Anthropogenic Global Warming - Does More Need To Be Done?

We've been trying to do that for years, but you dicks keep destroying our Temple and calling us crazy. Look whose laughing now.

The radically unchecked goat population?

Their milk is a bitter reminder of the purpose they could have.

Nice racism there.
Why don't you just ask to nuke them? Hey! You're Israel! Everyone loves Israel! They'll forgive you!

Not racism, every culture has regressive attributes, including mine and yours. It is these that drag us down. Not something to be ashamed of, but it's something we all need to recognize. Dunno what your other nonsense is, don't know anything about nuking anyone.

There is a difference between disagreeing with cultural aspects and calling it barbaric.

My point with the nuking aspect was that nobody has the right to declare another culture obsolete.

And I fail to understand your post to begin with. The OCP is in no way a cultural aspect of the Chinese culture. It is a political and economic move.

There are no faults in the superior culture of our Chinese overlords.

I hope that as a society, we can move past the point that we have to respect aspect of a culture that universally rejected as immoral or inhumane.

I'm not saying Chinese culture obsolete. I'm saying that certain aspects of it are.

Never said it was. But the devaluing of daughters in some places in China made the OCP a disaster, even more so that it already was.

@that one guy from earlier
1/10 people do not have the capacity to make it to the West. To think that they do is utterly preposterous.

Demon your scaremongering video ignores reality and substitutes it with conjecture. Population growth rates have already leveled off or become negative in Western countries. Most energy use comes from the developed West, not the Third World, where population growth is actually a concern. China is obviously a thorn in the world's side, but the rest of the developing world will face massive death checks that will prevent overpopulation. Overpopulation is not a problem that we need to develop policy to solve, it's a self-correcting event. As I previously stated, our largest concerns will be about the large number of environmental and political refugees coming from the Third World, not environmental catastrophes or resource shortages.

As well, the free market simply cannot fail to address any of the issues that video raised. It's a simple economic fact that increased demand will create increased supply. A 'limited resource' is limited only because no one has bothered to remove the limitation for us yet. As economic pressure increases, the answer will come. Of course we have the answers we need already, and simply require the economic pressure to implement them. This panicky "RUN TO THE HILLS AND GRAB YOUR SHOTGUN, APOCALYPSE IS A COMIN'" response is simply a form of escapism.

It's what I do.

Yes, baring immigrants and what not. I know all about it.

Yep.

I didn't say shit about policy. You on the other hand, have stated that you have no qualms with the use of state authorized force to combat overpopulation and the strain it brings due to influx from the third world.
So.... yeah.

Out of fucking nothing folks. Pure rainbows and unicorns. This kinda reminds me of that one group of people, you know, the guys who believe some nonexistent underclass will someday rise up out of nowhere and overthrow society? Similar concept.

Why does it feel like we've suddenly flopped sides? Isn't it supposed to be me suggesting the impossible?
Oil is limited. Synthetics are a poor substitute. Perpetual drain is impossible. All alternative are either far beyond our reach, too poor to compensate, or also face limits.
Deal with it. One way or another the population has to be cut down, be it by a gradual and humane reduction or a violent deathcheck (And all the problems it brings.).

Universally by the West. And not even the West in truth, just parts of it. The self-righteous parts mainly.
While, yes, some things can change and benefit the people, it does not necessarily follow that they should change or that they will change.
The OCP was never intended to, as you claim, 'devalue' Chinese females and you know it. The idea [the OCP] is abhorrent to the Chinese people and their government, but they understand the necessity. It is all well for the West to point and laugh and accuse, but at the end of the day, some Chinese who would have otherwise starved, can eat a reasonably priced meal because there is less demand than there would have been without the law. As for the devaluing of daughters: it is not the practice that is obsolete so much as that it was placed in an ugly situation that pushed it to extremes. It is not as if the Chinese ever intended for things to become the way that they are, on a individual or collective scale. Nor is it that under the circumstances that the tradition developed that the Chinese would have undertaken even a single part of what the practice is today. While some writers like Clancy, Kali, and Western media seek to portray it like they enjoy killing their own children, that is simply not true. It isn't as if Western cultures have never been subject to the valuing of the son over the daughter. That they had the good fortune to develop their technology and economics beyond the point that there became no major differenciation between the sexes before the Chinese is neither here nor there. They were fortunate. There are a whole range of factors in what makes the practice today, much more than most Westerners know, realize, and certainly, appreciate. While I personally disapprove of the practice and actively ponder a way to reverse what has happened, I neither blame them, for I understand what has happened, nor think that they are some great band of crooks and murderers.

Self-righteous or not, it doesn't make it any less of a universally accepted truth, or said act any more immoral.

I never did, I simply stated that it's unintended effect was worsening the already severe devaluing of daughters in the Chinese countryside.

I understand the concept, and see the necessity. Still the unintended backlash is awful, and needs to be taken into consideration.

The context is unfortunate, but it doesn't make the act any more forgivable. It's awful the situation they are in, but it doesn't change the fact that dumping your child in the river is a universally immoral.

I would hope that no one was hoping for overpopulation.

The belief was inflamed by a government mandated program. I don't doubt that it wasn't a common occurrence before, but the fact of the matter is that it is now.

It's pretty obvious they don't enjoy, but they still do it. Their personal feelings are completely irrelevant, the act is continuing, and that's all that matters.

You keep mentioning, the West, as if it's relevant. I love to draw lines in the sand as much as the next guy, but that doesn't change how things are, or how they will continue. The evils others have committed do not justify the evils of today. While the daughter was certainly devalued in the past, people weren't drowning them nearly as often as today, and it's the policies fault, and the culture it inflamed. People should have seen it coming.

More of the awful East vs. West mentality to justify the evils committed. The government has indirectly caused the deaths of thousands by worsening a mentality that was already bad.

Blame the CPC. They are the idiots who started this mess. And the families who practice such acts aren't blame free. Killing your child isn't easy, but it's easier than hiding one, or bearing a extra burden. They aren't awful people, but it's a problem with the society and culture.

People who drown their daughters are murderers. Whether you think it is justified is irrelevant, they are still murderers.

So, is Jewish a culture and a religion?

Then let me ask you this Matt: what would you do?

I didn't say I'd have no problem with it, I said it wouldn't drastically change the way we live our lives.

It's not out of nothing; you should already know where it comes from. The material resources of the planet are not at risk of depletion, and certainly not putting our civilization at risk of collapse, because our economic system doesn't rely on infinite exponential growth to survive. That's the critical failure in your video's conjecture: that we'll simply double usage of everything forever according to standard doubling time rules. However, the economic system that we have in place makes that an incredibly unsavory proposition. When something becomes too costly to exploit, then we find an alternative. In the vast majority of cases, across every resource you might imagine, the alternative already exists and simply isn't widespread. The few situations that we don't already have a plethora of backups for will be solved because of the economic pressure to solve them. There's simply no problem that can't be solved if you throw enough money at it, and the beauty of the free market is that money will get thrown at whatever the people demand.

Most alternatives are completely practical, and your video only addressed half-assed prima facie concerns with them (as was the case with solar arrays, wave, and wind, geothermal, as well as Gen. IV nuclear) before moving on to point out how DOOOOOOMMMEEED we all are. As for transportation, the hybrid/electric car is 100% viable and the only downside comes from the grid itself, which can be switched to renewable sources of energy.

Population growth isn't the problem, as I've already stated. Barring China, the overwhelming majority of resource and energy consumption comes from the West. The West has entered a natural population decline or severely slowed growth (that will taper off into decline) already. Another billion or two people living in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia will not have the same effect as another billion or two Americans. That's the other major flaw in your video's conjecture. Energy production will not have to rise to exponential levels in the event of a population surge because energy demand will not be rising to exponential levels in the event of a population surge. Resource production will not be rising to exponential levels in the event of a population surge because resource demand will not be rising in the event of a population surge. One billion more people alive does not mean one billion more people to feed. Or rather, one billion more people eating. Disease and famine (exacerbated by global warming) will not allow these populations to consume our energy or resources. Poverty will not allow them to even bother trying.

Yet again, our concern will not be over the climate, resources (or energy), overpopulation, disease, or anything like it, but over the people who face these problems and want to (and actually can) get away from them. The greatest challenge that we're going to face in the 21st century won't be how we handle nature, it'll be how we handle ourselves. To put it simply, whether we consider Earth to be a spaceship or a lifeboat.

That's all.. perfectly reasonable I suppose.

I'm curious kali, your going to run industrial farm equipment world wide on what? Stubborn economic gibberish? Can you site these so called alternatives the free market has for every single petroleum product we'd need to replace? As for transportation electric cars need a fuckload of energy. I feel as if not just replacing fossil fuel energy production but actually upgrading the grid off nothing but wind turbines and solar panels to be a little short sighted.

How about international shipping? Gigantic boats that weigh exactly how many tonnes? That the global economy essentially relies on due to globalization? Better bust out the compost to push this baby across the pacific!

Even if the population of this earth doesn't grow what so ever in the next 20-40 years that simply buys time.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm
I want to know what we can use without using any kind of fossil fuels to make these products.