I honestly don't know what to make of this.

My gut instinct is that it seems kinda irresponsible, but I really don't know. Anyone with any actual medical knowledge want to weigh in on the risks?

It's funny, each time Snowden opens his mouth, he completely destroys the US administration's attempts at portraying him as a brazen irresponsible punk. His responses are always thoughtful and articulate. You may contend that he has a lot of time to come up with his soundbites, but then so do many top politicians, and they still sound like idiots.

I'm with @artician...I'm not against GMO's because they're 'bad', I'm against them because they're untested, unlabeled, and are quickly replacing tested 'natural' foods and crops across the board and around the world. It's terribly irresponsible science to replace so much of our food crops with untested science experiments, knowing full well there will be side effects we didn't foresee and likely can't accept.
I would also agree that the child SEEMS to be simply repeating a speech he memorized, written by someone else much older. I HATE that kind of BS, more so when it's done this way, pretending the child is speaking and not regurgitating. I may agree with much of what he said, but much of his message is lost to me because of the attempted 'tug at my heart strings'.

something something irresponsible, reckless, blah blah.

We all know this video would 2x more votes if the trailer flew off.

Very lucky the trailer didnt start to swerve and transport him and the Nissan into a ditch.
Very irresponsible.

yea beacause condoms are a 100 percent.

fuck off ya jack weiner.

the only 100 percent way not to get a vagina seeded is to not fuck a vagina.

ABSTINENCE AND GOD. That is all ALL walking baby incubators need to know. HOW CAN A WOMAN BE SO DAMN IRRESPONSIBLE AS TO SPILL SPERM INTO HER INSIDES. DAMN WOMEN, IT IS ALL THEIR FAULTS.

Statistically individual, personal commitments make very little impact on a population. I agree with the sentiment, but our views on "personal responsibility" don't work in reality beyond our individual family, they just make us feel better about ourselves thinking that way. You are superior. Good for you, but it doesn't put a dent in the real problem.

Reform works. For example, your children didn't make these decisions, rather you (and I assume a life mate), who are the institution of your children, made a parental reform and it benefits them greatly. Now, if you left it up to your children, what do you think they would do without your positive influence?

I'm a product of that and it has taken me years to realize this and patch the hole in my very being; years of bad habits and depression. I didn't have responsible, nor very smart parents, and I went to public school to boot. I was fucked and I didn't even know it. All of the potential to be an above average human and what did I do? FML'd. Flunked out of honors, AP, kicked out of the gifted and talented education program; though, I did provide that needed C average spot for Academic Decathelon, my potential meant squat. Personal responsibility BULLSHIT. That's an illusion and the reality is pathetic. I struggle EVERY DAY and I shouldn't have to.

I guess it's up to me to make up for my parent's irresponsibility, but most people just go with the flow. I guess if you don't mind paying for the ignorance of the sheeple, you can just let things be the way they are and deal with a failing population of dumbed down, unhealthy Americans.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people are getting smarter and healthier every day. A land where the government that tricked us (social contract) into giving them our livelihood, gives back to us, makes us stronger, more fit, and appropriately able to compete in a global economy. A land where the people in power work to make us better, rather than feeding off of our ignorance.

This imaginary world would abso-poso-lutely require reform away from the stranglehold dystopia the real.

@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.

Suey Park aside (she acts crazy), I personally believe many of you would be well served by thinking about this situation more critically before you jump on the defend Colbert bandwagon. Colbert is a funny satirist, but is not without flaw, and in my mind this bit on his show was at best a shitty joke and at worst completely unnecessarily racially insensitive (i.e. even as satire, it did not serve his point well). An article here talks about it in a more articulate way than I probably can:
http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/04/colbert-white-racial-satire-dont-need/

This is somewhat tangential (I'll tie things together later), but based on my readings it seems Chappelle may have grappled with whether some of his skits were having net positive social impact, especially near the tail end of the show's run. From Chappelle's wikipedia entry (way more context there) --- "Chappelle said that he felt some of his sketches were "socially irresponsible." ... "According to Chappelle, during the filming of the sketch, a white crew member was laughing in a way that made him feel uncomfortable and made him think. Chappelle said, "It was the first time I felt that someone was not laughing with me but laughing at me."
--- For me, coming from somebody like Chappelle, that's pretty heavy stuff. if Dave Chappelle -- IMO quite brilliant both comedically and otherwise, and has personal experience being an oppressed minority -- struggles with what makes good socially responsible satire, that probably means it's hard. Really hard. Yet there are many people far less qualified than Chappelle in the area of satire creation and firsthand experience of racial oppression using "Colbert is satire, don't you know what [good, socially responsible] satire is?" (I'll answer that rhetorical -- No I don't, nor do probably most people) as a bit of a rubber stamp for Colbert being totally justified in doing this bit.
In my opinion, if there were ever a time for Stephen to totally break character for a second and just say "I'm sorry. Satire can be very difficult at times and we make mistakes. This was one of them. We've got to try harder.", now would be the time. As Chappelle pointed out, some people could be comfortable in laughing for the wrong reasons and not realizing it ... those people need a bit of a reality check. As the person everybody is rushing to protect, Colbert would be the best one to deliver it. In doing so, this could even more powerfully (than his satire) make people come around to the idea that racism is not just a switch you can turn off and be done with it (a la Stephen Colbert the *character*), it's a constant maintenance process like brushing one's teeth ( a la Jay Smooth -- Great talk here by Jay on just this topic ). "Wait.... even Stephen Colbert (the person) satirist master extraordinaire needs to think about race issues!? Hmmmmmmm..."

@Quboid

It doesn't take much variance in speed to cause annoyance in other drivers, if this device tells you to slow down even 5km/h (sorry I don't do miles), you're going to be breaking the flow of traffic and people *will* overtake you.

People drive up to and often slightly over the speed limit, you can say whatever you want about what people *should* be doing but it's not reality, so it's moot.

If this doesn't take other drivers in to consideration, the entire thing is pointless other than the light countdown timer, which is handy but could also cause irresponsible driving ("If I speed up now, I'm gonna make it, this thing is switching in 5 seconds!").

What else is it telling you? Start slowing down now but oh wait, 5 cars just took position in front of you...guess the distance I calculated to the traffic light just then is no longer useful, you better slow down another 10km/h, oh hell just look in front of you and slow down to meet traffic conditions.

Ok thanks computer!

There is also an expectation that technology works and it is entirely valid, yes people should use common sense but this doesn't excuse your product for not working, this is silly. The purpose of technology is to work so transparently, you are doing less thinking so you can focus on more important things, like sudden high impact situations that require heroic reaction times.

Anyway, I don't think this is bad tech, I think it is not particularly useful in today's environment and is just an odd stepping stone to proper smart cars. I think the gradual progression to smart cars is the fault of an uneducated public who have unfounded hate in the concept of letting go of driving to a computer.

I just want smart cars every where for everyone, so we can have safe and effective roads.

Mass shootings and irresponsible gun owners represent a small fraction of gun violence and as such they shouldn't be the main justification for gun laws.

The problem is that our gun culture creates an environment that makes illegal guns more available (in Mexico and urban environments, among others), and that it puts guns within reach when someone gets a violent urge (whether against themselves or others).

Laws should be tailored to help gradually change that gun culture over the long term.

> "I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy."

Yeah, many who use the label seem rather confused.. So sure, many libertarians are not libertarian anarchists.

> "So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about."

This is what the crony-capitalists, the pluto-klepto alliance thinks -- and it's one of the reasons why they don't bother doing away with it but rather just continue to exploit it. Which is also an option available to some.

> "Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians)."

Haha, go ahead, 'regulate' them. I'm not stopping you. "Regulate" the politicians all you want. See how it goes for ya!

> "I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live."

Then maybe you are happy with your situation.

> "I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy."

I've had a number of experiences with the police, that were supposedly for "my benefit" but were in reality much worse than anarchy, and were, in fact downright detrimental to me.. Like for example, getting hit by a car during an irresponsible and unnecessary police chase in which I had no involvement until I got hit.

> "It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would."

Since you seem to be cursing me to have a "need" for police, I doubt you really feel "sad" about it.

> "because private ownership does NOT mean better management."

If I was a gambling man, I'd bet that you're not a landlord.

> "I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share."

Of course. It's usually folks like you who pay little to nothing who want everyone else to pay for your "services."

> "Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police."

Sorry, no freebie for you. You'll have to do with the "services" you get from other people's taxes.

> "I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation."

Homeowner fees are voluntary. You can choose not to live there and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them.

But you did have to mention the roads, didn't you? There's an epidemic of "road zombies!" I tend to take Satochi Nakamoto's point of view when it comes to this kind of nonsense. Like "John Galt," Nakamoto thinks that socialists dislike Rand so much because Galt actually scares them.

But then again, somehow I've given you the impression that I actually care about that you think or not. But "all in all you're just another brick in the wall." (Kinda crazy, arguing with bricks. As a psychologist, I'm rather selective about these things.)

Suffice it to say that, for folks like you who "like" the Leviathan or think you're going to somehow control it, I have little if anything to contribute.

...irresponsible at best...at worst dangerous.

Yeah, but number-crunchers and bean-counters who work for automobile manufacturers make similar decisions when deciding whether or not to order a recall on dangerous vehicles-At the end of the day, Big Pharma companies decide which facts and figures get the most spin, eh?

Whose to say that nature is not the ultimate winner over human efforts to forestall the inevitable? It's gonna take more than eliminating all disease to get us knuckle-dragging monkeys off-planet. It may very well take humanity as we know it driven to the brink with a number of engineered attempts to preserve life.

Not as simple as everyone playing syringe-roulette kir_mokum, science is not some ultimate panacea-That said, I survived the crap-shoot and will probably never get dip, typhus, or cholera. Whew!

I did however, ingest a Preludin at the age of 18 months thanks to an irresponsible parental unit, early imprints are a MOTHERFUCKER!

That's what I paid at Costco for a Snap-On (I went and looked at it, it's not the same) I was just making a half-assed attempt to discredit your line of reasoning since it seemed to be based on the existence of the pressure washer...

Which can be explained away:

1)He borrowed it.
2)He rented it.
3)He stole it from the guy who made the complaint to the police.
4)He bought it on Craigslist from the guy who stole it from the guy who made the complaint to the police.
5)It's cheaper than you think it is.
6)He's got lots of money, but his kid has to pay for his own damn car because there's no way the kid's getting his irresponsible, slacker, dopehead hands on dad's classic Camaro, his 20" lifted Sierra, AND ESPECIALLY NOT his mom's Lexus LS600h.