I Bought a Rainforest, ep. 1/3 has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

@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.

I love them!!! They seem so clumsy though, it's a wonder they don't fall out of trees.

Your question prompted me to do some research and this is what I found out after exploring that youtube channel's other videos:

Lumholtz's Tree Kangaroos are a unique Australian species that are found in select, tropical rainforests of north Qld.

The whole issue about calories is a misdirect, there are dozens of other more important reasons why McD's is worse than trash. A couple of examples - the food is loaded with all manner of artificial ingredients, it's lacking in quality fiber, it's highly processed (low nutritional value), and the quality of the macro ingredients is very poor - i.e. the use of trans-fats as @RedSky points out, as well as the use of poor quality sugars (i.e. HFCS) to sweeten the dough.

That's not even to mention the exploitation of their workers, rainforest clearing to raise cattle, wasteful use of plastic packaging etc.

I thought the "Rainforest alliance" thing was just a way for big companies to confuse shoppers with a label reminding that of Fairtrade®, while greenwashing a clean conscience for consumers looking to make a difference in the supermarket.

But after seeing this video, I now understand the the futility and absurdity of trying to make an ecological impact by any other means than simply being a responsible consumer and buying shit. All hail the hypnotoad.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gorilla, rainforest, adoption, young, baby, attack, fear' to 'gorilla, rainforest, adoption, young, baby, attack, fear, Adrien Deschryver' - edited by silvercord

I love that place. Been stoned in there MANY a time and of course taken many a girl there too hahaha. Nothing beats a date that includes weed, bikes, parks, a rainforest and indian food except for what happens afterwards.

Without a doubt, we need protests like this to affect political change.

The problem is the people this bit is criticizing are silencing their own voices by alienating people like me who agree in principle, and would like to identify with these people, but also know they're acting like crazy people.

The problem of course is ironically, the vast majority of people who would camp out indefinitely like this to protest something that is very important, and worthy of protesting would by definition be... crazy people.

>> ^Peroxide:

Isn't the essence of democracy, that it includes every person's voice, whether they have face paint and funny hand gestures or not?
Not just the voice of the "normal people" who own 8 fast food franchises and pay their employees minimum wage, while selling a product that makes people sick and destroys the rainforest and the climate?
I want the face painted freaks to have as much of a say in their country as the millionaires and billionaires,
Because, frankly, one of those groups is morally and ethically bankrupt, and the other group just happens to be visually and socially awkward.

>> ^Peroxide:

Isn't the essence of democracy, that it includes every person's voice, whether they have face paint and funny hand gestures or not?
Not just the voice of the "normal people" who own 8 fast food franchises and pay their employees minimum wage, while selling a product that makes people sick and destroys the rainforest and the climate?
I want the face painted freaks to have as much of a say in their country as the millionaires and billionaires,
Because, frankly, one of those groups is morally and ethically bankrupt, and the other group just happens to be visually and socially awkward.


I agree with you 100% @Peroxide - I think the point of this bit is that the people who they're trying to influence are dismissing their ideas because they're acting like they're at Burning Man.

Isn't the essence of democracy, that it includes every person's voice, whether they have face paint and funny hand gestures or not?

Not just the voice of the "normal people" who own 8 fast food franchises and pay their employees minimum wage, while selling a product that makes people sick and destroys the rainforest and the climate?

I want the face painted freaks to have as much of a say in their country as the millionaires and billionaires,

Because, frankly, one of those groups is morally and ethically bankrupt, and the other group just happens to be visually and socially awkward.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Avatar, James Cameron, rainforest' to 'Avatar, James Cameron, rainforest, Amazon Watch, Pandora, Brazil, Sustainability' - edited by Trancecoach

@ulysses

You are correct sir! It's Titicaca. The blue looking area to the left is all rainforest free of the "human infestation".

Long, long time sift fan, first time poster. I don't know why I chose now to start.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise...


I) I agree that culture may influence hypotheses that have a strong influence on popular ideas of the day. When considering your example, it was the church that was the main player on the opposing side, and ideas that go against the church doctrine, well... we all know what happens then. Climate change has similar implications, as it is rooted in politics and lifestyle - it may be influenced by culture. However, the supporting hypotheses are not largely influenced by culture because they are largely scientific in nature and do not have a direct influence on laymen. For example, the ecological hypothesis to which I eluded earlier concerning altitude and species' ranges is not debated on CNN or FOX. It's fairly obvious why. MOST (I'd wager 99%) scientific ideas are similar to this latter example.

a) I can agree with your point somewhat.. I agree that most people (including scientists) are subject to culture and view their world through the influence of it. However, just because this may be true, does not invalidate peer review. This is linked to my former point, if strong contrary data were to arise, it would greatly behoove a scientist to publish those data, not bow to the pressure of culture and hide it. Reviewers would be forced to view the evidence as it stands, in its raw naked truth, regardless of culture or influence - the editors, co-editors, and colleagues of the authors would demand it.
To your point about trends in science, I can also agree, yet climate change has more to do with the pressing nature of the matter then to a trend. This contrasts greatly with your example of Einstein and Newtonian theory. Climate change is "trending" at the moment, because we are forced to confront it - much like we were forced to confront the depletion of the ozone layer, we are confronting the loss of biodiversity in rainforests, the endangered species act, etc.

b) Indeed, I agree with you that it would not necessarily be "bad". However, you questioned if climate change would even be environmental in its effect. With the examples I provided, I hoped to show you that, indeed, it would be. Some ranges would increase, some would decrease, of course. However, as you surely know, evolution of unique taxonomic macroorganisms can take millions upon millions of years. It is not the increasing ranges with which we are concerned, it is the decreasing ones. Once they are gone, biodiversity decreases, even though it may increase for others. The health and environmental ramifications of that I surely do not need to explain.

c1) See my first point (I) - same argument, really.

c2) You're right and that is my fault - I misspoke (mistyped?). I meant that nobody has yet developed any strong evidence to the contrary. However, you have also committed a scientific falsity, which is one never "proves" anything in science. Therefore, a naysayer would never have to 'prove' that climate change is not occurring, but merely present his/her evidence of such to the contrary. He/She would then address the current models and present opposing ones (as many have done). The theory would quickly unravel, as many theories have done (e.g. Clemons vs. Gleason over the forest climax / succession model is a classic ecological theoretical battle that occurred in the early to mid 1900s. Clemons' theory was accepted for decades until a new hypothesis emerged from Gleason. The latter eventually racked up more evidence and is not generally accepted by the scientific community. [one more theory we never heard about in the papers, with practically no cultural influence]).

Fair enough. I've always been one to love a great experience when it comes to gaming (Interstate '76, The Longest Journey, Deux Ex), but the faults that accompanied Bioshock, I guess prevented me from really experiencing that ... experience. Perhaps I'll try it again one day to see if I can overlook those fun-stopping elements.

There have been plenty of other games that offered a similarly excellent experience to the one you describe, that all had faults of their own. Somehow I was able to overlook those. Guess I'm not sure what it is about Bioshock that I despised so much as to disallow that.
>> ^mentality:
The gameplay was nothing exceptional, but definitely better than games like Fallout 3. And I totally understand when things like technical issues or how the gameplay "feels" can ruin a game. Also I agree that there is a lot of repetitiveness. The repetitiveness, however, stems from the limited variety of enemies that you fought - and not from repetitive level design as in the first Halo game.
Like I said, I never considered the gunplay to be a strength of Bioshock, and those negative aspects that you mentioned never really bothered me. For me, the setting was always the real star of the show. From lush underwater rainforests, to the opulent decadence of the operahouse, to the run down squalor of the underwater slums, no one has ever put together such a spectacular cast of locales with such believable fidelity. And each locale has its own story to tell - told through flashbacks and journals - of how it was twisted into the macabre and fallen vision that you see before you. Throwing you in alone into this creepy and hostile world, run by a powerful and malevolent madman, created a sense of danger and desperation evoked by great survival horror games like System Shock 2.
For me, Bioshock was one of the few games that managed to transcend the limitations of gaming and provided an interactive experience.

>> ^ForgedReality:
Sorry, I can't agree. What was it that you enjoyed most about the gameplay? Or was it just the setting?
For me, I dunno. Nothing really ever jumped out at me that made me want to play it. It felt kind of "meh." I just couldn't get as into it as some people apparently could. I tried, but certain things really bothered me, like the annoyingly typical Unreal Engine graphics (AA issues, "everything is shiny" syndrome, etc), incredibly weak feeling weapons that seemed like they should have had a lot more impact on your enemies, the repetitiveness of the single player experience...
I'll admit, at first, the visuals and the atmosphere were kind of cool, but that all quickly melted away for me because it just didn't feel all that fun. I think a lot of the longevity it had was due to impractical things like collecting tapes and stuff for background information--the kind of thing that had no bearing on the actual game itself.

The gameplay was nothing exceptional, but definitely better than games like Fallout 3. And I totally understand when things like technical issues or how the gameplay "feels" can ruin a game. Also I agree that there is a lot of repetitiveness. The repetitiveness, however, stems from the limited variety of enemies that you fought - and not from repetitive level design as in the first Halo game.

Like I said, I never considered the gunplay to be a strength of Bioshock, and those negative aspects that you mentioned never really bothered me. For me, the setting was always the real star of the show. From lush underwater rainforests, to the opulent decadence of the operahouse, to the run down squalor of the underwater slums, no one has ever put together such a spectacular cast of locales with such believable fidelity. And each locale has its own story to tell - told through flashbacks and journals - of how it was twisted into the macabre and fallen vision that you see before you. Throwing you in alone into this creepy and hostile world, run by a powerful and malevolent madman, created a sense of danger and desperation evoked by great survival horror games like System Shock 2.

For me, Bioshock was one of the few games that managed to transcend the limitations of gaming and provided an interactive experience.