Jesus fucking Christ, learn to read.
I clearly said someone just giving lip service, as in someone just using words but not following through with actions, should not be met with violence.
An ACTIVE Nazi, as in someone physically enacting those words, making physical efforts to preform some genocide, or in the act of actually attacking a black, jew, hispanic, homo, cuck, libtard, etc, (not just calling them names, but attacking) yes, resist their violence with exponentially more violence from every direction without hesitation or empathy.

You aren't putting words in my mouth, buy you are 100% backwards in your interpretation of what I thought was clearly written.
I was raised to believe you are allowed to be as wrong and stupid as you like in America, but your right to swing your fist ends firmly at my nose and that line, once crossed, enables a righteous and crippling response without qualm.

Homo sapiens? Translate those words and try to apply them to a muslim.

So, vegans don't believe homo sapien erectus is part of nature?

Ever see how terrifying every day is for your typical herbivore in the wild?
I'm not saying the factory farms aren't cruel, they are, and they should be abolished, but your typical small-farm animal lives in the lap of luxury before the axe falls (and quickly).

Nature (and corporations) are cruel, man typically isn't.

The scale of political correctness can only tip so far in 1 direction until it eventually flips back around 180 degrees quickly into the opposite direction.

Faux-feminism, thought, speech police then one day those faux feminist will wake up as part of some harem, not allowed to walk in front of their muslim master or speak, or be nothing but a baby maker. Homos slaughtered. And if you speak out you'll be called "racist".

political correctness is right on the edge of flipping back around 180 degrees in the extreme opposite direction if the morons keep pushing.

Your video, New Human Ancestor Discovered: Homo naledi, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

New Human Ancestor Discovered: Homo naledi has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/New-Human-Ancestor-Discovered-Homo-naledi

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.

Gay people seem to have an obsession with sucking, scat, big cocks etc.

They just can't be happy as homo sapiens.

It's a demonstration of human nature, really. That's exactly how human men are genetically encoded to treat women.

I'd argue that our genetic encoding would make us treat women as resources and in a much more violent fashion too.

I think the "don't hit a girl" attitude is a construct of our societal/cultural nature and it's an attempt to civilise the animal instinct to "take a mate" without regard to the females wishes at all.

I would imagine that over a long period of time, this was an important first step. Yes, it's still misogynistic, but I'm guessing it's preferable to simply fighting over females and then mating with them.

But you'd hope that we'd have moved past that by now.

Otherwise, you're just an animal that happens to walk upright.

It would be nice if we were animals that had learned how to think as well, but I fear Terry Pratchett got it right with this quote:

The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'homo erectus, intro song, primitive, adhd' to 'homo erectus, intro song, primitive, adhd, Scientifically Accurate' - edited by Grimm

...which further shows the hypocrisy of @lantern53

We see it all the time, he says he knows what a strawman is, what an anecdote is, yet as others have called him out on, He spouts strawmans, he spouts anecdotes, he does it consistently.

He whines about personal responsibility, but is the first one to cry foul, to claim victimhood, to pretend that he so oppressed. He's STILL whining about something I teased him about MONTHS ago. And news flash Lantern, I never did directly call you a homosexual (not the derogatory term "homo") I called you out on your strange "fantasies" (your word, not mine) that you yourself described regarding homosexuals. If you want to internalize that as an insult or an accusation, that's your problem, not mine. And besides, even if I did directly call you a homosexual and you're not, that's not an insult, it may be an incorrect statement, but it's not an insult.

That's your baggage, not mine.

Then there's the hypocrisy of claiming to care so much about manners, then saying that violence would be a good way to make someone have good manners. Do you fucking listen to yourself? The civilized world generally considers violence of ANY kind to be BAD manners...not good. Again, such a hypocrite. The fact that you seem to think differently is rather appalling.

and then his hypocrisy about name calling, just now he claimed that because someone "namecalled" him that he lost the argument, but you really don't have to look through his comment history very hard to find him being quite liberal <gasp!> with the name calling, often being the one instigating it with many ad hominem attacks. Enoch has already called you out about how you spit out the word "leftist" like it's a dirty word. news flash, people don't like being demonized. We may think you're an idiot, but we don't think you're evil, or less than human like you seem to think of us.

I know what you're thinking, "wah! but liberals do it too!!" Sure they do. But again, no one ever claimed that the left was perfect (that would be another strawman). we just claim that our ideas are better than yours and can usually back it up...big difference. And again, as someone who claims liberals are so bad and sub-human, wouldn't you want to NOT act like the bad, filthy liberals? So in either case, the "but they do it too" excuse just never holds any water.

Again, going back to what someone else asked and you never answered. What exactly is your goal in these threads? Again, you look at lantern's comment history and it's just nothing but negative negative derogatory posts. never building anyone up, but always tearing someone down. Yeah, you're right, posting videos is not a requirement to be here. But if all you do IS make comments, then you better fucking believe we're going to judge you on them.

You

Bring

This

On

Yourself.

Think before you type. It's a pretty simple concept.

I try to keep it civil but I've been baited more than anyone else here, voodoo calling me a homo etc or others just plain saying I'm stupid etc.

My argument is the same as jerykk above, exactly my point.

But you people only spout liberal talking points.

"This isn't fair, that isn't fair!" You're like a bunch of 6 yr olds.

I know what a fucking strawman is and I know what a fucking anecdote is, I get tired of being accused. I know what a racist is, all you people have to do is accuse someone and that's the end.

Whenever you show some maturity I will respond in kind. To a progressive, the end justifies the means, so if you can use any tactic to shut me down, you do it, because the end result is that everyone will think just like you...well, I've read 1984 and I don't want any part of it.