. Birth rates are predictable and stable sampled over a large population. The data consistently shows that as societies come out of poverty, their birth rates fall. The only assumption here is that there isn't another GFC event that hinders growth which at this point is not particularly likely.

All taken into account we already know it's plateauing, and have known for decades. This isn't a hypothesis, it's happening right now. Unless you can show me why this trend will suddenly and irrevocably reverse, despite population data being incredibly stable and predictable historically, it seems the onus is on you to explain why you're so pessimistic.

Again, I think you're still conflating (1) what I want / whether it's bad versus (2) whether it could plausibly be stopped. I would also rather live in a less populated world. At current rates of technology and resource utilisation, things would be cheaper, there'd be more to go around. Reality is not like that. But as I said before, every policy focus has an opportunity cost. I don't see a plateauing population as a threat and I would rather see that effort devoted to poverty which will help reduce it anyway.

We're nowhere near an economic bubble. Maybe a short term stock market valuation bubble right now, but there's plenty of economic under-utilisation in the US and Europe, and China and other developing countries have decades to grow.

The term technological bubble is a bit nonsensical. You can have a technology sector bubble but actual physical technology which works now, will not magically stop working tomorrow based on inflated expectations. If you're saying instead we'll reach some cusp of innovation, well people have predicting that for decades.

We're nowhere near a peak oil event. Every time people say current known reserves are dwindling, they either (1) discover a huge reserve in under developed countries that were previously not surveyed (Africa and parts of SE Asia at the moment), or (2) something like fraking comes along which unlocks new supply. The US is forecast to be the largest oil exporter by 2020 based on that second point.

Hell, I'll play devil's advocate with you. Suppose we do reach a glut. We'll know this at least a decade ahead based on dwindling new reserve discoveries. The price of energy will leap up far, far ahead of us running out. That will spur innovation in more efficient sources of energy and will incentivise both individuals and businesses to be more energy efficient. A gradual adjustment like I've talked about endlessly here. Why am I wrong?

Environmental damage is a different issue and something that I agree needs to actually be addressed. I'm sure if you search back through my posts you'll see me talking about the economic rationale of addressing this directly when corporations who pollute aren't subject to the negative externalities that they impose in our current capitalist system and that will inherently create issues. Hopefully countries will take note of the smog clouds in China's big cities.

The influence of religion has peaked hopefully. Along with that, as symptoms of overpopulation become more and more impossible to ignore, there will eventually be a huge negative stigma on anyone who has a large family.

Hell we already live in a world where religious baby-factory families are mocked and ridiculed, at least when we see them on TV, so I suspect the shaming of large families will only become more prevalent as time goes on, so one can hope that we won't need government to tell us to stop breeding so much, but given human arrogance, who knows?

Technology will help, but only so much. If anything, technology is contributing to the factors that say we don't need this many people on this planet as automation and computers reduce the amount of people we need in the workforce.

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.

I am absolutely advocating forced population control.

@RedSky

I look forward to sharing my nothing with everyone else's nothing according to the infallible dictates of the market. Your scenario is one in which an ever increasing number of people compete for ever-dwindling resources. Wouldn't it be better to just leave one another a little space?

There's only so much energy, only so much land, only so much fresh water, only so much food (the very least of our concerns), only so much supply of rare minerals, only so much capacity for the environment to absorb pollutants. There are other problems. We may be happy to share what we have with others, how nice, but where do we acquire the right to impoverish everyone else with the burden of our excess offspring? Our share is shrinking all the time due to the actions of criminals who can't keep their legs crossed.

I don't recognise the mild and temporary problem of an aged population as being within two orders of magnitude of all the multifarious harms caused by overpopulation.

@Sniper007

It is my job, it is everyone's job, to police the world. If you're attending a party and you see another guest setting fire to the curtains you do not say,
"Well, it's not my job to stop them. I'll just stand here controlling my own activities, teaching the virtues of not setting fire to the curtains while the house incidentally burns down around me."

Your video, Colonel Sanders Explains Our Dire Overpopulation Problem, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.