News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

Re: Post YouTube videos that don't suck!

Started by Buddy, October 27, 2012, 08:45:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Biggus Dickus

"Some people just need a high-five. In the face. With a chair."

Sandra Craft

Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

Biggus Dickus

In this visually beautiful and mesmerizing piece, 27 year-old Prince Ea apologies to future generations for what we are doing, and not doing, to the planet today.


"Dear Future Generations, I think I speak for the rest of us when I say, 'Sorry.' Sorry that we left you with a mess of a planet. Sorry that we were so caught up in our own doings - to do something." "Let me tell you, trees are amazing. We literally breathe the air they are creating They clean up our pollution, our carbon, store and purify our water, give us medicine that cures our disease, food that feeds us..." "I'm sorry that we put profits above people, greed above need, the rule of gold above the Golden Rule. I'm sorry we used nature as a credit card with no spending limit..."


"Hey Fox News, If you don't think climate change is a threat, I dare you to interview the thousands of homeless people in Bangladesh. See while you were in your penthouse nestled, their homes were literally washed away beneath their feet due to the rising sea levels." "And Sarah Palin. You said you loved the smell of fossil fuels. Well, I urge you to talk to the kids of Beijing who are forced to wear pollution masks just to go to school."

"Some people just need a high-five. In the face. With a chair."

Crow

Even though it is for this:


Our rain forests are actually being cut down for this:


Fossil fuels are not the problem. If we stopped using all sources of electricity and transport tomorrow we would still hit the expected point of no return date of 2030. Many of the models don't actually attribute for humans themselves via respiratory processes and waste and many just look at direct chemical release through man made processes without looking at the natural processes. The estimated total impact of livestock agriculture to green house gas emissions is 51%. Then that isn't even factoring in things such as the ecosystem of our oceans being fucked because we have over fished them to the extreme, that livestock agriculture is the prime attributer to deadzones, species extinction, water pollution and desertification. The ocean deadzones and fishless oceans by 2048 is a far more worrying trend than emission based warming.
Retired member.

Davin

Quote from: Crow on April 24, 2016, 12:22:58 PMFossil fuels are not the problem.
I agree that fossil fuels are not the problem, but they are a big problem. I also agree that cows are a big portion of the problem. Human waste is also another big problem. There are a lot of problems that are contributing to global warming. If we're going to boil down all the problems to one, then the one that would reduce all the problems would be decreasing population growth, preferably down to reducing our population, because the more people there are, the more we pollute. I couldn't find the study off hand, but there is a study that showed that we here in the US are the biggest wasters (maybe not the biggest direct polluters anymore), per capita.

We need to stop growing our population, and I think we really need to start reducing our population. I'm not talking about killing people (though people will start starving to death anyway), but if more people would have no or just one kid, that would help a lot eventually. And people need to stop having more than two kids.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

joeactor

Quote from: Davin on April 25, 2016, 04:27:47 PMWe need to stop growing our population, and I think we really need to start reducing our population. I'm not talking about killing people (though people will start starving to death anyway), but if more people would have no or just one kid, that would help a lot eventually. And people need to stop having more than two kids.

This. Spot on.

Impossible to implement, but it's the root of many issues.

Tank

Quote from: joeactor on April 25, 2016, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 25, 2016, 04:27:47 PMWe need to stop growing our population, and I think we really need to start reducing our population. I'm not talking about killing people (though people will start starving to death anyway), but if more people would have no or just one kid, that would help a lot eventually. And people need to stop having more than two kids.

This. Spot on.

Impossible to implement, but it's the root of many issues.
But the human population will plateau in due course and then reduce. We have passed 'peak child' already. The population 'growth' we are seeing at the moment is not caused by births but by people not dying as young. The average birth rate per family in developed countries is less than 2 right now. South Korea is so worried about its future population growth that it has passed a rule that people go home on time, not early, on Thursdays in the hope of more children being born. The birth rate in Japan is bottoming out and they are closing maternity wards.

Watch this program it is very very good indeed: Don't Panic - The Truth About Population.

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Davin

Quote from: Tank on April 25, 2016, 08:22:52 PM
Quote from: joeactor on April 25, 2016, 07:34:21 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 25, 2016, 04:27:47 PMWe need to stop growing our population, and I think we really need to start reducing our population. I'm not talking about killing people (though people will start starving to death anyway), but if more people would have no or just one kid, that would help a lot eventually. And people need to stop having more than two kids.

This. Spot on.

Impossible to implement, but it's the root of many issues.
But the human population will plateau in due course and then reduce. We have passed 'peak child' already. The population 'growth' we are seeing at the moment is not caused by births but by people not dying as young. The average birth rate per family in developed countries is less than 2 right now. South Korea is so worried about its future population growth that it has passed a rule that people go home on time, not early, on Thursdays in the hope of more children being born. The birth rate in Japan is bottoming out and they are closing maternity wards.

Watch this program it is very very good indeed: Don't Panic - The Truth About Population.


That doesn't make me feel any better at all.

Me: "There are too many people already."
You: "Don't worry, when we even more people we'll stop making more people, and might even slow down to zero growth when there are twice as many people as there are now."

That answer does not alleviate the problem. So it might take a bit longer to get to the next billion people, in the meantime, we're tearing the earth as seven billion people. Then it might take a little bit longer to get to the next billion, in the meantime, we're still destroying the planet but a billion people faster.

The video is nothing new, it makes population growth sound as scary as I think it is. And it's great to predict things with statistics, but it doesn't control what will happen.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Tank

I'm not glossing over that there are too many people about. But the birth rate is declining on it's own. If that happens for long enough then humanity will go extinct, end of story. There is nothing we can reasonably do abut it so there is no need to loose sleep over it is there?
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Davin

Quote from: Tank on April 25, 2016, 09:42:10 PM
I'm not glossing over that there are too many people about. But the birth rate is declining on it's own. If that happens for long enough then humanity will go extinct, end of story. There is nothing we can reasonably do abut it so there is no need to loose sleep over it is there?
The birth rate seems to be declining on its own, at least for now. Reality is rarely a straight line that is presentable in statistics.

I'm not sure that there is nothing we can do about it, not that I'm losing sleep over it either way. I am revolted by this kind of defeatist attitude of "can't do anything about, so don't even try." Maybe I'm just being reactionary, but that is something I reject wholeheartedly. So many problems would have remained unsolved if no one ever rejected that view.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Crow

Quote from: Davin on April 25, 2016, 04:27:47 PM
I agree that fossil fuels are not the problem, but they are a big problem. I also agree that cows are a big portion of the problem. Human waste is also another big problem. There are a lot of problems that are contributing to global warming. If we're going to boil down all the problems to one, then the one that would reduce all the problems would be decreasing population growth, preferably down to reducing our population, because the more people there are, the more we pollute. I couldn't find the study off hand, but there is a study that showed that we here in the US are the biggest wasters (maybe not the biggest direct polluters anymore), per capita.

We need to stop growing our population, and I think we really need to start reducing our population. I'm not talking about killing people (though people will start starving to death anyway), but if more people would have no or just one kid, that would help a lot eventually. And people need to stop having more than two kids.

I often feel the solutions presented to the populations as a way of preventing or at least slowing down warming is pointless and flat out unnecessary. Even though it would help it isn't even a drop in the ocean. We know the simplest and quickest solution that would pretty much stop it in its tracks especially in the short term due to methane is to halt livestock production. This would also massively reduce the risk of a large scale killer virus due to over use of antibiotics in the industry but that is a different issue (bird flue, swine flue anyone). Even stopping the production of beef would make a massive difference.

However people aren't going to listen to this but if you look at the difference between what a person who doesn't eat animal products contributes to per day in comparison to one that does daily the non-animal product eater "... saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal's life." per day, you may have stopped driving that car, started reusing waste water, composting your biodegradable's, recycle all your rubbish but eat that one burger and you may have well just been wanking into a cup your effort would have been far more beneficial.

People say we need to reduce the population, we are already producing enough food to feed 10 billion people in crops but most of that goes to animal feed, then we look at the facts of starvation and 85% of children dying of starvation live in countries where crops are grown to feed animals then the animals are sent to countries with money. A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. If the entire planets population wanted to et the same amount of meat as the US then it is predicted we would need about 5 to 7 other planets (it might be 3 to 5 can't remember exactly) to do so, the thing is countries like China, Brazil, India do want to eat that much and every year we see a massive growth in fact by 2050 if it continues at the same rate pollution from the livestock industry is estimated to almost double and that isn't factoring in unexpected jumps due to economic surges. The we have  deforestation due to animal produce that creates more pollutions whereas plants pretty much do the opposite, it still has its problems (nitrogen and soil erosion) but there are solutions such as agroforestry that would quite frankly be fantastic if put into place, you would still be able to get a small portion of animal product but these would be at the end of an animals natural life like old fashioned farming was done. The livestock industry is so far out of control it is insane that it isn't brought to light more often and when the facts are presented I don't know how something hasn't been done about it already, especially seeing as none of the data is new.
Retired member.

Davin

Quote from: Crow on April 25, 2016, 10:57:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 25, 2016, 04:27:47 PM
I agree that fossil fuels are not the problem, but they are a big problem. I also agree that cows are a big portion of the problem. Human waste is also another big problem. There are a lot of problems that are contributing to global warming. If we're going to boil down all the problems to one, then the one that would reduce all the problems would be decreasing population growth, preferably down to reducing our population, because the more people there are, the more we pollute. I couldn't find the study off hand, but there is a study that showed that we here in the US are the biggest wasters (maybe not the biggest direct polluters anymore), per capita.

We need to stop growing our population, and I think we really need to start reducing our population. I'm not talking about killing people (though people will start starving to death anyway), but if more people would have no or just one kid, that would help a lot eventually. And people need to stop having more than two kids.

I often feel the solutions presented to the populations as a way of preventing or at least slowing down warming is pointless and flat out unnecessary. Even though it would help it isn't even a drop in the ocean. We know the simplest and quickest solution that would pretty much stop it in its tracks especially in the short term due to methane is to halt livestock production. This would also massively reduce the risk of a large scale killer virus due to over use of antibiotics in the industry but that is a different issue (bird flue, swine flue anyone). Even stopping the production of beef would make a massive difference.
While I don't have a solution myself, I don't think that halting livestock production is something that will happen before it's too late. Too many people like eating meat, and too many people are against not eating meat. Sure a lot of things would be unnecessary if only everyone in the world followed one thing, but that's not how anything works in reality. I think the best we can hope for is a slow down in many different areas, then work on reversing. You cited a source saying how many resources a meat eater requires per day, then say that having fewer of those meat eaters (population control), would be pointless and flat out unnecessary. To me that doesn't track at all.

I don't argue that nothing needs to be done with livestock production, but I think it's naive to think that we should focus on things that are also polluting that we can and are reducing, to focus on just one thing (especially if that one thing won't likely happen in time). I do think that we can reduce the amount of livestock production, but at the same time we can do other things that will help a lot as well.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Crow

Quote from: Davin on April 26, 2016, 03:52:37 PM
While I don't have a solution myself, I don't think that halting livestock production is something that will happen before it's too late. Too many people like eating meat, and too many people are against not eating meat. Sure a lot of things would be unnecessary if only everyone in the world followed one thing, but that's not how anything works in reality. I think the best we can hope for is a slow down in many different areas, then work on reversing. You cited a source saying how many resources a meat eater requires per day, then say that having fewer of those meat eaters (population control), would be pointless and flat out unnecessary. To me that doesn't track at all.

I don't argue that nothing needs to be done with livestock production, but I think it's naive to think that we should focus on things that are also polluting that we can and are reducing, to focus on just one thing (especially if that one thing won't likely happen in time). I do think that we can reduce the amount of livestock production, but at the same time we can do other things that will help a lot as well.

I can totally agree that it isn't going to change especially as it is forecast to grow. There would need to be a huge shift in public opinion, primarily western opinion, hopefully eastern before that becomes the next problem but we know that isn't going to happen.

Maybe other things will help. but even with total removal of co2 from technology we still hit 2030 point of no return, and the removal of all technology isn't going to happen either. We are pretty much at the point of no return for action at the moment because even our most drastic measures would take a long time to implement. There is a clear presented solution I find the evidence to be overwhelming, one that would be difficult for some but more imagined than what it is in reality but like you highlighted due to attitudes we are pretty much fucked regardless and if anything is to be done it needs to be at the national and international level however those attitudes persist there.
Retired member.

Davin

Yeah, unless someone comes up with something new, along with reducing costs and pollution, we're going to hit a very shitty period of time for at least a century. Even if something new and exciting isn't discovered, we can make it less shitty and maybe take less time. At least that is my realistic goal.

The other thing I worry about, is if someone does discover some thing that fixes several of the current problems, then everyone will think everything is fine again and we just push the shit 50 years ahead.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Biggus Dickus

Belissa Escobedo, Rhiannon McGavin, and Zariya Allen are members of the "Get Lit organization".

Together they are determined to change the world, one word at a time.

In this performance of "Somewhere in America," they open for singer John Legend at the Hollywood Bowl.

Their poem calls to attention the kind of information passed along unintentionally in classrooms, and addresses some hard truths and dark topics based on personal experiences.

​"I think poetry is the best way to express emotions..." McGavin says, "It's an amazing way to help people, especially teens."


"Some people just need a high-five. In the face. With a chair."