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.

Reminds me of the British sci fi show Red Dwarf

How did I make a very slight Red Dwarf reference without realizing it? Cats BECOME black people.

Jurassic Park when it came out was simply: a phenomenon. I've never seen movie theaters packed for two weeks straight--no matter the time--for the same show. Everyone had seen the show over and over again. It was simply too amazing--it was the first show to PERFECTLY nail CGI--and it picked one of the best topics for CGI that you could... Who can ever forget the first time you saw and heard that T-Rex step out into the clearing and roar. It was mesmerizing (I do feel bad for those of you that hated it; there will always be haters, for any movie, or any book...but I think those of us that liked it all got the same sense of wonderment from that show...those scenes; which IS why we kept going back). It reminded me of the similar feeling you get from amusement park rides (pick your ride that fits what I'm describing).

The first time I saw that, I had to do a double take. Nothing, EVER, had been even remotely close to being that good. I mean nothing. Seeing the "gigantic" Brachiosaurus (as there have been sauropods found that, unlike the "brachi" @ 26m--length wise, is utterly dwarfed by ones like the Amphicoelias Fragillimus, that could be as long as 60m) was just amazing (this IS the movie that made CGI a reality for movies and mainstreamed it).

It helped that I saw the movie on a screen that was as big as an IMAX. One of those old-fashioned ones with a balcony and decorations. Torn down and replaced by a screen half it's size, but still fit just as many people (ah, what greed does to us)...

It was the T-Rex scene that left us awe struck and electrified--it truly felt like a dinosaur had come back to life...and yes, it was a bit terrifying. Add in the great music, well done sound (who can forget our *THX* openings), and something so well done that it basically was something new--the CGI--it was a hit that people saw so many times.

Jurassic Park did for CGI, what Star Wars did for extended special effects and the company(s) that created it. Both jump started a new generation of movies. Avatar tried to bring us into the 3D realm (which I DO like, and I would say it "worked" for as much as it possibly could...as I have a 3D HDTV and quite a collection of shows...but...), but 3D has too many issues left for it to "change" things *yet*. Sound is another place that can change things (along with many other aspects and ideas that deal with including or adding onto the sensory perception of a movie; maybe we just have to wait until we can connect almost directly neurally).

I hope this movie will be worth watching (I hope it can end up being much more than that), but it merely looks like a huge money grabbing scheme (plus Jurassic Park was at least based on a pretty good book; which BTW is worth reading even if you saw the movie). The fact that the new huge "T-Rex/Velociraptor" seems impervious to a 30mm machine gun makes me want to just...laugh; then add in the swarm of flying dinosaur people snatchers.

That guy does a pretty good impression of Kryten from Red Dwarf when he does a Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings impression.

Its NASA Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. Almost all launch facilities weather they be in the US, Russia, China, India, French Guiana have service buildings close to the launch site. You are probably used to watching shuttle launches at the massive facility in Florida where the launch structure dwarfed any such service buildings.

For the launch all personnel are evacuated to a safe distance. If the range officer is on the ball a self destruct would be sent to the vehicle before it strayed out of its saftey zone.

Degeneracy is really, really cool. It's all about squashing things into as tight a region of space as you can. It's an observable justification of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the Pauli exclusion principle (the one that says you can accurately measure the position or the velocity of an object but not both and the one that says that two neutrons -in this case- can't both occupy the same very small region of space).

To be a neutron star, the remnant core after an unstable giant blows its outer layers away has to be more massive than 1.44 solar masses, but anything bigger than about 2.5 solar masses probably becomes a black hole. On the less massive end you get white dwarfs which are prevented from shrinking any more by electron degeneracy pressure - electrons won't let the star get any denser. But if you throw more mass on it, even electron degeneracy pressure can't resist the gravitational force and you get a neutron star, supported by neutron degeneracy - the neutrons won't let the star get any denser now. And then finally more and more mass and it becomes a black hole, which is where even the neutron degeneracy pressure can't sustain the gravitational force.

I mean, that's fucking cool - there is so much gravitational force that the electrons have to team up with the protons to become neutrons, because neutrons can get slightly closer together. And then if the neutrons aren't happy, you've got a singularity which is a fancy way of saying we don't know what the hell just happened but stay away from it if you like being in the part of the physical universe that kinda makes sense to us.

There's also speculation of a quark degeneracy state beyond neutron degeneracy.

Nice one. It's what I would have expected, which is sad. The film could better drive home the point that this was from "one day". Even if he took that day off and just walked around for 12 hours, it's still sad.

But it is NYC, so I wonder how many shitty comments a non-dwarf white guy would get as a "control" to compare against. Probably not as many photos or height-related comments, but...

When your country starts incarcerating its citizens at an enormous rate, unprecedented in the world, dwarfing that of a country like China, yeah i can't imagine where those comparisons would come from.

I want a number... You feel so strongly about this give me a god damn number... how many innocent people should be executed to sate your desire for rapid executions?... How many each yer?... 5? 10? 20?... Of course we'll never really know will we.

Maybe you should actually watch the video... or i don't know spend 10 minutes on google... If your concerned about prisoners getting free health care or *gasp* free food!!!! Well your in fucking luck!... because increasingly they aren't getting any of either... Shelter???? don't count on it...

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20140424-the-crime-of-un-airconditioned-texas-prisons.ece

WTF am i wasting my time discussing this with a guy advocating a police state and as far as i can tell medieval era punishments...

Do you actually work for Geo Group?... be honest you do don't ya.

Well, you were the one that initially compared your marriage fidelity (or hypothetical lack thereof) to virtuous (or immoral) behaviours. You can't really compare one side (the behaviours) and then complain about a comparison of the (dis)incentives.

Both are systems of reward and punishment. You incentivise desired behaviours and disincentivise undesired ones. Whether the incentive is a tax break or an emotional response is irrelevant.

But let's say that you're right and there is a distinction between them. It still doesn't solve the problem of encouraging moral behaviour.

If I'm the CEO of a company and I make a decision that makes me and my family better off, everyone is happier, right? Moral bonus all round.

Except maybe my decision impacts someone else profoundly negatively. Halfway around the world, someones working conditions got much worse. Locally someone got laid off so I could employ the people with the crap working conditions. I saved money on environmental standards now at the cost of a problem in the future.

But none of that has an immediate social or personal consequence to me. I just bought a boat and took my family sailing and they're happy!!

The fact is that with the best will in the world, it's really easy for those with power to abuse it, and no, morality does not keep them in check. It might in a few individual cases, but those are dwarfed by the colossal atrocities perpetrated by those whose morality fails to keep their power in check.

Again, look at the current banking system. Please don't tell me you think there are moral people in charge of that, and for the love of all that is holy, please don't tell me that we just need to give them the opportunity to exercise their moral muscle.

The problem with this libertarian philosophy is that it has been the default position throughout history and the outcome has been spectacularly bad.
Libertarians counter this by claiming that we haven't had a "true" libertarian system, which to me is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline and then when it doesn't work, claiming we didn't add enough gasoline.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Zawash. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Red-Dwarf-The-Picture-Zoom-Enhance-Sketch