Take my money. Please? Cities XL 2012 was a waste of my money!

This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

>> ^shinyblurry:

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY



The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.

That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:

"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom

>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY

>> ^ghark:

@NetRunner Err, so what was the point of posting a video that bashes the GOP for taking lobbyist money for supporting a "risky, dirty pipeline" if you yourself support the pipeline?
answer that for me and i'll respond to your other points


I'm pretty ambivalent about Keystone XL, mostly. The point of posting a video bashing the GOP is to keep reminding people that they're whores for corporations first and foremost, and that their ideology is mostly just a cover story to excuse that.

I don't know the minds of the pro-XL Democrats, but some non-zero number of them are probably corporate whores as well. But some are thinking along the same lines as I am. Or their objections to Keystone were based on the route it took, not to the existence of the project itself. Or they're actually opposed to it.

Republicans are universally for it, because they think environmental concerns are ridiculous. Or at least that's what they say in public when asked.

I don't really know whether I'm for or against Keystone XL, but I know I'm against that.

@ghark and I think your urge to paint everyone with the same brush makes you miss the forest for the trees.

Forget for a moment about Democrats and Republicans, how should stuff like this work?

Canada has tar sands, and someone wants to extract the oil from them. Should they be legally forbidden from doing that, even if they legally acquire the rights to the land?

Once they extract the oil, it needs to be transported somewhere else to be refined. The biggest refineries are in Texas. Should they send it by boat? By truck? By train? Are those safer and less ecologically damaging than a pipeline? Should America legally forbid the importation of crude oil from Canada?

I'm definitely on the same side as the protesters when it comes to ecological concerns, but I don't see how blocking the construction of the pipeline itself solves any sort of ecological issue. The issue is that there's enough demand for oil that it's now profitable to extract it from fucking tar sands. The solution to that isn't to outlaw the extraction & transportation of that oil, it's to lower demand by taxing the bejeezus out of oil & gas, and use the revenue to subsidize alternative energies and/or public transportation.

Why is that an unthinkable, unmentionable strategy, even for environmentalist protesters?

A protest against Keystone XL only seems like something our corporate overlords would sponsor, so the conversation never moves on to substantive policy that would really make a difference.

That you (and other progressives) are treating opposition to Keystone as some sort of litmus test for who's "with us" and who's "against us" is just icing on the cake for them.

The more divided and demoralized we get, the easier it is for them to keep consolidating power.

Ahh, I upvoted before realizing this was campaign rhetoric designed to attack the Republicans rather than outline the real issue - that both parties wanted the pipeline to go ahead:

47 House Democrats voted to require the administration to quickly act on the Keystone XL project, helping to pass the North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938).

Nearly two dozen House Democrats wrote a letter to President Obama asking him to approve the Keystone XL project, saying it will “create 20,000 direct jobs, spur the creation of 118,000 spin-off jobs.” The Democrats note that several environmental reviews show “the Keystone XL Pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment.”

A bipartisan group of 14 Senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in support of the Keystone project. The Senators said Keystone XL would “provide thousands of high-quality jobs for Americans and invest billions of private sector dollars in our nation's economy.”

Both of Montana’s Democratic Senators support the Keystone energy project, including Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) who said, “We need to put Montanans back to work and cannot afford further delays to the Keystone XL pipeline.”

“The Keystone pipeline will create Montana jobs,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), “And it should not have to wait 14 months for an up-or-down decision…”

“I support the Keystone XL project,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR). “You want to talk about shovel-ready projects, that’s one that’s shovel-ready,” reported Politico.

“I think the president’s wrong on this,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) who is “inclined to vote for the GOP’s version of the payroll tax cut measure” because he supports both the payroll tax break extension and the Keystone XL jobs project, according to Politico.

“I probably would vote to accept the deal,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge,” says Politico. “The Keystone is awfully important,” he said. The article highlights several other Democrats who support both the payroll tax break and the energy project.

These are from http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=271882

Ok here's some of my ideas. The first thought of course is that there needs to be a revolution. But what would that achieve - the people that have the money and the power would still be there to influence the new Government. So the only way to achieve real change (not ObamaChange) is to get rid of the people making this mess and also stop the mechanisms that allow it to happen. So serious thought needs to go into listing all the major ways by which corruption is occurring and may occur (legal and non-legal) and then even more serious thought needs to go into better alternatives or proposals. This list of changes then needs to be put forward and if the changes are not made by the existing Govt., then the people need to demand that the Govt. steps down and be replaced by one that will make the changes. Until people are willing to put their lives on the line for this, things will just continue to escalate downwards.

In my opinion the first change that needs to happen is with the media. All of these millions and billions of dollars that get raised/spent to fund campaigns have one major purpose - to buy time with the media outlets to spread a message. Staggering sums of money are being given to mainstream media outlets by the GOP/Dems to spread there propaganda, how on earth can we expect those same media outlets to provide honest coverage of events when they are taking hundreds of millions of dollars from people that don't want honest coverage. So no matter what happens in terms of election funding, the first and most important step is to break this connection between political parties and media channels so there can be honest rather than 'balanced' reporting.

So of course, the next major change that needs to happen is to switch to a publicly funded election system.

Then other issues/resolutions should include at the very least:
Lobbyist influence : An outright ban on lobbyists making donations
Lack of accountability : There needs to be a direct link between what people vote for and what is delivered, i.e. the platform that a candidate runs on cannot be changed or watered down once they take office.
Corrupting influence of power : There needs to be a better way of restricting the time groups or individuals can stay in power/office.
Environmental degradation : Environmental laws need to be improved and updated with assistance from experts, scientists and community members.

Also, one issue that is close to my heart, but others may find silly is the issue of advertising. Advertising has allowed for the widespread popularity and adoption of fast food. The fast food industry needs to be looked at in a similar way as the smoking industry, and the costs of advertising for a fast food business need to matched by the public health cost that the business will have on the population at large. So in other words, advertising for Mickey D's, Wendy's and other chains that sell rubbish needs to become prohibitively expensive, because the damage they are causing to the people in the way of obesity, diabetes etc is of epic proportions. This approach should really be applied to most aspects of industry, so for example the oil and gas industry provide an energy dense product, which by comparison to other forms of energy is quite efficient - however if the cost to the environment is taken into account, it becomes less attractive, so I think more thought needs to go into sustainability in policy making.

Anyway, that's just a couple of examples, my main point is that a systematic look at corruption in the system needs to be completed and documented and then the well thought out and logical changes need to be implemented. I mean, protesting individual issues is good, and sometimes it even works, e.g. with the SOPA 'win' and the Keystone XL 'win', but in the long term it's just not enough to have anything but a delaying effect.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ZappaDanMan.

Oh no, it won't screw up the Oglalla. That aquifer has been pumped down so far in order to produce cheap corn , that the oil leaking from the keystone xl will never get into it.

And when the Keystone XL pipeline eventually gets approved, this is what will happen to the Ogallala aquifer.

I think the fundamental issues are to do with education and involvement.

Think of a typical group situation with your friends, what would happen if you started to discuss how the corporations own the politicians via lobbyists and the K Street Project. People become friends for a whole heap of reasons, but unless you're a politician, it's not likely you chose your friends because of politics. They might have similar political tendencies to you, but if your views differ in one major area, it could be difficult to have a non-awkward conversation about K Street with them.

But what if the democratic process was part of education. I'm not talking about 'how to suck the dick of a Walmart executive so you can become a senator' type of education, I'm talking about the introduction of classes that teach real democratic principles such as organizing protests (fundamental to democracy), organizing people with a variety of skill-sets to create community projects, learning about practical problem solving for issues that cause democracy to be worse than it could.

Take it a step further, this is not only taught, but those that do well in the classes are highly considered, and rewarded for their initiative. What if the teachers that taught those classes were highly paid, and it was difficult and competitive to become one of these teachers so it would be a highly respected profession - (how they treat teachers in Iceland for example).

Currently, even if several individuals have an almost identical political view, their is still an element of fear - talking the truth can get you in trouble, fired, or cause other harms. But if discussion was encouraged and participation was part of growing up think of how much easier it would be to have that same discussion with your friends and acquaintances.

So yes, @Yogi, I think it's difficult to know what to do in the present climate - there is an incentive to avoid critical analysis of the system, and small to medium sized protests are going to accomplish very little systemic change (even if they do have small victories along the way, like the delay of Keystone XL). So let's hope OWS keeps growing, and in addition, people that can make a difference at a local/state level continue to do so.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.