Trump administration hints at ‘greater enforcement’ of marijuana laws

Genghis Kush said:

The standard of living that we currently enjoy is based largely on the exploitation of the third world.

If you raise everyone to the same level globally than the standard will fall in the U.S and Europe.

How do you propose achieving that goal?

...

Click to expand...

it's still all about energy
there is cheap energy, there is clean energy, and there is plentiful energy
but there is no cheap, clean, plentiful energy
at least not yet
lack of water? enough energy can make that happen
it's still a fantasy but it's still amazing just how many people are supported in this populous world
and if fossil fuels vanished overnight, what a die off there would be later

Genghis Kush said:

too many people and not enough weed

Click to expand...

There is plenty of weed trust me

any solution must first begin with a change in culture.

"Nine strategies that could put human population on an environmentally sustainable path:

1.Provide universal access to safe and effective contraceptive options for both sexes. With nearly two in five pregnancies reported as mistimed or never wanted, lack of access to good family planning services is among the biggest gaps in assuring that each baby will be wanted and welcomed in advance by its parents.


2.Guarantee education through secondary school for all, especially girls. In every culture surveyed to date, women who have completed at least some secondary school have fewer children on average, and have children later in life, than do women who have less education.


3.Eradicate gender bias from law, economic opportunity, health, and culture. Women who can own, inherit, and manage property; divorce; obtain credit; and participate in civic and political affairs on equal terms with men are more likely to postpone childbearing and to have fewer children compared to women who are deprived of these rights.


4.Offer age-appropriate sexuality education for all students. Data from the United States indicate that exposure to comprehensive programs that detail puberty, intercourse, options of abstinence and birth control, and respecting the sexual rights and decisions of individuals, can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and hence reduce birth rates.


5.End all policies that reward parents financially based on the number of children they have. Governments can preserve and even increase tax and other financial benefits aimed at helping parents by linking these not to the number of children they have, but to parenthood status itself.


6.Integrate lessons on population, environment, and development into school curricula at multiple levels. Refraining from advocacy or propaganda, schools should educate students to make well-informed choices about the impacts of their behavior, including childbearing, on the environment.


7.Put prices on environmental costs and impacts. In quantifying the cost of an additional family member by calculating taxes and increased food costs, couples may decide that the cost of having an additional child is too high, compared to the benefits of a smaller family that might receive government rebates and have a lower cost of living. Such decisions, freely made by women and couples, can decrease birth rates without any involvement by non-parents in reproduction.


8.Adjust to an aging population instead of boosting childbearing through government incentives and programs. Population aging must be met with the needed societal adjustments, such as increased labor participation, rather than by offering incentives to women to have more children.


9.Convince leaders to commit to stabilizing population growth through the exercise of human rights and human development. By educating themselves on rights-based population policies, policymakers can ethically and effectively address population-related challenges by empowering women to make their reproductive choices.

HazyBulldog said:

Overpopulation is a myth also.

You know everybody on the planet, standing side by side, would only cover the island of Hawaii? Over 70% of land on the earth is not heavily populated.


Don't have too look much further than past Earth Day predictions........

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving to Death During the Next Ten Years.”
Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably increased despite increases in population.
Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.


3: “Population Will Inevitably and Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases in Food Supplies We Make.”
Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.
Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, the Entire World … Will Be in Famine.”
Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.


WHY DO PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE AND SPREAD THIS NONSENSE?

Click to expand...

Know what I was doing in 1970? Shitting in my hand and wiping it on my forehead...but I've learned a few things since then...just sayin....

Genghis Kush said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804.

It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927,

but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960.

Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974,

five billion in 1987,

six billion in 1999

and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012.



According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2024,

and will likely reach around nine billion by 2037.

Alternative scenarios for 2050 range from a low of 7.4 billion to a high of more than 10.6 billion.

Projected figures vary depending on underlying statistical assumptions and the variables used in projection calculations, especially the fertility variable.

Long-range predictions to 2150 range from a population decline to 3.2 billion in the "low scenario", to "high scenarios" of 24.8 billion.

Click to expand...

No worries, the Elites in the Shadow Government have had that Zombie Virus on ice at the CDC, just waiting to release it when the population gets too big.

They'll let biological warfare kill off the bulk of people they consider, unnecessary, and that will leave the the infra-structure still in place. So why waste your days, ranting, raving or worrying about it. Grow and smoke more weed. Treat each day like it could be your last, because it could.

Appreciate what you have, for now, enjoy each day and don't watch The Walking Dead while stoned. Unless you find it funny, then by all means toke up and laugh.

igrowone said:

it's still all about energy
there is cheap energy, there is clean energy, and there is plentiful energy
but there is no cheap, clean, plentiful energy
at least not yet
lack of water? enough energy can make that happen
it's still a fantasy but it's still amazing just how many people are supported in this populous world
and if fossil fuels vanished overnight, what a die off there would be later

Click to expand...

Natural gas is cheap and plentiful and guess what country is sitting on the most natural gas reserves? You guessed right if you said good ol USA. There are lng cars out there and we could set it up you know. Peace sdd

sdd420 said:

Natural gas is cheap and plentiful and guess what country is sitting on the most natural gas reserves? You guessed right if you said good ol USA. There are lng cars out there and we could set it up you know. Peace sdd

Click to expand...

Nothing clean about natural gas extraction.

plus its a limited resource just like coal and oil.

where is the wisdom in raping the Earth for a temporary fix?

seeded said:

I get the circle of life, we're all the one energy, etc. I really do. What you don't seem to get is that anything above your absolute minimum requirements for survival is basically you saying fuck you to the Earth. Take the yurt you want for example. It's construction requires the mining and refining of minerals from the ground and then you need to not only stake your claim on another piece of ground but you then need to defend it against any unwanted foreigners like snakes, spiders and scorpions that try to move in. You're putting you and yours first because you believe you're worth more than another species.... Nazi

Nazi jokes aside you're right about us needing to protect the earth but do you see anyone stepping up and saying we need to set hard limits on what is an acceptable lifetime carbon footprint before you have your state mandated euthanasia? Would it be more paletable if people were offered double to go child free? How would you feel if the allowed carbon footprint was calculated based on some super hippy african tribe that had a life expectancy of 60 and every night you had an led lamp on for a few hours it took two whole days off your life? The more we go back to basics the more people the Earth can carry so at what point does it become acceptable to have luxuries like being able to see at night and not die for it when it comes at the cost of the earth carrying another soul? How much suffering are you willing to inflict on the human race so the rest of the planet can experience the increase in life that will result because getting back as close as we can to nature is where the wealth is really at right? It's totally not in electricity generation, indoor plumbing and other abuses of nature right?

Now since I'm on the topic what would you do if you were a true believer in power that didn't want to go down as the next Hitler or worse in the history books? Personally I'd treat humans like my seed stash by dividing them up and promoting multiculturalism so that when a weaponized flu strikes down 90% of the population there would be enough survivors with a decent quality of life to continue ruling over. They totally wouldn't do that now would they?

Click to expand...

I personally try to keep my consummation to the barest minimum and when I do make a purchase I'll try to make an ethical one, although to be honest, a lot of the time that's just not possible, but stuff like food, clothing, even energy consumption, it's possible to still make ethical choices, eg, organics and sustainable energy, the list goes on, but my choices are besides the point. What you seem to be saying is that your preferred future is steady as she goes, and I'll race you to the bottom. Ideally we'd just take what we need and no more,, but the bigger the population the bigger the need. Why do people need all this shit they buy. I suspect it puts the misery at bay for a few hours or days.
Btw, where did I even suggest euthanasia? I misread your post the first time and thought you'd come up an awesome idea. What I thought you said was we simply pay people not to have children, but you did say something close. Fantastic idea. In a market driven economy why not just put a price on conception and let the market do it's thing. Genius. Re carbon, all sorts of policies world wide are being floated to put a cap on it. We had a kind of ETS, Carbon Emissions Scheme briefly but the incoming conservative party got rid of it by scaring and startling the sheep with bullshit, even though industry, environmental groups, etc all agreed it was a good thing. For some reason I don't fully understand, conservatives here in Australia really hate sustainable energy, even to the point of seeing wind farms as ugly. To people like me they are simply beautiful, mainly because of what they symbolise.
It's interesting that you equate population control with suffering when the opposite is true. Lets just take a little stroll through the 21st century. Traffic jams, stress, pollution, infrastructure like hospitals, schools, roads under severe pressure due to population growth. Here in Australia 1 in 4 young people now have a serious mental illness, which doesn't bode well for the other 3. Suicide is now the main cause of death amongst the young. Diseases like obesity, heart disease, autism, depression, cancer, Alzheimers, blah, blah, blah, are increasing exponentially and all pretty much the result of the culture we live in. I'd define a lot of them as diseases of despair. The planet is being trashed. Sense of community has all but disappeared along with the rise in individualism, the breakdown of the family, alcohol and drug abuse, blah, blah. Life is not meant to be like that my friend and your hellish vision for a future of unfettered population growth is only going to make it worse. Just as an example of how it could be so much better with a smaller population. I live in a small community in the foothills of the mountains and our main street is mabye 150 metres long, but some days it can take a couple of hours to walk from one end to the other, because everybody knows your name, and there's a reall sense of community. When my son comes home from his wanderings he feels out of sync with the vibe for awhile, but he discovered one day that all he needs to do is make a conscious effort to walk slower, take a big wiff of the fresh air, and the smile comes back and he's on his way. This is how we used to live, in small communities. Life is meant to be good. This culture needs to depopulate, chill out, and if there's nothing to do, then learn to do nothing.

I also believe that my opinion is right.

Mick said:

... diseases of despair. ... Sense of community has all but disappeared along with the rise in individualism ... make a conscious effort to walk slower, take a big wiff of the fresh air, and the smile comes back and he's on his way. ... Life is meant to be good. ... chill out, and if there's nothing to do, then learn to do nothing.

Click to expand...

You're a poet.


I read that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its economy; those who did the best were those who could be happy doing nothing. Those who had worked in high paced professional fields found that without their jobs, their identities and whatever meaning their lives once had was now gone. These were the ones who slow suicided with vodka.

wasn't making judgements about your morals, rather the morals of the idea to let a super state government create a world wide 1 child policy.

rather then this we need to stop wasting all our resources on war and use them to increase standard of living among the poorest. this will reduce all the problems we have. this planet is incredibly wealthy, but the wealth is funnelled to the 1% this is what needs to change. if we change that everything else will sort its self out. everyone could live a middle class life if the majority of resources were not wasted on war and horded by the 0.1%

OneStonedPony said:

No worries, the Elites in the Shadow Government have had that Zombie Virus on ice at the CDC, just waiting to release it when the population gets too big.

They'll let biological warfare kill off the bulk of people they consider, unnecessary, and that will leave the the infra-structure still in place. So why waste your days, ranting, raving or worrying about it. Grow and smoke more weed. Treat each day like it could be your last, because it could.

Appreciate what you have, for now, enjoy each day and don't watch The Walking Dead while stoned. Unless you find it funny, then by all means toke up and laugh.

Click to expand...

Why go through all that fuss and hassle we they can just use nutron bombs to get rid of the extra people and keep all the buildings and infrastructure more or less intact?

sdd420 said:

Natural gas is cheap and plentiful and guess what country is sitting on the most natural gas reserves? You guessed right if you said good ol USA. There are lng cars out there and we could set it up you know. Peace sdd

Click to expand...

it is currently cheap and plentiful, how long it will stay cheap is not so certain
it does produce co2 when burnt, at least with the current tech
certainly better than coal for electric
however, as climate changes progress co2 producers will become less viable
climate changes are going to become much more apparent in the very near future
people won't like limiting co2, but will have to learn to live with it

subrob said:

Know what I was doing in 1970? Shitting in my hand and wiping it on my forehead...but I've learned a few things since then...just sayin....

Click to expand...

Imagine what you will be saying in another 40 years.......... When will the insanity stop?

I know banks are backing off real fast with the new news.

Sometimes it's useful to ask ourselves questions, like "What if the opposition is right?"

If climate change deniers are right then limiting CO2 emissions will merely yield greater efficiency & longer lasting reserves of natural resources. If energy is more expensive that's largely offset by using less of it.

If they're wrong then the consequences of elevated CO2 in the atmosphere are basically irreversible & catastrophic over the span of only a few human lifetimes.

Genghis Kush said:

Nothing clean about natural gas extraction.

plus its a limited resource just like coal and oil.

where is the wisdom in raping the Earth for a temporary fix?

Click to expand...

Natural gas extraction is the cleanest and most efficient resource extraction on the earth. It is also the cleanest burning fuel we have. With the use of afterburners and new tech in the making as we speak , emissions will be minuscule comparatively speaking.

When you say it's a limited resource I'm assuming you mean with today's technology, if so you could be partially right.

Until we find a perpetual energy source, natural gas is by far our best option at the moment, and there's no shortage of it. As drilling and fracin tech evolves we can efficiently reach reservoirs we never though possible 5 years ago. Every day new exciting discoveries are being made.

Arguably some major gas reserves are actually better for the environment if they are extracted, but that's a different debate on its own.

I'm not a climate change denier and I do agree with quite a bit of the stuff being said in here BUT until people shut off there power, trade your car for some hand tools to go build a log cabin and burn wood for heat(way worse than natgas). I have a hard time taking them seriously.

There is no simple solution, both sides have good points. I often wonder my self how this will all play out. But for now we need to prepare for the earths next natural cycle. Switch what we can to natgas, while we work on safer more sustainable nuclear power source. In the mean time we should get along, put all of these great minds to use and evolve the clean tech we have available to us right now, prepare for the next ice age or uncontrollable event on earth.
Stop letting the government separate us into little groups, we have the power and they know it, the problem is most people don't realize it

if we want to regulate pollutants produced, i have no problem with that. but co2 is what we exhale, it's not a pollutant, its the basis of all plant and animal life, it's what trees need to live and prosper. regulating that is just a way to allow the real poisoners to keep doing it. we know after all that there have been times when our planet had much higher co2 levels then it does now, the only results were that plants grew to amazing sizes. blaming co2 is a con, it means the ones really polluting with heavy metals, chemical waste and pesticides, radiation etc get to spread the cost of the damage they do to everyone. instead of focusing our resources on cleaning up the worst damaging polluters, we have this silly co2 bs. our plant live can deal with the co2, it's all the real crap and poison that we should be worrying about imo.

Jhhnn said:

Sometimes it's useful to ask ourselves questions, like "What if the opposition is right?"

If climate change deniers are right then limiting CO2 emissions will merely yield greater efficiency & longer lasting reserves of natural resources. If energy is more expensive that's largely offset by using less of it.

If they're wrong then the consequences of elevated CO2 in the atmosphere are basically irreversible & catastrophic over the span of only a few human lifetimes.

Click to expand...

I think conservation is a great thing...reducing any negative substance is a good idea that I think most people would agree with. But then there is Al Gore who wants to tax people and give that money to his buddies to 'save us'. They want to funnel billions/trillions of tax payers money to third world countries as reparations for all the evil co2 the rest of the world produces. That is where I have a problem.

It's the same problem on both sides of the isle, politicians use issues to punish people that disagree and reward others. Al Gore is a prime example. It's ok for al Gore to make hundreds of millions of dollars, but a CEO who makes 5 million who employs hundreds or thousands of people, and makes much money for stockholders are evil.