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.

You are partially correct, I listed the rank of a top submarine officer incorrectly, but not his position, I'm not in the Navy. He was Executive Officer of the first nuclear sub, but only First Lieutenant of the diesel. EDIT: He "qualified for command" of the nuclear sub...probably why I thought "commander" but properly should have said "was in command". Shortly after being assigned to lead the nuclear sub trials, after helping design and build it, he led the American shut down of the Chalk River reactor, lest you continue to insinuate he was an 'armchair warrior' that never held command.
(record below)

◾17? DEC 1948 - 01 FEB 1951 -- Duty aboard USS Pomfret (SS-391) Billets Held: Communications Officer, Electronics Officer, Sonar Officer, Gunnery Officer, First Lieutenant, Electrical Officer, Supply Officer Qualifications: 4 Feb 1950 Qualified in Submarine


◾05 JUNE 1949 -- Promoted to Lieutenant (j.g.)


◾01 FEB 1951 - 10 NOV 1951 -- Duty with Shipbuilding and Naval Inspector of Ordnance, Groton, CT as prospective Engineering Officer of the USS K-1 during precommissioning fitting out of the submarine.


◾10 NOV 1951 - 16 OCT 1952 -- Duty aboard USS K-1(SSK-1) Billets Held: Executive Officer, Engineering Officer, Operations Officer, Gunnery Officer, Electronics Repair Officer Qualifications: Qualified for Command of Submarine Remarks: Submarine was new construction, first vessel of its class


◾01 JUNE 1952 -- Promoted to Lieutenant


◾16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).


On December 12, 1952, an accident with the experimental NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Laboratories caused a partial meltdown. The resulting explosion caused millions of liters of radioactive water to flood the reactor building's basement, and the reactor's core was no longer usable.[7] Carter was ordered to Chalk River, joining other American and Canadian service personnel. He was the officer in charge of the U.S. team assisting in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor.[8] The painstaking process required each team member, including Carter, to don protective gear, and be lowered individually into the reactor to disassemble it for minutes at a time. During and after his presidency, Carter indicated that his experience at Chalk River shaped his views on nuclear power and nuclear weapons, including his decision not to pursue completion of the neutron bomb.[9]

Still alive after four days of too much info to process and too little sleep. So I'll just dump a list of talks here that might interest you:

- Richard Stallman: Freedom in your computer and in the net
- Jake Appelbaum/Laura Poitras: Assassination lists, planetary surveillance
- Tobias Engel/Karsten Nohl: SS7, the backbone of mobile networks, is fucked beyond repair (two talks, same topic: one, two)
- Laura Poitras and others: cryptography for high-profile journalists
- Bill Scannel: Inside Field Station Berlin Teufelsberg (NSA spy post - wierd talk)
- internet of toilets
- What Ever Happened to Nuclear Weapons?

Slow down on the we need to panic soon or we are even too late for panic. The IPCC estimates through to the year 2100 do not show unmanageable changes. We can adapt to the temperature and sea level changes expected. More over, that is based on today's technology. We are talking nearly a hundred years in the future. 100 years ago cars, planes, refrigerators, spaces ships and nuclear weapons were all yet to be discovered or known to the public. Problems like putting a man on the moon or travelling the globe in hours seemed insurmountable then. They are done and a matter of course to us today.

Apologies, but with all due respect panic hardly seems called for over a temperature and sea level increase we can handle currently pending on us in a hundred years. Something tells me it'll give the people then with hundred years of advances more if a laugh than a burden.

I think you'd really enjoy the "Ringworld" stuff by Larry Niven, especially the Man-Kzin wars series.

There's a strong emphasis on what you are describing whereby space weaponry by it's very nature is so accurate and long ranged that what we might think of as conventional warfare is not really an option anymore.

e.g. a typical beam weapon could just invisibly cook the enemy crew alive in their own ship from the other side of a solar system.

To the point that the human race had pretty much given up on the idea of warfare entirely before they encounter the Kzinti.


I might argue that with Drones, Lasers, Tesla howitzers and god knows what else we on the verge of inventing we might well hit a similar wall in real life.

i.e. We get so good at doing war that we spoil it for ourselves and make even tactical level conflict pointless. (much like nuclear weapons did at the strategic level)

One can but hope....

He seems to be under the impression that the Royal Family has any significant political power, access to nuclear weapons, or the ability to send thousands of people to their deaths in futile wars against concepts.

Your video, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Nuclear Weapons, 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 220 Badge!

There is a pretty large worldwide anti-nuclear movement out there, particularly in Japan, but it apparently doesn't have much traction in the U.S. In fact in 2013 the UN General Assembly 125 countries issued a joint statement calling the use of nuclear weapons inhuman and for total disarmament.

I think people in the U.S. have kind of forgotten about them since the cold war ended. I don't think anyone seriously believes we'll use them. "Deterrence" is really the only reason we still stockpile them, but it's a ludicrous notion. If someone is crazy enough to intentionally use nukes, they're crazy enough not to care what the repercussions to their own country will be both politically or militarily.

Saddam started the Iran Iraq war, which saw over a million dead, including the most prolific deployment of chemical weapons since WW1.

Saddam followed that up with the Al-Anfal campaign. Read up on it, it's one of the most brutal attempts at genocide in recent history, including chemical weapons, concentration camps, over a hundred thousand deaths and an effort to breed the Kurds out of existence through systematic rape of Kurdish women.

Saddam followed that up with the complete annexation of Kuwait. Effectively removing a UN member state and claiming at as part of his Iraq.

Saddam followed up his forced removal from Kuwait with a retaliatory genocide of Shia Iraqis again topping a hundred thousand dead again.

But yeah, he fortunately lacked the military might to succeed in such ventures for a time. He was bluffing having stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons to keep his neighbours in check. Pity he was removed from power then and we didn't wait till he could make good on his bluff.

I've just been reading up on this a bit and it's sort of interesting. I don't think anyone is doing serious investigative work on this whole thing because I keep reading that these are either just local families who own cattle, or they're corporate entities.

Also the disturbing thing is that apparently these people owe the government a lot of money and they refuse to pay. In order to get out of being harassed they got a lot of Militia friends from other states to come armed and stand with them. So this doesn't seem to me like it's being handled very well at all, and it probably is something to do with local law enforcement not interested in causing trouble on a big local name.

Either way this hasn't become all that clear, and it always annoys me that I have to wait a long time before someone gets to the bottom of these things.

EDIT: I totally forgot to talk about the video which I couldn't get through because this guy is a moron. He cites the Federal Government not caring about a tortoise because we detonated tons of nuclear bombs in the desert. That was before the environment and conservation because a large issue, now it is and it isn't just about tortoises it's about the land as a whole. Land that if we destroy we don't get back for generations.

Also imagine if this became violent...just imagine how quickly helicopters would've destroyed everyone and everything in the desert. You cite that we test nuclear weapons yet you don't think we can take on a bunch of fat useless farmers that have AR-15s?

I can hardly listen to this idiot, I can certainly see how the federal government acted inappropriately (although I think I need more information) it's pretty much a common occurrence. But my god this smug little cunt just pisses me off the way he presents his arguments. I would take great pleasure beating him with a pipe until he drowned in his own blood.

My last thought on this is I hope it doesn't come of like I'm defending the government or their idiocy. If they're idiots which they usually are they don't get what they want. However I can't take stupid attacks on the government when there are so much better ones to be had. I love steak but there's too much of it, too many cows and our environment is being wrecked because of it. Red meat feeds cancer and destroys your health if you have too much of it, take it easy on the red meat. Global Warming is a serious issue, and apparently not one that InfoWars agrees with so as far as I'm concerned they're anti-science and anti-humanity. Fuck them.

Let's ignore the anti-obama trolls here. lantern and thorns don't give a shit about drone strikes and are really only annoyed because it's not a republican president ordering them.

@VoodooV, I'm afraid I can't agree with your analogy either. If there's a guy with his finger on the button of nuclear missile about to blow up LA, then by all means drone strike his ass. That's extraordinary circumstances.

My problem is that these are not extraordinary circumstances. It has become routine. The USA (and let's not pretend it's just Obama) has legitimised assassination, because they can.

It turns out that drones are an incredibly effective tool of killing with zero risk to soldiers. Bad guys dead, good guys home in time for dinner... political win all round!

And right now, the USA has pretty much a monopoly on the whole drone technology thing. But that's not going to last, and short of repeating the hypocrisy of nuclear weapons ("no nukes for you! only WE get nukes!"), in 10-15 years time, everyone who wants one has drones.

So at that point, what's to stop whatever country from drone striking whoever they feel like? After all, we've accepted that assassination is a valid political tool now. It probably always was, but now we're open about it, which makes it a lot harder to decry.

In theory, I guess you could accuse me of employing the slippery slope fallacy, but I don't think I'm extrapolating by much. The technology is simple and available, and the legal barriers are being removed. It's just a question of how widespread it becomes.

I dislike ads like this. I class this in the emotional billy club style of argument and not the informative and persuasive kind.

One side is presenting it's own argument and version of the truth and stating that if they are right, then isn't it obvious that of course they must be right? Boo.

I'm not entirely sold on the pro F-35 counter argument, but the basic statement is that newly developed fighters always show a much higher cost per unit because research costs are so high it takes a long time for production runs to bring cost per unit down.

Truthfully I think both are missing the point, and the future is clearly and unavoidably drones. Whether we like the idea of skies dominated by unmanned aircraft or not is going to become as relevant as whether we like nuclear weapons or not. They both exist and are superior weapons so you either field them or step back and out of the way of the people that DO field them.

It's a more sinister piece of propaganda than that though, at least in that it IS citing true facts. For all the quotes save for those from the newly elected president(which I just haven't searched) there exists written and video evidence of the attributed quotes and none of the leaders quoted would deny them.

The propaganda part is in completely leaving out the reasons for the overthrow of the Shah, who was running a brutal regime of his own over the Iranian people. If the American support for the Shah wasn't enough reason for mistrust of America, there was the American backing of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war that saw hundreds of thousands of Iranians killed in Saddam's war of aggression. That war included some of the most prolific use of chemical weapons in, well, pretty much ever and the use was entirely against the Iranians. The public support for anti-American sentiment didn't come out of a vacuum.

That said, the mistrust cuts both ways and with Iranian leadership promising death to America and Israel for the last couple decades while steadily building up the infrastructure required to build nuclear weapons is legitimately cause for concern too.

Sorry, I think that got long and preachy.

Many years ago, in a millennium gone past, I remember when people first start talking this thing called the internet.

"It's amazing" they said. "There's all kinds of fascinating information on there. People will learn heaps of new stuff"

But there were naysayers. "What about all these people who will tell people how to build nuclear weapons, napalm and explosives?"

And goddamnit, after over 20 years...somebody finally has.

Well done sir!

Actually, since it was you who started the thread, it is you who is being hypocritical.
Israel is the only state in the region with undeclared Nukes.
Israel routinely threatens and attacks it's neighbors or assists in destabilizing neighboring countries (Syria?). Even kidnapping people from foreign countries, and carries out spying on it's only friend (America).
So I send your point back at you. Why create a post about a Jew hating Muslim, when Israel is a country of majority right-wing pro-war anti-muslim Jews, declaring war on neighboring countries and threatening with actual Nuclear weapons (instead of non-existant ones, since Iran has NONE).