Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell" channel.

  1. Diego C. People that want more money. UBI works because all work leaves you economically better off. Sure, there's going to be an economic shift where jobs that make people miserable are going to be paid more relative to their relation to other job's wages currently, but I don't think that's a bad thing. All else being equal, shitty jobs should pay more than pleasant ones, and it's mainly exploitation of those who are too desperate to pass them up that is responsible for the current status quo. That will also encourage more of those jobs to be automated, which would also be good. Imagine if all soul-crushing jobs were either well paying or taken by machines. Doesn't that sound nice?
    1
  2. Yup, all non-universal aid programs create areas right above the cutoff point where it's better to make less money than make more and loose the benefits. Making all benefit programs univeral is the only system that doesn't create those problems which discourage and even limit social mobility.
    1
  3. NK is building nukes as a deterrent to US imperialism and is, even by the admission of our own intelligence agencies, a rational actor. They're barbaric to their own people, but not looking to use nukes offensively (even if for no other reason than they know that there is almost certainly a nuclear armed sub waiting to blow them off the map if they ever try such a thing) The tensions between the US, Russia, and China are of concern. Saudi Arabia getting nukes is a concern. The India-Pakistan tension is a BIG concern. North Korea having nukes, while regrettable (and preventable had Bush not distracted the world with the Iraq nonsense), is an incredibly low risk as far as nukes go.
    1
  4. 1-phages 2-(and growing) humans 3-ants
    1
  5. Orion the Sylveon deadliest to humans, yes...which is what humans normally mean by deadliest. However mosquitoes don't regularly kill a large percentage of their ecosystem daily (like bacteriophages), constitute a mass extinction by their very existence (like humans), or have most natural defense mechanisms of species they prey on be evolved primarily to deal with them (like ants) so once we stop looking at things through a human-centric lens, they become much less significant.
    1
  6. That was great. Pretty clear the artist has played the game too, imo
    1
  7. Hopefully not, but that is likely an even bigger risk than the US/Russia/China tensions atm. ....and we're selling nuclear technology to the Saudis who are still arming Al-Quaida with our weapons to help them commit a genocide...
    1
  8. DMD actually, trying to deal with population problems by lifting people off planet is way too energy intensive to be practical at that scale in all likelihood.
    1
  9. you don't nuke cities to destroy androids you nuke the upper atmosphere to create an EMP
    1
  10. Even US intelligence agencies admit that NK is a rational actor and wants nukes as a deterrent against US invasion. They're barbaric to their people, no question, but not going to use a nuke offensively. The US/Russia/China tensions, India and Pakistan conflict, and Saudi Arabia being sold nuclear technology are all big concerns, though.
    1
  11. Jetskee forever? No, but 300-400 would be pretty nice if I got to be in my prime through it...gotta make suicide ok though for those that can't deal with it (not that it being illegal would likely stop me at 500, but you'd have to ask me when I was there)
    1
  12. And when they replace your job with a machine?
    1
  13. tapmy wire there aren't going to be enough jobs in robotic to replace all jobs that will disappear. That's just the reality of it.
    1
  14. Rodger Page that's why it's called UNIVERSAL basic income. If it's conditional, it isn't a UBI by definition.
    1
  15. It's an ugly truth, but I agree that we were always going to use them on each other at least once. "Fortunately" it was when there were only 2 very low yield ones rather than when multiple nations had stockpiles of hydrogen bombs. That said, it's less future leaders I'm worried about not understanding the dangers of nuclear weapons than current ones.
    1
  16. Sad thing is, it would probably not cost much (if any, depending on district) more to provide a halfway decent school lunch if we changed how we went about it and stopped trying to go with dishes that are inherently more pricy to do well and defaulting to just reheat frozen crappy imitations of cheap fast food. Even as a kid, would you rather have pizza that tasted like greasy cardboard or a hearty freshly cooked soup? Healthy meals can be cheap and tasty if you're not trying to also fit them into a pre-determined idea of what they are supposed to look like.
    1
  17.  @gaffarkabal6148  basically any meats cured by things like salting, smoking, adding preservative chemicals like nitrates, or (more rarely) fermentation. Bacon and ham are processed meats, as is any sausage, but (most) other pork isn't. Jerky is, but a steak of beef isn't (and ground beef is probably not) Some of these methods are more modern, while others are quite ancient (and will probably be easier or rougher on your system depending on method and degree). If the meat is simply cut/ground and sold fresh/frozen/cooked, it's not processed. Everything else would be processed.
    1
  18. There are fish that are better or worse in terms of enviromental impact and you can look up sustainably comparisons pretty easily, actually, if you want to be more conscious about avoiding the worst options (or at least treating them like special treats instead of staples) Good news is that, for once, the more sustainable options tend to be the cheaper options as far as fish go, so there is that.
    1
  19. avi12 that's objectively not true and the bones of the dead prove it. Diet and disease caused far more degenerative damage to their bodies than our environment does to ours, and their world was not free of toxic things either. From the use of lead to guilding (which worked by creating a mercury-gold amalgam and then burning the mercury off in a forge). People have been creating toxic environments through industry for ages, and modern medicine and understanding of health has us much better off than those of centuries prior. Just because we have new problems they didn't doesn't mean we're worse off
    1
  20. The reason why the US nuked Japan was to scare the USSR by proving that they can and would. That's the ugly truth. The even uglier truth: Seeing the horrors of a fission bomb used on an actual city with real people instead of some test cite in a desert, and having to face that humans were capable of doing so (and even after they had already seen the effects) is probably what has thus far stopped humans from using hydrogen bombs on each other.
    1
  21. The video didn't show otherwise
    1
  22. Not only that, but not all of the USSR's old weapons are accounted for today.
    1
  23. Ang badang that does NOT have a good track record so far
    1
  24.  @Jeanmat  and what is a lot of that CO2 being used to create? Disposable consumer goods for Americans? Yeah
    1