We live in the future. *promote

@dannym3141
well said mate,and i agree that @radx is the man who can best explain this situation,though @RedSky is quite adept as well.

@bobknight33
don't let those fearmongers get to you man.
the deficit hawks use household analogies to make their point and this is not only a fear tactic but a disingenuous one at that,or just plain dishonest.

how you and i run our households is NOTHING like how a government runs finances.yet that is the comparative example they use over and over and over.so it is no surprise that many people may be a tad freaked out when they look at those massive numbers.

if we compare republican vs democrat over the past few decades,democrats have proven to be the better pick in regards to fiscal responsibility.

we live in bizzarro universe where rhetoric has the exact opposite outcome when applied to reality.

what i would really like to know,and not ONE candidate will even mention it:military spending.

the budget keeps going up.
by some estimates the military counts for 25% of all tax revenue but when you factor in ALL military/defense/intelligence it is closer to 50%.

YET....

soldiers benefits keep decreasing.
their health care harder and harder to obtain.(never mind the mental health care of our soldiers,which is criminal).
soldier suicide is at an all time high in over a century.
homelessness of our veterans is an embarrassment.

yet the military budget keeps getting higher and not one politician will even dare breath a word.even sanders record is not exactly stellar in this regard.

maybe if our political class stopped engaging in the practice of empire,we could re-invest in our own country.

Yay! I've been telling people for years we lived through a really unique period in music history with game soundtracks. We're kind of in the twilight of that now, but it brought us a lot of really oddball and interesting experimental music and new genre's (ish) along the way.

You know how sometimes you come across something amazing that everyone else already knows about? Well for me, today was one of those times.

We live in a world in which the USA can challenge Japan to a GIANT ROBOT DUEL.

When I was in highschool there were some ~85 foot cliffs up the freeway from where we lived. We'd jump off those every summer, but no one figured it was dangerous. It was just the highest place we could find.
I don't know if we'd have jumped off a 200 foot cliff if we found one.

It's humbling to think we live in such amazing times, all we have to do is put on a pair of glasses and every day will be like seeing the world again for the first time.

What messed up sewer moral decay we live in today.

I do not "BLAME the poor,black and Latino "persons. I blame their actions or lack thereof.

I am not here to defend cops. They have a shitty job today and can't really trust anyone. They serve and protect us they have to protect themselves.

We live in a "police state" today because people are assholes thinking that they have the right to moth off at cops and each other with out consequences.

This is the world that we live in because all want to do out own thing and are being told that you have the right to do so.


You reap what you sow.

As I said, assuming reality is real is an assumption we all must make to be sane....it is an ASSUMPTION, but a necessary one without which we live in a fluid fantasy. That is rational enough for me, as the alternative means everything is fantasy and meaningless anyway, so being mistaken about it would mean nothing...to no one, leaving 'belief' in reality the only rational choice.
I see your world view as rigid because it's based in a rigid, unchanging document, while mine is based on examination and re-examination of 'reality'.
No, I don't believe in absolute "truth". I believe in :

RULE#5-"TRUTH" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person. You don't need to know the 'TRUTH" in order to not lie.

I get that it's confusing for me to say -'there are absolutely no absolutes', but there you go, I said it. Kind of like how I'm intolerant of intolerance. ;-)
I take the position...'I don't know, but it seems most likely by far that.....'...about everything. Being a scientist means you never 'know' anything for certain...as that denies you the ability to change your position when you're 'knowledge' is shown to be incorrect. Certitude is for theology, not science.
Only 'he' knows what 'proof' would be, and he has not shown it. I don't know how many times I must repeat that. Beauty is not proof, awe is not proof, mystery is not proof, words are not proof, other people's belief is not proof. Only proof is proof, and I'm waiting, but not holding my breath. Ball's in 'his' invisible court.
Yes, I am open to knowing the 'truth' (if you must put it that way), and I am also open to accepting I have been wrong, but only if I'm convinced, not just because someone said so.
If we are created for good works, something went terribly wrong somewhere. ;-)

Not all dogs are poodles...
Just because all dreams are in your head does not mean every thought is a dream, and even if that were true (it's not) you don't live in your head, you live in the real world. That we live in a dream is ridiculous and plain wrong, IMO.
I will admit I never liked Chopra or his ideas. He always seems to misstate facts at the beginning of his hypothesis, then builds on that mistake.

I would like to see those links, but they do not link correctly.

New scientist

Wired

Found them. What struck me as most relevant about either of the articles is from the Wired article that basically says, in the penultimate paragraph, that this finding doesn't necessarily mean anything because 1) there may be physical laws or phenomena that we do not yet understand governing the behaviour and 2) we know how a lattice works in our computer simulations - we do not know how a lattice might work if one were to physically exist, why should it act like anything we know?

However, it is a real possibility.

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

If you watched the entire Morgan Freeman-Through the wormhole episode, you would have seen that simply spending 1 on 1 time with those of other races/tribes can erase much of the subconscious racism and make them seem like one of 'your' tribe. He did not say we MUST be racist/bigoted (he did say that we ARE whether we know it or not) or that it's still a survival mechanism, it has not been since we lived in isolated tribal groups.
Removing that obstacle to civilized behavior does NOTHING to stop, or hinder evolution, it might even accelerate it (by fostering better gene mixing)...the medical system takes care of hindering evolution for humans quite well by removing 'survival of the fittest' from the equation.

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 think some here are missing the point of this short video.
while we can all argue the particulars of religion,it's failings and its successes,the fundamental reasons for its existence remains.

the militant atheist will argue holy text with the very same literalism that a fundamentalist exhibits,all the while ignoring the massive contributions to humanity in the realms of:art,philosophy,politics and even science.

while this dynamic of the argument is not necessarily wrong,it is,however,inaccurate.one cannot ignore,nor dismiss the positive contributions of religions,which have been legion.this does not mean that religion is above reproach nor criticism,just that a militants argument is incomplete without acknowledging this vital facet of human history.

the problem gentlemen,is fundamentalism,of ANY flavor.
religion is not going anywhere,much to the chagrin of atheists,but the reasons why humanity gravitates towards religion,or a search for the divine and sacred,remain a very powerful influence.

religion must,and has over the centuries,evolve to incorporate the paradigms that are added daily.the religion that is rigid in its interpretations and implaccable in its philosophy...dies.human history is littered with the remains of lost religions that refused to evolve with humanity.

a good example is the dark ages.which was partially perpetrated by a rigid understanding of christian theology (and an abuse of power and authority)affecting millions.it halted human progress and imposed a suffering and misery that is still remembered to this day.then the church experienced a philisophical shift and the reformation was exacted,ending the dark ages and introducing the 'age of enlightenment"...and human progress was allowed to proceed.

interestingly enough,while this was all happening in europe and human misery was a direct result of religious rigidity,the muslims were carrying the torch for human progress.making such additions as algebra and other huge strides in the sciences.

how is that for irony?

fundamentalism,in any form,must be fought at every level.so on that note i tend to side with atheists who are on a constant vigil in revealing the utter hypocrisy of a fundamentalist theosophy,but i will not ignore the wonderful and fantastic contributions that religion has added to human history.

because the fundamental reason why humanity gravitates toward religion is still there and it is not going anywhere.so religion,like man,must evolve to encompass the new paradigm in order to express our humanity,inspiration and awe in the face of the divine.

i am not an overly religious man.
that form of theosophy is not my path,but i recognize the importance of religion and its positive contributions.the challenge is to allow the more archaic and atrophied theosophy to fall away and dissolve like a vestigal limb.keep the parts that inspire and exalt humanity and allow the unnecessary and irrelevant to die with dignity,to become a footnote in our history.

which is what i gathered this video was attempting to convey and why i found it interesting.

@shinyblurry
thanks for the link buddy,now i am depressed.

@bobknight33
please do not take offense when i say:your last comment is so riddled with contradictions,fallacies and outright ignorance in the understandings of -religious history,politics and philosophy that i cannot even begin to address a singular point.that comment is just one big mess.

i will say this in regards to your comment.
to assert that atheists have no moral compass due to their lack of faith and/or religion is just patently bullshit.unless of course,you secretly wish to murder,steal and bang your neighbors wife and the ONLY thing keeping you from acting out is your fear of god.
or hell..whatever..judgement.

do you see what a facile and inept argument that is? morality is inherent to each individual.we all develop our own moral code.now religion can help clarify that moral code,but if you take religion away? we still will all have a moral code we live by.

we also rationalize.
ah..now there is something we humans excel at..rationalizing.or better put:lying to ourselves in order to justify poor behavior.here is where the atheist and the religious diverge.because the atheist has no holy text to twist and manipulate in order to justify that poor behavior,they have to own it and take responsibility.the religious person,however,can abdicate responsibility onto an ancient text based solely on their own interpretation (or some authority they have given power).human history is burdened with the mass graves of such justifications.

ok..i am rambling.
i love this subject and rarely get to engage in discussions such as this.if you have made it this far..i thank you for your kind patience with my own proclivities towards verbosity.