It's 2050: Can We Feed Nine Billion People Sustainably?

[greenhead]

There is no us and them.

There is definitely an "us' and a "them".

If the shit were ever to hit the ceiling, then that would become clearly evident.

 

[Craven_au]

I don't think u guys understand more food and free energy will make things worse!

Shit if we could eat for free and have free energy and fuck all day earth would be over run. or may be we would be so fat nothing will run.

Oil was cheep and look where that got us.

Just kill them all, will be quicker and more human.

Now u know why i hope the earth does flood.

 

[arcticsun]

You all have watched too many doomsday videos.


No there is absolutely no reason to kill anyone haha. PLS
No, on the contrary I see many good reasons and trends towards a closer cooperation among countries. Imo its going the right way, slooowly but its going.

The population of a certain area has a way of leveling out of its own by the way.

 

[Craven_au]

Just watched Daybreakers & town creek Horror awesome shows loved it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

There is definitely an "us' and a "them".

If the shit were ever to hit the ceiling, then that would become clearly evident.

yes, once the shit hits the fan there will be lot's of thems and usses.

If you don't join us you'll be one of them and subject to ganking.

 

[Craven_au]

I don't want to kill any one just wont the planet to do it for us

 

[arcticsun]

yes, once the shit hits the fan there will be lot's of thems and usses.

If you don't join us you'll be one of them and subject to ganking.

Norwegian folk music song, a translation for you GFH.

The Wedding In Canaan

On Lademo'n, on Lademo'n On Lademo'n, (Lademon = place in middle Norway)
where I'll find a crown
For that shall I buy a chocolate
As I'll trade it with a ditch shovel.
And dig after gold, dig after gold
Dig after gold in river sands
Till I become a prosperous man and buy the Royal Garden

(Ref.)
Then there will be a wedding down in Canaan Land
Jesus makes wine to water
Beer of the soup, soup of a cane
And tobacco of a funny kind.
While the trumpeteers from Jericho
Blows so the north wind falls into two
Our Lord wakes up at last
And dances the wedding in Canaan twist

Rich and poor, rich and poor
Rich and poor'll all be equal
All'll get a free room
A suite, when I think about it
And a packed bar, packed full bar
A rimfull bar and a jacuzzi
Video and water bed and fireworks
And a glass to put dentures in

Ref.

A cowboy hat, a cowboy hat
A cowboy hat, i wish I had.
And Russian fur cap on top of there
Then I could invite them all,
Reagan and Thatcher and Gorbachev
So we can sing 'All You Need Is Love'
'Love is all you need, love is all you need'

(Ref.)
Just like the wedding in Canaan Land
When Jesus made wine ...

... Our Lord wakes up at last
And dance the wedding in Canaan twist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNhKuE2k1UI

Google translation is a bit ruff, but you get the idea.
Have some faith in us GFH!! Trust me!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

From Time magazine:

For years--maybe twenty years--I've expressed concern about a deficit in citizenship, during Democratic and Republican Administrations alike. I named a character in Primary Colors after the phenomenon: Orlando Ozio. Machiavelli once said that Ozio [indolence] is the greatest enemy of a Republic. My feeling has been that in the Era of Ozio--the peace and prosperity that set in after World War II and lasted until the turn of this century--we lost the habits of citizenship, largely because there was no great need to remain interested in public policies, especially on the domestic side (obviously, overseas travesties like the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, and social issues like abortion and homosexuality, were exceptions to the prevailing apathy). But as for basic management of the economy, things were going pretty well--in the short term. There was no great cause for people to follow public affairs closely.
For much of this period, concern about public fecklessness was an essentially conservative argument: How do you deal with a public that wants lower taxes and more services? The discussion of this problem was conducted well within the bounds of reason during the Reagan years: Liberals, like Walter Mondale, said you raised taxes to correct the imbalance. Conservatives like Reagan, at first, said that you curtailed services. But the public wanted neither. Reagan found it impossible to curtail the welfare. Liberals often engaged in demagoguery when conservatives proposed necessary cuts in entitlement programs, but the left remained, in essence, intellectually honest: you needed to raise taxes to correct the imbalance. (Republicans got good mileage from battering liberals over that.) But Bill Clinton successfully raised taxes, the budget was balanced and--despite conservative cries that a tax increase would throw the economy into recession--the economy boomed. (Clinton also represented a creative, underappreciated effort to split the difference between liberals and conservatives, making government services more efficient by introducing market principles like increased competition.)
Conservatives have been less intellectually honest. They indulged the public's desire for tax cuts--concocting a ridiculous theory, "supply side economics," to provide an intellectual rationale--and made no serious effort to curtail spending (at least, not since George H.W. Bush's Administration). Bush the Younger's budgeting was a complete exercise in cynicism. He lowered taxes vehemently and the result was the same as the Reagan tax cuts--the budget deficit leaped (unlike Reagan, however, Bush would not raise taxes to make up for his mistake). Bush compounded this irresponsibility by refusing to fund his wars, or even to include them in the regular budgeting process, thereby camouflaging the real size of the deficits he was running. And in one of the most perverse moments in American history, Bush behaved precisely as conservatives always accused liberals of behaving: he pushed through an enormous new entitlement--drug benefits for senior citizens--without paying for it. I'm told this unfunded entitlement will cost $7 trillion over the course of this century.
Which brings us back to Krauthammer--and this moment. The Obama Administration faced two opposite, if unequal, problems in 2009. It faced a possible economic collapse. It faced a long-term deficit crisis, a combination of Bush's profligacy and the imminent retirement of the baby boomers. The Administration, wisely, chose to deal with the immediate crisis: it continued the bank bailout policy launched by the Bush Administration and passed a $787 billion stimulus program. Neither of these policies were disputed by the vast majority of economists--although some on the left wanted more action, a takeover of the banks, a larger stimulus; and a few Libertarians on the right wanted to let the big banks fail and opposed any stimulus at all.
Now, there was an intellectually honest course for conservatives to take on the stimulus--and some did: they could argue for a more efficient and responsible plan. They could have argued--and some did--that instead of distributing $288 billion to the middle class, the money could all have gone to small businesses and manufacturers in the form of a capital gains tax holiday, investment credits, especially credits for hiring new employees. They could have argued that the infrastructure projects be routed through a National Infrastructure Bank, limiting the influence of the pork-dispensers on Capitol Hill and in the statehouses, making sure that money went to the most worthy projects. They could have argued for more good-government strings attached to the money going to the states. These are the sort of arguments that conservatives, as opposed to libertarians, have made in the past. You can agree or disagree with them, but they are serious, with solid intellectual rationales. By actually engaging the President on these issues, they could have negotiated a package more amenable to their needs. That's what happens in a democracy (and it happened, to a certain, extent in the Senate).
Some Republicans made that effort, but most did not. Most slid into line behind the know-nothing populism of the Tea Party movement...and the bilge being peddled on Fox News and Boss Rush Limbaugh's radio program. And so when Krauthammer argues this:
That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest...This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.
he is playing rhetorical games. Because the Republicans haven't been offering conservatism, they've been offering nihilism. True conservatives would have found a way to either negotiate the Democratic proposals or made intellectually honest arguments against them. Instead, we get death panels and cries of "socialism." Instead, we get hypocrites like Mitch McConnell, supporting a budget-balancing commission, then refusing to vote for it. Instead, we get people like Charles Krauthammer admitting the health care system is busted--even proposing a single-payer alternative in a column last summer--and then demagoguing Obama's efforts to forge a compromise (admittedly messy, but that's how these things go).
The public is easily misled, as conservatives have long claimed. There is a particular responsibility now that the Era of Ozio is over and we're enmeshed in a new era of international competition, for conservatives and liberals to try to educate the electorate, making honest intellectual arguments, about the truly vexing range of long-term challenges we face (at least, when we're not in the midst of an election campaign). I've seen conservatives do it in the past. They are not doing it now...and the Obama Administration, for the most part, is.


Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/201...&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher#ixzz0erHKk0Rs

 

[Slipklot]

Guess what nuclear war is due earlier than that big homey. No psycic but just like biggie smalls says 'what you think all the guns is for?'. In this case all the dub MDs is for? Shit I'd hate america too, we over here eating living good while they live in a bogus ass desert in caves and got mills. But the Centrle iA has done some very fucked up tests on humans before and might even do it again might wanna even watch out for your own gov they damn near hate american citizens as much as the others lol probrably not but you'd think so. But ya, people are gonna be dieng a lot as the suicide bombings and catastrophes start hitting harder and far spread. Good thread tho

 

[sparkjumper]

I really could give a rats ass as I wont be here and the same goes for most of you but everyone wants to save the world(AKA global warming thread..Pff for growers potheads and general drug users most of you anyway,I think you're all pretty funny in a sad way

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I really could give a rats ass as I wont be here and the same goes for most of you but everyone wants to save the world(AKA global warming thread..Pff for growers potheads and general drug users most of you anyway,I think you're all pretty funny in a sad way

Some of us give a rat's ass about our children and their children...

 

[sparkjumper]

Hopefully you've taught your children well then.And besides if that were really true we would not be robbing our children of their future with ignorant policies like cap and trade

 

[ka0tik_kreati0n]

I could technically still be alive in 2050 of course I'd be like near 70.....arghhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Hopefully you've taught your children well then.And besides if that were really true we would not be robbing our children of their future with ignorant policies like cap and trade

Yup, but teaching them is not the only thing we can do...

And of course it is really true... I'm guessing you lack the perspective which parenthood brings...

Who supports cap and trade? what was the point of your post?

 

[arcticsun]

Oh dont be so negative guys.


"The negotiator program"

http://www2.uit.no/ikbViewer/page/s...-47400&p_d_c=&p_d_v=97918&p_document_id=97918

Master of Philosophy in Peace and Conflict Transformation - 120 ECTS


Professional prospects

The Master´s degree programme in Peace and Conflict Transformation prepares students for challenging careers in sectors as diverse as security and diplomatic services, emergency and humanitarian assistance, international aid and donor agencies, non-governmental organisations and professions such as journalism, teaching and research.

Qualification awarded

Master of Philosophy in Peace and Conflict Transformation.

Admission requirements

Students must document, at least, three years of study at the university level, equivalent to a bachelor degree, cand. mag. or equivalent qualification in the social sciences, health sciences, humanities, law or education.

Entry into the programme is competitive and based on:
1. Academic qualifications (educational background)
2. Statement of Purpose

Applicants must enclose an essay (max 2 pages) stating their purpose for and interest in pursuing this master's degree programme - i.e. relating prior academic achievements and professional experiences to the core concerns of the degree programme. All applicants must write in English.

The programme is taught in English and applicants must document adequate proficiency in English.

Number of study places is restricted and a certain number of places will be reserved for Non-Nordic applicants.

Application deadline

Quota students: 1 December

Self-financed international students: February 1st

Norwegian and Nordic students: April 15th

Local admission, study code 5059.


Programme description
The Master's degree programme offers insights into the nature and causes of conflicts, practical skills for handling conflicts by peaceful means and peace-building processes.

While traditional peace research focuses on violence and its consequences, the MPCT programme takes a different perspective. It emphasises non-violent conflict handling and explores possibilities for reducing violence. The geographical position of Tromsø in the relatively peaceful Far North provides students with a unique context to study peace. This is a region with a history of peaceful co-existence of diverse ethnic and cultural identities. Non-violent handling of conflict has been an important experience in the region throughout its history. Both the perspective and outlook of the master's programme is clearly global: it actively recruits students from all over the world, creating an environment for cross-cultural teaching and learning experiences.

During the first year, the teaching is intensive. The theoretical and methodological dimensions of the programme, such as conflict, violence, conflict management and peace, are addressed through the compulsory courses. The second year focuses mainly on students´ independent projects. Such projects are designed by students depending on their interests. It is possible to do fieldwork up to three months to support these individual projects.
Programme structure Term 10 ects 10 ects 10 ects
1. semester (autumn) SVF-3021 Integrated Peace and Conflict Studies SVF-3022 Culture, Conflict and Society
2. semester (spring) SVF-3024 Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation SVF-3023 Project seminar
3. semester (autumn) SVF-3901 Master's Thesis in Peace and Conflict Transformation Optional course Optional course
4. semester (spring) SVF-3901 Master's Thesis in Peace and Conflict Transformation

Aims/Learning outcomes

The MPCT is designed to provide students with in-depth knowledge of peace and conflict studies as a distinct and an applied field of study, in addition to developing general academic capabilities.

Students, who have successfully completed the MPCT programme, are expected to have achieved the following:

Knowledge and analytical understandings:
History and evolution of peace and conflict studies as a field of study - nature of cross-disciplinarity, and the interconnections between peace and conflict, peace and violence, peace and war, positive and negative peace, and normative and positive knowledge
Nature and causes of violent conflicts at all levels of human interaction (inter-personal, group, community and international). Topics covered range from poverty, social exclusion and gangsterism, organised crime, forced migration, terrorism, resource management, rebel financing, environmental change to energy security
Major concepts underlying contemporary debates such as realism, liberalism, critical theory, just war traditions, state-building, structural and cultural violence, gender and ethnicity, human rights, humanitarianism and international law
Measures designed to avoid or reduce violence (negative peace) and enhance the capacity for conflict transformation (positive peace). Topics covered include peace education, democratisation, restorative justice and truth commissions, disarmament, demobilisation and re-integration of refugees and insurgent groups, post-war reconstruction and development, UN and peace operations.

Skills and competences:

The MPCT programme enables students to
Relate theoretical and methodological frameworks from a variety of disciplines to violent conflicts and peace-building processes
Develop their peace-building skills through role plays, team work and communication
Design and carry out a research project that involves the use of diverse data sources

Take responsibility for one´s own learning by working independently towards realisation of the objectives of a degree programme
Language of instruction and examination
English.
Teaching and assessment methods

The teaching and learning methods will be problem-based, as far as possible: Using problems and issues informing everyday life as a starting point, the teaching will be organized as recurrent cycles of instructions, readings, seminars, discussions and academic production under the guidance of an academic staff. The teaching methods will be worldly, grounded and driven by field knowledge and thereby facilitate the problem-solving capabilities of students.

All students will be appointed an academic adviser in the first year of study. The supervision will be given through seminars and individual tutorials.

The type of examination is specified in each module. Evaluation is based on the grading system, A-E, F = fail.

Programme evaluation

The programme is evaluated annually. Courses informing the programme will be evaluated at least once during the

two-year programme period. Such evaluations will involve inputs from students and lecturers.

 

[Gdood9]

If people really think we can support such large populations they are just plain wrong. Just because we have "intelligence" doesn't mean we're above nature. Do you see other animals multiplying with the rates we have and need the nutrition we need. NO. Just look outside, you'll learn a lot. We've been trying to exclude ourselves from natural selection and now it's catching up to us. That's fine with me. We can't keep using up the natural resources we have at the rates we do and most technology does more harm than good. Nuclear...NO WAY...what do we do with the waster? Send it into space so we can pollute that too? Renewable resources are the only way to sustain, that's why the earth is alive, it renews itself. Aquaponic's (not as hard as people will lead you to believe) and self-sustainability is honestly the way to go. Make your own ecosystem and live off that. I hope that everyone does know that when you get the proper nutrition you actually don't need as many calories. It's about a balanced diet. Cut back on eating. All these large scale grows and mass production of things don't work. Everyone needs to sustain themselves, that's really the answer. You can't depend on someone else to keep you alive. Humanity is an emotion, not logic. We need to stop spending resources on people that don't need it spent on. I'm not talking about 3rd world countries here either. I'm talking about the sick that we keep alive, the babies that aren't supposed to be born but are, continuance of genetics that are supposed to be out of the gene pool. Death is natural, it's supposed to happen and it needs to happen. At some point you gotta stand back and say, how important are we really?

Oh, what are we gonna do when we mine all of our natural resources and the things that are the raw materials we use to make our technology are gone?

 

[Bobby Stainless]

I know I will be able to feed my family, and mine will provide for theirs.

Farm land is paramount. Protein supply is also important.

 

[MarquisBlack]

I can't wait till I can afford land. (I'm only 21 years old, lol.. But growing my own food is my dream..)

Live off da fat of da land.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I'm only 21 years old, lol..

that explains a lot.

 

[hunt4genetics]

Humanure and urine. Inorder to grow enough crops, we must use our waste stream as fertilizers. "There's gold in dem dar latrines!"