Upvote for Galacduck!

My bet is that there's probably quite a lot of life out there. I'd be willing to put money on the possibility of life even within our solar system (Europa maybe?).

But equally, most of it is probably very simple. Evolution is an energy intensive process, and we are lucky that earth has an abundance of energy.

So let's say there 1,000,000 planets with life. It's quite possible that the chances of complex life arising are low, such that there might only be 10,000 planets with anything above single-celled organisms and maybe < 100 with intelligent life. So let's say that all 100 of these civilisations make it to our level of technology and a few maybe even beyond.
They would all probably be ~1000 light years from their next nearest neighbour.

Then there's the issue of timing. They might have evolved and died out a long time ago. It's possible that we will one day get a message from another civilisation that's already gone extinct and the message was sent millennia ago.

Given all that coupled with the incredibly brief period of time we've actually been listening, I'd be far more surprised if we had made contact.

Unless someone invents FTL, then everything changes.

Don't get me wrong, I wish people would eat them. They would make a great replacement for many fish that are extinct or endangered, if they weren't so polluted (a good point you made). There's nothing else wrong with them IMO, they just aren't on the menu for Americans (mostly). They seem like a perfect fish to farm though. I would like to see the McCarp sandwich, but it's not likely.

Oh yeah man, radio hasn't been any kind of positive force for music for decades.

When I first came to NZ, I was really excited to discover they had rock radio stations here! In Ireland, anything not pop was all but extinct. And then I realised they played same songs all the damn time.

For me, I discover almost all my new music through word of mouth, or via Spotify discovery, and occasionally the Sift.

That is the great advance with smartphones/mobile data for me. I can drive around and hear new music or a tailored playlist.

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.

Actually, the new theory is that the dinosaurs may have been 'wiped out' by an asteroid, but they were already far into an extinction event when it happened. This is proven well by the fact that there are not large deposits of bones in the K-P boundary layer. Climatologists and paleontologists are coming to understandings that the climate was changing on the dinosaurs, making most extinct long before the impact. It wasn't a dinotopia one day and wasteland the next.

Oh, and the rest of the first world IS on board with the theory, and most are more than alarmed. We are fairly alone in our stance that it's not our problem, odd since we (the US) created most of this problem. Our position makes us look like the least responsible country in history.

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.

someone tell me: why are these things not yet extinct?

These are the same guys who build the Rally Fighter 4x4 Michael Bay used for the bad guy's cars in TF:Age of Extinction.

Wow...that thing is huge! Hard to even comprehend.

Here some more information, and part of the reason why they arent extinct:

Sunfish live on a diet consisting mainly of jellyfish, but because this diet is nutritionally poor, they consume large amounts to develop and maintain their great bulk. Females of the species can produce more eggs than any other known vertebrate. Adult sunfish are vulnerable to few natural predators, but sea lions, killer whales, and sharks will consume them.

That's insane. How are those not extinct? They're massive, slow, and I can't see how they can defend themselves. Unless they just live far outside predatory areas I'd expect them to just be floating buffets for sharks and such.

A couple of points in no particular order:

1. Fat shaming is akin to a criminal act in North America. Part of the whole 'abdication of personal responsibility' that has evolved over the past few decades. Ironically, it's okay to hate on skinny models for promoting a body type that often induces eating disorders in those trying to achieve it. What's good for one end of the spectrum is apparently not okay at the other...

2. I agree that overeating leading to obesity can be a symptom of other issues. That said, we're in full blown crisis mode. Obesity isn't just about fat... it's about heart disease, diabetes, and other related medical issues. Health care is going to crumble under the weight of it all - no pun intended.

It's a case of 'the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few'. If fat shaming PREVENTS a new generation of obesity, then the price as a society is worth it.

We should provide programs for those struggling with obesity NOW but we need to adopt a tough love approach.

It's part of my larger belief that by protecting stupid people from themselves we virtually guarantee our eventual extinction.

Rant over... and moving on... thx.

Newtboy said it well; ice ages come and go due to numerous factors, but one of the most important factors is how much of the atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide and methane.

Indeed, there have been interglacial periods where the earth was largely void of ice and had the much higher sea levels to match. At one point global temperatures were about as high as is expected to occur in the next century or two.

The difference between then and now is that life and the ecological chemistry of earth had millions of years to adapt before those periods reached their height in most cases. I say in most cases because there have been periods where climate change occurred faster than before and severely disrupted ecological stability or simply caused mass extinctions. Climate change has always happened, but the reason why current climate change is so worrying is because it is happening faster than ever before and because there is a massive amount of data to back it up.

Neils thoughts on the viral video

*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.

It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.

Some comments...

1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.

2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.

3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.

5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.

In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.

Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson

What Neil deGrasse Tyson and some of the other scientists/doctors (myself include) have are saying is that the IDEA of GMO's is a great one. The fact that we can engineer our foods to get the traits we want or add additional beneficial traits is an incredibly useful tool. We've already engineered rice that is able to produce vitamin A, which has been a huge help for places with vitamin A deficiencies and we can engineer potatoes to absorb less fats and oils when we fry them, there is also a professor at SUNY-ESF who is using GMO's to try and save the American Chestnut tree from extinction.

GMing is simply another tool in humanity's struggle to survive. First it was finding which foods were safe to eat, then it was breeding organisms within species to make inbred organisms that had the traits we wanted (think cattle, dogs, cats, corn, banana's; some of these things are more inbred than the Hapsburgs), then we starting creating our own hybrids across different species, and now we have GMO's.

However, what I object to is the current corporate use of GMO's to exploit farmers over patents, and breed for traits that people do necessarily need. NdT I'm sure is not advocating for that, but is advocating for the use of transgenic organisms/GMO's to solve some of the world's most pressing issues.

GMO's are probably the most powerful tool we have to curb world hunger, and mal-nutrition, and it could also be the thing that allows humans to venture beyond the solar system. What the Sift seems to be objecting to, and the rest of the "developed" world is the use of GMO's by greedy corporations who care more about turning a profit than solving world problems (there isn't very much money in feeding the needy and hungry). They are the one's making what appear to me more or less useless and potentially dangerous GMO's. Turn your anger away from GMO's specifically and narrow it to the ill use of GMO's by greedy corporations.

Lastly, the argument that "we don't know what they'll do" is for the most part unfounded, there are a decent amount of studies (find them yourself sorry) which show that GMO's in general won't cause harm (though it really depends on what you're trying to make). The same argument was made about the LHC "We don't know what will happen when we turn it on!" but everyone was fine.

What possom said. They're delicious, with a texture closer to that of pork than that of other fish.

Enjoy them now...in a few more decades, they'll probably be overfished into extinction.