Dr. Rees is absolutely right. Taking into account where we are right now and how few people actually get it, we are all in great danger.

Overshoot is studied in all other species. As usual, we don't bother to do that with the human species because we think we are, somehow, not animals and, so, not bound to the same constraints.

This excellent video contains vitally important information. It should be screened everywhere and be compulsory watching for politicians!

@johnbanach3875

2 жыл бұрын

I think the video explains why it wouldn't do any good--especially with politicians. Can you imagine any politician trying to deliver this message to people (in the United States, at least)? His career would be immediately over. "Only a small fraction of the population is consistently capable of applying the most basic rules of evidence to emotionally-derived or emotionally-loaded information." Look at the comment below calling Dr. Rees an "elite fascist." Sad to say that's the kind of campaigning that gets people elected in our tribal culture.

@brian020461

2 жыл бұрын

I think everyone knows it, but no one wants to say it in public

The human species is doomed.

@brendawilliams8062

2 жыл бұрын

@JZ's Best Friend indispensable applied to everything means nothing.

7:50 - 8:27 imagine hearing that on the six o'clock news

@kinngrimm

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine this being tought at schools, how apeshit suddenly all the parents would went and how dare we tell a reality that doesn't fit their plans for their little once.

One species causing a 6th mass extinction. I'm embarrassed to be a human.

@didforlove

Жыл бұрын

we are a plague

Looks like humanity is getting ready to go out in a big bang

All our current civilization is support in a wrong thinkings .Infinite economic growth , infinite demográfic growth . It means Two exponential curbs working together , extracting limited resources , and wasting the natural environment with pollution issues . Is really crazy people still right now can believe this absurd hypothesis . Into a few year nature will made adjustment quickly and painfully .- Best regards Comment Very good work done by Dr Williams Reed

Great content of the clear and present danger of life on Earth facing extinction by our own hands.

we should never have gone above 2 billion humans........period.

@LK-pc4sq

2 жыл бұрын

I was born in 1966 and remember 1969 the population on the west coast is insane. Traffic congestion is everywhere and co2 emissions is pushing the planet into another mass extinction.

@bovellois

2 жыл бұрын

The moment we put our collective hand on the sun-in-a-bottle, the game was over.

Wisdom Speaks. So few listen. How do we change that?

@pinchebruha405

2 жыл бұрын

Tell the ignorant that their opinion does not matter and to please stop talking because theyre drowning out the smart people in the room. I swear if the algorithms can catch all the chatter then they should be quick to address the outright lies and propaganda, shut out the repetition i.e., why not shut down comment sections once a pattern can clearly show the consensus then have teams of sociologist, psychiatrist, anthropologists, economists etc; to jump in and address the top concerns, kinda like referees that can redirect back to the truth!

@kinngrimm

2 жыл бұрын

@@pinchebruha405 So who decides who is ignorant and who is smart? An algorithm which if not done perfectly from the get go will devide uncorrectly, right? Does anyone feel like one of the smart once and therefor having more right to judge? Then maybe have a look at the Dunning Krueger Effect ... just saying ^^. Looking how algorithms carry over biases from their programmers as well as the data it may be based on, i don't feel comfortable to be judged by one.

@tinoyb9294

2 жыл бұрын

Mass sterilization?

@kinngrimm

2 жыл бұрын

@@tinoyb9294 What if we need the genetic material? How would you go about the sterilization process? Would you make peopel aware of it or leave them oblivious? Who gets to decide if such would be done or not? Would sterilization be random or biased, by wealth, skin color, religion, where you live, what your 'IQ may be ... This could get very dark very fast.

@tinoyb9294

2 жыл бұрын

@@kinngrimm I was being facetious.

Sets me in mind of the Georgia Guidestones, a solid granite Stone Hinge-like monument put up by some anonymous folks in Georgia back about 1980. A set of rules, requests to humanity, made in several of the dominant languages. The very first principle inscribed on the face, the first precept, is this: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. In light of such presentations as this, and the reality that's bearing down on us all right now, it's almost as if the future sent someone back to this time to lay it out, doesn't it? Like a Moses coming down from the mountain. Unfortunately, I don't have high hopes. We'll probably no more listen and obey the precepts than the tribes of Israel did (the first time). Which means we're all setting ourselves up for a whole world of pain before we learn to truly understand that we live within a terrarium. This, at heart, is what our Paradise Earth is, a terrarium. In all our actions we need to stay mindful of this fact. And I've every confidence we will, but not before 'ol Mother Nature and all her dynamic systems regulating the terrarium takes us by the scruff of our necks and rubs our face in all the shit we have done. You know, in "Bad Primate! BAD PRIMATE!!" fashion. Just like you would do if you came home from a long, hard, day and found your pet had trashed the place. Just some thoughts worth about that much. John~ American Net'Zen

@mrrecluse7002

Жыл бұрын

Yes indeed. This closed system called Earth is a large terrarium, fouling itself, in the evolution of human animals.

I love Bill Rees!

First off Dr. Rees, great job in pointing out the obvious, I thank you. Let me give you a few statistics here: First are you aware of 'The Great Acceleration'? Have you heard that term before? 1950 to Present : population quadrupled in my lifetime! 2.1 to 8 billion, never before anything close to that happening in world history. I experienced what this world was like with 2.2 billion in 50's and I can assure you it was a far more pleasant world than today with 8 billion. Did you know that prior to 1900 no human ever lived long enough for population to double in his lifetime? In my lifetime it has quadruple and that is total insanity!. In 1994 in South Africa there were 4.6 million whites and at same time there where 25 million blacks pointing out copulation rates can radically change demographics on who runs the world! The population problem will never be solved, cannot be solved and leaders know that fact, religion, cultures and corporations will see that it is not solved. So, our trajectory is set, we must keep this unsustainable world going just a little longer with new and better 'gadgets' until the entire ecosystem collapses! How long will that be? Not very long at this point, we are hanging onto edge of very high building with a 'slate' roof with just our fingernails & they are scratching at last inch of support. PS: This current pandemic is a result of our overpopulation issue where 2/3rds of this world is living in sceptic waste and travel is only hours away from any large city by plane. If a group of aliens ever land on this planet they will know exactly reason humans went extinct. Good Luck!

@theobserver9131

Жыл бұрын

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that life was much more pleasant in the 50s. That's true if you were a white European or American. Not so true for everyone else. Yes, we are coming to the end of our road. And in some ways, that makes me horribly sad. I feel horribly guilty in having offspring that will suffer the worst of it. On the other hand, a new balance will be found.

@johnmitchell2741

Жыл бұрын

the pandemic was man made

@theobserver9131

Жыл бұрын

@@johnmitchell2741 so what?

@mrrecluse7002

Жыл бұрын

Yes. We will never solve the population problem. Nature will, by culling, and it will get extremely ugly.

@mba321

Ай бұрын

@@johnmitchell2741 Pangolins are people now?

We Can choose, but we won't. Talk to anyone, they want the old ways back asap or worse, rfn. Reality and most peeps don't live together. ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️

Overpopulation is something that everyone sees and experiences, yet very few people are willing to act upon. It is a classic example of ‘cognitive dissonance’.

@rd264

9 ай бұрын

W. Rees' bullets will bounce off people if they are simply unable to comphrehend the Limits to Growth or if they are unwilling to submit to this reality and believe they are immune to it, because they wealthy, or privileged, or outlaws, or immature and irresponsible. Its also typical of many techies, trained to think of every problem as having a nifty tech solution. But tech wont solve this. Although I admire Jeff Gibbs and Ozzie Zehner, I disagree with them on this: they are both averse to or against population controls, Ozzie says it threatens ones freedom to have large families. They havent been pressed too hard to explain this.

Great Dr. Rees. The world needs demographic and economic degrowth...

I honestly think the taboo about seeing that the driving factor behind our problems is our numbers (as well as a love of dysfunctional hierarchies) is wired into our primate neuro-architecture. This just bubbles up through our cognitive abstractions, which is also, as Dr Rees says, a huge problem. We live in our thoughts more than in the real world.

@anthonycooper3191

10 ай бұрын

I agree with you. Just consider our human population of 8 billion people. Google how long it would take to count to 1 billion, each count representing a human, and the consumption, food, etc, of that human over the course of their life upon this planet, each and every day. And the human population is likely to soon reach 10 billion people!

@rd264

9 ай бұрын

2 things cause Rees' bullets to bounce off people 1 IGNORANCE. many people are simply unable to comphrehend the Limits to Growth 2 DENIAL. a form of elitism common among the well off, its simple irresponsibility. Denial also is common among techies, they believe everything is simply a tech problem that is capable of a tech solution, tech will solve everything with time. eg Jeff Gibbs and Ozzie Zehner are against population controls, Ozzie rejects the term overpopulation. He says it threatens ones freedom to have large families.

Thank you Prof. Rees!

I fully agree with Dr. Rees; our population has well over-shot Earth's natural carrying capacity for our species. Yet he never comes out and says it: what should mankind's population be brought back down to to once again live in harmony with all the rest of life on Earth? Where should our populations be centered to least interfere with the needs of all the rest of life on Earth. How much resource extraction should be permitted/allowed/agreed on, over what units of time? How should non-renewable resources like crude oil be utilized instead of how we now wastefully proliferate its use? How can/should/must we deal with single-use plastics? Come-on Dr. Rees; be bold here, stop beating-around-the bush and speak plainly about these and other existential issues. Yes, you will get challenged...great! What better way to start the meaningful dialog necessary to get us from were we now are to where mankind needs to be in order to save our species, and much of all other life on Earth from what now faces us (either extinction or vastly, unimaginably reduced quality of life) if we do not change our over-exploitive, over-population ways.

Snipped. But you had to read it. Message delivered.

This is just common sense. The power of conceptual lenses to blind us to reality is astonishing.

@rd264

9 ай бұрын

yes limits to growth and the fact that we blew far past those limits is obvious and just common sense. We need to call it rare sense !! Paul Erhlich and others suggested much above 2 billion was not sustainable. Governments ignored him.

Who is better, they who promote truth over happiness, or happiness over truth - Nietzsche. Dr. Rees, the graphics which show the high income and low income countries, is there a link or some way I may access them? Thank you!

Dr. Rees is so important to give us a macro view of economy/ecology connectivity. It it too bad our selfish not so sapien sapiens will not become aware before our extinction.

All empires eventually collapse due to two things, greed and technology.

Would 1 billion people be able to keep "alive" the current state of civilization enjoyed by most western developed nations today, and, disseminate such standard of living relatively equally throughout such a population size...or, would it take closer to 2 billion of us. Then, too, what steps would HAVE to be taken to maintain "steady state" such a population, to keep the overshoot cycle from creeping back in? To my knowledge only Science Fiction writers, so far, have guessed at/written about these topics.

@bovellois

2 жыл бұрын

If only they could stay off the "sun in the bottle"... Fossil fuels have acted as a hard drug on humanity. Getting off now would be extremely difficult and painful.

@kinngrimm

2 жыл бұрын

18:00 looking at the red doted line i would guess it to be even less than a billion, though it also depends on how well the reduction would be managed. If it is due to all out war, a nuclear winter seems in grasp and therefor carrying capacity would drop even further. If it is by concent, which i highly doubt on this topic could be achieved, people tend to avoid death not freely accept it for themselves to the point that there are religions telling us it is a sin and laws stating that anyone helping anyone trying to die is then also accused of a crime. So even if we manage to achiev a "piecefull" contradiction of 70% to 90 % of our population, those then need to recycle a tone of bodies, materials otherwise being used, manage to secure volatile and dangerous substances, leave certain areas to its own to replenish and other areas which may already be harmed and in bad condition still farmed on even though the products may be bad for our overall health. In a way one would need a secluded area for a population maybe of 30 thousand people to jump start civilisation later on while everything else just goes to waste. That would be more easily achievable than having 1 billion people coordinated on the goal of safing the planet after looseing friends families to the plan to safe humanity. Also how would you decide who lives or dies? Who is worth safing and who isn't? The ethical implications here are absolut horror.

@theobserver9131

Жыл бұрын

That's just the thing, we want to eat our cake and have it too. No, we can't keep the current state of civilization going. That's exactly what is killing us. We would have to learn to accept, and potentially love?, A simpler lifestyle.

@kirkha100

6 ай бұрын

@@kinngrimmgreat comment. Thank you for mentioning the damage to “carrying capacity” as various planetary boundaries are exceeded. This intensifies and accelerates our predicament. Estimates of a sustainable population may be far too high.

The population problem will be solved one way or another. Obviously, we won't to do it voluntarily.

@didforlove

13 күн бұрын

when will this happen

@theobserver9131

13 күн бұрын

@@didforlove 5 minutes from now to one billion years from now, approximately.

@theobserver9131

13 күн бұрын

@@didforlove ...if we leave this solar system, maybe longer. 😀

what we don't say is the way of history was an age of wars , wars and intercultural conflicts had a way of controlling population growth. modern humans are well overdue for another population reset, some scientists say 11 trillion is the tipping point for the planet to sustain humans, at this s time in history , it is showing we are past the number the planet can sustain, and what is the population number approx. 7.9billion some countries are well past their lands sustainability, and are encroaching on others, the population bubble will burst, and this problem is and far out weighs any pandemics we will face

I would like to hear more. I do think that the climate crisis could , and may already, have started positive feedbacks that will lead to destruction of habitat. We and most creatures can't exist without habitat. If tipping points are at play, there is little we can do as a species to slow the process. A +5° C Earth is not one that we can survive. We are at +1.2° C today, compared to 1880, +1.5°C compared to 1750. And its accelerating. We should be scared of the exponential. Through famine and wars, we may reach the 1 to 2 billion people carrying capacity. That won't matter if positive feedbacks take the planet to +5° C or greater. It could hit 10 or 20° C, but in that case there will be nobody around to notice.

@JulioGarcia-wp2um

2 жыл бұрын

Lies

@mrrecluse7002

Жыл бұрын

I agree. It's a year, after your post, and I'm seeing growing concerns that some of those positive tipping points may have begun, or draw much nearer than previously supposed. We are in for it. The current mess we are in will be the good old days.

Talking about this without bringing up the subject of planned obsolescence in consumer products is absurd. People in the computer industry not discussing something as simple as passive backplanes to reduce e-waste is utterly ridiculous. In economics there is depreciation on the supply side and the demand side, but economists totally Ignore the depreciation on the demand side.

A 80% contraction of our western economies would be necessary to live without overshoot... Did anyone develop a model yet of how that would look like in detail and how fast this could be implemented?

@kinngrimm

2 жыл бұрын

The closest i have seen sofar is the "ressource based econnomy" approach.

Someone needs to have a chat with Elon Musk. As brilliant as he is with technology and business, he is not so much with biology and ecology. In those sciences, he is abysmally stupid. Musk calls for population growth. He must be insane.

@marymolloy562

Жыл бұрын

I am an old woman who never had children by the way. People die and ,100 years from now we could be short of people.

@theobserver9131

Жыл бұрын

@@marymolloy562 do you have any idea what the global statistics are? Many many many more people are born than die. We are nearly at 8 billion people right now. We are destroying the earth's capacity to support life. If anything, we need to reduce our population by a lot if we want to preserve life on this planet. I don't even know what you mean by "short of people". The fewer people there are, the more resources available for those people. Life only gets better with fewer people. Less conflict, more bounty. Personally, I think we should have a population cap at 1 billion.

@theobserver9131

Жыл бұрын

@@marymolloy562 That is, until we are able to move out into space. Then, we can grow without limit..... possibly. The universe just might be infinite. At any rate, it would take us a very long time to use up the resources within our visual horizon.

Great 👍 thank you. I wonder how many of the group are vegans. The hectare/person ratio for food shrinks drastically when excluding any meats from your diet. It also lowers CO2/CH4 emissions (no fishing vessels, less farming machinery, less animal emissions). The dependency on meat is one of the growing up conditionings that must be removed if we were to move forward as a human race.

Human overshoot is a result of our huge ability to deny. We're too wonderful to destroy our only home, aren't we?

BEST VIDEO EVER

Too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution. Questions?

@almazalmo7683

2 жыл бұрын

no, its a small percentage of humans using those. thats a huge difference

@kiedranFan2035

2 жыл бұрын

@@almazalmo7683 but didn't he say that although per person the developing world doesent use as much, overall they use the most? And didn't he say that telling them to stop seeking excess consumption is telling them that they can't have what we have ( which is true, Becuase it's impossible) rather than telling them what not to do due to the results of our first world experiment and how it should be interpreted?

Wear be are oun demise theres no stopping it

LEERLO VARIAS VECES HASTA APRENDERSELO.

He says that population increase drives the eco footprint but the data he provides shows that the largest eco footprint increases come from the countries with high income growth. While the lowest income countries have the highest correlation between EF and pop growth, they have lowest lump sums of increase together with the second lowest category. The highest developed categories have 9 Ggha while the lowest two have 3 - its not the amount of people but the wasteful consumption. The question is would you rather change your way of life or let strangers die. He is using percentages to imply a greater gravity to those small changes. Sure it quadrupled, but while for instance 16 is a quadruple of 4 and it increases by 12, 4 is a quadruple of 1 but only increases it by 3. He is essentially drawing an eqquivalence between the two. Here the high income EF increased by 3.2 Ggha or 89%, and the Low IncomeEF increased by 0.69 (287%). He is telling you to worry more about the 287% even in real terms the 3.2 is higher than 0.69. It's the same bullshit they tell you when they say ants have superstrength because they can lift so much more than their body weight when it's really just a matter of scaling. Also the graphs show downward trends with all EFs, except when you compare it to the starting point. The conditions here are not from 1961, they are from now. So, comparing the development compared to a few years ago - like the last high point - is more useful then comparing it to a far off point in time. Additionally, we expect a decrease in birthrates in highly developed countries so these countries have shrinking footprints and shrinking numbers. A counterbalancing double whammy. We also have consider that this is not the cumulative footprint but just how much got added. Once again this cumulative footprint would be higher in developed countries which have a lower total population so this EF is clearly more influenced by development of industry and unsustainable economic practices than the amount of people. Funnily we arrive at the same conclusions. Except one line of reasoning can be much better used for eco-fascism, i.e. calling for the reduction of population size to preserve consumption. The ones calling the loudest for population control are the ones whose departure would impact this equation the most. So don't fall into that trap.

Economic perpetual motion? I thought the US patent office said there was no such thing? They were right.

So what will the future be like?

Good talk and info but short on clear speech of how serious a situation we are in with a much larger possibility of a very quick die off event caused by abrupt climate change as has been shown worldwide in the last month and accelerating, how would our food production be effected over a 2 year period following a Blue Ocean Event, complete collapse from failed crops.

@bovellois

2 жыл бұрын

The seriousness of the situation has been presented in a cartoon-like book. The author explains how fossil fuels are providing humans with the equivalent of 200 slaves, on average (unevenly distributed between countries). Powerful monarchs could not dream of going to another continent to attend a concert over a weekend, yet millions of people do it regularly, or plan to go back to doing it after the pandemic will be over. Back to the normal "catastrophic" course :-(

@torwerner6064

2 жыл бұрын

@Craig Carmichael Ha ha ha, good point indeed! I hope for it...

Population of billionaires is the problem

@didforlove

13 күн бұрын

they are building bunkers in New Zealand to survive the apocalypse

after youve read the population bomb and some of the related 'overshoot' biological, ecological and economic literature you realize what?

We are going to hit the resource wall at some point .. Having completely ravaged the planet .,

Within the confines of the present Global Economic Model GEM all efforts to correct man-made climate change will at best fail or at worst, will be the last nail in our collective coffin. Technological changes are sorely needed, but the primary problem is our misbehavior towards the environment. That misbehavior is described by the following equation: "Profit = income - expenses". The problem with "Profit = income - expenses" is that the entire environment is on the expense part of the equation, and that includes us. Businesses want to eliminate expenses; thus, "Profit = income - expenses" is a recipe for the destruction of the environment and all life on earth. Our current definition of profit is the cause of 'overshoot', and overshoot is the cause of man-made climate change. We need a new Global Economic Model GEM that supports a new definition of profit. How about this definition: "Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for our Environment, and for the sustenance that it provides to all of us." Clearly, this definition of profit does require a new GEM. Please bear in mind that this definition of profit does away with expenses. In nature's economy we have already been paid in full, in advance. Our job in nature is to acquire sustenance without going into Overshoot. The central part of the new Global Economic Model should be the EPA. EPA members will vote on the best 'Profit' definition that states sustenance is our only actual 'gain' without which we can't live, and states that the environment is our only source of sustenance. Once the new GEM is designed, we will need a way to transition to its implementation. The new EPA in its new GEM will establish, by vote, all directives related to both, the GEM and climate rescue strategies. These directives will fail in our current Global Economic Model, but under the new GEM, here are some rough ideas of what the EPA directives might be: 1.) Population: Initially we need a temporary one child per family directive. This would last about a year, and the next 1 year restriction would occur five years later. 2.) In place of income, jobs would have an 'equivalency rating'. Some jobs are still more important and more difficult than others. 3.) All equivalency ratings will increase at the same time if and when the environment becomes healthier. The lowest EquivRate must still be livable. 4.) Everyone who can work will be able, and required, to get jobs. No more expenses, so no more cutting jobs to reduce expenses; thus, virtually no more homelessness. 5.) No manufacturing of useless and unnecessary products. All products will be scrutinized by various rating methods. 6.) Whenever possible products should last a lifetime and or be easily upgradable, so we don't buy the same products repeatedly. 7.) EPA will direct "Work Force Flow". Example: Shoe manufacturer will produce 100yearLife shoes for 3 years, then reduce output to about 1/10 of full capacity, and the majority of shoe employees will be shifted to other work assignments by the EPA. Employees still keep their EquivRate in-between jobs. 8.) All recyclable items will be recycled. All stores like wal-Mart Target etc. will carry both recycled and new products. Recycled costs far fewer EquivRate credits. Items that can't be recycled as is will be reprocessed for other purposes. Virtually nothing gets thrown away. 9.) We must all be educated, especially young students, about how to manage the new Global Economic Model and the environment. 10.) Caretakers of the environment will receive higher than average EquivRates. 11.) We must do away with neoliberalism, a political approach that favors free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending. I know that this is just a rough outline of what we must do, but it's a good starting point. This is our Ark. Please help build it! Questions, suggestions and any comments for or against this idea will be very deeply appreciated. Thank you! 💖

So, let's see; Royal Dutch Shell, 2008 - Blueprint or Scramble". The point being, of course, there's no need for a concerted nor devious nor conspiratorial 'plan' to manufacture 'soylent green'; 'twas only necessary to harvest the 'human' --- nay, animal --- predisposition for greed. The main irrelevancy is, again, of course, that, almost certainly, this sad-for-macroscopic-earthlings certainty is neither uncommon nor unprecedented anywhere in the universe. 'Sucks to be you' is a fact that can only modulated/moderated by the recognition of the futility of the 'you' in that statement...

Obviously nobody wants to hear this sort of disturbing message.

@lazarus1672

2 жыл бұрын

@JZ's Best Friend we'd all be much better off if you did troll

@ivanc-s

2 жыл бұрын

Truth hurts sometimes.

@torwerner6064

2 жыл бұрын

Why not?

So here's an optimistic thought; as a species, our modern civilization collapses, and we are thrown back to pre-industrial lifestyle, and a more sustainable use of earth's resources. Possibility?

The fact is there are no hard data to support or establish what unsustainable is. This is more scaremongering like what we heard from Paul Erlich.

@mugiwaraboshi37

10 ай бұрын

William E. Rees has spent his life providing hard data on this. Google is free.

human choice decentralization; God's kingdom central authority

This is a false choice. Fixing overshoot and not addressing sustainable energy production and embracing efficiency is a false paradigm that leaves us without instrumentality. This idea lacks context also.

@literalghost929

Жыл бұрын

He didn't say they were contradictory. But the core issue is overpopulation. No number of solar panels and electric cars are going to solve the issue. So looking at the latter and not the former is simply addressing a symptom and not the disease.

@crepooscul

Жыл бұрын

Your idea of perfect efficiency is utopian, but most importantly it only serves as a band aid for the inevitable fact that you cannot infinitely expand with finite resources.

@Aerostealth

Жыл бұрын

@@crepooscul Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Evolution or extinction? Are we able to learn to live in harmony with each other, nature and technology including AI? Sustainability not profitability. Mindfulness and self love, respect not exploitation. Our species faces a major die off, the population is passing the peak, passing a tipping point where our population goes from exponential growth to a transition to a new sustainable relationship with the ecosystem that has sustained us up until now. That downward curve can be as steep as a cliff which falls to zero, extinction, or it can begin steeply and recover as it returns to historic levels of sustainability, pre-technology levels such as pre-Columbian America. This could lead to a selection pressure that would produce a new species of hominid, speciation. The curve could be more gentle and could include technological solutions that would level off at a population that could both live more harmoniously with nature and each other and incorporate technology that would represent an evolution into a new species of technologically enhanced humanity, cyborgs. Taking life to other planets, terraforming and evolving new species of humans who could survive other planetary ecologies is another path that will require technologies including genetic engineering to reach for the stars. Managing these changes in a moral and humane way brings hope to a future that appears very scary from our selfish and ethnocentric perspectives. Keep up the good work or as John Perkins says "Dream True" instead of living like the hero of his book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." Be blessed, you are a blessing. Aboriginal cultures have much to teach us.

Bill Rees inspired Agent Smith and a whole host of other anti-capitalist villains in pop culture counter revolutionary propaganda.

@karlwheatley1244

Ай бұрын

Well, capitalism is one of the two main parts of the matrix.

Worried about overpopulation? Off yourself. Really, be generous with your own life.

@crepooscul

Жыл бұрын

Some individuals committing suicide won't solve "overpopulation". What kind of juvenile garbage is this?

I get a little anxious when I see tons of KZread videos on overpopulation talks spearheaded by intelligent white people. It’s especially discomforting to hear the words “government led population contraction”. The only examples we have of these types of programs have been massive failures and included atrocities that can never be justified. The phrasing “contract the human population to a sustainable number that can live equitably within nature” is a fancy way of saying “cull”, and I think it is dangerous to suggest such action written in a particularly white-centric language proposed by panels consisting of all white scientists.

Tough question given George Monbiot says Precision Fermentation could feed a world of 10 billion ALL the fats and proteins they could want from an area the size of Greater London!

This video is proof that you can be highly qualified, and simultaneously completely mad.

@literalghost929

Жыл бұрын

Not an argument.

@johnm1066

Жыл бұрын

The truth always resembles madness to those blinded by delusion.

bill Gates approved this video😷🤒🤢🤮😵

@literalghost929

Жыл бұрын

Not an argument.