"Believe me. Believe me." He will continue to lie. His fan club of integrity-barren panderers will continue to make us cringe when heaping praise and idolatrous worship on his deeds of pure selfish interest. We used to complain about elected officials twisting the truth or only telling part of the story - now they just lie outright. We are well beyond being surprised. Where is the outrage? Where is the integrity? Abysmal is too kind of a word for this presidency.

I doubt that. ;-)

Except for territory they hold, I agree, Palestinian suffering is their only influence, and that's not much.

I agree, because we back them, Israel does as it pleases. I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints beyond Palestinian suffering, like constantly expanding borders and expulsion from historical holy sites.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state (where only barren desert is Palestinian with all water and access controlled by Israel, shut off at any hint of complaint).

The Palestinians do want a two state solution, just not one where any land worth having is Israel and the leftovers are Palestine.

Israel gains nothing from negotiating when they can get what they want, like recognition of another land grab (Jerusalem) without negotiating. That's why this move is horrendous, it gives them incentives to not negotiate and just act unilaterally.

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed. Given that, what's the option? Outright war? With us backing Israel, that's a no go.

I think, if given a solution that didn't give everything to Israel, the Palestinians would jump at it (maybe not Hamas, but the people). Being offered second class citizenship after having all their land and possessions taken is not workable, and it's what they seem to get.

If N Korea sells Iran a nuke, I hope we can we go back to negotiations instead of genocidal one sided dictations.

I've said it before, i'll say it again - all women films are fine, all women remakes are fine, but for god's sake let it not be this tokenistic gesture of bullshit.

This wasn't done because it was a good idea. How do i know? Because a ghostbuster remake at this point wasn't a good idea. If you think otherwise name the 4-person cast, women and/or men, that would make this a good idea.

We're not ready for a ghostbusters remake, but i imagine a lot of shrewd businessmen in hollywood saw a gilt-edged opportunity in the booming equality scene and Ghostbusters scripts were being floated at the time. Not done for any good reason; done for money. And now this will be cited as to why female led films don't succeed.

People so easily forget about the aliens franchise. Potentially one of the biggest franchises. All of them have been female led (Noomi Rapace, Sigourney Weaver, Winona Ryder) in a genre that is barren of other successful examples, and it was originally written for a man.

So - when decent people see the right actress for the right role performing quality material, you get successful female led films. You don't say "let's remake something but they're all women lol." It's something that natural and happens when those at the top are blind to gender - that's what you need to sort out, but they throw a few breadcrumbs "here, make a boil-in-the-bag all woman film" and we look the other way.

I feel lost in a world of extremes, where equality is that we split up and write ALL WOMEN films and ALL MEN films and never the twain shall meet, and we argue over which are more successful. I guess it's like our evolution through racism all over again; we're using segregation to solve an equality problem? And some who claim to be egalitarians cheer it on!

So that's a bit misleading. That island wasn't completely barren. It had native vegetation before, just not trees.

I agree that the tech exists, but to implement enough of that tech (in the time left) to change how humanity abuses our resources would take more resources than exist, leaving the tech swap 2/3 finished and the planet barren.....if you could convince everyone to go along.
Had we started moving in that direction 35+ years ago, maybe, but at this point the greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere will cause climate change that's already decimated the forests and will continue to get worse, even if we go 100% green today. It's too late for tech, population control, or much else.....and the methane is just starting to be a factor.
If we just moved into the forests and abandoned tech, the forests wouldn't last one year.
If we eradicate 9/10 of the population, we don't have to change so much and the planet can absorb our damages without destroying the systems life relies on, then we just need to mitigate the damage already done instead of continuing to add to it. The best way imo was as you suggest, have people get fixed and quit having children the planet can't support...but it's too late for that even if we cut 3.2 billion nutsacks today. As I see it, we need to be fully invested in numerous plans to both stop making things worse (population, food issues, climate change, pollution, etc) and make some painful sacrifices to repair the damage done by the "greatest generation" and their spawn.

*ban


Jamie Barren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHlEyaFzH-U

Neat, but are all the planets chock-a-block full of life? If so, that's using a kind of math seriously divorced from our own experience with planets. Yes, it would be insanely boring if all the planets were either barren rocky planetoids (with the occasional microbial life) or gas giants. It reminds me a bit of when I returned to Minecraft six months ago, after not playing for a year or more. The new biomes made me want to pick a direction and walk and walk and walk, but after a while, it became monotonous.

We're reverting to a semi-feudal state the world over, with dynastic land barons extracting rents from serfs who were unlucky enough to be born without that rarest and ever-dwindling commodity, property.

Everyone has a right to own their own home. There should be strict limits on private and corporate land ownership to prevent hoarding, and prospective parents should be required to ensure their children will have somewhere to live when they're grown, or remain barren.

Responsible governments would implement population control to reverse this constantly growing pressure that's crushing the life out of our children, and solve so many other problems besides.

Mathematics

He says
"those god damn pakistanis and their goddamn corner shops
Built a shop on every corner took our British workers jobs
He says those godamn Chinese and their goddamn china shops
I tell him theyre from Vietnam but he doesn't give a toss
I ask him what was there before that damn Japan mans shop
He stares at me and dreams a scene of British workers jobs
Of full time full employment before the godamn boats all came
Where everybody went to work full time every day
A British Business stood their first he claims before the Irish came
Now British people lost their jobs and bloody turkish are there to blame
I ask him how he knows that fact he says because it's true
I ask him how he knows the fact he says he read it in the news
Everytime a Somalian comes here they take a job from us
The mathematics one for one, from us to them it just adds up
He bites his cake and sips is brew and says again he knows the spot
The godamn Carribeans came and now good folk here don't have jobs
I ask him what was there before the goddamn Persian curtain shop
I show him architectures plans of empty godamn plots of land
I show him the historic maps
A bit of sand, a barren land
There was no goddamn shop before those pakistanis came and planned
Man
I'm sick of crappy mathematics
Cos I love a bit of sums
I spent three years into economics
And I geek out over calculus
And when I meet these paper claims
That one of every new that came
Takes away ones daily wage
I desperately want to scream
"Your maths is stuck in primary"
Cos one who comes here also spends
And one who comes here also lends
And some who comes here also tend
To set up work which employs them
And all your balance sheets and trends
Work with numbers not with men
And all your goddamn heated talk
Ignores the trade the Polish brought
Ignores the men they gave work to
Not plumbing jobs but further too
Ignores the ones they buy stock from
Accountants, builders, on and on
And I know it's nice to have someone
To blame our lack of jobs upon
But immigrations not as plain
Despite the sums inside your brain
As one for one, as him or you
As if he goes, they'll employ you
Cos sometimes one that comes makes two
And sometimes one can add three more
And sometimes two times two is much much more
Than four
And most times immigrants bring more
Than minuses.

Oh if mars was barren and Mercury teaming with life...

I've put it in skillful for two reasons. Firstly, the channels would be barren otherwise and secondly, I think this qualifies. My last music-related sift shouldn't've been in skillful, in all fairness. This is different.

If Deano or anyone disagrees I/they can remove it.

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

The story speaks for itself. We don't need pop psychology indulgences from the intellectually barren talking head panel.