Raw mustard,
It is one thing to be thought possibly stupid but it is another entirely to write and remove all doubt.
Try being reasoned i.e. 'you don't agree with him' but the idiot bit?
you are embarrassing yourself with your rabid anti intellectual rant.
FYI I don't agree with him either.

Like it or not most of the advances you enjoy today come from these "idiots" BTW an idiot has less than 60 IQ Point and that means he/she would never get educated.

There is also a difference between straight forward and what you said.

examinator wrote:
"It is one thing to be thought possibly stupid but it is another entirely to write and remove all doubt."

Best you quit while you're ahead then.

"Try being reasoned i.e. 'you don't agree with him' but the idiot bit?"

Reasoned? How do you reason with a supposed intellectual who says we can't farm an acre for fifteen years to be sustainable? Those are the words of an idiot no less! You can spin your PC BS all you like, but that video was utter nonsense and took no sustainability practices into consideration whatsoever and you're trying to label me the stupid one?

"Like it or not most of the advances you enjoy today come from these "idiots"

Umm no, I don't think so, not people like this bloke.

"BTW an idiot has less than 60 IQ Point and that means he/she would never get educated."

Possibly not, but they're just ripe for brainwashing!

Sorry examinator if you don't like my tone, but the time has past for listening to fools that want to talk, talk, talk, BS all day and do nothing other than fill young minds with complete garbage. Why do you think we're in the mess we're in?

so isn't this "crazy, moronic" video really just saying that if earths entire population were to live to the standard of affluent western (american) middle class , that there are only enough (actually not enough) natural resources for 100 million people living at that rate of consumption? i think it's simply meant to be a thought experiment. all he's saying, i think, is that we all need to to consume much less.

Although i did hear a crazy guy on the tram tonight saying he is going to detonate a nuclear weapon on Melbourne.

I guess it's like Carl Sagan's analogy of the history of the Universe. if it was condensed into 24 hours, humans would be beginning to stand upright at the last second of the last hour in the analogous day. you know?

Our waste output per capita is ridiculously large. Just buy less and recycle more. compost. ride your bike to work. an throw away your tv.

I have always and will continue to believe the population of the world is not sustainable right now.
And sadly that we probably can do little about it.
If America, Australia, and Britain, today introduces one child as law, even if we killed every illegal child, would the whole world?
Would some country's continue to breed as a weapon, to have a bigger army.
Would some country's in a world that can not stop people living in poverty dieing of starvation just not care?
Would you me the whole world except not helping those in trouble, so deaths would reduce population.
No aid to Haiti? no food aid to Africa.
No Doctors without boarders.
Scream about our fate, our self destruction.
But never forget it is children like yours we propose must die, we in truth condemn now because it must be said nature is going to kill very many, maybe all one day.

I'm with belly on this.

Population control, as in mandated reduction of future population, can never be justified on an individual basis.

You can hoot and holler till the cows come home about the big picture, and how we're all rooned, and how we're raping the planet. But there isn't a hope in hell of formulating a policy that will cause it to happen.

You cannot legislate against people having children.

You cannot legally bring it about by other means, e.g treating the water supplies etc.

The nub of the issue, surely, is contained in this earlier contribution from davidf:

>>we can delay our extinction by using humane means to reverse our population growth.<<

Who, in this scenario, are "we"?

We as individuals can of course refrain from having children.

But we, collectively, cannot.

Why is this so difficult to understand? I know that it is an unwelcome reality, but it is reality nonetheless. Would it not be more sensible for thinking human beings to accept reality and look for constructive, as opposed to destructive, ways to prolong the life of this planet?

It is after all "when" rather than "if" this planet becomes uninhabitable.

Incidentally, if there were only 100 million people in the world, Australia's share of that number equates almost exactly to the population of Canberra.

Coincidence? You decide.

<< I know that it is an unwelcome reality, but it is reality nonetheless . >>

Gravely, I fear that you are right Pericles.

<< Would it not be more sensible for thinking human beings to accept reality and look for constructive, as opposed to destructive, ways to prolong the life of this planet? >>

I don’t what you are referring to as destructive. Surely not efforts to reduce the global birthrate?!

If we are to accept that we can’t deal with the global population problem, then what truly constructive things can we do?