capitalism only really functions well (with regulation) in a world where resources are limited and a lot of manpower is needed to get things done. Thanks to technology, it's only a matter of time before resources are so easy to come by and manufacture into needed things that the supply and demand model will be obsolete.

I suspect that within 100 years, if not sooner, manual labor will be a thing of the past...unless you're an artist or something. Robots will be able to do virtually everything..and better than humans are capable of.

The only people who will still need to have jobs are engineers and maybe technicians, but even then, eventually robots will be able to repair themselves so maybe not even technicians will be needed. Hell, given enough time, nurses and many health care jobs won't be needed anymore because basic healthcare could be delegated to robots.

It's just a matter of time. We're already starting to see the effects of automation in the workforce, we just don't need as many people to get things done. Hell even technical jobs aren't safe because as computers get better and better, They'll be able to analyze certain things better than humans.

The question just becomes what do you do about it? A whole new economic model will be needed. Because we'll eventually be living in the world where unless you're in the academic top tier, you're just not going to be needed in the workforce. At the same time, again, because of technology, we're going to have the ability to feed and clothe AND shelter you for a minimal amount of effort so the prospect of being able to being born, living, and dying without ever NEEDING to work is a real possibility in the not so distant future.

Isn't that what you would call...a utopia? You want freedom? there it is. You'll be able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do instead of what you HAVE to do just to survive. I suspect at some point, there will have to be SOME procreation laws put into place to keep the population growth in check. But hell, even that won't be so bad once we have the ability to colonize other planets.

People will still work, they'll just do it because they want to do it, but they'll be jobs where they're not a necessity or anything. even in an age where a replicator can make all your food, people will still want to cook, or do other artisan style jobs.

But hey, we'll still need defense, gotta blow up or deflect any stray asteroid that comes near us. or just send a bunch of robots up to mine the rock to smitherines so we can use the resources to build our mighty space fleet and our other grand works That Dyson Sphere won't build itself after all

In other words, the human race....has won. isn't that a good thing?

"...Its possible certainly to turn Mars into an Earth like planet.."

I'd like to know how he intends to keep an atmosphere on the planet (if he manages to create one in the first place) in the absence of a magnetosphere, shielding the biome from solar winds.

Still, it'd be fucking awesome if I live through the age of mars colonization.

I don't think anyone's advocating forced population control here.

I only think that people are advocating that a greater emphasis on family planning be incorporated into your prescription for everyone to "control his own activities and teach his neighbor the virtues of his infinitely sustainable choices."

Doing this too fast would be demographic suicide for a lot of complicated reasons, I don't think anyone is denying that, but a very significant organic reduction over the course of a few centuries would be beneficial for humanity and could be reasonably attained. It's certainly less far-fetched than mass colonization of Mars or Venus in the same timeframe.

And that's an important distinction here. We aren't really concerned about the environment here. We're concerned about what's best for us.

The environment is going to shrug us off and incorporate all our plastic, CO2, and evidence of narrowing biodiversity into a few more strata and continue doing its thing. It has survived mass extinctions before.

It's ridiculous to think that we can even destroy the environment. Our population size and its destructive effects would be reduced to insignificance long before we hit a point of no return and the biosphere's existence is even slightly threatened.

We should be framing the argument in terms of how to achieve an environmental equilibrium in which humanity can live in a comfortable and humane manner.

I think we're a lot closer to a point of no return with regards to achieving that goal.

For my money I'd say that exponential population growth isn't pointing us in that direction, and living - as I do - in a rapidly modernizing "second world" country tells me that bringing all eight billion of us to affluence too quickly poses its own significant dangers.

Let's not forget that this videos two main points are that we are demonstrably in a period of exponential growth, and that exponential growth from the limited perspective of the inside can be deceptive. Points of no return that seem far away are in fact very close.

First, calling David Suzuki "Colonel Sanders" is embarrassing to the entire human race.

Also, to the suggestion in the comments above that 'technology will save us', ..one of the major points of the video is that it buys us 'two minutes'. It has, and it won't keep buying us comparable time. Actually, part of 'science saving us' is this video itself. Population models, and everything we know about life on this planet tell us that we need to radically change how we do things, or widespread famine, war, and environmental and social destruction are inevitable. If you want science to save us, you need to start listening to it.

..and about colonizing other planets. There is no planet we could ever get to, EVER, that would, in its current condition, support a human colony. We can't seem to turn around a one degree change in Earth's global temperature. It is not rational to assume that we could make another planet suitable for human life.

Overpopulation is, always has been, and always will be, an issue of quality not quantity. We will colonize other planets, once the people on this one get their acts together. Last time I checked, the known universe is expanding faster than the human race can colonize it. I see nothing that changes that pattern.

the christian directive of "be fruitful and multiply" was fine when humanity didn't number in the billions, but now it's hurting us. Now if we actually had the ability to colonize other planets, it wouldn't be as big a deal, but I figure its only a matter of time before more nations enact laws prohibiting large families

Regarding leg angle and and pooping:
If you do the Butters technique, you have the added benefit of facing a wall which gives you the opportunity of placing your feet up on the wall to improve your colon positioning and leg angle, therefore the straightness of the defecation vector. Caution is necessary, though, as you need to grab onto the toilet to avoid launching yourself backside first from the toilet in a motion resembling a jump from a squatting position. This is especially hazardous during difficult defecation acts involving constipation or any kind of pain. Also, you'd want to avoid to give the expression "skidmarks" a new definition as it might stain the Butters technique irreparably.

@lucky760

I know this is an old one, but I just came across the issue again when I tried to submit a YT video that did not provide the old embed code (yeah, I prefer traditional methods).

Anyway, here's the default code:

<iframe width="640" height="480"
src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OPcV9uIY5i4?rel=0"
frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Can you modify the code generator to correct the underlined part, add the missing 'https:'?

I suppose most people use the url instead while others simply add both protocol and colon by hand, but still...

Pretty please.

*dead
*backup=[...snipped...]
Edit: *sigh* - 'dem colons.

So you know, I'm not American. I think your problem is the same a great many people share, and that's the belief that America is far more special than it actually is. America has a history littered with all kinds of horrific awful things, as you've spent a great deal of time pointing out. The trick is, if you take a look at any country and you find the same thing. The colonization by the British you already touched on. I'll include the mention of the colonization that most other european nations also partook in as well. I'll also ask you take a look at Russian and Chinese histories as well. There's an awful lot of dead people in that history, and never for very good reasons. Actually, look at the whole of human history and it's always been that way.

I insist on pointing this out because it MATTERS to how we view our world and actions today. America is no more special than any other nation. I instead ask on looking at the details and asking oneself if the actions taken by any state in a particular instance is leading to more or less death and suffering. I look at the drone strikes in tribal Pakistan and see enthusiastic murderers being killed off more efficiently than any ground offensive the Pakistani army could muster, if it actually saw any profit in it. Truth is though, the Pakistani army WANTS the suffering, it makes them look good, or at least makes the civilian governments look bad, which to them is the same thing.

I believe that the end of current American involvement in tribal Pakistan will lead to more deaths and suffering than it's continued involvement, both long and short term.

Adam Carolla has an often-told story about his friend Ray Oldhafer. When they were teenagers Ray filled his colon with water then with his butt hanging out of the car they pulled up to a McDonald's drive-thru window and he let it blast. Not a moment too soon the employee was able to get the window shut before impact. That is a horrible prank.

I've ever actually scene this feat performed before now. This man should be on Canada's Got Talent.

Ha. Yeah, the anti-terrorism acts are quite the broad legislation. You only need be suspected by any underachieving asshole in a uniform. And I love how Greenwald and the Guardian are handing this situation. UK is looking more and more like their former imperialist selves these days. Maybe they'll colonize India again to keep it safe from terrorism again. They can save Bangladesh for the US Empire.

Speaking of England and their imperialism and all that, I met Jim Sheridan last night. He's the Irish director who made In the Name of the Father and My Left Foot. Great guy.

Oh yes it most definitely IS.

And do you know why? BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS BETTER THAN DANISH.

Seriously. Scorpions from outer space using your colon as an incubator for their young? BETTER THAN DANISH.

Evil Nazis climbing up from hell, taking over the world, and making everybody learn German and wear stupid little brown shorts? BETTER THAN DANISH.

'CUZ EVERYTHING IS BETTER THAN DANISH.

Your mom's a colonialist.

First she colonized your dad and then she made you and sent you into the world to conquer. You just don't realize that's what all humans do at one level or another.

You're on the internet so STFU. I'll believe your disgust when the only way you can contact me is via smoke signal.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems New Zealand is one of the rare countries where parts of the culture of its first inhabitants has been adopted by the colonizers and made "national common culture".

It reminds me of this one too: