Here you go Sky: 2210, the Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHq9x_0gaEs

It's in English, but with Greek(?) subtitles. Probibly not as informative or captivating as the book, but interesting

Donnerwetter - I would never have dreamed that on these issues there is something so substantial that you and me could agree on! You are right. As I said in other threads: we are way too many.

Basing on information I absorbed from this and that book or reading, I would estimate the global population must not exceed one billion, at best one and a half, in order to allow sustaining, future-proof economical and ecological management of natural ressources in order to allow them to replace what man takes from them, and to absorb and recycle the waste he is producing.

I would not mind a global population of even much less than 1 billion.

It also means an end to the doctrine of "unlimited growth". Which in a physical system/universe simply is not possible anyway. I would like to see "growth, no matter what" being replaced with something like "dynamic stability".

I think it is possible that our genes simply are against this.

Ah, thanks, I saved the link and will watch it when I have time. I see it is a fulltime program of - 7 :o parts!? 90 minutes, I assume.

Again, thanks.

Shhh don't tell Charlie Sheen!:D

Oooh, likewise. Thank you. :yep:

Dear God.


Sky... and August... were in agreement?


Looks like the end of the world doomsayers were right after all.


"Fellas, it's been good t'know ya!"

We agree on more things than you may think.

It's a USA-Germany alliance to overthrow th EU and take control of the arctic from Russia and Denmark :o
Stock up on canned food and towels, it's a conspiracy I tell you

Occasionally I thought so as well.

I just found out that the movie by Betonov also is available in one piece, and without subtitles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP_Im795WSI

1:33 hours.

Well I'll be damned. Skybird and August, let me join the party. I don't very often agree with any of you. But here it is.
A lot -if not most of- humanity's problems would be solved by reducing the earth's population. The Chinese do have a point there imo.

I often think, either we come up with a way of reducing our outrageous growth rates, or nature finds a way of doing it. And I expect we don't want to see the latter. It won't be pretty.

I now watched it.

The movie is not the book turned into a film, it catches just some basic lines of thoughts that the book examines in depth in many historic examples, and melts these into a package that comes over as one of the contemporary typical warning films we have had in recenbt years. Actually that is not a bad thing, for the warnings are necessary, and basing in real facts. But it does not compare to the book. The book, while easy to read, is moch more in-depth, and thorough.

Many chapters of the book do not get even mentioned in the movie.

Conclusion: you do not know what the book is when having seen the movie, you can already realise that when checking the content page of the included chapters at the review page of American Amazon. Reading the book is far more recommendable than seing the movie. In school notes: book: A+, film: C

I know. That's kinda like Mao and Nixon. :o Has anyone seen Henry Kissinger skulking about lately?

the Chinese have a monumental age structure problem now due to their one-child policy. Their society is drastically overaging.

Diamond shows in many examples, that this is a fundamental lesson that our society and societies before us refuse(d) to learn: that in good times when there is wealth and good supply of commodities, it is good advice not use this as an execuse to start booming and expand and grow like crazy, but to invest into reserves for bad times, keeping societies' sizes constant and having reserves when they are needed, instead of just consuming them up earlier. When looking at how leaders with highly deficitary budgets and lots of debts still waste money and any unexpected profit from taxes for example doe snot get used to solve the debt issue but immediately gets spent again, then I have very serious doubts that we will learn needed lessons. I am pessimistic about the future perspective of man's modern civilization, for this and many other reasons. The question for me is not so much whether it will all fall apart again, but only: for how long can we delay it even more. The cosmic future of man I dreamed of in my science fiction teen days, will not take place.

Running faster and faster just to stay in the same place.

True. I'm not saying the Chinese have it down perfect, but a more balanced version of their population growth-cap policy might very well be a good solution.

In the late '90 's, our minister of Finance did this. (Pay off national debt, I mean) and we reaped some huge benefits from this. He was also one of the few (and at some point even the only) European Finance minister that would insist on EU countries to be fined if they didn't obey the EU laws in regards to inflation and 'percentage of national debt' vs 'gross naitonal product'. I know you are anti-EU Skybird ;) , but there were very clear rules. Only the governments of the larger countries in the EU (France most of all) decided to break them, or to allow others to break them. This minister even said (back in '99) Greece and Portugal shouldn't be allowed into the Euro...
I didn't even vote for him or his party, but in hindsight...