Paragraphs please. I can barely find the next line down. I'm old ya know. I can't hold my breath that long.

This is all I see:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Karl Popper from The Open Society and Its Enemies [1945]


I will not tolerate this.

Go back to your desk and bring it back when you're done and then I'll read it.

The expression on that cat's face at the end is like "Who the hell are you people? Are you from the future? You are! Tell me, oh temporal traveler, how fares a century of unbroken peace and human cooperation and kindness. . . ?
Really?
Shit, thank Christ I die in 1913!"

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed. - Mahatma Gandhi

Since she says her flyers are from God, I thought it fitting to leave this here...

In the Summa Theologiae, Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas said Greed: "it is a sin directly against one's neighbor, since one man cannot over-abound in external riches, without another man lacking them... it is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, inasmuch as man contemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things."

Hmm. I don't like the temporal setting, pre-TOS. As forward-thinking as TOS was for the 60s, bridge officers and brass clearly tended to be male. Now, pre-TOS, we've got a female Captain and 1st Officer on the same ship. Plus, Enterprise already tried the whole prequel thing and was generally not as warmly received as the other series.

Don't like the look of the Klingons. The whole Levodian flu thing was clearly a retcon to distinguish them from humans beyond bushy eyebrows and bronze makeup, but it was a definite improvement and set the standard going forward. Why mess with that?

The bit about "never being able to learn Vulcan" (language) made me jump to the conclusion that Sonequa Martin-Green's character was going to be a young Uhura. Guess that is wrong. She's looking foxy as hell though -- probably the best thing about the trailer in my opinion!

I guess I agree with a lot here that seem to have some doubts about this. Willing and hopeful to be proven wrong though!

That's all just plain silly when looked at rationally. It all (and I do mean ALL) seems like idiotic rationalization to gloss over all the physical, temporal, and theological impossibilities...if it makes no sense....God....if it's totally irrational....God.....if it's contradictory.....God. for rational people, that is no answer at all, it's what those that have no answer say to pretend they know something they clearly don't.

Again, the infinite room fallacy (a fallacy because infinite rooms is an impossibility) is about space, not time. Having room in hell doesn't make it possible to spend eternity X untold billions in one long weekend.
Besides, how does visiting a place from Greek mythology work for a religion that denies the validity of Greek religion?
So many contradictions and impossibilities, the explanation "because God can do it" falls pretty damn flat. He should have been able to come up with MUCH better if he's so all powerful. You would think the all important truth would be inconcealable and there would be no question about it's validity, only those who willingly choose to not go along. Pretty damn shitty of him to make the most, only important truth in life so easily dismissed, obfuscated, denied, contradicted, etc. So thoroughly that it's not possible to know and just must be believed. He sucks.

Hmm... Never seen light move that slowly as it bounces off objects. Do clouds possess some type of magic, other-worldly temporal physics in the reality in which your crazy, tinfoil-hat-wearing brain resides?

Curious minds want to know!

Anyone notice that some conclusions of the basic premise were drawn from the behavior of rats? It's kind of interesting how we all just kind of nod and smile when a scientist or psychologist draws conclusions about us from rodents. The reason that the rat is happy in rat happy land is because that is all the reason the rat is here; to be a rat. If a rat is getting his senses stimulated, physically and socially, he is going to be happy because there is nothing more to his life. There is more to our lives than having our senses stimulated by physical pleasures and social interactions.

We, unlike rats or any other animals, were created to have a relationship with our Creator. Existence in the material world will never fully satisfy anyone, because our hearts are longing for eternal, and not temporal satisfaction, which only God can give us. Our happiness on Earth is largely dependent on our conditions, and if our conditions are bad, happiness and peace are fleeting. Real life with God brings a lasting satisfaction and peace which transcends every circumstance of life, and a living hope which buoys the spirit and brings unending joy.

I agree with the idea of the cage, and that cage is the prison of sin. it has nothing to do with social connections, or lack thereof. Some of the most famous people on Earth, who have the whole world as their oyster, are addicted to drugs, depressed, disillusioned, and grasping for meaning in their lives. Sin is a spiritual prison which brings only death and destruction. In this life you reap what you sow, and the wages of sin is death. A seed thrown into dry ground, cracking under the noon-day sun, is not going to bear any fruit. So it is when people go into the desert of sin looking for paradise; the illusion will occasionally be dispelled by a mouthful of sand, but like a rat they keep going back to the trap.

There is a way out, because although we cannot pay for our own sins and escape the trap, the Lord Jesus Christ took the punishment for our sins so that we could be set free. On the cross, He paid the price for our sins, yours and mine; when we begin to trust Him as our Lord and Savior, He will give us a new life, and a new heart with new desires to turn away from sin and live according to His will. We are set free from the bondage, not only of addiction, but sin and death. He heals our deepest wounds and comforts us, he heals deep seated habits, depression and mental illness.

When you open the cage of sin and let the Lord in, this scripture begins to operate: 2Cor3:17 Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty

@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.

I don't think i've done a very good job of explaining my point, because:
1) I do not believe in the god of the gaps in any sense, i reject the notion.
2) I didn't ask for a "reason"; this is a subtle point that i'll try to make clearer.
3) I don't hold any "supernatural" beliefs in the sense you mean - not a single one.
4) I believe firmly in things that i can prove to myself, and am uncertain about things that i cannot supply any proof or reason for.

Why are we here? When i ask that question, i am not asking for a reason for our existence; a goal that humanity collectively must achieve. I am asking why do we find ourselves and our reality as we find it? We use science to describe it and become nonplussed by these amazing things but fundamentally, what is charge? Why do opposites attract? Why does mass attract mass, etc.? Isn't it all a bit weird and wonderful?

There is no answer to that question in physics. To use the term "supernatural" to describe a discussion of why/how (which lies beyond the jurisdiction of physics) is either naive or derogatory because the term is philosophy.

You reject the notion that you could go from not existing to existing, finding yourself in a world of things you don't understand. Yet you seem to find it unremarkable that at one point you went from not existing to existing, finding yourself in a world of things you didn't understand. If i put you in a fully immersive Skyrim game, unconscious and without memory, you'd play that game and think it was real. You may even believe that, once you died, you'd cease to exist. But one day, you die in Skyrim and everything ceases to be, before you're transported to a world of things you don't understand. Yet there were no mechanisms within the Skyrim universe to allow for that! In other words, what about things that exist or take place outside of our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions, or perhaps beyond even our understanding of dimensions?

"There has to be a mechanism" is idle speculation on your part, and demonstrates your closedness to anything that might exist beyond our perspective of 3 dimensional space (which might be behind the "why?" and god of the gaps misunderstanding) - for which there is evidence and on which there is active and significant research. Besides, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not the god of the gaps, this is acknowledging our limitations and constraining our certainty accordingly.

It's odd that you quote Sagan, because he often spoke about the spiritual and the unknowable/ineffable. I think he would be more aligned with my assessment than yours, as he was an agnostic and rejected the label atheist.

Possibly we continue to exist, perhaps we don't. Perhaps 'exist' and 'not exist' are human concepts that don't mean anything in the bigger picture, and the parts of us that exist outside of 3 dimensions bathe forever in rivers of custard (or something really weird that can't be explained in english). Nobody knows and no guess is less likely or less educated, in my opinion, which is based on my lack of certainty and absolute bewilderment that we did the not-exist->exist cycle in the first place - but i welcome any argument or evidence you can provide counter to this, and my mind is open to them.

How about when the mountain faces a colliding super mass of entangled and engulfed galaxies, twisting and tearing apart the very fabrics of its reality in several 100 million years.

See, you don't actually CARE about the mountain, you care about temporal genetic existence around that mountain. You're talking about a biosphere which thrives and will one leave this earth; leaving this earth to the inevitable and utter destruction of this mountain and every mountain in this galaxy.

Save the mountain? It's topography. It's not actually a thing as your human mind has convinced itself it is.

But from a practical perspective, considering my life and the life of my kin, the spirit of saving a mountain from evil humans appeals and is in my best interest. It just doesn't make sense from an ULTIMATE, universal perspective.

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.

I wouldn't keep beating this horse bloody if yours hadn't died HUNDREDS of years prior.

We're NOT talking about philosophy. This is NOT a perspective based on convictions alone. We are talking about TEST-ABLE SCI-ENCE...

This is the world (universe, perhaps multiverse) which engineers towards space discovery, sustainability of planetary bodies and their varied biology, geology, chemistry, and all of the sciences explainable through the holiest of holy languages -- MATHEMATICS -- based on innovation and implementation through repeatable testing.

Your beliefs do NOT contribute to that, though they do contribute elsewhere -- the realms of philosophy and mythology. I guess we call that religion. But not science.

In this life, we are concerned with temporal discovery and how to engineer with such discoveries. We're not concerned about the afterlife in THIS life. We are concerned with science, especially because it has a track record of proven results which we all benefit from.

It doesn't matter what you believe or once believed, there is a rigorous process for scientific knowledge; including a peer review process. All humans have emotional pain, but that shouldn't hold us back in the dark ages before reason.

...And the United Negro College League still calls themselves 'Negro'...I guess the progressives haven't told them what is politically incorrect yet, or perhaps they were created in a culture where that label was considered non-offensive by those in control and the new leadership of today has decided that, even though it's offensive to most people today, re-branding an otherwise positive organization in the name of minimizing temporal offensiveness could do more harm than good, but they may still realize their name is uncomfortable for many and an issue.
..or perhaps this sub set of natives is not offended by 'redskin'...it's far more offensive to believe all natives must think alike than it is to call them 'redskin' IMO.

My argument is sound, logically, and if it were unsound it would be very easy to point out what the flaw is. I'll elaborate further:

Occams razors states that the theory with the least number of assumptions balanced against its explanatory power should be preferred to an argument with more assumptions and less explanatory power. The question is how do we explain the apparent fine-tuning in the Universe, a "goldilocks zone" for life. Scientists propose the multiverse theory which explains the favorable conditions as just being lucky, in that there are innumerable Universes and we just happen to be in the one that is very favorable for life. The problem with the theory is manifold; one, that is no observable evidence for the theory, and no way to test the theory. Two, it raises more questions than it answers because the mechanism that generates all of the Universes is even more finely tuned than the Universe itself, how did it get there, etc. It simply pushes back the problem another step. Eventually you must get to the point where a miracle occurs..ie, something came from nothing, or an eternal something which is infinitely fine tuned. According to Occams razor, the theory of an eternal Creator of the Universe should be preferred over *multiple* unobserved universes, that the fine tuning we observe isn't just apparent, but actual.

When you ask, why did God not do it "sooner", you do realize that you are making a temporal reference point? The bible says God "began" to do something because we are temporal beings and we think in terms of beginnings and endings, but we have no idea what that looks like in eternity. If your problem is simply with something being eternal, then maybe you haven't thought about the consequences of there not being anything eternal. You have to ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing? You are facing two absurdities in this case; either an infinite regress of causes, or something coming from nothing. There has to be something eternal otherwise you are left with positing logically impossible outcomes. So, if there is something eternal, and whatever it is must be infinitely fine-tuned, and it ultimately created this Universe, you might as well call it God because it already possesses many of His attributes. Whichever way you turn, you are facing the Almighty.

The bible tells us why God didn't need to create light first:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

You should ask yourself, why do you object to the possibility of a Creator? Are your arguments just excuses to cover up the plain facts that have already been revealed to you by God, and the expression of your desire not to be accountable to Him? Something to think about..