Moonlight Graham

lol blacks are blacks. So basically your claim is that blacks are less educated, less wealthy, and more likely to commit crimes etc. than white people because of genetics. Good luck proving that one. But i guess the only thing that matters is that you've proven it to yourself.

Different races have genetic dissimilarities. And this is news? This just in: black people have big lips and white people have pale skin!

I never said we had to live in PERFECT equalibrium. Of course that's impossible. You obviously didn't read what i said. Here it is again: That's one of the craziest, most egotistical things i've ever heard! Wow. Not worthy of a comment. I have no idea, i'm no expert on the history of civilizations. What civilization are you worried about? North American? Western? All humanity? Take a cue from nature itself. There are countless animal species that are many millions of years old, even hundreds of millions of years old. Sharks are over 400 million years old. Have sharks continued to grow in numbers all that time? Of course not. If they had, they would have completely overrun the oceans in vast numbers, likely eating all their prey into extinction by now, thus destroying themselves. Sharks have obviously found some semblance of balance in the ecosystem in order to sustain their existence without permanent population growth. You obviously have great faith in humanity's ability to harness technology to sustain themselves. I'm much more skeptical. In the period of the greatest technological advancements in human history ie: since the Industrial Revolution, humans have managed to use these advancements to inflict an amazing amount of harm to their own environment, and our current rate of consumption of natural resources & damage to the environment is unsustainable. 99% of all species that have existed on the earth have gone extinct. We'll see if humans adapt & change their current course of selfish unsustainability or suffer the fate that the other 99% of species have.

My stance is that 7 billion people on the planet is more than enough. I don't necessarily call for a smaller/declining population, but the growth needs to stop at some point. Hopefully the biggest population boom is over. Humans need to live in relative equilibrium with nature, with no massive growth or massive decline in pop. Sure at any given time the pop will be growing or shrinking, but to continue to grow is insane & unsustainable. Humans have put enough strain on the earth as it is. I really don't give a f*** about technological advancement etc. decreasing somewhat if we go from 7 billion to 5 billion, i'm more concerned with things like humans over-fishing the seas, continually polluting the environment with our discarded wastes, and deforestation and habitat destruction for the many species we are supposed to share this lovely planet with. How many species are humans responsible for sending into extinction or endangerment? 7 billion is good, time to call it a day.

Could care less about Lloyd. I usually watch CBC's "The National" anyways since it repeats like 5 times a day on 2 channels.

Actually i'm right. An IGO is a type of international organization, so the UN is both: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organization The UN works in partnership with NGO's, but i can't see how the UN itself would be classified as an NGO.

What?? How does declining the population or declining growth = zero humans? Kind of a slippery slope argument.

Pretty sure i've watched part of this doc before on TV. Was probably on "the passionate eye" on the CBC. Good doc.

First, let me just say that i do think overpopulation is a big problem, and overall, world resources & the environment will have difficultly sustaining an ever-booming global population. However, as i've already stated, i agree with Ghost that hunger is a distribution problem and a money problem, not an overpopulation problem. I can't explain it in one paragraph and won't do it in 10 because i just dont have the time/energy, and unfortunately i can't provide any links because much of what i've read about the problem is in books not online sources. Here's 2 pioneering books to check out: "Poverty and Families: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation" by Amartya Sen, published in 1981, and "Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology, and Culture" by Goodman and Redclift, from 1991. They help describe exactly WHY people in the world go hungry. Basically, it is a problem greatly caused by the globalization of food trade and liberalization of trade markets since 1945. a huge player in this has been the USA (though the consequences were largely unforeseen), which was producing huge food surpluses at the end of WWII. These surpluses became cheap food exports, and cheap imported food into developing countries made it unattractive for subsistence farmers in developing countries to continue growing these crops because the now-cheap global food prices meant they made far less money when they sold their crops to locals. The production of subsistence crops in the developing world for local consumption has dropped drastically since WWII because they couldn't compete with 1st-world production, a problem made worse by 1st-world countries heavily subsidizing their agriculture producers. Hence, a dependence on food aid was created (and food aid is obviously a short-term solution). The decline in subsistence crop production in the developing world meant a big increase on large-scale, export-oriented cash-crop production (coffee etc.). Peasants were thrown off the land because their labour was no longer needed, or their land bought out by multinational corporations. So there is a greater concentration of land in a smaller # of people. A lot of local farmers in ie: latin America were encouraged to sell their land to corporations and move closer to cities and sweatshops where they lived on property with no land therefore they couldn't grow their own food, and during times of economic turmoil could not afford to buy food or had means to grow food so they would go hungry. This large crop production has also caused environment damage from pesticides, fertilization, and improper irrigation. Frequently (as Amartya Sen points out in the book), times of famine have actually occurred when global food production was high, but local economic factors led to the inability for people to buy food from local shops. The food exists to feed starving people, but starving people do not have the money to buy food & largely no longer have the means to grow it themselves. This is how people living in the most lushly vegetated areas on earth go hungry. I don't know how to solve this problem. Obviously the global food regime is hurting developing countries in favour of 1st world ones. The whole system has become f****d. To start, global trade rules governing agriculture must be changed, and SAP's forcing 3rd world countries to liberalize their trade markets must be curtailed. The whole system of global food trade needs to be fixed. Sadly, most governments along with institutions like the IMF & World Bank still think hunger is a problem of overpopulation, not distribution & purchasing ability.

The UN isn't an NGO, its an IGO (intergovernmental organization). It's largely created/run/funded by governments and/or their official representatives.

Yes i'm aware that a lot of the tests were underground. Atmospheric/ground/outer-space/underwater tests were curtailed under the PTBT. Underground tests are better for the environment and to humans), but i'd still not be convinced that it would be perfectly safe, or the radiation somehow gets into an underground water vein and into drinking water. You're pretty brave (or stupid haha just kidding) to stick around during those tests. I've watched a great documentary on nuclear tests called Trinity And Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie, its narrated by William Shatner and show amazing/beautiful footage of test explosions, and recently declassified footage from both the U.S. & USSR. It also has an amazing original orchestral score, performed by the Moscow Symphony Orchestra.

lol. Sucks to be him right now. Actually maybe it doesn't, he owns a ship filled with oil! That beats me.

I disagree. The spill may affect many Canadians if the oil leaks into municipal water supplies. It has also stopped trade with ships being unable to go through the Seaway locks.

Are you kidding me? Your article won't load for me for some reason. But are you saying because of Bangladesh and Iran, this is proof that the global pop won't continue to grow? From the book i'm looking at right now (printed in 2008 by Oxford University Press, using stats from the UN), it says that the data says the global population has quintupled since the early 1800's, and is expected to grow from 6 billion in 1999 to 10 billion in 2050. It also says over 50 percent of this increase is expected to occur in only 7 countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Hey, maybe the situation in Bangladesh has changed. But does that mean its changed in the other countries? You ask to explain Bangladesh? Well since i cant access the article, what is its explanation for the pop growth change given in the article? It also seems weird to me the pop situation would change that drastically there in only a handful of years.

This is correct. The world produces much more food than humanity actually needs right now, yet many people still starve. The problem of starvation is not overpopulation, it is the distribution of available food and those who can and cannot afford it. The UN Food and Argriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that although there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3600 calories a day, which is 1200 calories more than the UN`s recommended minimum daily intake. Despite this, there are still over 800 million significantly hungry people in the world. The third world is where the majority of the world`s hungry live and where overpopulation is exploding, yet it is also where most of the world`s food is produced, while those who consume the most live in the Western/developed world.

No, the retard voters are the ones who value the politicians they'd prefer to "have a beer with" above how competent a politician they would be and their views on policies etc.

Like Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? I'll agree with people about high IQ's doesn't = good politician. I suppose in the OP i should have said "great leaders" like CEO's etc., not just "great minds". Though i think a great political leader needs to be well educated and informed, not necessarily brilliant.

This issue has been back in the news lately...or at least on CNN. One thing that has popped in my mind is: wouldn't preventing this mosque going up be unconstitutional according to the 1st ammendment? Freedom of religion, & freedom of speech. Certainly it would be if the state prevented the mosque from being built.

How is the U.S. system "profoundly broken", beyond the things i mentioned? How is Canada's system much better? IMO the Canadian system is profoundly broken, and nearly impossible to fix without bringing about even more problems. I don't like having an unelected monarchy as our head of state, but turning Canada into a republic would have repercussions and cause possible deadlock between the PM and an elected president if they are from different parties. Our PM has way too much power for a large variety of reasons, ie: tight control over his party MP's & lawmaking ability since PM is a member of the legislature, PM appoints all federal judges, PM appoints all senators etc. Responsible gov't is nice, but that paired with having the PM as a member of the legislature means power and independence is taken away from individual MP's and turning them into trained clapping seals. I much prefer the separation of powers of the US. Our Senate is also virtually useless, and reforming it is a monumental task which would likely cause more problems that it solved. It's actually amazing our system has works as well as it has given its flaws.

Ya, in the video map i originally linked you can see a lot of British tests in the outback, especially early in its testing. The rest seemed to be tested mostly in the Pacific and a few in the U.S. deserts. You can also see France test a bunch of bombs in northern Africa early in its testing as well. It's crazy in the video when the testing increases big-time between the USSR and USA during the early 60's, then drop to nothing after 1991. Also funny watching the map video when India tested like 1 or 2 bombs in the 70's, then didn't test any for a few decades until Pakistan tested their bomb in the 90's then India reacts by testing a few more of their own just to show that they still have the bomb.

Very true. It's one of the reasons why having elected representatives is a good idea, as they can devote their day jobs to keeping up with this stuff. Working 8+ hours a day at an everyday job, spending an hour in rushhour traffic...then coming home and having to take care of a couple kids, making dinner, spend time with the wife, and take a few minutes to just relax doesn't leave a lot of time for hardworking adults with families to stay on top of the news as well as they should. MP's etc. do this for us, and vote for us in Parliament. I would agree. However, a huge amount of the electorate chooses not to vote anyways. About 60% of voters turned out last election, so near 40% of the most apathetic and to a large degree the most uninformed voters didn't vote (though i realize some informed people don't vote, and some uniformed do vote also). What form of gov't would i like? Something that fused the best of the presidential-congressional system of the U.S. with the Westminster system we have. The U.S. system is fundamentally very well conceived, better than the Westminster system for sure IMO, but i would change it by making it easier to get rid of the executive (as our system of responsible gov't does with a minority gov't). I'd also make much stricter campaign finance laws, since big business & interests have severely corrupted that system. Maybe i'd add a few more judges to the Supreme Court also, and of course get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

See my response above. Because of responsible government in the Canadian system, our government simply could not function with any stability without political parties. How does a government keep the confidence of the House with 308 independently voting MP's? Minority governments mean frequent enough elections in Canada as it is!

Sure the voters could elect more independents, but no matter how many they voted in the system would still be controlled by the parties. "Responsible government" is one of the major reasons for the rigid party discipline in Canada's system. It's unrealistic to think an independent would be chosen by a PM to sit in cabinet and be a part of the ruling government, or even be PM (HA!) unless they swore their soul and all their votes to that party (effectively not making them an independent). And what if a lot of independents were elected, enough to form a government? That government wouldn't last very long because during a confidence vote such as the budget or throne speech, the government filled with independents would be at great risk to lose the confidence of the House if the independent MP's voted on their own and not as a group, leading to frequent elections and a feeble grasp on power vs more organized/disciplined parties. Only a government made up of a group of MP's that votes together with tight discipline can maintain the confidence of the House during repeated confidence votes, thus the importance of parties in our system. If people did vote more independents in, they would have to be ok with the fact that they likely would never be a part of a ruling government, and more often than not have little effect on the balance of power in the House.

I think you hit the nail on the head Borg. This is true, Canadians vote in politicians who lie to them with promises, and they don't vote for guys who tell it straight and tell the truth. They'll re-elect people like Chretien (i'll get rid of the GST!) and McGuinty even though they are lying sacks of crap. Seems Canadian voters have a short-term memory.

Ya, if the intl community won't bother going into the Sudan to actually stop the genocide, there's no way they're going to bother going in there to arrest this guy. But at least the ICC actually admits its freaking genocide. Geez louise.