MASSIVE LONG POST WARNING: feel free to skip this

I usually like Vsauce a lot, but I disagree with just about every assumption and every conclusion he makes in this video.

Anthropogenic vs external extinction event -
I think the likelihood of an anthropogenic extinction event is low. Even in the cold war, at the apex of "mutually assured destruction" risk, IF that destruction was triggered I think it would have been extremely unlikely to make humans go extinct. The US and USSR might have nuked each other to near-extinction, but even with fairly mobile nuclear fallout / nuclear winter, etc. I think that enough humans would have remained in other areas to remain a viable population.

Even if ONE single person had access to every single nuclear weapon in existence, and they went nuts and tried to use them ALL with the goal of killing every single human being on the planet, I still bet there would be enough pockets of survivors in remote areas to prevent humans from going utterly extinct.

Sure, an anthropogenic event could be devastating -- catastrophic even -- to human life. But I think humanity could recover even from an event with an associated human death rate of 95% or more -- and I think the likelihood of anything like that is real slim.

So that leaves natural or external extinction events. The KT extinction (end of the dinosaurs) is the most recent major event, and it happened 65 million years ago. Homo sapiens have been around 150-200,000 years, and as a species we've been through some fairly extreme climatic changes. For example, humans survived the last ice age around 10-20,000 years ago -- so even without technology, tools, buildings, etc. we managed to survive a climate shift that extreme. Mammals survived the KT extinction, quite possible that we could have too -- especially if we were to face it with access to modern technology/tools/knowledge/etc.

So I think it would probably take something even more extreme than the asteroid responsible for KT to utterly wipe us out. Events like that are temporally rare enough that I don't think we need to lose any sleep over them. And again, it would take something massive to wipe out more than 95% of the human population. We're spread out, we live in pretty high numbers on basically every landmass on earth (perhaps minus Antarctica), we're adapted to many many different environments ... pretty hard to kill us off entirely.


"Humans are too smart to go extinct" @1:17 -
I think we're too dumb to go extinct. Or at least too lazy. The biggest threats we face are anthropogenic, but even the most driven and intentionally malevolent human or group of humans would have a hard time hunting down *everybody, everywhere*.


Doomsday argument -
I must admit that I don't really understand this one. The guess of how many total humans there will be, EVER, seems extremely arbitrary. But anyway, I tend to think it might fall apart if you try to use it to make the same assertions about, say, bacterial life instead of human life. Some specific species of bacteria have been around for way way longer than humans, and in numbers that dwarf human populations. So, the 100 billionth bacteria didn't end up needing to be worried about its "birth number", nor did the 100 trillionth.


Human extinction "soon" vs. "later" -
Most plausibly likely threats "soon" are anthropogenic. The further we push into "later", the more the balance swings towards external threats, I think. But we're talking about very small probabilities (in my opinion anyway) on either side of the scale. But I don't think that "human ingenuity will always stay one step ahead of any extinction event thrown at it" (@4:54). Increased human ingenuity is directly correlated with increased likelihood of anthropogenic extinction, so that's pretty much the opposite. For external extinction events, I think it is actually fairly hard to imagine some external scenario or event that could have wiped out humans 100, 20, 5, 2, or 1 thousand years ago that wouldn't wipe us out today even with our advances and ingenuity. And anything really bad enough to wipe us out is not going to wait for us to be ready for it...


Fermi paradox -
This is the most reasonable bit of the whole video, but it doesn't present the most common / best response. Other stars, galaxies, etc. are really far away. The Milky Way galaxy is 100,000+ light years across. The nearest other galaxy (Andromeda) is 2.2 million light years away. A living being (or descendents of living beings) coming to us either of those distances would have to survive as long as the entire history of human life, all while moving at near the speed of light, and have set out headed straight for us from the get-go all those millions and millions of years ago. So lack of other visitors is not surprising at all.

Evidence of other life would be far more likely to find, but even that would have to be in a form we could understand. Human radio signals heading out into space are less than 100 years old. Anything sentient and actively looking for us, even within the cosmically *tiny* radius of 100 light years, would have to have to evolved in such a way that they also use radio; otherwise the clearest evidence of US living here on Earth would be undetectable to them. Just because that's what we're looking for, doesn't mean that other intelligent beings would take the same approach.

Add all that up, and I don't think that the Fermi paradox is much cause for alarm. Maybe there are/have been LOTS of intelligent life forms out there, but they have been sending out beacons in formats we don't recognize, or they are simply too far away for those beacons to have reached us yet.


OK, I think I'm done. Clearly I found the video interesting, to post that long of a rambling response... But I was disappointed in it compared to usual Vsauce stuff. Still, upvote for the thoughts provoked and potential discussion, even though I disagree with most of the content and conclusions.

I knew this would happen. Talking to you, too, @oritteropo:

I'm leaving it with just this, because people are attached to their bacon and steaks as tightly as they are tied to religion. Perhaps it's again apples to oranges, but I'm guessing a lot of you are the same folks who rant against religion and wonder why people are so stupid and don't look at logic and science, blah blah blah. This is the perfect time to look in the mirror and see a touch of what you're up against. When you've been indoctrinated with something since you were literally born, you fight against being wrong so hard. So, so hard. Seriously. Take a moment, take a deep breath, and take a little search inside looking at how much of you knows for a fact that eating meat is just fine, and how much of it is cognitive dissonance. How much of it is emotional and how much of it is logical. Look at a video of people going on and on about how Jesus Christ is Lord and another video of people going on and on about how much they love bacon. It's kind of disturbing how zealous bacon-lovers get. Try it. It's fun. It's why I became vegetarian only about 4 or 5 years ago. And I gotta say, getting rid of that cognitive dissonance is very, very relieving and satisfying.

Yes, yes, yes. Loads and loads of vegetarians and vegans are unhealthy. Actually, I would argue that most vegetarians and vegans are wholly less healthy than omnivores since most of them have a high-and-mighty "I'm vegetarians/vegan so I'm automatically healthy" and eat some of the most disgusting, heart-disease-inducing, oily, fatty, un-nutririous, processed shit that's ever been made. Look at some of the fake meat stuff to just have a peek.

No. If you actually watched any of the videos you will see that it's not just being vegan that is important. It's to be a healthy vegan. You know, all that shit you can't ever, ever argue is bad for you. Fruits. Leafy greens. Beans. Lentils. Whole grains, occasionally. But mostly leafy greens and fruit.

And there are loads of studies that control exercise and all sorts of other arguments for "NO NO NO! IT'S NOT MY MEAT! STAY AWAY FROM IT IT'S ANYTHING BUT MY MEAT!". I can think of a specific one that I read/watched about controlling for exercise, and I can find it for you if you'd like, but I'm guessing you aren't really interested. They discovered that very aerobic, exercising, running omnivores were as healthy as lightly walking vegans. He even had a cute graphic for it.

And it's not just this guy, either. Head over to Dr. Fuhrman's website for more of the same. Except Dr. Fuhrman is toting stuff to sell, so that unnerves some people. They claim he's just trying to make a buck. But all the money he makes goes to nutritional research.

The last thing I'll say is this:

I honestly don't give a flying shit about what you eat. I don't really care about the environment at all. I'm not planning on having kids, and I'm sure I'll kick the ol' bucket before antibiotics stop working, water is scarce, the waters rise above NYC, and all the other possible doomsday things that'll probably happen within the next 100 or so years. It's true that I also enjoy not feeling guilty for eating animals who live. It'd make me happy if you stopped eating them because the main thing I believe I'm around for is to minimize suffering in the world. So, that'd be nice if more people didn't eat them.

But if you want to live a nice, long, healthy life where you don't die of a stroke, heart attack, or diabetes by the time you're 65, eat better.

There's a reason why the milk, sugar, meat and pharmaceutical companies pump out study after study about how it's totally fine to eat their shit. They spend so much money on it, it's ridiculous.

Cheers to your health, either way.

Here's a scenario for ya bobby...like, next world war shit?

3 first strike options:
conventional
nuclear
doomsday (biotech, other)

Uhh, fuck the entire planet being able to survive oblivion, how about, about a hundred mother-FUCKERS being able to survive underground just fine with all the food, pussy, and time until the shit blows over for everyone, and everything else.

Totally doable.

Talk about yer 'antichrist' scenario, and fuck yours, mine, and anyone elsers, Polytics, religion or lack thereof, this is something you may believe in.

It's the real doable shit that scares the funk outta me and should wake anyone else with a fucking clue, the motherfuck the FUCK UP!

Or I dunno, maybe I'm just some John the Baptist motherfucker, crying-out in the wilderness of complete imbeciles, myself, submiiter of embed, squirrels and dolphins, and and hater of chingy included??

Doomsday Preppers: Bible Edition.

I prefer Doomsday Engine.

You're right! If she was found to of committed a more serious crime she should definitely of been electrocuted.

What level of crime would say makes it ok? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being parking ticket and 10 being doomsday device terrorist attack targeting the president and a kitten orphanage?

I think there is some definite hyperbole in your statement but I agree with what you've said on the main. Christians are called to be good stewards and we have largely ignored that command. As a former hardcore environmentalist I have a first hand understanding of what the tension is on either side. On one hand, the thought process behind the environmental movement is that this is the only Earth we have, and we must zealously protect its treasures because they cannot be replaced. Once they're gone, they are gone forever. On the other hand, the thought process behind more than a few Christians is that this Earth was given to us by God, and we have dominion over it. There is no reason to worry about destroying it because God Himself will be destroying it upon the second coming of Christ. The Earth will then be recreated and it will be overseen by God going into eternity.

These points of view are exactly contrary to one another and can hardly be reconciled. For the Christian, the tension the bible gives us is between steward and subdue. We are not only instructed to be good stewards, but also to subdue the Earth. Environmentalists hate the very thought of that and would prefer that human interference in natural affairs would approach zero. In the extreme of environmentalist thought, human beings are entirely expendable and should be culled until they do not significantly impact the biosphere. This is of course is entirely foreign to the mind of the Christian, who understands that the very point of the Earth is to be a habitation for human kind. Christians on the main are much more interested in the welfare of other human beings rather than animals and see animals as expendable. An animal has no eternal destiny spoken of in the bible, but human beings do.

As to where I stand, I care about animals and the environment. The issue of global warming is irrelevant to me; it's a doomsday scenario with no teeth. Even if it is somewhat true, it is not how the world is going to end. But I do care and so do many Christians. I don't think we should just run roughshod over this world and inflict undue suffering on creatures to exact some kind of profit. Rather, I think we should intelligently manage our resources and distribute them equitably. I think we could probably learn a lot from the Indians who managed to live harmoniously with their environment. On the other hand, I am not against drilling or logging or anything else that environmentalists hate, within reason. Unfortunately, human beings are not reasonable creatures; they are sinful and greedy to exploit anything they can for personal benefit. There is irrational hatred on both sides, and they are both being played by the adversary. I know people on the inside of the environmental movement and the infighting that goes on because of the gigantic egos and hypersensitivity is almost comical. Most seem to be in it for their own glory and they get in the way of anyone who actually wants to make a difference.

Christians should be setting the example but some of what you're dealing with isn't born again, spirit filled people, but apostate, carnal Christianity. Around 80 percent of the country professes to follow the Savior, but when you ask very specific questions like are you born again, justified by grace, etc the number goes down into the 30's. This isn't an excuse but it is the reality.

Y2K.. I was busy in Finland during fall 1999, hoping to get my fiancee visa and fly to the US before Y2K hit. Just in case all airplanes would stop working and so on.. Luckily I got the visa on time and arrived to the States already in late November 1999.

The world didn't end, planes were still flying at 2000, and I got to marry the love of my life! Not bad for a doomsday scare!

Doomsday killed him, have him fight Doomsday. Aliens. Whatever.

So long as the special effects are good.

Yeah, Tony Stark and Clark Kent are two very different individuals. Clark always puts others first, to the point that he won't use all his strength and power to its full extent, because he knows he could cause more damage than the villain he's trying to stop. Yes, he's a boy scout, but there's a bit of a lesson in a story about an alien who tries to act more compassionate towards humans, than most humans.

Also, he's THE superhero. period. I don't care if they make his powers and villains not realistic. I'm so fucking tired of lex luthor. He's a great villain, but geez, give it a rest already. There's a bunch of other great villains in the superman lore, and it's about time we see him be matched physically and not just intelectually. Zod is one, Darkseid is another. I would also love to see Doomsday or Brainiac.

>> ^CaptainObvious:

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...
The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....
...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...
...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....
Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_
Iran
Not all countries are built the same.
"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?


You are conflating two entirely different issues, and doing a bad job of it to boot...

Iran has done the same things for years, but the only thing that get's the US and Israel wet is when nuclear is involved. Don't kid yourself for a second in believing either country would go in to save the people from a dictatorial regime, all they care about is someone else dealing themselves in to the nuclear game. I suspect you know this very well of course but it makes a much more compelling case to break out the violins and claim the action is humanitarian.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^CaptainObvious:
Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |
Or, ya know, the right of self determination?


"The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists...

The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments... such as the torture, rape, and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians....

...execution of offenders under 18 years of age, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press (including the imprisonment of journalists), and restrictions on [[freedom of religion[[ and gender equality in the Islamic Republic's Constitution (especially attacks on members of the Bahá'í religion)...

...execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, and the widespread use of torture to extract repudiations by prisoners of their cause and comrades on video for propaganda purposes....

Under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record "has deteriorated markedly," ... --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Not all countries are built the same.

"right of self determination" - well, where do you draw the line? Can dictators pull this card out as well?

>> ^CaptainObvious:

Fuck no.
Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.
ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.
I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.
I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.
Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.
We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.
The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.
One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.
---------
"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.


What if all they want enrichment for is nuclear power..? \= |

Or, ya know, the right of self determination?

Fuck no.

Noam Chomsky is a genius and I agree with him almost always - but on this - no way - no.

ANY country with nuclear weaponry is a threat to everyone - let alone a country like Iran. Look what a pain in the ass we have with North Korea and Pakistan.

I remember the cold war and the persistent fear of mutual destruction and the perverse rationality behind it.

I don't want ANY country (including my own) to have nukes, least of all non-democratic countries.

Allowing them and any other non-nuclear country to have nukes is the wrong direction.

We need countries to start giving up nuclear weapons, not proliferating and spreading the disease even more.

The United States might be denying Iran nukes for the wrong reasons (OIL) and perhaps Israel for the right reasons, but frankly I don't care either way.

One less country with nukes is never a bad thing.

---------

"Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing". - Dr Strangelove - yeah. makes sense huh.

You'll find no argument from me about whether our government has been rattling the hornets nest over there for some time. However, I don't place the blame for Muslim outrage on America, or the KGB, I place the blame on Islam. The reason they are so stirred up is because their religion teaches them to hate Jews, Christians, and anyone else who isn't a Muslim. In their eyes we are all the devil and need to be destroyed, or subjugated.

What's going on in the middle east right now, specifically in Iran, cannot be understood unless it is seen through the lens of their particular eschatology (beliefs about the end times). What the Iranians believe is that the coming of their Messiah, called the Mahdi, or the 12th Imam, is imminent. They believe what ushers in the Mahdis return is a series of great wars at the end of time. They also believe that Iran will be the spark to that flame. This is what Irans top general said recently:

"With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war

The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God"

http://glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/iran-official-big-war-means-mahdis-coming/

So what you have here, essentially, is a doomsday cult looking to acquire a nuclear weapon so that they can start a global war to usher in the coming of their Messiah. They believe that their Messiah will subjugate every nation under Islam and bring about worldwide sharia law.

So, everyone who thinks that the middle east is a problem we can straighten out with diplomacy, or instituting democratic reforms, is extremely foolish. It's the same with these sanctions; Iran is not going to break or change their mind. Their top general stated it in very clear terms; that they believe martyrdom is the only true path to God. It is reported that their leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ascends to the sky (in the spirit) once a year to meet with the Mahdi, and that the Mahdi ordered him to continue the nuclear program because it would be what facilitates his coming.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/iran-preparing-now-for-armageddon/

If you look at Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN last week, it was all about the soon coming of the Mahdi:

http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/exclusive-ahmadinejad-gives-most-detailed-explanation-of-twelfth-imam-to-date-says-mahdi-will-soon-re
ign-over-whole-world/

This is why our policies in the Mideast fail again and again. Everything we try to do there ends up creating the exact opposite effect. Even when they themselves overthrow repressive governments, they end up electing even more repressive governments. It's not a problem we can solve. This is the way things are headed, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Their Messiah is most likely our Antichrist and regardless of how it all comes about, the end result was predicted over 2000 years ago;

There will be a one world government, one world economy and one world religion, with the Antichrist at the head. There will be some kind of global calamity in the near future, such as an economic crisis, or perhaps a war, involving Israel, and that is when the Antichrist will enter the world stage. He will come preaching peace and safety, and will head off the calamity by establishing a 7 year peace treaty between Israel and the rest of the world. At around the 3.5 year mark the Antichrist will take off his mask and declare himself to be God, and cause the entire world to worship him. Anyone who doesn't know Jesus Christ at this time will follow the antichrist. Anyone who takes the mark of the beast will be eternally condemned. If you're curious about what the mark of the beast is, it will probably be something like this:



The purpose of the mark is to control who can buy and sell. Anyone without the mark will be unable to participate in the economic system.

Don't count on believing later, or that you won't be deceived into taking the mark, because it will be under threat of death. Today is the day of salvation, so do not harden your heart because He is calling to you. The fact is that He loves you and is knocking on your door:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

>> ^Stormsinger:

The problem with that claim is that the animosity goes back well before Pacepa's time. We overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953, because they were threatening oil company profits. By 1967, the KGB was doing very little except throwing gasoline on a fire we'd already started and built up to four alarm status. It's not reasonable to try and put the blame on the KGB...it clearly belongs on our own government agencies, which have proven over and over again to be extremely shortsighted and unwilling to accept any ethical boundaries.