A 2012 United Nations report summarized 65 different estimated maximum sustainable population size and the most common estimate was 8 billion. Advocates of reduced population often put forward much lower numbers. Paul R. Ehrlich stated in 2018 that the optimum population is between 1.5 and 2 billion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_population

Since we are at or near 8 billion and are far from sustainable, haven’t been for over 50 years, I think the 1.5 number is far more realistic, maybe even high. I think the 8 billion estimates assume international cooperation, constant advances in farming tech with constantly increasing yields (that aren’t happening), and don’t account for climate change disrupting supply chains and production at various levels….so wishful thinking.

War sucks for population control. It’s messy, expensive, destructive of both infrastructure and ecology, and just crap at killing meaningful numbers. We need to reduce by billions, the worst war killed a few million and destroyed much of Europe. A war that kills 1000 times more people….yikes. Forget global warming, hello planetary disintegration.

The only acceptable method IMO is quit having children, then you don’t kill anyone to achieve sustainability. For some idiotic reason, average people find the idea of not having excess children horrific and totally out of the question, but the idea of starving their children to death seems to garner a “shit happens”.

Agreed, we need something like an airborne infectious prion where there could be no vaccine, no sterilization, no escape…..only that would wipe out everyone so maybe not that.

Absolutely we must act. 3 times a day baby :-)

See my queue for the United Nations recommended diet.

If you are going to try to suggest that the United Nations is some kind of hippie vegan promoting organisation, then you will definitely look like the crazy cultist you try to make me out to be.

Sorry champ, it's no longer 1 or 2 doctors promoting a plant-based diet for health, and environment - this video is from the United Nations, and every day, more and more doctors and scientists agree with this view point - you're running out of room to play the "he's a biased vegan" card.


----

And all of your "concerns" are debunked in the comments of your links already, so I have nothing to add.

----

I've also destroyed the credibility of your links in my other video comment section.

@lucky760 The issue I take with what Harris is doing is that whenever he wants to use an example of something that is 'bad', he tends to use an example of something done in the 'muslim world'. There's no argument that there are plenty of bad ideas coming from Islam (which Cenk states several times), but Harris is biased in how he uses his examples (he always seems to dip from the same well), so it seems very clear that he has an agenda. Whether that agenda is to sell books, or for some other reason I don't know.

To understand him better, I would recommend watching more of his video's, you will see what I mean.

The other thing going on here is that Maher has already made up his mind about Islam/Muslims being extrememists before anything is said. You can easily tell this by watching who he interrupts. Ben gets constantly interrupted whenever he tries to say anything - Harris does not - it's just like watching Fox. He's not interesting in listening to reason, he has decided what he believes and if any guest tries to disagree with him then good luck trying to get a full sentence out.

@JiggaJonson are you sure about your definitions? Try reading article 4 of the United Nations Human Rights "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". I'll put the important part of their definition of racial descrimination here for you.

it includes "all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin"

The important part there is that it includes ethnicity, and there is no distinction between the two. So in essence, those trying to call out @billpayer for using the term incorrectly... have not educated themselves on what the term means.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

It's officially known as a report on the "Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series." In lay-speak, it's a study of just how long the current pause in global warming has lasted. And the results are profound:

According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

In still plainer English, McKitrick has crunched the numbers from all the major weather organizations in the world and has found that there has been no overall warming at the Earth's surface since 1995 - that's 19 years in all.

During the past two decades, there have been hotter years and colder years, but on the whole the world's temperatures have not been rising. Despite a 13 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels over the period, the average global temperature is the same today as it was almost 20 years ago.

In the lower atmosphere, there has been no warming for somewhere between 16 and 26 years, depending on which weather organization's records are used.

Not a single one of the world's major meteorological organizations - including the ones the United Nations relies on for its hysterical, the-skies-are-on-fire predictions of environmental apocalypse - shows atmospheric warming for at least the last 16 years. And some show no warming for the past quarter century.

This might be less significant if some of the major temperature records showed warming and some did not. But they all show no warming.

Even the records maintained by devoted eco-alarmists, such as the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre, show no appreciable warming since the mid-1990s.

Despite continued cymbal-crashing propaganda from environmentalists and politicians who insist humankind is approaching a critical climate-change tipping point, there is no real evidence this is true.

There are no more hurricanes than usual, no more typhoons or tornadoes, floods or droughts. What there is, is more media coverage more often.

Forty years ago when a tropical storm wiped out villages on a South Pacific Island there might have been pictures in the newspaper days or weeks later, then nothing more. Now there is live television coverage hours after the fact and for weeks afterwards.

That creates the impression storms are worse than they used to be, even though statistically they are not.

While the UN's official climate-scare mouthpiece, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has acknowledged the lack of warming over the past two decades, it has done so very quietly. What's more, it has not permitted the facts to get in the way of its continued insistence that the world is going to hell in a hand basket soon unless modern economies are crippled and more decision-making power is turned over to the UN and to national bureaucrats and environmental activists.

Later this month in New York, the UN will hold a climate summit including many of the world's leaders. So frantic are UN bureaucrats to keep the climate scare alive they have begun a worldwide search for what they themselves call a climate-change "Malala."

That's a reference to Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban after demanding an education. Her wounding sparked a renewed, worldwide concern for women's rights.

The new climate spokeswoman must be a female under 30, come from a poor country and have been the victim of a natural disaster.

If the facts surrounding climate-disaster predictions weren't falling apart, the UN wouldn't such need a sympathetic new face of fear.

Hear, hear...A lonely voice of sanity, crying-out in a wilderness of the self-deluded...

I'd offer...Who gives a fiddler's fuck whose missile hit whose fight club incubator? Missiles found stacked neatly at two United Nations Relief and Works Agency school buildings to-date, and as far as that shit goes who is to say it wasn't the UN who brokered the bomb deal and sent the blue-helmet fucks to deliver 'em?

I have a suggestion: Israels' a big boy now (the 'dybbuk' have come a long way since 1947)... How about the rest of the world back the way back from The Never Ending Storyline of Real-Jew/Fake-Jew vs Persians (2700+ years and counting??) and let all interested parties duke it the fuck out? Oh and by all means, think of the children, consume more news-corp spin, and go out and get yourselves some solar-powered Vitamin D maybe??

I know...Let's identify and list 24/7-365 the names and addresses on news-tickers worldwide of the DAMAGED WHITE PEOPLE who manufactured the ordinance and continue to bank Hanover Phist on regional conflicts worldwide (while stealing $$ from the planet's wage-slaves) and eliminate ALL THOSE motherfuckers??


...'and the world, will be a better place'

I realize everyone is foaming at the mouth and positive of what happened here, but it should be noted that Israel denies hitting the hospital, and that the United Nations had not confirmed the source of the blasts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/world/middleeast/despite-talk-of-a-cease-fire-no-lull-in-gaza-fighting.html?_r=0

Everyone wants to paint Israel like this giant monster, but things are being way overstated. Let's get serious. If Israel was embarking on a program of "ethnic cleansing" they could easily kill every last person in Gaza. Seems clear enough to anyone that this is not what they're trying to do.

If Hamas was in Mexico shooting rockets at Texas half the people shouting genocide at Israel would be wearing little yellow ribbons hoping our soldiers all come back safe from our Mexican invasion.

I have a hard time imagining, or believing, that anyone purposely bombed a hospital full of children. But I can easily believe accidents of all kinds will happen in a battleground the size of Detroit.

Again SD, I concur and appreciate your input and correct observation of my offhanded statements and I still hold Japan as a nation, responsible for their own cultural dysfunction.

The UN can suck a cock, and I appreciate sincerely your admonition of my obvious limitations. I must say here as well to newtboy, that you mistakenly assume rage when quite the contrary energized the fits you appropriately identified. If I am mad at all, it is only because of my diversion of staring into the mirror of souls at length, only to see all of mankind as equals.

The United Nations is a complete and utter piece of shit SD and it saddens to see the world as a lackey to their ruse. Perhaps give more of a fuck about the world you inhabit to evoke that illusory institution and racism in the same sentence?

I also consider paper currencies and television as tools of control, slavery, and as many vile things in the hands of children as you can imagine.

They are waiting for United Nations approval before they can send warheads. They're ready though. You just enter the GPS coords, pay the appropriate amount of bitcoins to an onion domain, and select the 30 minute worldwide shipping.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

@ghark
@notarobot

I recall news reporting just prior to military intervention in Libya was suggesting that Gaddafi's forces were approaching Benghazi and there were expectations of massacre if they were to reach it.

Wikipedia for what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

"9 March 2011: The head of the Libyan National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, "pleaded for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties".[38] Three days later, he stated that if pro-Gaddafi forces reached Benghazi, then they would kill "half a million" people. He stated, "If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Gaddafi's regime, and his ships are not checked, we will have a catastrophe in Libya."[39]"

"17 March 2011: The UN Security Council, acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, approved a no-fly zone by a vote of ten in favour, zero against, and five abstentions, via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany.[49][50][51][60][61] Less than twenty-four hours later, Libya announced that it would halt all military operations in response to the UN Security Council resolution.[62][63]"

For the 1st country in the Arabian peninsula to afford women the right to vote, member of the United Nations, blah blah blah, 2013 and these Shia-stone-age cunts fuck their own children-....Throwbacks kept in the dark and fed shit instead of knowledge. Thank you, Islam.

Forget the uncle, this girl should go and live with Pat Condell!

I find it deeply sad that people can so easily classify people from the Middle East as terrorists when America's government can get away with things like this.

I mean, where is the United Nations? The international band of good guys sworn to sustain human security?

Her conclusion would seem to support a case of "life imitating art". (Direct quote from the SeaQuest DSV wikipedia) :

"The series follows the adventures of the high-tech submarine seaQuest DSV (Deep Submergence Vehicle) operated by the United Earth Oceans Organization (UEO), a global coalition of up-world countries and undersea confederations, similar to the United Nations, which was created following a major showdown of nations that occurred c. 2017. "

It's already 2013 and people are finally trying to get the ocean version of NASA off and running. Now if we could just have flying cars and lightsabers.....

Trey Parker and Matt Stone speak with their satire the words sympathetic fans know to be true. The self-deceived embrace with emotional fervor causes with ulterior substance and authentic sell-outs invest in the causes and become spokesmen for their keepers.
Sean Penn
Bono

Anyone who aligns themselves with any cause sponsored by UNESCO, UNICEF, RED CROSS,WWF, United Nations....Beware of cunts. Check the list of all UN organizations- IMF is one of them. Might as well join a private club, elitist assholes all.