Exactly. I see a phrase all the time:

'If there are aliens in our galaxy, why haven't we detected evidence of them?'

Perhaps because they are so different from what we even recognize as life that we don't even know what we are looking for. Perhaps the use of radio waves to communicate is something they haven't done in so long, that using it to send a message in space is unfathomable. Or perhaps they never even used that technology in the first place. It's possible that their own physiology would make such technology pointless.

The point is, we're looking for them in very human ways and expecting something very human to come back. Perhaps a civilization at a stage similar to ours out there is asking the same question and using a technology to search that we ourselves have no understanding of. They could be our galactic neighbors and our differing biologies and technology could be so different, that wouldn't even recognize each other as life.

On the flip side of that coin, I once had a UFO experience that was anything but 'lights in the night sky' and the object did things our planes couldn't hope to do. So who knows, maybe they are already here.

You mean apart from the explanation that the speed required to run a marathon is close to a flat-out sprint for most people, and that the maximum speed that you can sustain over two hours depends on the three factors that they explained in the video? It was discussed around 2:10 in the vid.

The handful of people have physiology that gives them unusually high oxygen uptake, lactate thresholds, and running efficiency.

It's slightly clickbaity because Nike... and despite serious cheating their attempt on the sub-2 hour marathon to sell shoes failed by 26 seconds.

p.s. The Grauniad had an article on what the rest of us can learn from these elite runners https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/06/secrets-two-hour-marathon-men-alter-running

Idiot narrator/narration. The gases discharged there are dominantly sulfur dioxide - not hydrogen sulfide. There is a difference - and each has a different physiologic impact on human health. Clearly these people are being impacted by the sulfur dioxide...
These so-called science videos should really try harder to get their science correct.

Is there someone better educated on the physiological and psychological science of this that can explain why gender transition at that age is not child abuse?

Because from everything I understand about how complicated and frequently fraught with remorse and confusion that issue is for adults....how in the name of fuck can someone that young be mature enough to make that kind of life changing decision? (or indeed have it made for them)

Gender dysphoria is usually only diagnosed in adulthood and usually requires years of psychotherapy and adoption of the desired gender role before any respectable doctor in the UK would allow the transformative process of hormone therapy to begin. (let alone reassignment surgery)

The suicide rate for transitioned people is about 40% I'm told. This appears to mostly be a combination of depression brought on by using the idea of transition to avoid other underlying emotional problems and/or remorse in later years.

None of this is to say people should not transition. There is plenty of evidence to support many a diagnosis of dysphoria and many a success story. But the thing those happy transitions seem to have in common is a very through and mature understanding of themselves.

i.e. things a child is incapable of doing when their mind and personality are still developing.

IDK, the very idea deeply concerns me. Is she actually happy transitioned? Or has she had that idea re-enforced by her parents and such?

I have this hypothetical vision of them panicking at their little boy playing with dolls and tea sets and finding solace in the idea that they are just the wrong gender, instead of being "odd".

I know how silly that sounds, but especially in the south of the USA, gender transition is sometimes considered more socially acceptable than homosexuality and/or being an effeminate male (or so some people in the trans community tell me).

Am I just behind the times on this one? Seems like there would have to be some pretty fucking spectacular medical science to back it up where children that young are concerned...

No, you've pointed out what you believe were adverse outcomes from slight dehydration. These are anecdotes. You didn't measure your level of dehydration, nor did you control for all the other factors that could have caused your issues.

If it was dehydration causing you to have muscle cramps and loss of consciousness then you probably didn't have "slight dehydration", you most likely had severe dehydration. And as someone has already pointed out, the evidence for muscle cramps caused by dehydration is slim (but that doesn't mean it's not true for you).

Studies don't take into account outliers. They look at large groups of people to generate explanations for human physiological conditions. You might be a one in a billion person and react differently to dehydration than almost everyone else.

What's the difference between a pet pig and a livestock pig though?
They both want blankets and cookies. Or at the very least neither of them wants to stand in a tiny metal and concrete cage and be pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and god knows what else for their short miserable lives. Neither of them want to be bruised because they have only enough room to face one direction their entire lives. Neither of them want their testicles ripped out without anesthetic while they are piglets. Neither of them want to be beaten when they don't eat.

Also, despite what the marketing people say, humans are not omnivores, everything healthwise and physiologically suggests we are somewhere between herbivores and frugivores. It's also backed up historically too by analyzing fossilized poop!

Here is a quite simplified chart, but I think it does a pretty good point of showing how far away we are from typical mammalian omnivores http://www.whale.to/c/10013268_676368449097110_1949968139_n.jpg

I'm not having a go at you, but I just hope you aren't acting according to a few labels that some organisation has set.

That's all I usually ask of meat eaters, is to admit and understand the decision they are making: that they're pleasure is worth the death of a sentient being. And plenty are happy to admit that, and I salute those people. It's those living in a cognitive dissonance fantasy that disturbs me. Again, the great part about being human is our ability to self-reflect and hopefully see ourselves as we truly are.

In response to "my body has been hard-coded to prefer as a food source", if you look at how the body, physiologically, responds to meat vs plants in our diets, you realize very quickly that our bodies were made much more for plants than meat. What we are hard-coded to do is eat shit tons of fats, sweets, and oils. And I don't think you'd argue that those are good for the body despite it being "hard-coded" to want them.

Lastly, the amount of scientific evidence saying that plant-based diets are (far) more healthy than meat-based ones is becoming as voluminous as climate change evidence. The food and pharmaceutical companies are using the same tactics that the tobacco industries used just a few decades ago to cause public confusion when the (not-funded-by-corporations) scientific community was in agreement that tobacco was demonstrably carcinogenic. If you want to make the health/better-for-your-body/don't-fight-nature argument for meat, you better start realizing you're sounding more and more like a climate change denier.

Wow, powerful video. I think this is why certain psychedelics, can (can) help people with addictions or even people with simple obsessions (porno, video games, etc). They have the potential to temporarily exit the cage for self reflection or experience outside of it. Some of the more powerful ones (iboga, ayahuasca) really physiologically reset the afflicted receptor sites - and much much more.

I agree whole-heartily that the way that the US handles drug addiction, mental illness & criminality are completely out of whack. Implying that the direct parallels between those subjects are ignorance (or taboo), incarceration & the lack of clear, precise scientifically proven reformation.

I've got a couple problems with this video and the common response across the internet:

Her story is just a series of anecdotes, not any kind of proof of industry standards.

Being rejected by "the industry" is a meaningless phrase. She was rejected by a couple of agents and customers, not "the industry".

But this is the big one...

Nobody said she was too fat. Nobody! But that is what everyone responds to, an argument that was not made. She was told that her hips are too big, that is not about body mass, that is about physiology. Diet and exercise can keep the fat off your hips, but it can't make them smaller.

What these agents are probably looking for is a more androgynous look. A smaller hip to waist ratio and bust to waist ratio. It's not about BMI at all.

One of our greatest strengths as humans is the physiological ability to adapt to anything, from smells (e.g., any scent including perfumes and garbage dumps) to physical discomfort to the abuse and suffering other living beings, like with this dog or at Terminus (in The Walking Dead) or in Nazi Germany or in human slavery.

One reason the human being is so successful as a species is this ability to overcome great adversity through subconscious hardening and numbness.

Not at all. That is the acceptable physiological response to awesome future.

Incredible that the human brain, which thousands of years ago was concerned with hunting/farming, is the same brain able to function at mach 2 in a rapidly changing technological and physiological environment.

But society tells a man, enshrined in law and tradition, that if he does not want to be forced into wage-slavery for 18 years of an unwanted child's life, he should not have had sex with the girl in the first place. It makes women victims of sex, not equal participants, fully capable and fully responsible. The woman chooses to have, abort, abandon or offer for adoption. The man does not have any choice over that, including if he wants to keep and she does not.

And that double standard stems from the inherent sexist bias that men are the big strong responsible ones, and women need protecting and helping. I keep seeing Emma Watson's face plastered all over facebook with "He For She" gash-tagged. He for she? HE... for SHE? She does not need he, and the campaign ridiculously reinforces the male hyper-responsibility and female hypo-responsibility that has led us to this system which is sexist to both males and females. If anything, we need we, but wee-wee probably isn't a good tag-line.

So why did i bring sexism up? Well, either you can't tell people to act a certain way if they don't want consequences, or you can.... and we as a society do not have a standard to use, because we legally force fathers into wage-slavery at the whim of the mother and tell him exactly that. Is it any surprise men are using the same unfair argument by which they can be and are financially crippled? That's the heart of the debate imo; society raises men to be fully responsible for their actions, but raises women not to be (which as we see is sexist and unfair to both).

Only one thing is certain - equality of the sexes is important for both sexes. Because when society is willing to accept that women can be responsible for themselves, men will not be held responsible for a woman's decision to have a child. And then maybe men will stop using the argument which they must bow to by law.

Pre-emptive edit:
I will never let it be said that the views expressed herein are sexist, nor that i am sexist. I am a huge proponent of the fact that women are gifted with the same cognitive potential as men, and that any physiological differences are irrelevant in the modern world. But equality comes with a price - and that price is real equality. I am not encouraging irresponsible male behaviour... i am stating, loud and proud, as a feminist.. that women should be allowed to be fully responsible for their choices and actions, because i believe them to be fully capable of it.

Although this woman was authentically traumatized by the experience of living outside her box, I kind of feel sorry for her. Sorry she is so close minded to living and learning. Sorry she has been brainwashed to the extent that she can't function beyond her religious upbringing. and I feel bad for all those who have to endure her and her beliefs. Her convictions will go on to traumatize her children, and her children's children, and so many more generations to come.

Her physiologic internal belief system will control her until the day she dies, and she will never see any of it from within her bubble. Such a waste of human potential. She obviously has potential for strong convictions, and deep emotion that, I'm sure, could have been put to use in more productive ways in her life.

I know exactly what he means and have the same thought.. unconditional love for all after having a spiritual 'awakening'. Mine however wasn't born of psychodelic use but rather spiritual pursuits such as meditation during the most stressful time of my life. It was like my mind broke and a new me was born. It utterly changed how I think and feel. If I were religious at the time I'm sure I would have taken it as a sign some god had chosen me and for this reason I don't consider people who 'find god' or are 'born again' to be bat-shit crazy. They've simply had a similar experience.

I never understood exactly what happened to me physiologically to cause such a radical shift in the way I think and feel so I'm glad science is researching this phenomenon. That 'event' happened 20+ years ago but it still affects me every day.