I don't know about the one Shanny posted, as the stream appeared to be down when I tried it, but the one posted by pawn is the actual video presentation version with him presenting it strictly for the camera, no students or audience. It's the best version IMO, and it's pretty much the same lecture verbatim, along with some good Powerpoint slides. He's given it so many times now that he can probably recite it in his sleep...

Try going to YouTube and type in "Albert Bartlett" without the quotation marks.

There's a reason YouTube is so popular, most of the rest of the internet just does not understand video and can't get it to work worth a shit. Not pbs, not anyone.

It's in 5 parts, and I think he's talking to a small group.

never has an old guy with old-man fuzz on top of his head been so sexy!

There is an old thread somehwere in which Monte invoked Al Bartlett again and again to push his cut-the-cord agenda, and I got so annoyed at his insinuation that Bartlett endorses cutting cords that I emailed him. Mr. Bartlett never replied, but he has in fact given recommendations, at least he just presented one that was posted on The Oil Drum, and although belated, I thought it deserved to be cross-posted here. Maybe then Monte or others like him will stop twisting Bartlett's words.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The challenge of making the transition to a sustainable society is enormous, in part because of a major global effort to keep people from recognizing the centrality of population growth to the enormous problems of the U.S. and the world.

• On the global scale, we need to support family planning throughout the world, and we should generally restrict our foreign aid to those countries that make continued demonstrated progress in reducing population growth rates and sizes.

• The immediate task is to restore numeracy to the population programs in the local, national and global agendas.

• On the national scale, we can work for the selection of leaders who will recognize that population growth is the major problem in the U.S. and who will initiate a national dialog on the problem. With a lot of work at the grassroots, our system of representative government will respond.

• On the local and national levels, we must focus serious attention and large fiscal resources on the development of renewable energy sources.

• On the local and national levels, we need to work to improve social justice and equity.

• On the community level in the U.S., we should work to make growth pay for itself.

Bartlett's famous (or infamous) "right-hand column" listed some of the very unpleasant options that could, if we were inhuman enough to make them policy, help with the overall population problem. But I think it's clear, from watching his video, that Bartlett listed these not as a recommendation, but rather to illustrate the point of the ridiculously nasty situation we're in.


To me this is the hardest task of all. How to include hidden costs - environmental and social - into a product? How to reverse economies of scale so that the overproduced items, the ones that use the most resources, become more expensive than the underproduced? How to make local trade more economically attractive than the globally-supported big box stores and banks? The only way I can see to do it is through governmental force, which would be unacceptable to many, including myself. But the alternative - allowing business as usual to continue wiping out our landbase - is even less palatable an option. What to do? Conundrum...

It's professor Bartlett. Show a little respect.



Seems to me that these are too generic and too pie-in-the-sky.

"make growth pay for itself"?
"restore numeracy"?
Cut off funding to countries doing what we want them to do [not even getting to the ridiculous proposition that the guy in the bar (U.S) buying everybody drinks has no money and has to run out back and borrow the money himself before buying drinks]?? That makes no sense.

Given how clear and understandable his lecture on population growth is, it's surprising to see him make such vague and poorly-worded suggestions.

Of course they are. It's just a guideline. If you want detailed plans, there are plenty of them to pick from, like Plan B 9999999.0.

The only point I was making is that Al Bartlett is not some genocidal Hugo Drax type who wants to start culling the herd. He's just advocating that we stop avoiding the population issue and come to our own agreed-upon actions, kind of like what is being attempted right now with global warming.

Pie in the sky? Perhaps. But what are the alternatives?

If anybody thinks I'm wrong, feel free. I'm not perfect. As long as we engage in a debate on point rather than just name-calling, then I'm game, unless it's tinfoil in which case you're probably already on my ignore list anyway.

With a capital 'P' please.

Bartlett's Third Law gives a time frame of 70 years to reach zero population growth. This is 2 doubling times. 3C and 3D imply that no efforts will be made to make the changes needed to reach zero population growth.


Bartlett's 17th Law answers that.

I posted the Bartlett link on a couple of other boards yesterday.

It's amazing how rational suggestions can generate so much rage.

Yes, and people don't realize that his suggestions are on the mild scale.

The alternatives are proposing specific courses of action.

For example, just off the cuff . . .

Nobody taking government tax money from their neighbors is allowed to breed. You either support your own brood or you take welfare, not both. It's a ridiculous perversion of the modern world that people who are so slovenly they can't support their own sorry asses are allowed to produce children who, given the shared sorry-ass genes, will very likely share their same sorry-ass work ethic.

That's one.

Here's another.

Reduce the size of government by 50%. Start by implementing a consumption tax or a flat tax or a simple tax. Eliminate 90% of IRS.

End both occupations. Bring home all troops from everywhere outside of U.S. borders.

Make any passenger vehicle getting less than 35 mpg illegal to use by midnight, December 31, 2012.

Pass a Constitutional amendment that requires any budget to fund all government expenditures and include an extra 10% a year to pay down debt.

Never borrow another dollar.

Castrate all bankers.

That's a start. I have a whole bunch more that don't amount to such irrelevant grayisms as "impart numeracy to the masses."

.... and an indefinite moratorium on all forms of immigration. No more refugees or asylees either. None of it.

We can follow Bartlett's advice, but in the long run we will have to accept the fact that it will not be business as usual for a very long time, which means the likelihood that even national governments will fall apart. What will be left will be communities struggling to survive, armed groups, etc.

In other words, eliminate the Constitution.

We're more than halfway there already, better get busy on the rest of the destruction of the United States of America. Who needs rights anyway? They just get in the way of stopping population growth.

<<<takes government money in the form of roads, power infrastructure, sheriff, etc. Doesn't have kids.