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

  1. Only if they're too stoned or stupid to not watch the video.
    1
  2.  @c2lredstone946  What' this irrational hate for rich people come from?
    1
  3.  @revilorere  We're already doing that.
    1
  4.  @revilorere  Wow, you actually miss reply to someone (I don't remember making ant of the points you're "rebutting" ) and then throw a hissy fit and leave. You do realise that it paint you as an irrational guy that posted ridiculous comments (without anything to back it up) , right?
    1
  5.  @c2lredstone946  Ironic that you accuse me of cherry picking when you're doing exactly the same. Have Kanye West and Kim Kardashian (I know for fact that she at least manage to get a few people to receive Presidential Pardon eg) ever contributed to charity or for any good cause? If yes than they have contributed positively to humanity and the world . "when compared to the majority of rich people." Majority of people? Unless you known most if not all rich people in the world then you don't have the authority or statistics to back this up. I'm willing to bet that the majority of rich people have contributed more to charitable cause than you ever will in your entire lifetime .
    1
  6.  @c2lredstone946  Noted, I would like to remind you again that the amount of resource they consume would still seem minuscule compared to the good they can do with their wealth and power , hence why they are a net positive.
    1
  7.  @mdg140  No it is not.
    1
  8.  @GunkTheUnk  That's bulshit. No projection came to that conclusion .
    1
  9.  @thebob2751  There is also no studies that show any health risk either So anti GMO don't really have anything to pint to. BTW, your example is false. It took only 30 years from the first studies of lung cancer (1920s) to its conclusion that smoking is indeed factor for lung cancer.
    1
  10.  @FAQUERETERMAX  Poison flavour?
    1
  11.  @GunkTheUnk  The good thing is we wouldn't be getting to 13 billion. All the estimates/projection indicates that the Earth's population will plateau at around 12 billion and we won't rise more than that.
    1
  12.  @GunkTheUnk  No, pretty much everyone expected the 7 billionth human to be born in the 21st century even decades in last century ( I remember having such conversation way back then) so it was a surprise to no one . Except of course to the Erclichian/Malthusian believers who think that we would surpass that number even before the end of the 20th century and that the world would be plunged in chaos due to the "population bomb ( a famously debunked idea) . The people who make that projection (that humanity would stabilise at 12 billion) also took into effect China and Africa. The thing is , as the quality of life improves the population growth would taper off. This have been observed in every single country on Earth be it in South East Asia , South America and even the Middle East. China already have population growth curve that is similar to developed nation to the point that the main concern for the Chinese government (The Communist party) is that they will have a huge population drop in the future . Sure your projection of around 20 billion if possible in the worst case scenario where Africa and the rest of developing nation failed to raise their country's human development index ,but worst case scenario isn't exactly realistic or plausible. Anyway our planet is more than capable of supporting 20 billion people (that is still afr from this planet's full carrying capacity). I mean we currently (2018) produced more than enough food to feed 10 billion people, all thanks to conventional farming.
    1
  13. Not sure if you're trolling or stupid.
    1
  14.  @phoenixashes1371  Maybe if you explain to me why you dislike the video without even watching it would explain the rationale(or lack of) of you action.
    1
  15. The only silly one here is you. Humanity are doing considerable damage to the planet (causing extinction even and climate change eg), it's just that blowing up a nuclear weapon in the deepest trenches won't do much in term of global impact.
    1
  16. In what way is this video stupid?
    1
  17. The Tsar Bomba that the Soviets detonated was a severely weakened version of the bomb. The Soviets were worried about the effects of testing a full powered weapon of that magnitude.
    1
  18. Sources ,please?
    1
  19. The force generated is enough to cause tsunamis. At best there will be a wave several cm high.
    1
  20. How productive are agroecology and permaculture compared to conventional farming? I already seeing the potential problems with such methods, especially for urban dweller.
    1
  21. @Arakaneï Ironically that is false. Vertical farming actually have less impact than permaculture and alot more environmentally friendlier. Vertical farming have less impact on on the environment (especially with "green" electricity ) than any other farming methods while being far more productive . It is calculated that vertical farming can literally produce tens or even hundreds of times more output on a single plot of land than conventinal farming (let alone permaculture ) . Furthermore because the "farm" are self contained the need for pesticide , herbicides and other type of "cides" are far lower (can even go to zero if the "farm is properly contained).Because you don't rely on land for nutrients, you can set up you "farm" anywhere on earth with poor soil (desert) , any climate ( tundra eg) or state of land (heavily irradiated toxic landscape). Heck you don't even need to put it on land (in seas or underground) as you don't need the sun at all (LED lighting with GM crops that are optimised for photosynthesis ). We currently do have the tehcnoogy to do all that I wrote in the above paragraph.The only current problem with vertical farming is it is still too expensive and farming on land (be it open field or greenhouse) is a lot cheaper .
    1
  22. They kinda did. Over course nuclear power for energy generation is very good while weaponized nuclear power is kinda bad.
    1
  23. Not really.
    1
  24. Not at 10 km deep beneath the ocean.
    1
  25. Not really. This is actually a response the the very obvious and scientifically inaccurate video by the Riddle youtube channel. This video dispels the missiformaton that Riddle put out.
    1
  26. Not all seas life , only the ones in the close vicinity of the Trench.
    1
  27. Nice joke.
    1
  28. You entire statement is false. Did you not even watch the video before posting?
    1
  29. Not all ocean, just the part where the detonated the bomb.
    1
  30. Dumbest comment i've read today. Climate scientist would agree with everything in this video.
    1
  31.  @danglenut1729  WTF is an extrmos ? .Unlike the acidification of the ocean (due to rising carbon level, a side effect of climate change) ) or the microplastic problem which affect all the oceans in the world, detonating a nuke in the Trench won't have much of an impact beyond the surrounding area of the Trench.
    1
  32.  @danglenut1729  Prepare me for the answer, then . WTF is extrmos ?
    1
  33.  @danglenut1729  Again: WTF is extrmos ?
    1
  34.  @danglenut1729  There is literally no page for "extrmos " on Wikipedia , you troll . Again: WTF is extrmos ?
    1
  35.  @danglenut1729  In other words it is just a term that you made up and then you expect everyone else to be familiar with it. Again: WTF is extrmos and how do it fit in the context that you used in this thread?
    1
  36.  @danglenut1729  Still trolling , I see. Again: WTF is extrmos and how do it fit in the context that you used in this thread?
    1
  37. Nuclear fallout tainted rain=/= acid rains.
    1
  38.  @erejnion  That's more subjective rather than an objective fact.
    1
  39. In what way?
    1
  40. Sources please.
    1
  41. The only organic that is worth buying is organic , non-GMO table salt.
    1
  42. Fusion bombs are still rightfully nuclear bombs.
    1
  43. Yes, this video debunked the horrid science in that Riddle video.
    1
  44. "What If You Detonated a Nuclear Bomb In The Marianas Trench? (Science not Fantasy) " is the title . Does that read as Deutsch to you?
    1
  45. Instead we got some great animation and scientific explanation on why nothing will happen.
    1
  46. More like debunking ridddl's stupid and baseless claims.
    1
  47. Not when they're 10 KM underwater.
    1
  48. Only the ones close to the trench . Everywhere else would be fine.
    1
  49.  @DamianQualshy  Did you read that on XKCD ? That was where I first read about it.
    1
  50. I guess you didn't watch the video at all before posting your comment , huh? More like a complete debunk of the erroneously incorrect science used by the Ridlle's imbecilic clickbait and misinformation .
    1