@RedSky

20 billion was just an arbitrarily large number I chose to demonstrate that I think that the world would survive significant population growth beyond what we'll be dealing with in the near future.

The point of no return I was referring to is simply a point where we won't be able to get back to a place where we can sustain human population levels without significant environmental degradation and territorial disputes, among other challenges I'd prefer not to experience.

I do consider things like global warming, the fact that China is buying up land in Africa to feed its population, US foreign policy's competitive focus on securing cheap oil and the large scale destruction of rainforest to make way for single crop agriculture in Brasil to be symptoms of an imbalance in population vs. resources.

I'm not drawing the line at "everyone and stock up at the grocery store/pumps" type destruction before I take notice and preach caution. I think that defining that as a deadline would be irresponsible.

Again, I agree that we could theoretically mechanize the whole world in a way that grows the supply of resources and shares them equitably amongst an enormous human population, but that goes against the type of world I'd want to live in (excessive mechanization of natural resources) and the way human social systems typically work (equitable sharing).

There are various estimates on how much longer exponential human population growth will last, but it has certainly happened on a scale of centuries or decades - blips like baby boomers are just expected outliers within that trend.

But what's more important is that even if population levels peter off, it is consumption - which is the only statistic that really matters because it is the only negative effect of population increase - that will continue to increase exponentially as a greater proportion of the world's population begins to achieve first world living standards.

This is why free trade alone is not enough to solve problems. While it is likely to bring people out of poverty, raise education levels and increase human rights (all very good things), it will also continue to push our overall imprint on the planet in a more exponential direction than I'm comfortable with (one reason being the argument detailed in this video).

But of course I'm also uncomfortable with the prospect of any sort of forced population reduction mechanism, and I'm also uncomfortable with the notion of not raising people out of poverty.

So as I see it the only thing left to mitigate my fears is to place a primary emphasis on Education.

There's a million and one ways to do this: Everything from broad, effectual efforts like getting the Pope to get with the program and endorse contraceptives, to nearly insignificant efforts like arguing with people on the internet in hopes that you contribute some small part to a culture that places some significant emphasis on educating people about the importance of self control and restraint in every type of consumption - family size included.

He belittles the Pope's lack of being a judgmental asshole with childish sound bites. And the funny part is that he doesn't even try...

Hmm, so Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that the U.S. couldn't have ended slavery in the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all of the other Northern states did (not to mention the British empire, the Spanish empire, the French, the Danes, the Dutch, the Swedes, and many many others during the nineteenth century), namely, peacefully. (For reference, see Jim Powell's Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery; and Joanne Pope Melish's Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860).

Rather, Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that 750,000 dead Americans (and even more than double that number maimed for life), to say nothing of the total destruction of the voluntary union of the founders, was in fact the only way to end slavery. Southerners (only six percent of whom actually owned slaves) were, according to Stewart and Wilmore, "willing to die to preserve slavery" and so, therefore, the Great Oz (er, I mean, The Great Abe) did what was necessary...

So says this renowned historical sage, Jon Stewart, and his cast of clowns...

I love the irony of people believing in an eternal, omnipotent, realitydefining being that can't be the driving, creative force behind concepts like evolution or the big bang just because their human written book says so.
It simply illustrates my point: if a timetraveller went back and edited the early biblestories to include Superman instead of Jesus, these people would have the letter S on their necklaces instead of crosses and the Pope would wear a red cape.
They call themselves christians but what they truly believe in is a book and not the people or concepts it talks about. If it isn't in the book, it isn't real. These people live in Fantastica and science is their Nothing.

And yet here you are a demand homosexuals to keep their sexuality a secret, keep it away from the public eye because it upsets you with your faith.
Nobody makes you go kiss a boy (assuming you're male yourself here) but nobody stops you from holding your girlfriends hand in public either. Nobody tells you you can't get married in the legal sense because you're straight and no kid gets bullied in school because they're into the other gender.
You talk about beliefs and lifestyles and in that you disrespect gay people, force your belief onto them. It's not a lifestyle, it is who they are, at the very core of their existence, like being straight is not a lifestyle for you. Your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but deminishing their very identity.
If homosexuality was a lifestyle, so would be heterosexuality. Lifestyles are not natural attributes given by the gods, lifestyle is choice. Do us a favour, choose neither of them, become asexual. It's the best proof, the Pope will agree.

In the end you won't be able to let go of this because christianity has always been obsessed with sexuality, especially that of other people. So eager to control masturbationary habits (Don't be Onan, fight the urge!), women's sexual freedom (Contraception is for whores!) and the queer (Worse abominations than seafood!) and therefore blind to see that this nonsense crusade against everybodys desires drives the masses away from their oh-so-important message of salvation. That's why you loose the fight, mankind is becoming more tolerant and we refuse to beat down the minorities for you any longer.
You can't have it both ways, you can't preach god is love and then hand us a list of people we're supposed to hate and expect us to nod in silent obedience. Times have changed, the minorities get more and more allies.
Honestly, that's what I admire about the Westboro Baptist Church, they're idiotic haters but at least they're consistent with their ideologies and brave enough to stand up for them.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Cheerleaders-the-Pope-and-The-Death-of-Jade-Rabbit

Cheerleaders, the Pope, and The Death of Jade Rabbit has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2.

lol, Chicken Little found a gig at MSNBC. This guy makes a leap of faith (oil use leads to global catastrophe) that makes anything ever decided by any Pope, saint or disciple look miniscule.
These people really believe in their utopia, don't they?

No, no... I think that Macklemore song is awesome in its power.
I meant the whole 30 couples getting married thing with Madonna wailing the background... THAT part was cringe-worthy.
Ever see Scrooged? There's a scene where slimeball TV executive Bill Murray is describing the Christmas ratings-grab stunt where the Pope will bless the entire Zulu nation. The Grammies' stunt seemed like such a similar calculated stunt... more about ratings than a genuine intent to make a statement.

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

Hmmm, I starting to get the feeling that that wasn't the real pope.

Congratulations! Your comment on TDS: Minimum wage hike and the Pope denouncing Trickle Down has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 10 Badge!

WHOA! Hijacked the Holy Father's throne, YOINK!

I ain't Catholic but I sure dig how this new pope rolls-He's not stambling around like some sedated stroke-victim either...like the last 3 creepy ones and, he's Argentinian (BBQ's @ Vatican City) and kinna looks like Alan Rickman

The pictures of Pope Francis mixed in there aren't warranted.

I think he overestimates the power the Pope has over American Catholics.

In the particular instance of Iraq, the Pope neither initiated violence nor did he tell anyone else to do so. In fact, "In 2003, he once again opposed a war in Iraq and appealed to U.S. President George W. Bush to refrain from going to war." It didn't persuade Bush and I doubt it would have persuaded the general Catholic population of military personnel to go AWOL even if he had expressed his dissent more emphatically.