How do you solve something that's going apeshit in another country? For starters, in the case of Ukraine and Crimea, we keep our obligations we agreed to and support them with the U.S. military from day one when Russia invaded Crimea, and again in Ukraine proper. Had we done that as we specifically and unambiguously agreed to do when they gave up their nukes in return, the "civil war" (that's clearly a foreign invasion) wouldn't have occurred. That's an Obama administration failure, one that seriously harmed our international standing and trustworthiness, imo. If we had just put 100 Marines on the borders, Russia wouldn't have risked WW3 to invade either country.
My point is human political or boundary issues are nothing compared to intentionally reengineering the makeup of the atmosphere and getting enough cooperation to implement the desired (required) changes.

If she changes policy in the west, that will impact the East....and South. What America does is more often than not mirrored, especially when we're successful.
Her impact is more for the public than governments. Sway enough of the public, get them to vote on your issue, and politics will evolve at light speed.

Her delivery is exactly what's needed. An angry, educated young woman (they called me young man at 14, so don't balk), being unpleasant about having her future stolen makes exponentially more impact to the audience she targets than a thousand dry, factual, statistic rich talks by scientists. (Those are a dime a dozen today) Kids telling their parents that when the shit hits the fan, the kids are tossing them in the swollen river, not supporting them through their old age, is exactly the kick in the face many need. Kids of today will blame adults of today for the future they live in. Adults of today clearly don't consider that enough.

Something is better than nothing, she's demanding something. She's 16, do you expect her to have all the answers? (Some feasible solutions would be nice) She's well ahead of the curve just understanding the severity of the problem. I'm sure if we listened to all her speeches she gives some suggestions of action we could take to move in the right direction, but I doubt any one person has answers that solve every major effect of climate change, much less all the secondary and tertiary effects. I certainly don't expect her, at that age, to do more than demand those in power take it seriously and find solutions....and act. Chastising a major polluter who walked away from the weak, insufficient Paris agreement is a good start if it works, but I agree it's only barely a start.

You should consider it, she got millions to March for her cause worldwide. Even if she is a willing tool for some adults, it's clear more adults are tools for her. Consider, she isn't talking to kids, she's talking to adults, and some at least are listening to her, not her parents.

Personally it disturbs me that emotional delivery like this is required for many to even consider the issue beyond "what does my political party say on this issue, that's what I say too." I wish scientific issues like climate change were immune to politics, propaganda, and emotion, but they aren't. That's why we're hosed imo, humans are too willing to be deceived if the lie is more pleasant than reality, and denying there's a problem or need for change is quite pleasant to lazy Americans, far easier than facing facts and implementing difficult solutions....until it's not at least, by which time it's far too late.

You talk as if there's never been an amendment, or you don't understand how they work. 98% support is far more than needed.

The founders foresaw this sort of issue, and created a constitution that can evolve with the culture. Only inaction and unsupported, unpopular opposition has prevented the government from effectively regulating, not inability.

That's the thing about having a party in control that doesn't represent the majority (edit: or even the vast majority of their own supporters), the will of the people is neutered.

Duh.
You just implied strongly that you're just a sock puppet for Vladimir....AKA @bobknight33....and @wtfcaniuse didn't assume your stance on gun control, he derided your (bob's) snarky but incorrect assessment of our popular opinion and shooting statistics.
Who's being dumb now?!

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*

My memory of palmetto bugs is entering a room, turning on a light, three of the bastards turn around, look at me like they're sizing me up, and then scuttle away.

Insects making eye contact with a human is just fundamentally wrong. Insects whose concept of humans is anything less than an ineffable cosmic force have evolved beyond their allotted station and should be purged from existence. They can take their flaming death trees with them.

"The world would be a better place without religion..."

Maybe. Probably not. We just can't will it into non-existence regardless. My hypothetical concern is, say we do get rid of all religion (by what? Burn all the books? Put them all in an Island? Killing them all once and for all? I'd LOVE to know your methods... but hey, off topic), then what? Human by nature will believe and follow in something/someone... Chinese followed their religion-banning dear leader MZD to their deaths by the millions. Germans got played into Nazis by a charismatic madman that resulted in WWII... my point is, we can't let any harmful idealism fall into the hands of charismatic leaders that cause real harm and be silent. Star Wars (and its mortal religious rival Trekkies) is a registered, legit religion to some but mostly for fun and harmless. Trumpism is arguably a religion itself in America now, and alt-right ideals are spreading all over the world from its aftermath that's 100% harmful IMO.

Religion as a practice can do immense good & evil in equal measure. We should all do our part in not letting people in power weaponize religion.

"Its the biggest sham in human history. " IMO, it's people in (religious/political) power that twists religion into a sham. And continues to. I blame these people, not the religion. Don't let these douchebags have their way!

A lot of people (majority even) fails to put the words of these religious books into historical context. Civilizations and cultures
evolve. Societal practices and knowledge of the physical world too. Look into the intent and context, then it'll do good. Twist religion into self-serving gavel of judgement (to others, NEVER to oneself!) then nothing good will come of it.

"Just goes to show how stupid the sheeple are."

Thing is, people get into (and out of ) religion for all kinds of reasons. Calling them all sheeple and stupid isn't doing anyone good service, merely shows your narrow view of religion (and stereotyping people of faith) more than anything, no? It's as wrong as a priest calling atheists must be lacking of a moral compass.

I'm with you in your disdain for mindlessness.

Are there sheeple? OF COURSE. Are blind followers stupid? Yes to a degree. But IMO these sheeple are stupid not because they're into a faith, but follow the words and commands blindly of their faith leaders without thinking of the intentions and lacking a firm grasp of reality and consequences.

We need to eliminate sheeple mentality, religious absolutism and self-righteousness that disrespect others, that thinks one is better than others because of following a religion.

I'm fine calling out the ridiculous among them, I do so in my church. Just don't call and treat everyone a sheeple. Besides, sheeple is not exclusive to religion, there are Apple sheeple, celebrity sheeple, political sheeple. Do we treat all of these people as sheeple with disdain?

But man... it's extremely disheartening to see the state of religion in the USA. I can see why some people are so against it there. I seriously can't feel defensive about it if I'm a US citizen, because watching videos like these do make sensible people wanting to punch that guy. But how can people NOT see through the idiocy and out right ban/disown that shit? That's the most concerning to me of American Christianity.

The bear gave up when he realised that he only evolved into a bear because Chuck Norris gave him permission to do so.

Sorry.

I'm calling him pathetic because he gave two pro choice arguments believing they are anti choice arguments.

I don't believe a thing that breaths liquid is a human being. A child, imo, must have taken a breath to be a living human child. Until then, it's only a potential human requiring an actual human to be it's life support system and sustenance. That's worse than any other form of slavery.

I'm so pro choice, I support 7th trimester abortions, like Spartans. In ancient Greece, it wasn't a human until it was a year old, and killing it wasn't murder until then.

At 6 weeks, it's indistinguishable from a chicken or newt, so not a human. It must evolve completely before I grant it that status. Until live birth, it's just a parasite.

Your video, 35 Years of the World’s Economy Evolving as an Organism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 26 Badge!

Sit down and evolve, ya cunt!

This is so bad for a dog's hips. Really this is animal abuse. Most breeds will suffer greatly as they age if they do this sort of thing a lot and often the pain in their hips will be so great they'll have to be put down. They're just not evolved to walk this way.

Animals are evolving strategies to deal with our messy habits? Thanks nature, you MVP!

You just know those turtles are sitting in bar right now bragging about how they made human contact and threatened to evolve into our worst nightmare if we don't start wiping our own asses.

Your video, Lucas di Grassi on how quickly Formula E has evolved, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Made me think of this.

Commander Leonard 'Bones' McCoy, M.D. : Spock, this "child" is about to wipe out every living thing on Earth. Now, what do you suggest we do? Spank it?

Commander Spock: It knows only that it needs, Commander. But, like so many of us... it does not know what.
---------------------

Commander Spock: V'Ger must evolve. Its knowledge has reached the limits of this universe and it must evolve. What it requires of its god, doctor, is the answer to its question, "Is there nothing more"?

Commander Leonard 'Bones' McCoy, M.D.: What more is there than the universe, Spock?

Commander Willard Decker: Other dimensions. Higher levels of being.

Commander Spock: The existence of which cannot be proven logically. Therefore, V'Ger is incapable of believing in them.

Captain James T. Kirk: What it needs in order to evolve... is a human quality. Our capacity to leap beyond logic.

Commander Willard Decker: And joining with its creator might accomplish that.

Commander Leonard 'Bones' McCoy, M.D.: You mean this machine wants to physically join with a human? Is that possible?

Commander Willard Decker: Let's find out.
----------------------------------

So, basically... V'ger needed to get laid?

There is a generally held belief that consciousness is a mystery of science or a miracle of faith; that consciousness was attained instantly (or granted by god), and that one has either attained self awareness or has not.

I don't believe any of that. I believe like all things in biology, consciousness evolved to maximise a benefit, and occurred gradually, without any magic or mystery. The closest exurb1a gets to that is when he says at 6:28:

"Maybe evolution accidentally made some higher mammals on Earth self-aware because it's better for problem solving or something"

We need to know what other people are thinking and this is the problem that consciousness solves. If a neighbouring tribe enters your territory then predicting whether they come to trade, mate, steal or attack is beneficial to survival.

Initially this may be done through simulation - imagining the future based on past experience. A flood approaching your cave is bad news. Being surrounded by lions is not good. Surrounding a lone bison is dinner. Being charged by a screaming tribe is an upcoming fight.

We could only simulate another person's actions, but we had no experience that allows us to simulate another person's thoughts. You may predict that giving your hungry neighbour a meal may suppress their urge to raid your supplies but you still can't simply open their head and see what they are thinking.

Then for the benefit of cooperation and coordination, we started to talk, and everything changed.

Communication not only allows us to speak our mind, but allows us to model the minds of others. We can gain an understanding of another person's motivations long before they act upon them. The need to simulate another person's thoughts becomes more nuanced and complex. Do they want to trade, or do they want to cheat?

Yet still we cannot look into the minds of others and verify our models of them. If we had access to an actual working brain we could gradually strengthen that model with reference to how an actual brain works, and we happen to have access to such a brain, our own!

If we monitored ourselves then we could validate a general model of thought against real urges, real experiences, real problem solving and real motivations. Once we apply our own selves to a model of thought we become much better at modelling the thoughts of others.

And what better way to render that model than with speech itself? To use all of our existing cognitive skills and simply simulate others sharing their thoughts with us.

At 3:15 exurb1a referenced a famous experiment that showed that we make decisions before we become aware of them. This lends evidence to suppose that our consciousness is not the driver of our thoughts, but a monitor - an interpretation of our subconscious that feeds our model of how people think.

Not everybody is the same. We all have different temperaments. Some of us are less predictable than others, and we tend to avoid such people. Some are more amenable to co-operation, others are stubborn. To understand the temperament of one we must compare them to another. If we are to compare the model of another's mind to our own, and we simulate their mind as speech, then we must also simulate our own mind as speech. Then not only are we conscious, we are self-aware.

Add in a feedback loop of social norms, etiquette, acceptable behaviour, expected behaviour, cooperation and co-dependence, game theory and sustainable societies and this conscious model eventually becomes a lot more nuanced than it first started - allowing for abstract concepts such as empathy, shame, guilt, remorse, resentment, contempt, kinship, friendship, nurture, pride, and love.

Consciousness is magical, but not magic.