You might be disappointed, I'm pretty sure that this is the video where he gives the explanation, which is fault line geothermal heating. In the TED talk he says that it's a really unusual type of geothermal heating that's not found anywhere else. Most hot springs are volcanic, but not here.

Here is an article which shows the various fault lines in and around Peru, including one close to Pucallpa - http://temblor.net/earthquake-insights/ecuador-peru-and-colombia-faults-hint-where-large-earthquakes-could-strike-2128/

Your video, Sierra Nevada/Twain Harte Rock fracturing along faults lines, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@ChaosEngine

I hope I don't have to be the one to point out the multitude of studies which have shown where crowds, group think or subjugation of one's opinion's to someone's authority results in terrible consensual decisions being made:

Stanford Prison Experiment
Milgram Experiment
Asch Conformity Experiment
Bystander Effect

In a situation like this, it's likely no one in the crowd has ever dealt with a serious fire. They may not recognise the risks of unexpected suffocation. They may not recognise how fast fire can travel or the risks of being trapped.

Earthquakes are somewhat different (and living in Oz I have no experience with them), but I would imagine that they can go from mild to serious very unexpectedly. California sits on multiple major fault lines. A serious earthquake is very plausible, it is in fact 'expected and long overdue' to happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-california-idUSTRE72F5KG20110316

>> ^Kofi:

What does he mean by "back to the private sector"? I thought he was against picking winners and losers.
He doesn't seem to understand the idea of government as providing that which the private sector cannot provide because it necessarily has to run at a loss, you know, like emergency services etc. If there's a dollar to be made you can be sure the private sector is already there unless legislation prohibits it.

I think the idea is that you buy insurance against natural disaster.


Of course if you have any pre-existing conditions, say your house is built near a fault line, next to the sea or in hurricane alley then your premiums are probably going to be extortionate.

To be fair. He didn't quite say that federal disaster relief should be privatised, just that it should be moved to the state level - and then you could argue he went off on a tangent about how you should privatise as much as possible and that large federal spending was "immoral". I think whats interesting is what he considers to be a waste of federal money, and what isn't - say a bloated defence budget. Maybe if you build enough tanks you can shoot the next Katrina to pieces?

*wtf?


Well, then if we're going by that, then priests didn't pray enough to make God spare those poor idiots living on the fault line...

They knew they were building houses on a fault line. I'd consider that adequate warning.

I guess convicting scientists is easier than building earthquake resistant structures...especially when you live on a fault line.

Anything involving this fault line worries me. If that shit goes off I'm dead. Inactive for millions of years they say? Well it's almost 2012....

Your video, Fault Lines: The Top 1%, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You can look at it any way you want. I'm considered "middle-class" by all terms. I have super cheap rent in one of the most expensive places in the US, that is of my own accord. But I sure as hell can't afford anything. I take public transit, ride my bike, I still eat the best organics in the nation and have the best friends I could have ever met.

I've had many jobs where I've done the work of the higher-ups and seen what they do while making 5X the amount of money I do. I know they know they're lucky, but, I've also seen how they choose to make financial decisions for their own gain - one of those being getting others to do their work for them. Corrupt fucks.

One of my main influences for being more "socially" inclined was my father. A CEO, he wasn't a scumbag or anything - at least not to my knowledge (he did help build prisons) but just the thought of people putting profit before their own lives & family is sickening.

To his credit, he grew up in Philly with a mother who lost her husband (an olympic athelete) early on. She grew up during the depression and only had a 4th grade education. She was one of those cuties that saved huge tin foil balls. I know my father worked hard and felt obligated to but I think and will always think he cared too much about making profit.

He still touts that. Now that I am nearly an old man he admitted while we sipped on some bourbon and smoked a cigar that, "All I ever wanted was to make money." My reply was "yeah." I looked him in his empty eyes and saw a robot. Sure he has a super nice house on a lake system, an amazing wife, nice cars, a speed boat, a golf course... hardly any friends, kids that don't appreciate him... but he has shitloads of money. Good for him! That's amazing. Money really informs people what life is truly about, keeps people focused on what is really important. Paying your taxes, keeping your yard and hair well groomed, going to stiff social events and working. Man, that is just not a life worth living in my opinion.

On the opposite side of the spectrum their are jobs where everyone is paid nearly the same, they buy into their businesses and co-own their businesses and everyone comes out a winner with 30k+ bonuses at the end of the year. The only people that may not think they're winners are people that are greedy fucks that require too much. But, at the same time these people are able to live regular lives that promote interaction, activity & family. Not that I believe in having a family, but when you do not have to take your bullshit job home with you or work many many extra hours the better it is for everyone.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You fellows are buying into something you don't seem to have thought all the way through. If you spread all wealth equally across the board, in a month things would look about the same as they do now, as foolhardy choices were made and the inexperienced gambled their "profits" away.
Communism attempted to eliminate the profit motive. It's been a disaster everywhere it's been tried.
Socialist countries are not only less competitive than capitalist ones, many of them across Europe are now in serious trouble.
You do know most of the American "poor" are well fed, own their own homes, have two vehicles, 3 TVs, cable, computers, appliances, etc?
One other thing. I do not believe for one second that if any of you "revolutionaries" won the lottery, you wouldn't immediately put together a legal team to rival Mr. Burns' on The Simpsons and proceed to exploit every tax shelter and loophole possible.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You do know most of the American "poor" are well fed, own their own homes, have two vehicles, 3 TVs, cable, computers, appliances, etc?


Give me a break dude. I don't make very much money but I'm certainly not impoverished. I share one car with my wife, rent a house, watch all my TV on my 17 inch monitor and my prized possessions are my food processor and my washing machine.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring 'class' — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of 'race, class and gender,' which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles."

That “Top One Percent”
Not an enduring class.


Possessions are factored into wealth. So if you own an expensive house and then sell it, you don't get any wealthier, you just have more cash. Many of the wealthiest people in the world do not have a large amount of liquid assets. The mutilation of logic here is staggering.

DUUUUUHHHHH!!!!

Yogi, I agree with this thought - I always like your comments. You seem like a cool dude or dudette, haha!

I think it's all about solidarity in local politics. The left will always be ignored though. I've witnessed it, I've recounted many times when you know San Francisco / Bay Area residents shutdown SF for several business days the day we started bombing Iraq. You didn't see it in the news - it had no support though it was a democratic movement & one I'd venture to say was an important statement for all Americans who agreed with it. I've seen, what I'd call "mainstream" tactics at protests - it's exactly what mainstream media is about. They create their own scenarios and infiltrate in order to break it up. The whole system is corrupt. It's exactly why Bush was voted in twice. What do we do? I refuse to vote any longer except in local politics. I could go on and on with this topic.

Too many people believe in democratic change through protests and who we vote in as a President. It simply doesn't work that way unless people become very aggressive on a very large scale. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying it needs to be very organized, the message simple and the actions hopefully non-violent - but I have not seen non-violent disobedience work in all of my 30 years.

>> ^Yogi:

I'm starting to have little sympathy for the American public. I started out with hating these corporations and hating the Right...now I'm starting to get pissed at the Left and the people. We have the internet, we have the ability to organize...so why the fuck aren't you doing it? The Left could've been organizing people the last couple decades they've fucked up royal. Online movements translated into protests and a groundswell of progress could've happened (and can still) but hasn't. Not that there hasn't been victories but what I see is TONS of like minded people, not happy with the way the corporations and the government fuck us and then not doing anything about it.
We have a democracy...it's not entirely broken. USE IT!

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by marinara:
*promote

>> ^quantumushroom:

"Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring 'class' — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of 'race, class and gender,' which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles."

That “Top One Percent”
Not an enduring class.


HAHAHAHHA! Dude this article backfires...by saying what it does, it's claiming that the "controlling class" is even LESS than 1% because of statistical skewing...HAHAHAHAHAH DERP!