I'm not going to bother writing anything; I just watched this video. I'm sure you'll find something to latch onto.
Environmentalists are watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. They wish to address issues which don't need addressing because they're trying to get their names in the papers and because they're bored with their petty, shallow lives. Why do you think Marxist sects are all named after individuals? Because they're all egotists. Every. Single. One.
Agreed on the communism thing. In it's purest form, communism has no true leader, it's basically committee government taken to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, those never work, because there always winds up being one person on the committee who dominates everyone else, if from nothing else than either threatening to shoot everyone if they disagree with him/her, or everyone else is just that hopelessly pathetic they WANT a leader. Either way, a single figure takes over an ostensible communist government, and it becomes a totalitarian dictatorship run by a boss and his office lackeys instead of a commune of equals all making decisions for the majority. And so we have Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and whatever the hell they refer to the North Korean version of communism by, but regardless, they have the same thing in common. Ego. Much like Enviromentalists, who I'm convinced want to be vindicated for whatever cause they bitch about so they can lead a movement of "reform" in the name of ego stroking, communism fails because one ego always winds up dominating the others, and both groups always get some fat headed asshat who declares their (insert name here)-ism is the only proper variant of thought in regards to how things should be. And because that opinion dominates the other people too pussy to challenge them, that's why both Enviromentalists and Communists are glory whores deep down. That, and exercising power over terrified minions who keep kissing your ass and telling you how right you are has got to be satisfying in those circumstances.
Technology is improving and developing at such a rate that it not only requires a workforce skilled in technology (for example: employees need to know calculus to work these machines), that even if all the labor in the world was educated in the skills necessary for employment in a modern world, we would have an extreme redundancy of labor. Given that not all the laborers in the world have the necessary skills for employment in the new world, we have a redundancy of humans. Do you even know why there are so many more humans than our future economy can sustain? This is because consumerism creates an environment which a large population can support itself economically because there is enough jobs for everyone because all these jobs make products (that are designed to fall apart so you buy more in the future. For example: why do we use inferior cotton to make our clothing instead of cheaper, stronger hemp? Because cotton will make a larger profit for clothing companies in the long run) that we don't need, but our society (through consumerist propaganda) tells us to buy these products we don't want or need in order to support our economy (and thus the large population). While I cannot find the exact quote, but Marx does say in the Communist Manifesto that industry constantly revolutionizes and destroys itself to become more profitable. When industry revolutionizes, some people become monstrously rich from their new idea, but how many people lose from modernization? Thousands everyday. The third industrial revolution is coming in additive manufacturing which will make the human automaton unnecessary. Some jobs will be created, but require a set of high quality skills. Yes the human automaton will find work in the mines for these new machines, but how soon will they be replaced by robots? Maybe 20 years time, if that. A funny thing about this whole argument is that the Occupy Wall Street people are so against consumerism, but don't realize that the consumerist system is designed to maintain a large population. That if we get rid of consumerism, we need to kill a whole lot of people to have a small enough population number to have an acceptable unemployment of under 2%. Though I am not really worried about lowering the population numbers, not only is this happening through eugenics (for instance: high fructose corn syrup, tobacco, and just fucking ignorance [like some people don't realize that fracking is poisoning them]) and the Earth itself is purging the humans with climate change (and the world is even preparing for the evolution of the next sentient species to emerge from the ruins of our world: the octopus [climate change has caused certain species of octopus to start hunting in packs]). As sad as this all is, it is necessary. The ideologies that have defined and ruled the world up to this point in time have reached their apex, they are no longer economically or environmentally sustainable. These economic systems will collapse and it has already begun: the EU crisis, China's soon-to-burst housing bubble, and America's domestic political instability (multi-factional civil war is nigh), and whatever results from the Syria conflict (it has gotten so ugly at this point, an intervention or even the creation of a demilitarized zone for rebels won't solve the problem/make things much worse. Creation is important, but destruction is equally important. And for new creation to bring new life to this dying world, much needs to be destroyed. I personally find this ideal. From this destruction will emerge new factions, ideologies, and nations which will fight for hegemonic control as the "leader" of the human race as we go to seek our galactic destiny among the stars. A whole new world, one of wonders and terrors we cannot imagine, is literally coming in the days of tomorrow and beyond.
At some level I enjoy the violence, drama, and chaos that is going to come (because I predicted the ways it would unfold, but also because I like watching shit burn), but I believe it is the test of our species resolve (because the fascist disdains the easy life). If we overcome these, our species is meant to go onto greater things, if we die, then we are lost to the silence of history as a failure.
I don't mind population control, 7 billion? fuck off i don't mind Indians and Phillipinos and Chinese being sterelized they breed like flies. Very small sects of European people will have like 8 children, they are usually smarter than that. Flies are the cogenitor in Black person pregnancy.
goddamned earth Just kill everybody and the last fucker turns the lights off. Done.The fucking planet is saved. someday, giant bugs will come out of the ground and start killing humans I have to quote Carl Sagan on this... "The Universe is neither for us, nor against us... Just indifferent.
More people in the world, more people cramming into cities. like sick mice in an overcrowded cage. The weird fuck (and i have to say this, WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH HIS HAIR AND VOICE????) Is wrong about population growth being fine, NO it is NOT fine, food is being depleted, just look at fishing, everywhere is being overfished, Hartelpool Grimsby the fishing port, Nobody catches fish there anymore, the only fish are usually undersized and aren't even sexually mature. Water is becoming scarce in many places where food is grown, and everybody eats too much fucking meat, which is a problem because to grow more cattle it requires more and more land grain and water. and it's all to do with TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE.
I'm going to need an example. Economies grow with populations. Banning the cultivation of hemp is an example of the government retarding market growth. The guy in the video mentions the EPA doing the same thing. Marx was full of shit. The industrial revolution raised the standard of living for the majority, as did the agricultural revolution. When humans are replaced in the mines they will do what they have always done: find something else. Do you really think the market was "designed"? But yes, if people desire less material stuff, they probably won't work as hard for it, therefore producing less. And it's really a stretch to call people voluntarily eating shit "eugenics". The U.S. is NOT going to have a civil war in the foreseeable future. When was the last time someone got lynched at the polls? China might become a problem. They seem to be looking to expand and that housing bubble won't help things. Destiny? Is it the destiny of a person trapped in a burning building to escape? The fact that a condition is essential for a future state is not proof of that condition.
You know, maybe God had a point. In the Bible, he often told us not to play God, but nooooooo, we had to ignore that advice and cure diseases that did a damn good job keeping the population manageable. He also said "there shall be wars and rumors of wars". Not enough if you ask me. After all, war is another way of whittling the population down. Hell, even the elimination of the death penalty in certain states and countries is a mistake, as killing people who have obviously forfeited their rights to live is another way of keeping the population down. And for fucks sake, here's hoping and praying those anti-abortion assholes never get their way, or we'll be fucked for sure. ......I'm going to blow a blood vessel if I keep going, but the point is this: We keep getting rid of some of the lulziest (and in some cases, most efficient) means of population control, then some of our number bitch about the increasing numbers of fuckups and assholes. As a result, you know what I want to tell those that complain how to help? 1. Find someone with a shotgun. 2. Put the fucking barrel in your mouth and let them pull the trigger. 3. ???? 4. PROFIT!
@Dr. Rice hinted this, but nobody really made the counter-argument that humanity more or less has run out of habitable places to expand to. This is a peculiar point in our history, and not a good place to be. I sometimes wonder if we're faced with the choice of a new age of exploration or a new dark ages.
The solution is to turn uninhabitable desert into orchards, cropland, rain forest and pasture. This could be done in central Australia, north Africa, central India and many other wastelands. Current desertification is caused by overgrazing in many cases. Replace cowherding and sheep-raising with tree crops or pigeon-pea cropping to reverse this trend. Fence out or wall out the grazers (use adobe walls). 1) Plant olives, coconuts and other salt-resistant trees along a desert seacoast. Fence off the planted areas so grazers can't kill the trees. 2) As the plantings grow and provide shade, the ground will cool off and more rain will fall. 3) Extend the planted areas inland and plant useful timber trees, fruits, nuts, and other crops. 4) Have a homestead program for those who agree to tend the trees and crops in the reclaimed areas. For instance, if a homesteader stayed on his property for 5 years and tended the trees, he could get title to the land he reclaimed. Import hard-working people from crowded places, if need be. Make providing water for orchard owners a priority. Biggest problem with this plan it that it will take time, many years, and the continuous cooperation of many people. The rate of population growth has slowed in most of the world (better medical care for infants makes for smaller families, since people to longer assume that half their kids will die in infancy). Expect current pops to level out, except in sub-Saharan Africa.
Tech/industrial revolutions increase enormously the population's welfare How many people suffered from the invention of lighbulbs? A handful of gaslight makers Are lightbulbs "bad" or "undesirable"? ummm...no Consumerism is "designated" to make rich some lucky lads In fact, birthrate decreases in developed countries Not at all. And that even don't counting space colonization
Of course with some inventions the job loss is minimal nor am I saying additive manufacturing is bad in itself. It would be foolish not to realize that with much potential, will come great loss. This (additive manufacturing) industrial component that will simplify the assembly line to a single machine, one that doesn't require more than someone to load the materials into the machine. The only people who will be "making" products with these machines are people who design whatever needs to be printed. I don't know exact numbers, but I want to say that tens of millions of assembly line manufacturing jobs will be eliminated in Schumpeter's gale, or more commonly known as creative destruction from this invention. Also @molb this is the technology I am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_manufacturing
