Comments by "American Plague" (@American-Plague) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1. @Matthew Morycinski Who's talking about endangering civilization? I thought the video was about A bomb wasn't it?
    1
  2. @Matthew Morycinski The video was about ONE nuclear bomb. Please explain to us all what exactly would deter a criminal or terrorist from using ONE or TWO (as you admitted they could have) nuclear bombs if they were the only ones on Earth with one. I'd like to hear your grand plan.
    1
  3. @Matthew Morycinski I'll infer through your silence that you don't have an answer. So you sit there and call other people stupid for having an answer that you may not like....but it IS an answer meanwhile having no other solution yourself. Who's the fool again?
    1
  4. This is awesome timing! I have a queen Fire Ant (Solenopsis Invicta) that has laid eggs and hatched and I'm waiting on them to become grown ants...I'm starting a colony. I've been waiting all day to get home from work to watch this!
    1
  5. I kind of see what you mean but I don't think things work that way. Turning into some pure energy form. Normally things evolve and I don't see how a species could slowly over the course of millions of years lose your physical form. It would almost have to be a sudden thing as if through some technological transition...which is possible I suppose.
    1
  6. There was a Twilight Zone original series about exactly this (getting flung towards and away from the sun).
    1
  7. 6:25 "This is speculation."
    1
  8.  @Swenthorian  I hear you. I just mean that it seems to me that the average person is becoming dumber and dumber. We shouldn't have to "dumb down" society to let the idiots be able to catch up such as what's being done with the educational system (in America anyway). My guess is this (the dumbing down of things in schools in order to be "fair") is exactly WHY people are continually becoming dumber. In other words, no need to repeat "this is speculation. This is speculation. This is speculation." every paragraph, so that people who are too stupid to even follow along with what's being said, understand that this is speculation.
    1
  9.  @Swenthorian  And as I said: I'm not stating these numbers are exact. "More research needed" is what I believe I said. I also know exactly what IQ means. I find it difficult to believe however that anyone with a high IQ couldn't see the irrationality behind something stupid like flat Earth as IQ stands for Intelligent Quotient. If someone were naturally intelligent then they SHOULD be able to grasp concepts such as perspective....in my opinion...but flattards CAN'T grasp this concept or refuse to. Therefore, it is my belief they have extremely low IQ's.
    1
  10. Is that an original NES Duckhunt gun at 0:20 ?!
    1
  11. "....or rewards passive (and irresponsible) behavior." The American welfare system summed up.
    1
  12. I thought the same thing at first. Then, I stopped and thought "While this sounds reasonable, things in the universe don't always work according to what sounds reasonable and I am no quantum physicist."
    1
  13.  @jordanielmills  What an idiotic thing to say: "...start killing people to save people". Overpopulation IS the problem. How exactly in the hell did you turn that into some futuristic, horror/sci fi, Soylent Green-like movie? Why do we have to kill people to solve the problem? The majority of people having large amounts of children are exactly the ones who shouldn't be: uneducated, poverty stricken (by choice if laziness or not by choice is irrelevant) people. Maybe we could start with contraceptives and education as to why contraceptives just might be a good idea instead of resorting immediately to murder. Don't you think that might be a little more reasonable?
    1
  14.  @ninjaOboy  Why ask questions that don't have any good answer? Immediate gratification isn't always the best solution but delayed gratification is a better answer than doing nothing. Don't you think?
    1
  15.  @jordanielmills  "When you buy dairy, you promote suffering." And this couldn't fall under the category of making foods more efficiently or in a more humane manner or whatever goal it is your trying to reach? Why just jump IMMEDIATELY to the conclusion that we MUST NOT have dairy? That's the thinking of lazy people trying to push their beliefs on others.
    1
  16.  @jordanielmills  You do realize that through the progression of science and technology now they are actually able to create ACTUAL GENETICALLY IDENTICAL MEAT that doesn't really come from a living organism don't you? If we all listened to vegans and believed we "MUST NOT EAT MEAT BECAUSE IT PROMOTES SUFFERING!" we'd never have this. Nobody that I know of is buying animal products strictly based on the need to watch the animals suffer.
    1
  17.  @jordanielmills  Overpopulation IS the problem no matter what distorted view you want to have. If it isn't the problem, then how did people have milk for thousands of years without cows suffering? I mean my dad was raised on a farm. They had ONE dairy cow that provided more milk than his 8 person family + numerous cats and dogs knew what to do with. This cow didn't suffer. Things were like this around the world wherever cl dairy cattle were farmed up until fairly recently when BILLIONS of people populated the Earth. Now...I'm also not saying that it would be easy to define the line between overpopulation and a needed population in order to continue progress. I'm just saying that overpopulation IS the problem in this case.
    1
  18.  @jordanielmills  In other words, I have a question: Dairy cows didn't suffer for thousands of years up until recently. What is it that changed recently that started cows being made to suffer? If your answer is "the dairy industry and their methods" or something along those lines, then what is it that changed recently that made these methods necessary to fill the global hunger for milk?
    1
  19.  @ninjaOboy  Oh ok. I thought you were saying that sarcastically as if that's not a viable option. My bad!
    1
  20.  @jordanielmills  I'm asking you a question though: what has changed recently between the time that dairy cows didn't suffer and now? Why can't you answer? Where did I say "It's ok to exploit animals? Did I not already say that the point where overpopulation is reached would be difficult to determine? Why are you bringing that up as if I didn't already address that? Because I knew that's the next point you'd make: something irrelevant. Irrelevant because what that exact number is doesn't matter. The fact is: we ARE overpopulated and it causes NUMEROUS problems including this one. So you can throw your hands up and surrender to becoming a soy boy (soy milk tastes like shit by the way), but I think there are other options that are better, such as I have suggested.
    1
  21.  @jordanielmills  Furthermore, if you think overpopulation has absolutely nothing to do with it, then you must also think that the world is not overpopulated. The number you must reach to be considered overpopulated is irrelevant to the argument. What is relevant is that over 7 BILLION people and constantly growing is too much and that is what the population is. Do you not think so? You think everything is just fine with that many people?
    1
  22. This reminds me of Rick and Morty when Rick was playing ROY. "Holy shit! This guy's taking Roy off the grid! This guy doesn't have a Social Security Number for Roy!" 😂😂😂
    1
  23. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) even if you are vaccinated there is still a chance you can contract it but your symptoms won't be life threatening.
    1
  24.  @thstroyur  No. The explanation starts off by saying what a "living thing" (OR self) is. The question being answered is not "What is a living thing (OR self)?", the question is "What is consciousness?". In other words "What makes a living thing conscious?".
    1
  25.  @thstroyur  Except for the fact that all living things do NOT possess consciousness which was explained when they were talking about how single celled organisms don't even need to be aware (conscious) to get food. There is a difference between living and being conscious.
    1
  26.  @thstroyur  "Which you can't address (the question of what a living thing is) if you keep to things which by definition already possess consciousness." I then point out that living things are not necessarily conscious. "No duh." you then replied. So you are first saying living things by definition possess consciousness and then say "no duh" as if you knew living things DON'T necessarily possess consciousness. Do you know exactly wtf you are even talking about? Jesus Christ...to think you have the nerve to make some condescending remark to anyone else blows my fucking mind.
    1
  27. @Iron Fist Have you thought about all of the effects and consequences this would have (just asking)? Odds are you would die a long, slow painful or terrifying death by way of starvation, disease or murder. If you were one of the survivors it would by no means be a cake walk to simply step down to a pre industrialization civilization. I THINK there are many factors here that you aren't considering. If you like reading you should read One Second After (and the sequels One Year After and The Final Day if you like the first one). It is a fictional book but does a pretty good job though I think of depicting a scenario where electricity is suddenly "switched off", which would be the first thing to go in a cataclysm that would reduce us to this state.
    1
  28.  @aperson6505  Yeah...I know what you mean. Whether we're a Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 species. I can't remember the name of this classification system either but I believe a Dyson Sphere would make us a Type 2 civilization.
    1
  29.  @aperson6505  Agreed. This is a good example of why I don't see why people are so terrified of a global government/system and talk about it as if it's some Old Testament prophecy that if come to fruition would bring about the Rapture. The most successful nations in history have all fallen and with every single one that fell, technology was lost that wouldn't be recovered either for a very long time or possibly for ever. As long as this continues happening due to "disagreements" on national levels, most likely no superior nation will ever survive long enough to take these constant, smaller steps to reach the end goal. In this case, interplanetary exploration. Look at how many advances have been made in a relatively short period of time when scientists set aside these differences and work with other scientists internationally. CERN is a good example.
    1
  30. 6:20 - 6:25 was a little disturbing to say the least....
    1
  31.  @fieldfrost4220  Sumo?
    1
  32.  @Reze03  Perhaps you'd prefer being dominated by Imperial Japanese or German Nazis?
    1
  33. Always a cry baby no matter what you do. Before America got involved in WWII (by being preemptively attacked I might add. You can't exactly cry about how unfair it was when you have your ass handed to you when you provoked the fight) people were whining because we weren't involved. America gets involved, does something about it, takes care of the problem, and people whine. Boo hoo 😢
    1
  34. You're comical.
    1
  35. I'll admit I need MUCH more knowledge on the subject in order to properly determine the pros and cons of each energy source...however: why would nuclear be so bad if we invested more in making space "travel" cheaper so we could simply send nuclear waste into the sun (as it's already one massive nuclear reactor anyways and the tiny bit we use wouldn't affect it), as opposed to burying it? Nuclear reactors melting down isn't the issue...it's what to do with all the waste.
    1
  36.  @paulmobleyscience  Thanks. At at least my comment didn't sound ridiculous. I think it's the best answer to the problem. Difficult? Yes. Impossible within a reasonable time period? No.
    1
  37.  @squeakyplayzz3847  I hear your point, really I do, but some things were easier said than done: "Stop using tap water NOW. Filter your own water ." In theory, this is great. In practice, 99% of people don't have time to do this while still making ends meet.
    1
  38.  @max_kl  "Reaching the sun is hard"...which is why I said money/time should be used to make it easier/cheaper. "What if a rocket blows up during launch?". What if a meltdown happens, like already happened twice, also spreading nuclear waste across countries ;) ? Which, to repeat, is why I said money/time should be spend studying space "travel" so this is highly unlikely to happen. It doesn't take a giant rocket with new, FEASIBLE technologies. You're speaking as if I said we should start tomorrow, as opposed to what I actually said: spend time and money researching space travel (so these problems you mentioned are not problems) as opposed to "green technology". ;)
    1
  39.  @max_kl  I understand that. That's why I'm saying more study/money should be put into space travel. It's possible to find a different method of propellant than liquid rocket fuel, this way it wouldn't be so expensive. Perhaps a nuclear driven rocket (Idk). The payload and the nuclear waste from the nuclear engine would all be taken care of in one fell swoop. Or perhaps a space elevator (something that's already been suggested) to get the vehicle with payload out of the atmosphere. I understand gravity is still there but perhaps a combination of the 2. Space elevator with a better technology rocket to take over from there.
    1
  40.  @max_kl  The problem with leaving it anywhere on Earth is language barrier...trying to make a warning sign that can be read 10,000 years from now. Try to read a book written in English from only 1,000 years ago. It's almost not even the same language anymore. Now think about how much language will change over 10,000 years. Any language spoken today likely won't exist anymore. And symbols mean different things to different cultures.
    1
  41.  @max_kl  Renewables aren't reliable. You have to store energy to use renewables. This means batteries. This means all kinds of problems: disposing of toxic batteries (on a much higher scale than nuclear waste), mining the Earth for rare minerals needed, etc. Causing far more damage than nuclear does already.
    1
  42.  @max_kl  Also: "impossible with cutting edge of materials" and "not yet existing rocket technology". To repeat the 3rd time: THIS IS WHY TIME/MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT BRINGING SPACE TRAVEL TECHNOLOGY UP. I mean if we're only going by what's CURRENTLY possible with CURRENT technology, we might as well just give up, accept what we currently do and call it a day. Right? What's so difficult to understand that time/money spent studying/researching new technologies will end up creating new technologies? Isn't that exactly how renewable resources came to be in the first place?
    1
  43.  @max_kl  It's like people who buy electric vehicles and honestly think they're helping the environment, all the while charging those batteries from electricity produced by a coal-fired power plant. It doesn't help at all. MORE STUDY TECHNOLOGY NEEDED.
    1
  44.  @max_kl  Your can't load Your car with coal either. What exactly is your point? Right now, you technically ARE loading your car with coal and all the side effects that come with it. You COULD however be loading your car with nuclear power, which is much cleaner, aside from what to do with the waste, which is what's in question here. And why exactly couldn't technology be made that you CAN load your car with uranium? Maybe YOU wouldn't have to do it. It would be built in. Also, cars aren't the only thing using energy. There are also things called HOUSES which require energy. So I don't follow your point?
    1
  45.  @max_kl  I find it a little odd that you don't realize that houses (which are hard-wired to the electrical grid, which means they don't require batteries) also need energy. I simply used electric car owners as an example. I think I'll stop taking your advice.
    1
  46.  @max_kl  "Why would there be a need for disposing of batteries?" Idk. Why IS there a need for disposing of batteries? Why do we keep mining for rare earth elements if batteries are 100% recyclable? Seems like we've have enough already.
    1
  47.  @max_kl  I didn't say they're useless. Learn the comprehend. What I said was "it's like the people who buy electric cares thinking they're helping the environment when they're still powered from coal.". I also didn't say they're the ONLY drain on energy, because they aren't. We also have homes and businesses.
    1
  48.  @max_kl  Why do you continue talking about strictly cars? I thought we'd established houses and buildings also need electricity...without batteries? How to power EVERYTHING while minimally affecting the environment is what we're really talking about right? What to do with nuclear waste, should we choose that route? Stay on subject.
    1
  49.  @max_kl  No..I brought up the cars as an EXAMPLE. I didn't bring up cars as the MAIN POINT. Again: learn comprehension and get back to me.
    1
  50.  @max_kl  "...an option for the future...". Does that not mesh with spending time/money researching space "travel" so that IN THE FUTURE this could be a viable solution? What don't you understand here? Why do you keep retorting as if I said we should do this RIGHT NOW?
    1