we have to deal with the overpopulation of this invasive species.
You just don't understand the genius of their methods

this concept was the premise of one of the first videos I posted on videosift nearly two years ago.

Seeing as we are using the resourses of the planet at a rate of about 1.5 planets production per year, the theory that we need to maintain our replacement rate is insanity, short sighted, and uninformed. We need to reduce the global population (or somehow increase global production capacity) to budget/ballance our need with availability (possibly with some margin for error, preferably on the safe side of ballance). This concept seems to be lost to many, in all facets of life. Maybe the 'greatest generation/baby boomers' should have thought things through when they decided to have 4+ children each in order to avoid even slight population aging, labor shortage, or economic costs. It's just one more instance of the past few generations greed, ignoring the high (possibly insurmountable)cost to others for their own temporary gain.
On a side note, I do love the term 'baby boomer', it unintentionally but correctly describes the explosive situation that overpopulation creates, and correctly blames the 'bomb's creators.
>> ^ravioli:
A society should maintain a 2.1 average children per woman to maintain its replacement rate. It's why many countries have put up incentives to encourage families to go and have 2 and more children. Not doing so leads to population ageing, labor shortage, and more economic costs to society.
Right now, the fertility rate in the US is 2.05, si I can understand why the US doesn't feel pressed to help families procreate.

I can really appreciate the first part of your comment. I think that people have babies at the drop of a hat, and I also think that helping to put a cap on overpopulation (through education, and maybe even tax reform) would help fix a ton of the problems we have, from the economy to the environment, and hunger and a million other things.

But the government guaranteeing 3 months of unpaid leave is not an incentive to have children. And it is certainly not a "racket". If money is a problem for someone who's had a baby, then they're not going to be able to take that time off anyway. Very very few people, especially the ones struggling, are not looking forward to three months without income. A "racket" brings in income. No income = no racket.

The fact of the matter is, it's cruel to expect a person who has just gone through the trauma (whether personal choice or not) of giving birth (not to mention gestating a human for ten months) to return to work immediately or lose their income permanently. The sad part is that we need to make laws like this in the first place. That time people use for recuperating and connecting with their child can be the most important part of their development. So again you arrive at "hurting children", only from this end it's all so an employer can save a few bucks on not having to screen a temp. It's totally ridiculous.

If an employer is not ready to treat their employees like human beings, then maybe they shouldn't have started up a business in the first place.

>> ^gorillaman:

Society has a limited capacity to provide for and eductate its youth. Once that threshold is crossed every excess birth makes every other child poorer and dumber. Those of you who support policies that allow for explosive population growth are actively harming children.
The short-sighted, entitled attitude of the modern parent will drag us into poverty and squalor. It's necessary for compassion to be grounded in reason.

observational comedy is not a new thing. What the likes of Louis CK, Bill Burr, etc. do that's kind of different than "what's the deal with airline peanuts...I mean coooome ON" type of comedy, is they're honest about their everyday lives. They don't try to pander to what everybody knows, they tell what they know and either you can relate it to your life, or you can laugh at their life.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I listen to his Monday Morning Podcast every week. I love his take on overpopulation. And just him going off on women. Check it out if you haven't already :

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
not quite as politically focused, but equally as aware, check out comedian bill burr



right on thanks for the info. i'll check it out. do you think that type of observational comedy is becoming more popular? it kind of seems that way. "awareness comedy"?
werd man. dig yer posts

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I listen to his Monday Morning Podcast every week. I love his take on overpopulation. And just him going off on women. Check it out if you haven't already :

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
not quite as politically focused, but equally as aware, check out comedian bill burr



right on thanks for the info. i'll check it out. do you think that type of observational comedy is becoming more popular? it kind of seems that way. "awareness comedy"?
werd man. dig yer posts

I listen to his Monday Morning Podcast every week. I love his take on overpopulation. And just him going off on women. Check it out if you haven't already

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
not quite as politically focused, but equally as aware, check out comedian bill burr

>> ^shinyblurry:

You could take the entire population of the earth and fit it in the state of Texas with as much room as people have in New York City. Private consumption accounts for something over 20 trillion dollars every year. The richest 20 percent of the world account for 86 percent of that. The poorest 20 percent account for 1.3 percent. The problem isn't overpopulation or lack of resources, its greed. There is more than enough to go around, it's that the people who have the most money don't want to share it with the people who don't. This stupid rant about the size of families has nothing to do with why there is such gross disparity in this world.


What are your sources for these numbers and "facts" ?

You could take the entire population of the earth and fit it in the state of Texas with as much room as people have in New York City. Private consumption accounts for something over 20 trillion dollars every year. The richest 20 percent of the world account for 86 percent of that. The poorest 20 percent account for 1.3 percent. The problem isn't overpopulation or lack of resources, its greed. There is more than enough to go around, it's that the people who have the most money don't want to share it with the people who don't. This stupid rant about the size of families has nothing to do with why there is such gross disparity in this world.

I respect the Duggers for at least being able to support their children, because having a large family is their life goal. But I absolutely think that overpopulation needs to be the foremost thing on our mind. If we could cut the amount of children we have down to a minimum, you'd see almost every other problem we worry about go away.

I don't think more people carrying guns is ever a solution to a problem. Unless the problem is overpopulation of course. Here in Europe very few civilians even own guns, let alone carry them and we don't have that kind of issues with our police. Besides, there will always be isolated incidents useful to support either side of the argument.

i thought he was going to say overpopulation

>> ^progressivevideo:

do you think the world would be a better place if everyone was gay and godless?


As opposed to overpopulating breeders and oppressive religious zealots? Yes.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I don't see why religion has anything to do with this, although I applaud this man for his take on religion. Homosexuality is natural - everything occurring on this planet is natural. Nature makes no mistakes, it dictates and changes trends. In this case, we are overpopulating the planet, our sperm count is dropping, and more developed nations are becoming asexual or homosexual. Look at Japan, it's a very populated nation, but they can't get their kids to marry, let alone have children - The Japanese youth is addicted to sex toys. It's all natural trend which may or may not revert, and only the feeble minded would bring religion and a 3000 year old book written totally out of context to an argument like this.
On a side note, my wife went to church about 6 months ago while she was visiting PA, and the main topic of the sermon was about how church men don't have sex with their women because they are addicted to porn.
Talk about hypocrisy...
In short, I know my homosexual neighbor is real and has feelings; I don't know if God exists, let alone worry about how God feels.


While I agree with your sentiment, cyanide is also natural as is violence and the need to eat other living creatures to sustain yourself. Natural and moral aren't equal. I am not attesting that Homosexuality is immoral, just that it being natural is not a moral argument in the least.