A smarty pants scientist makes an easy anaology about our planet - And now I am scared.

reply to post by Mamatus


I do not buy into this BS. when I can drive across this country we call the U.S. and see just how much unpopulated area we really do have if you get away from major cities, not saying that what he says is completely false, this is the same deception and misinformation that is driving the NWO and the theme of the Georgia guidestones, it is propaganda that is used to back up their push for population reduction and control using clandestine methods...
He did not even say one thing about mortality rates and tables, natural attrition etc and he is the brainiac ?

Can I post a counter youtube video to ease your mind even a little, since you are scared OP?

this video contains a subtle, but crucial, lie. "at the end of 60 minutes: THERE IS NO FOOD LEFT."

being a smart man, i wonder why he forgot to mention that the colony will continue to live for quite some time after the 60 minutes. they do this by eating each other's dead bodies.



gross you say? that's because he has mis-applied the metaphor.

the test-tube (Earth) contains a great many species besides human beings.... and it just so happens to be true that species survive by eating the remains of formerly-living creatures.

so the good news that i glean from this (more accurate, IMO) reinterpretation is the following: the situation is not so critical that its going to all end, like, tomorrow. rather, when we use the metaphor appropriately, we can see that 59 minutes equates to some span of time in the hundreds of millions of years, and that the 'death phase' of the growth cycle has been the current status for.... i dunno..... tens of millions?

the good news being that there are likely tens of millions more yet to go before flatline.

reply to post by tgidkp


I'm not following your reasoning. You seem to be focusing on something quite different from what the video is getting at.

Are you focusing on life on this planet, or homo sapiens?

Also, where do you get this hundred million figure from, in either case?

Lastly, are you suggesting that our species will continue on as cannibals for millions of years?

I can't even make your reasoning fit with mass extinction events.

Please elaborate. Thanks.

reply to post by webedoomed


the best i can do to clarify is to contrast his claim with the correction i offer.

smarty-pants: 'bacteria' = 'humans'.
me: 'bacteria' = 'all species that have ever occupied this planet'

considering the 'death phase' (in the image i posted), smarty-pants metaphor would suggest that the humans can continue to survive by eating up each other. (soylent green is people!)

but, taking my consideration into view, the conclusion of the metaphor is that life on this planet will continue to survive by eating up other life. this has obviously been the case for a very very very long time.....

...... and will continue to be for another very long time.

reply to post by Mamatus


It is amazing how many stars alarmist posts like this get.

What a load of crap. How soon should we leave for Mars, sir? Hmmmm?

Although there will definitely come a time when population growth becomes a problem - it simply cannot go on indefinitely - we have not reached such a juncture.

We still have enough farm land, enough energy resources, enough water, to last us for the next 100-150 years. Should we make sure that we reduce our imprint on nature, so that we wont eviscerate our planets ecosystem? Of course. I am very aware - and very acutely concerned - that we don't quite recognize the severity that green houses gases will have on our planets homeostasis. We definitely need to transition to cleaner burning fuels, which weve been doing in closing coal plants and filling the void with natural gas; but long term, we need to concentrate on renewable fuels like solar, wind, and nuclear.

reply to post by tgidkp


Okay, so you're clearly talking about something entirely different, and stuck on the wrongness of the metaphor, rather than any actual science.

Check.

reply to post by webedoomed


i beg your pardon?!

his video was not science: it was propaganda.

he only told you the parts of exponential growth in a bacterial colony that fit his propaganda. once you realize the full context of the metaphor, according to the science i offered in my post, you can see that he has, at best, misrepresented the metaphor completely.

his knowing misuse of the metaphor is manipulative and entirely unscientific. the consumption of resources on this planet (the test tube) is not the exclusive domain of the human species, and it never has been. it just so happens to be a very natural process of life.

but that piece of information doesnt fit his message. so he left it out. you are being lied to, in the name of science no less, and then you have the gall to tell me that I am the one not concerned with the science?


geesh.

They are polluting our planet and oceans at an alamring rate. The true scientists know this and try to warn everyone. Most "holy" texts say that one day most of our oceans will be killed off. I used to think that wasn't possible, but now it totally is with radiation poisoning and outrageous pollution. Test before you eat any seafood, and get your tap water treated to remove radiation, with at least a zeolite type filter! Remove Radiation from Water

One wonders what the hell Suzuki is talking about in this video.

Whats with the obscure tube analogy? I'm still trying to translate it into the language that statisticians use to project population growth.

Also, his claim that "every scientist I spoke to agrees with me: were way past the 59th minute". huh? This language is so alarmist. It is also undoubtedly not true: you will always encounter people, within your profession, who disagree with you. Especially when the claim - that were on the verge of environment collapse - is such a hot button issue.

What is he saying? Really. The only logical conclusion I can made is that he think we should kill off the majority of the world - useless bacterium within the tube. With what? War? Disease? Famine? Combination of all 3?

He acts as if the science he using is full-proof, and not simply SPECULATIVE.

David Suzuki has always been somewhat of a radical hippy. I question his morals.

When I was younger I was afraid too. BAsicallyy thought the world was ending. But hten I kind of grew up? I'm more layed back now.

I was projecting my own ignorance and failings onto everything else. I saw darkness far as the eye can see. I made straw men just so I could see them fall apart. I think I wanted failure to walk alongside me.

Humanity is far too capable to just fall dead though like a lifeless dummy. The problems we see are mole holes compared to the threat humans pose to themselves.

Even scientists are letting this happen to them. Stare at their numbers too long and the dark cloud hovers over them.

I think it'll be ok. We're afraid. There'll be a lot of changes, but it'll not be calamitous. The fears are overblown. However, the fear will always be with us, perhaps to remind us of the very real dangers in the universe.

reply to post by tgidkp


There's no science in your post. You're speaking absolute nonsense.

There is no hundred million year death phase because we're all eating life... it makes no freaking sense whatsoever.

Then that the bacteria will have itself as a food source, is absolutely besides the point.

You went on a series of tangents and attempted to make it seem like it was somehow more accurate, insightful, or whatever. What really happened is you failed miserably to see what he was talking about.

No pardon.

The problem with human beings we are Tribal and we are selfish, and half the time we don't think about the repercussions of our actions, nor can we comprehend or be bothered trying to understand or find a better way to live. We are hooked into materialism the rich and poor, us and them; and our time preoccupied working to pay our rent, taxes and rates. The problem is compounded by having several different variations of races, cultures, ideologies and religions.

The effect of population is that is amplifies all these things to the point something gives, such as economic collapse, civil unrest, war.

The answer? If there was half the number of people in the world today the magnitude of the problem would be halves but the roots of the problem are there and growing. Human beings haven't changed since ancient Rome and in 2000 years will still not change. Technology will never get around human nature.

reply to post by webedoomed

There is no hundred million year death phase....

and yet, this thread is populated by people who are pretending that his 59 minutes corresponds to something real. i imagine you are also under this same presumption? but of course, he didnt specify this himself. he has left it to your collective imaginations.

why does everybody else in the thread get to toss their presumptions around and call it science, but i cant. wait. i know. its because you think i am somehow disagreeing with you. and this has caused you to become biased against any information i can offer. well let me resolve that for you.

i happen to agree with the point that human society is having an incredibly detrimental effect on this planet. the difference between me and smarty-pants is that i will not lie to you in order to get you to agree.


i came in here trying to be nice and add to the conversation. but you have been incredibly insulting. i have not missed his message at all. you have become blinded by his message, and have missed mine.

reply to post by tgidkp


he didn't lie, you warped what he said, and continue to do so.

no point in dealing with someone who is obviously personality disordered.

*ignored*

reply to post by Mamatus


Why is it the most hardcore environmentalists also happen to be vicious misanthropists?

I don't understand. How can you love a #ing planet more than your fellow humans? Better question: How do you expect to help the planet, if you do not first love your fellow humans?

The solution, I believe, will ultimately arrive from psychology, neuroscience, and education. When we do a better job educating our youth, they will grow up to become adults who make more mature, circumspect decisions. When this happens, we will be better able to cooperate in handling the challenges that face us.

I mean, is there anything worse than losing compassion for one another? Of course, the planet is important. But I see such cynicism, meanness, and vitriol in some of the people who are posting here. I am still disturbed by the fact that some users "cant wait to see human beings killed off" from our planet. For the love of God.

reply to post by tgidkp

However, how do you teach right-side thinking? You can't.

What else do you expect from someone with the username: webedoomed, whose profile picture says: be calm, we're doomed anyway

He's obviously mentally unbalanced.

webedoomed
We weren't acting like bacteria in a petri dish until the agricultural revolution. Before that point there was a mostly stable population for eons.

So I'd start minute 1 post flood, and at the start of modern agriculture, roughly 11,000 years ago. I think another great pivotal point was the industrial revolution. I'd start minute 58 with the industrial revolution, and minute 59 for the nuclear age.

If we divide 11k by 60, we get roughly 183 years per minute. I'll use 1760 for the IR, and 1943 for the nuclear age.

That means we got until 2123 before minute 60, and 2033 will be 59 1/2.

Meh, I don't think civilization lasts more than 59:30 on the clock.


Tick, tock, tick, tock...

Nice to see some math done on this. It is difficult to know where to begin it all but when you put it the way you do it sounds like adding food to the Petri dish - allowing the bacteria to grow. So bumping it up around the industrial revolution - sounds about right.

reply to post by Astrocyte


Lefty-here

reply to post by Dianec


Umm, am I the only one aware of the psychological errors in his thinking?

There are plausible other models. There are alternative scenarios. We haven't mastered all the variables involved, or how the planet may respond.

reply to post by Astrocyte


Not to mention, there are other, more plausible scenarios. Not the "end of civilization" as whacko-mc-whacko aka webedoomed, naively thinks. If green-house gases end up raising global temperatures 4 degrees celcius, that'll open up many northern regions, with currently permafrosted sol, for agriculture. Didn't think of that - did you!

But of course, Africa and many other areas along the equator would be in for major famines as it would pretty much shorten the growing season, burn crops, etc.

If this happens, as it may, then we will have a major reduction in population. But the "end of civilization"? No. That is not the only plausible result.