Nuclear annihilation, global warming, environmental destruction . . . with all the threats facing humanity today, it seems like our extinction could be right around the corner. And it might be! It's actually possible to calculate the approximate date of our extinction - thanks to some clever math. This method has predicted the number of tanks Nazi Germany could build, the date of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the approximate run length of a number of plays in the New York area - all with a surprising degree of accuracy. And it can forecast our doom. Enjoy!
(Copy and pastes from my files): Consider the following: * There are 3 basic options for life itself, which reduce down to 2, which reduce down to only 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We die trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. c. We die not trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. * 3 reduced down to 2: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We don't. And note, two out of the three options above, we die. * 2 reduced down to 1: a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. b. We truly don't have any conscious existence throughout all of future eternity. (And note, these two appear to be mutually exclusive. Only one way would be really true.) And then ask yourself the following questions: 1. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents. 2. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped in a cause and effect state of existence? At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. 3. Ask yourself: What does that mean for a solar system that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy? Most probably that solar system would be getting pulled toward the galactic gravitational center. 4. Ask yourself: What does that mean for species that exist on a planet, that exists in a solar system, that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy, in an apparent cause and effect state of existence? Most probably that if those species don't get off of that planet, and out of that solar system, and probably out of that galaxy too, (if it's even actually possible to do for various reasons), then they are all going to die one day from something and go extinct with probably no conscious entities left from that planet to care that they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less whatever they did and or didn't do with their time of existence. 5. Ask yourself: For those who might make it out of this galaxy, (here again, assuming it could actually be done for various reasons), where to go to next, how long to get there, how to safely land, and then, what's next? Hopefully they didn't land in another spiral shaped galaxy or a galaxy that would become spiral shaped one day, otherwise, they would have to galaxy hop through the universe to stay alive, otherwise, they still die one day from something with no conscious entities being left from the original planet to care they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less that they made it out of their own galaxy. They failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity. 6. Ask yourself: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to? Either at least one species truly consciously survives throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous succession of ever evolving species, for life itself to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Our true destiny currently appears to be: 1. We are ALL going to die one day from something. 2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced. 3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place. Currently: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA)
I just applied your method to all of the lifetimes of kindergardeners. It seems they will all die out soon. There _is_ a cool statistical effect here.... and you've butchered it, misapplied it, and just... ick.
Agreed this was stupid. Also a change in mindset and conduct as a society does not = species extinction. This person just wanted to put their belief system somewhere in a conversation that it has no place it. This person is like that friend that somehow turns every discussion you have into a sales pitch for a protein shake by whatever direct sales pyamid scheme shes involved in. 🙄
The most pathetic waste of time and words I've seen since I learned to read, age 4, 68 years ago. A related link of more interest than this lunacy: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
Humans are predictable system, but argument is bad because they are not isolated system (like German production of tanks after strategic bombing :D). That's why capitalist economy is in long terms unpredictable and sustainable growth unrealistic.
By that logic then, on the day after creating the first atomic bombs capable of creating nuclear winter, they should’ve expected it to happen the next day? To me, there are lots of holes in this logic.
It's more of an estimating tool, in logic there's generally an assumption somewhere down the line, it makes problems easier to deal with. In this case: assume that we're average, and then work from that axiom, despite its flaws. And they did fear that the end was constantly around the corner, from a certain perspective humanity won the cold war, because we didnt end up esploding ourselves.
Well yeah. There was a serious concern the first nuke could ignite the atmosphere. Assuming exponential decay of the probability a period ends is reasonable. It's in line with Zipf's law, which is a good predictor of many aspects of reality.
@@HansPeter-qg2vc Many spectra of reality are somewhat predictable, choices humans make are not. Since no one really understands exactly how humans think no one can make an accurate prediction on how we will develop. Maybe in the future, but not now as it’s too random.
yea thats the problem with dumb people attempting to sound intelligent or thinking they are 😂 if your gonna talk like you have 200 iq and have it math out you have to have an actual 200 iq or you just overlook things logically and end up with huge leaps in logic. which will fool morons which is most people 😂 which is why vids like this are so popular. in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
I will apply this maths to my own life. I am 17 years old. Statistically, I’m much more likely to be in the middle of my life than the beginning of end, so my life expectancy must be about 34 years. Except my life expectancy is actually much more than 34 years, because it is influenced by other factors - average human lifespan, country of birth, etc - much more than by sheer probability.
Gott's rule is only useful in the absence of any other, better guess. It's just Bayesian uncertainty applied to something you don't know much about. That's the problem with Bayes theorem: garbage in, garbage out.
This video is based on Gott's rule which doesn't apply when the phenomena in question has an identifiable time scale [1]. Humans are animals. Animal species survive on time scales measured in the millions of years. Anyway, Gott's rule gets you a guess that is speculative at best. It's a terrible, flimsy guess what we use when we don't have any better guesses. It's totally inappropriate to declare this guess "is when humans will go extinct". That's just a gross mischaracterization of the scientific and statistical certainty. 1. arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3538.pdf
By this video's logic, we will never go extinct, since we could assume the Copernican principle at any point in time. If we applied the same logic 1000 years later we would still be considered "somewhere in the middle" according to the Copernican principle
@@IvanTominski That’s only assuming that we grow at the same rate as today, or some other guess that was made recently based on current trends. But in truth we have absolutely no clue whatsoever, humans have never experienced expansion (not just exploration) into space yet and that will almost certainly change how humanity will grow.
Not counting the advancements that could be made to save us. People usually don’t consider that. Humans are getting smarter, making new things. Medical breakthroughs, better technology, etc. and we are inventing stuff faster, I think we’d be able to survive longer.
you cant just 'apply the copernican principle' to whatever you want, there has to be a reason for the assumption of homogeneity, some kind of symmetry respected by the setup of the situation. in the case of german tanks the limited and regular production justifies it, for humanity i really dont see how that is justified as we are in a period of huge flux right now, and nothing in the video goes to justify application of the copernican principle if we do want to name some date as the transition to a new 'modern' humanity, that is precisely a refutation of applying the copernican principle! because it 'just happened', or was it true that one hour after we dropped the A-bomb we were about one hour from extinction, because copernicus ??
This video didn't explain anything. How does knowing what the birthrate is and how much of the population there is tell you anything about extinction? And what kind of a prediction is "somewhere between 5,100 yrs and 7.8 million years?" I can say that bitcoin's price tomorrow is going to be between 0$ and 20,000$ and I'll be less wrong than that prediction
Right? Trying to calculate any form of extinction with math and a handful of principles is complete folly. There are practically billions of factors to account for, the majority of those changes the potential results by factors of hundreds, if not thousands. The video is utter nonsense and might as well not exist. Nothing of value would be lost.
So, let me get this straight: someone estimated the production rate of German tanks in WW2 (that's a measure of quantity per time) and somebody else thought this is somehow related to the question how much longer the human race exists (that's solely a measure of time)? That's like counting migrating birds that fly overhead in the sky in one hour (again, quantity per time) and predicting the life span of aligators from that. Sure, good luck with that theory.
Would not the more appropriate metaphor be if someone predicted the end time of German tanks based on the serial number of German tanks currently produced? I wouldn't put much faith in that prediction.
What I find strange is that even though modern humans are able to rapidly adapt to changing environments(which has led to our huge success as a species) we will most definitely not survive as long as other species of human.
Sounds like a doomsday argument. Edit : oh well, yea that's what it is, I recommand Isaac Arthur video : the doomsday argument if you want to go further on this.
your videos were better before. "let us take a look at the serial number of tanks and calculate how many are produced per month. now let's use the same formula to calculate how many humans will ever exist." there is absolutely no connection.
If we instead use that time Bob made a funny joke as the start of our species... Then it still won't exist millions or billions of years from now. This video is full of logical fallacy. I'm disappointed.
This is quite a stretch. Accurately assessing how many tanks were produced per month has nothing to do with how many tanks WILL ever be produced before stopping. Or as you would say, "tanks going extinct. " ------------------ Top allied brass : 276 tanks per month. Cool. ...But how many will the Germans EVER produce ? Mathematician : Sir, I can't imagine what confusion of ideas could lead to such a question. Brass : whuht ?
Guys... Isn't it obvious that the math behind the predictions is more complicated then how they explained it in the video? It was obviously simplified for the sake of the viewers. Just because you don't know the reasoning behind the predictions doesn't mean they don't make sense. You CAN look it up though. :)
But they are some pretty big flaws the premises of the arguments. I am not denying that they are using sound math, it just seems pretty obvious they are misappliyng it.
"We don't know, so I guess we are probably halfway to human extinction." No offence, but this 'reasoning' is an excellent example of the inherent flaws in your binary Earthling logic. You guys refuse to accept the idea that there are things we know nothing about, not even a probability distribution. Allow me to explain. Most developed alien civilisations know a variant of fuzzy ternary true/false/dunno logic. You might visualise this as a triangle. In the bottom left corner you have True, at the bottom right False, and on the top Dunno - the value of claims you have absolutely no data about, not even probabilities. An example for something near this corner would be the existence of life in some faraway galaxy. This is different from the bottom edge which contains claims with a known position between true and false, like a flip of a fair coin - you Earthlings call this "probability". Of course, just as probabilities, positions in the triangle depend on knowledge - the more you learn, the farther away you get from the Dunno corner. Now, with your binary brains, you are naturally inclined to project this triangle onto the lower edge. A proper way to do so would be to transform points in the triangle to _intervals_ on the bottom edge. The nearer to Dunno the point, the wider the interval. You guys call this Plausibility Theory. But what you can't do is simply project to points on the edge - that would mean inventing probability distributions out of thin air. But your reasoning "We don't know, so I guess we're kinda halfway through human history" does exactly that. Guesses like this might work when you have reasons to assume a certain probability distribution - like the distribution of serial numbers of captured tanks. But I just assuming a distribution without any data to support this assumption would be like using tank serial numbers to guess when WW2 will end, or to guess when the country of Germany will cease to exist. It's like flipping an alien coin whenbyou don't even know how many sides it has, or if some of those show heads, or whether the coin is subjected to gravity. You _just don't know_ the probability, and you can't create information, even information about probabilities, out of nothing.
These are logical fallacies. Lets say it's 1999, and you ran these equations for google employees? it would predict that google will likely be dead and gone before 2005, because "statistically, it's not at the beginning, so it must be more in the middle". Dinosaurs lived between 230 million, and 65 million years ago. That's not an estimate for when that short slice of time dinosaurs where alive for, That's the entire range that they did exist for. So if you look at 220 million years ago, dinosaurs everywhere. and then you ask the question "how long will dinosaurs be alive" and see They've been around 10 million years, and "this is probably the middle", so another 10 million years. Except dinosaurs where around for another 155 million years after that. This is also a problem with bostrom's simulation theory. It's a fallacy.
Just a "minor" point... dinosaurs were a whole order of life, not a single species. It would be still more accurate to think of dinosaurs as theropods (similar body construct as birds) and sauropods (big four-legged critters). Altogether dinosaurs comprised tens of millions of species. Birds are direct descendants so it could be said that dinosaurs are still among us.
@@CarFreeSegnitz I'm not talking about dinosaurs as a concept. I mean specific species. Any given specific species of dinosaur, has a high likelyhood of having been alive for that entire time range. as in the likelyhood that your selection was one of them that was not alive that entire time, is very low. I said "Dinosaurs" as shorthand, for rattling off the exhaustive list of species of dinosaur that did exist for that entire time period, again, because most dinosaurs that we know about did. The point being, This method of dating things is the broken clock method, a broken clock is right twice a day. but if you take any given sample mere moments after it started, this method predicts that it will almost immediately end. 5 seconds after rocket launch, how long will it be launching for? oh, well we're probably in the middle, so about another 5 seconds, therefor, all rockets will explode before getting into space. This is not an accurate measure, It's selection bias.
That's kind of unfair. Since we've gotten nuclear weapons, we've got more peaceful. Coming to terms with our own existential fragility and mortality as a species.
Ikr, it’s also dumb how they say we don’t know so we must be in the middle, if we keep using this logic it’ll just be farther and farther away, and we do have a reason to think we’ll last longer cause we’ve gotten much farther
That is not 100% true, that can change and in one second 10,000 years of war will be done in one day. No one saw Corona either and here we are. Nukes as a deterrent pale in comparison to non-violent deterrents. ua-cam.com/video/bIAF7kBbGKk/v-deo.html
Another Prophet of Disaster Who says the ship is lost Another Prophet of Disaster Leaving you to count the cost Taunting us with Visions Afflicting us with fear Predicting War for millions In the hope that one appears No point asking when it is No point asking who's to go No point asking what's the game No point asking who's to blame 'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die 'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, die with your boots on If you're gonna try, well stick around Gonna cry, just move along If you're gonna die, you're gonna die If you're gonna die, die with your boots on If you're gonna try, well stick around Gonna cry, just move along If you're gonna die, you're gonna die 13 the Beast is Rising The Frenchman did surmise Through earthquakes and starvation The Warlord will arise Terror, Death, Destruction Pour from the Eastern sands But the truth of all predictions Is always in your hands No point asking when it is No point asking who's to go No point asking what's the game No point asking who's to blame 'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die 'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die You're gonna die, die with your boots on If you're gonna try, well stick around Gonna cry, just move along If you're gonna die, you're gonna die You're gonna die, die with your boots on If you're gonna try, well stick around Gonna cry, just move along If you're gonna die, you're gonna die They die with their boots on Yes they die The day, they die with their boots on The day we die, we die, we die, we die, we die No point asking when it is No point asking who's to go No point asking what's the game No point asking who's to blame 'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die 'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die If you're gonna die, die with your boots on If you're gonna try, well stick around Gonna cry, just move along If you're gonna die, you're gonna die If you're gonna die, die with your boots on If you're gonna try, well stick around Gonna cry, just move along If you're gonna die, you're gonna die Die!
While I agree that humans are animals we have faculties which are wholly unprecedented. Fire...no other species ever has formed such a partnership with fire. The wheel, such a simple device but that nature provides no examples. Highly symbolic language flexible enough to express the impossible. We're far from the first species with language but absolutely the first to express mythologies with it. Metacognition: thinking about thinking, so much so that we're on the brink of spawning intelligences greater than our own. Space travel, absolutely the first to likely develop extension of Earth's biosphere off of Earth. Humans have the mechanisms to not only smash species longevity records but even outlive our sun.
wait this argument is idiotic the copperitarian argument says that it is unlikely we are at the start of our existence So like, five minutes after home sapiens sapiens was born (assuming for simplicity's sake that species exist as a distinct thing) the first human would be like "hey we've been hanging out for five minutes. wonder how long we'll survive for" human 2: well it's been five minutes and it's unlikely we're at the start of our existence. So halfway or less? So we'll be alive for five more minutes? time to fap furiously and so on and so forth. the video loosely implies that if we redefine existence to post nuclear bomb time, we have about 70 years left. But what about 35 years after the nuclear bomb was created? Then we would have only 35 years left. But it's been 35 years since. So does that mean every time(x) * 2 our chances of surviving another doubling of our existence goes up? We've been around 200 thousand or so years. So we're likely to exist another 200k. In the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Chris 202,000 AD we would have existed for 400k years and are likely to exist until the year 1MM Then so on and so forth. I don't buy this thinking PS: a more interesting argument which sidesteps the question is to argue that homo sapiens sapiens will go extinct much in the way that neanderthals did - by being bred out of existence by the next apex life form. Or less dramatic - we'll simply evolve into the next organism and homo sapiens sapiens will cease to exist. Whichever. Whatever. We'll all be dead one day. Every species goes extinct.
Yeah... just the coastal ones. If you live away from that, the you just get to deal with the secondary effects. Do you think all of those people migrating and suffering is going to lead to a better life for those not directly affected? You are stupid.
I mean there's this thing called a gun you can turn it on yourself at anytime and do the world a favor by eliminating another mouth to feed if you want. Which I think is your point of view. Until then quit whining I've been nihilistic as hell before.
Good, let the criminal side get out of you, we're all a bunch of animals anyway, we just don't want to admit it but we are. We created systems of belief to hide and conceal parts of ourselves, to play all goody goody but in the end life is a bitch that doesn't care about what happens after death, it just wants to destroy through death, the process of natural evolution is exactly that: survival of the fittest, the strong thrive and the weak are presented with no other option than death, there is no creator or afterlife. If this is life then i want to die, it's good in a way that death is permanent, even life hates itself. There is no heaven, life is hell and hell, there is no other option, like a game of chance.
I think comparison of the estimation of German tanks to the estimation of how many people there will be or how long we will live is pretty flimsy. Presumably the allies had a reasonably significant sample size. The other estimates are really just working from a sample of one
Reminds me of mathematical modeling of epidemics. For the bulk of epidemic, the rate of growth is represented by exponential growth. But end is typically governed by factors not included in the simple, initially dominant model. The Copernican principle is at best just a rough approximation.
Poor analogy. Based on the tanks example we can only predict how many humans are alive now sampling from how many humans we have seen. Has someone predicted how many tanks will Germany ever produce?
Youre loose interpretation of the word "extinction", is not what most of us were expecting this video to cover. Our mind set and societal norms aren't the only thing that seperates us from ancient humans. We aren't born a new as a species every time we redefine acceptable behavior. That's just social conditioning and you could introduce those rules to any person of any time period (withing the modern human range) and they'd adapt as long as it is accepted by the majority. I found your definition of "extinction" to be very misleading. I was expecting you to cover something like us creating the next step in evolution with ai and causing our own extinction. But you seriously are defining it as a change in mind set. Weak ass point. Up until that nonsense, this was pretty damn compelling. Its a shame you had to sprinkle bits and pieces of your belief system into the core of your argument.
Oh, large portions of the world are covered in radioactive waste from past bombs? Oh, the ocean is slowly filling up with garbage? Oh, the human race is going extinct? Meh, I'm just gonna kick back and rela- what's that? The wifi? THE WIFI'S DOWN?! *EVERYBODY PANIC!!*
The german tank production is a fallacious analogy to human species survival. The formula estimated the rate of production based on serial numbers, not the end of production. The end of production was determined by political and physical factors not included in mathematical equation, like Soviets turning on Germans and no longer supplying resources, end of War etc. With humans you don't need special equations to estimate the rate of reprodutcion, because we have it given and measured precisely. So its not the data you are looking for, but you begin with. However similarly here: you don't predict human extinction form maths, you predict it from outside, empirically measured data, like resources, global mean temperature, probability of deadly pandemics. Like this comment if you also see this video premise as fallacious.
Please, governments aren't stupid enough to just annihilate humanity because of some conflict, plus, if a mass military conflict breaks out, global governments might collapse, humanity has become extremly liberal and anti-war, to they point a small conflict can cause massive internal problems
Now today's modern speculation There will be 3 septillon humans ever existing in the year 10000 And timelords will survive until the end of the universe if it keeps on going like that
Regarding environmental destrustion "it's the collective fault of all of us cooperating in a system that it appeared we had no choice but to cooperate as part of...we are where we're at now [abrupt climate disruption] because of millions of people doing the same thing, getting on the treadmill, having 2.5 children...to overcome societal pressure takes a remarkable human being"---Guy McPherson, Emiritus Professor University of Arizona To overcome societal pressure one would have to successfully speak out against the dominant culture and show by example that there is another choice and doing so for a significant amount of time. There is such a group! Since 1943 Freedoms of Speech have been fought and won in the highest courts around the world by Jehovah's Witnesses in order to speak out against systemic problems for one. With the passing of these new laws, dissident movements were created but that wasn't the answer to overcome evil. To counter movements for Freedom and against war, particularly the Vietnam War, a Blue Ocean Strategy (www.blueoceanstrategy.com/tools/four-actions-framework/) mockery became ubiquitously known as Christian fundamentalism i.e. 1. eliminate weekly confession, 2. lower moral consequences, 3. raise consumption, nationalism, 4. create an emotion driven social gospel, etc. However, people like myself, have seen the need to change what they value most in support of an incoming world government i.e. God's Kingdom as detailed in Daniel 2:44 "...it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms." Evidence of this new world government is already on display; it's a reality. After the end of human government "distress will not rise a second time (Nahum 1:9)." "The good news of God's Kingdom must be preached" hence the reason laws regarding freedom were passed "and then the end will come."
Does remind me a lot of the old Greek argument (mentioned by Stephen Hawking in _A Brief History of Time_) that went 'The universe can't be very old, because if it were, we would be more advanced than we are.' As Hawking pointed out, this argument doesn't really hold a lot of water (or ethanol, or any other liquid). *shrug*
The one supposition for eventual human extinction that I've never heard mentioned anywhere (except by me) is simply based on a presumption that the specie - as a whole - has a maximum life span the same as individual people have maximum life spans. At least generally, if not specifically, this ideal assumes that the human specie exists as a single organism and that it will likewise "pass away" the same as single organisms always do. If that weren't the case, and supposing the life span of the entire specie is indefinite, then that ideal conjures up the question of mortality versus immortality. After all, though, since all individual people exist as mere mortals, then the most reasonable guess is that the specie itself is mortal and will die a mortal death. And there is likewise no evidence to suggest that any aspect of biological immorality truly exists in nature in any case. So in other words, if humanity doesn't effectively "commit suicide" first by way of nuclear war, global warming, or some other self-inflicted "mortal wound," then the reasonable assumption to make would be that the specie will simply pass away from "old age," as in dying of natural causes. And presumably, such an extinction event as "death due to old age" would probably happen relatively suddenly. One way it could happen is simply if fertility rates dropped to zero. Fertility rates among humans are known to be rapidly declining anyway on a global scale. So if fertility drops to zero, then any living humans would obviously be the last generation of the specie to exist. Likewise, when you make the comparison, fertility among humans is also an individual characteristic. As babies are born, they grow into maturity (puberty) that peaks somewhere in full adulthood; then where individual fertility declines and will go to zero at some point, such as with "zero sperm count" production in geriatric males. Let's just entertain the assumption that my thoughts here are correct, and that the human specie is destined to pass away from old age at some point: The question to then ask is, "So just how old is our specie anyway?" Are we in our pre-adolescent stage of life? Are we just now into adolescence? Are we at the prime of our physical maturity? Are we middle-aged where our reproductive capabilities are now declining? OR are we in our "geriatric" years of advanced old age? I don't think you could effectively use "math" to come to a good answer for this question the same as with the "tanks" scenario posited in this video. And I suspect there would need to be some other methodology to determine just how old our specie is relative to assuming a maximum life span of the specie. All things considered, though, my personal rough guess is that humanity is indeed living in its twilight, or "golden years," as it were, and that our specie is very much "geriatric" in terms of advanced old age. In terms of assuming a maximum lifespan, my guess is that we could go anytime, but that it's unlikely we will survive another 500 years before simply dying a natural death...
Hello, my name is Noone. I’ve been looking into our current problem from a holistic view and unfortunately the problem is a-lot worse that you think. I’ll give you 2 examples of why and more specifically why by 2035, most countries will be at war and by 2045 the human race will likely be extinct. Also side note, everything I’m about to tell you isn’t new data, this has been reported for over 20 years. Problem 1 - Economics. Currently the average American household has a total expenditure and debt payments that are roughly $1,500 more than what they earn. Forcing Americans into debt by $1,500 a year. The problem lies in the fact that salary increase on average is less than 3% and expenses increase by upwards of 4% each year. Calculating increased debt, increased expenses and the like. The average American will have to work 2 jobs by 2030 just to pay the bills, in fact by 2030 the average American will be going 10k in debt each year just to live with an additional 30k in debt for the past 9 years. By 2035 their total debt will be close to 100k and that’s just to live. Not even taking into account I don’t know buying a house, car or maybe wanting to go on vacation once in a while. In fact if this continues all Americans will be crushed by debt long before the planet kills us, but wait that’s the good stuff because what I’m about to tell you will keep you up at night. Problem 2 - Oxygen & Babies. Studies have found that oxygen levels are dropping year after year. People wonder why but when you take into account that 80% to 90% of the oxygen we breath comes from the oceans then it’s no surprise. Our current fishing habits means the oceans will be out of fish by 2048, the problem is that we’ve current destroyed the eco-system that produced our oxygen. In fact the breathing supply of oxygen on the planet which is mostly provided by diatoms and phytoplankton is being destroyed by toxic algae and other destructive organisms that would normally be kept in check by fish. Now how this affects humans, well for a start human’s sperm, egg and full fetal production is impacted by decreased oxygen supply. In fact by the year 2035 its likely that less than half our species will even be able to reproduce. By 2050 that number will be 0% reproduction in humans. Even if somehow we survived the destruction caused by global warming, well I’m afraid that those who do won’t be able to have children. In fact human reproduction is not the issue, what’s going to happen when the oxygen supply is not enough for us as a species to breath. In fact by my estimates by 2040 the lowered oxygen levels will create a feedback loop leading to the destruction of all life on our planet. Humanity has to change, it has to make a difference and I’ve been working on something. Away to not just shelter from the storm but to stop the storm entirely and no before you ask it won’t involve violence as that will likely escalate the problem out of hand. We can save humanity but it would require dramatically changing how we live our lives.
It may be true that Neanderthalensis and Erectus didn't live that long all things considered but they were less developed than Sapiens and they didn't have the ability to colonize other planets, something we will be able to do in a couple of decades.
What? Neanderthals? Erectus? The hell? The whole theory of human evolution is just a joke. How do you explain that humans have multiple different nations across the planet, to me this spells our process of evolution is simply not evolved from primates but that we have been developing on our own. These so called scientists tried to explain human evolution through mutation, it is not possible for completely different species to mutate into one another, therefore giving birth to other species, the whole Darwinian evolution is nothing but so called mutation, man the human imagination must've been high in these days. And no we will not be able to colonize planets, where did you got that from? Your own dreams? We're incapable of maintaining our own habitat, let alone try to populate foreign worlds. We do nothing but multiply faster than rats, destroy other species through our own religious revenge quest, take a big dump on the whole planet through pollution and resource exploitations. First we'll just have to see if we can survive and make the world a true natural habitat again. Only after that can we consider that we're ready to colonize other planets, until then we are not ready.
I just hope humanity will disappear as soon as possible. Humans shouldn't even exist, to begin with. I'm glad plants have no conscience, because otherwise they would be really disappointed to know that these insignificant humans waste the oxygen they work so hard to produce.
This is a pretty dumb argument. It presupposes that there is some coloration between resource constraints between the production of German tanks during WWII and resources constrains surrounding the production of human beings. There is literally no connection between the two.
We could probably live way longer than that, for billions or even trillions of years we will definitely become multi planetary and get better and better technology, gathering energy from many solar systems or even galaxies, as long as we don’t kill each other
Honestly I feel like we will either kill each other in a war or nuclear fallout. Another possibility is that we start to conquer other planets, but only if we find a way to not start wars.
Trillions of years? Yeah people can definitely escape heat death of the universe... We really show sustainable stability in thriving in perfect conditions... Oh wait...😂
Problem with humans is that most of us think only in our generation, ‘oh ill be dead anyway so idc lemme joke about this and make stupid comments’. If there is a species that thinks in millions of years they will be the most succesfull ones because those dont do something stupid and help the future generation
Anything can happen in our lifetime - but with the advanced technology and science we have now (which will only get better) I think we would be sweet. :)
The fact is that regardless of any of this, we are rapidly approaching a significant crash in our numbers IN THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES via a host of things, not the least of which is reduced food production due to climate change, reduced inexpensive water for growing thanks to us exploiting all our fossil aquifers and climate change, and reduced lands of habitability due to climate change. So you don't need to bring up nukes at all, although they don't help our chances at not crashing for sure. If you have a kid today that is under say the age of 30, chances are he or she will suffer and may even die from all this or the knock-on effects of it such as war. This is why the brightest scientists of our day have moved the so-called Doomsday clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it's ever been to Doomsday. The people who constitute the group that adjust that clock are not trying to get attention; they are being very serious. The fact that most of humanity is not taking this as seriously as they should doesn't bode well for us either.
We don't really have a good idea of how many humans ever existed. For example LIDAR research is blowing away all previously assumed knowledge about the Maya. Turns out there were probably 20-30 times more of those people than was thought. It's also proving major civilization in the Amazon nobody had really suspected before. Going back further in time to earlier humans i would trust population estimates even less.
Of course this is if we choose to stay on Earth if we span out to other planets even if Earth is destroyed we would have other planets with humans so if we die they won’t and one day we will span the galaxy and become impossible to go extinct
Nuclear annihilation, global warming, environmental destruction . . . with all the threats facing humanity today, it seems like our extinction could be right around the corner.
And it might be!
It's actually possible to calculate the approximate date of our extinction - thanks to some clever math. This method has predicted the number of tanks Nazi Germany could build, the date of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the approximate run length of a number of plays in the New York area - all with a surprising degree of accuracy.
And it can forecast our doom.
Enjoy!
(Copy and pastes from my files):
Consider the following:
* There are 3 basic options for life itself, which reduce down to 2, which reduce down to only 1:
a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
b. We die trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
c. We die not trying to truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
* 3 reduced down to 2:
a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
b. We don't. And note, two out of the three options above, we die.
* 2 reduced down to 1:
a. We truly have some sort of actual conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
b. We truly don't have any conscious existence throughout all of future eternity.
(And note, these two appear to be mutually exclusive. Only one way would be really true.)
And then ask yourself the following questions:
1. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies form? The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents.
2. Ask yourself: How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped in a cause and effect state of existence? At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input.
3. Ask yourself: What does that mean for a solar system that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy? Most probably that solar system would be getting pulled toward the galactic gravitational center.
4. Ask yourself: What does that mean for species that exist on a planet, that exists in a solar system, that exists in a spiral shaped galaxy, in an apparent cause and effect state of existence? Most probably that if those species don't get off of that planet, and out of that solar system, and probably out of that galaxy too, (if it's even actually possible to do for various reasons), then they are all going to die one day from something and go extinct with probably no conscious entities left from that planet to care that they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less whatever they did and or didn't do with their time of existence.
5. Ask yourself: For those who might make it out of this galaxy, (here again, assuming it could actually be done for various reasons), where to go to next, how long to get there, how to safely land, and then, what's next? Hopefully they didn't land in another spiral shaped galaxy or a galaxy that would become spiral shaped one day, otherwise, they would have to galaxy hop through the universe to stay alive, otherwise, they still die one day from something with no conscious entities being left from the original planet to care they even ever existed at all in the first place, much less that they made it out of their own galaxy. They failed to consciously survive throughout all of future eternity.
6. Ask yourself: What exactly matters throughout all of future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to?
Either at least one species truly consciously survives throughout all of future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous succession of ever evolving species, for life itself to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things.
Our true destiny currently appears to be:
1. We are ALL going to die one day from something.
2. We are ALL going to forget everything we ever knew and experienced.
3. We are ALL going to be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place.
Currently:
Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA)
Get some real facts.
I just applied your method to all of the lifetimes of kindergardeners. It seems they will all die out soon.
There _is_ a cool statistical effect here.... and you've butchered it, misapplied it, and just... ick.
Personally I think it could be anywhere between less than 1 millisecond from now to the end of the universe
Q
This is a really bad argument, the Copernical principle is good for predictable systems, but humans are anything but, even in large numbers
Agreed this was stupid. Also a change in mindset and conduct as a society does not = species extinction. This person just wanted to put their belief system somewhere in a conversation that it has no place it. This person is like that friend that somehow turns every discussion you have into a sales pitch for a protein shake by whatever direct sales pyamid scheme shes involved in. 🙄
The most pathetic waste of time and words I've seen since I learned to read, age 4, 68 years ago. A related link of more interest than this lunacy: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
Humans are predictable system, but argument is bad because they are not isolated system (like German production of tanks after strategic bombing :D). That's why capitalist economy is in long terms unpredictable and sustainable growth unrealistic.
what is happening
@Bruno Pereira Really? What planet are you on?
theconversation.com/capitalism-is-killing-the-worlds-wildlife-populations-not-humanity-106125
Someone watches this 9,000 years later
Them: Oh shit....
Nature in 2020:Time to cut the human population.
How do you know we will be around in 9000 yrs .? are you ''omniscient'' ???
@@robertsumners931 r/woooosh
@Re Fil
It's called a joke
@Re Fil its called a joke
By that logic then, on the day after creating the first atomic bombs capable of creating nuclear winter, they should’ve expected it to happen the next day? To me, there are lots of holes in this logic.
It's more of an estimating tool, in logic there's generally an assumption somewhere down the line, it makes problems easier to deal with. In this case: assume that we're average, and then work from that axiom, despite its flaws.
And they did fear that the end was constantly around the corner, from a certain perspective humanity won the cold war, because we didnt end up esploding ourselves.
Well yeah. There was a serious concern the first nuke could ignite the atmosphere. Assuming exponential decay of the probability a period ends is reasonable. It's in line with Zipf's law, which is a good predictor of many aspects of reality.
@@HansPeter-qg2vc Many spectra of reality are somewhat predictable, choices humans make are not. Since no one really understands exactly how humans think no one can make an accurate prediction on how we will develop. Maybe in the future, but not now as it’s too random.
yea thats the problem with dumb people attempting to sound intelligent or thinking they are 😂 if your gonna talk like you have 200 iq and have it math out you have to have an actual 200 iq or you just overlook things logically and end up with huge leaps in logic.
which will fool morons which is most people 😂 which is why vids like this are so popular.
in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
So between one and 100 millions years? Nice!
But only with a 95% probability.
John theux lmao I’ll be dead
Harpe your teacher deserves to be fired
@@onixxgaming4640 Or perhaps Harpe should pay attention properly.
@Harpe carbon dioxide*
I will apply this maths to my own life. I am 17 years old. Statistically, I’m much more likely to be in the middle of my life than the beginning of end, so my life expectancy must be about 34 years.
Except my life expectancy is actually much more than 34 years, because it is influenced by other factors - average human lifespan, country of birth, etc - much more than by sheer probability.
Gott's rule is only useful in the absence of any other, better guess. It's just Bayesian uncertainty applied to something you don't know much about. That's the problem with Bayes theorem: garbage in, garbage out.
it would be impossible to take all factors into account to predict the future of humanity
I agree. That doesn’t make it okay to give up and just use the least sensible option to predict the future of humanity.
This video is based on Gott's rule which doesn't apply when the phenomena in question has an identifiable time scale [1]. Humans are animals. Animal species survive on time scales measured in the millions of years. Anyway, Gott's rule gets you a guess that is speculative at best. It's a terrible, flimsy guess what we use when we don't have any better guesses. It's totally inappropriate to declare this guess "is when humans will go extinct". That's just a gross mischaracterization of the scientific and statistical certainty.
1. arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3538.pdf
By this video's logic, we will never go extinct, since we could assume the Copernican principle at any point in time. If we applied the same logic 1000 years later we would still be considered "somewhere in the middle" according to the Copernican principle
in 8000 years we will have a population of the septillons!
@@IvanTominski That’s only assuming that we grow at the same rate as today, or some other guess that was made recently based on current trends. But in truth we have absolutely no clue whatsoever, humans have never experienced expansion (not just exploration) into space yet and that will almost certainly change how humanity will grow.
@@jlight7346 yeah
Not counting the advancements that could be made to save us. People usually don’t consider that. Humans are getting smarter, making new things. Medical breakthroughs, better technology, etc. and we are inventing stuff faster, I think we’d be able to survive longer.
No one can predict the future lol
Any way you look at it, the 60-minute hour is extinct.
Randy James I think it’s a graphic design choice.
you cant just 'apply the copernican principle' to whatever you want, there has to be a reason for the assumption of homogeneity, some kind of symmetry respected by the setup of the situation. in the case of german tanks the limited and regular production justifies it, for humanity i really dont see how that is justified as we are in a period of huge flux right now, and nothing in the video goes to justify application of the copernican principle
if we do want to name some date as the transition to a new 'modern' humanity, that is precisely a refutation of applying the copernican principle! because it 'just happened', or was it true that one hour after we dropped the A-bomb we were about one hour from extinction, because copernicus ??
This video didn't explain anything. How does knowing what the birthrate is and how much of the population there is tell you anything about extinction?
And what kind of a prediction is "somewhere between 5,100 yrs and 7.8 million years?" I can say that bitcoin's price tomorrow is going to be between 0$ and 20,000$ and I'll be less wrong than that prediction
Right? Trying to calculate any form of extinction with math and a handful of principles is complete folly. There are practically billions of factors to account for, the majority of those changes the potential results by factors of hundreds, if not thousands. The video is utter nonsense and might as well not exist. Nothing of value would be lost.
So, let me get this straight: someone estimated the production rate of German tanks in WW2 (that's a measure of quantity per time) and somebody else thought this is somehow related to the question how much longer the human race exists (that's solely a measure of time)? That's like counting migrating birds that fly overhead in the sky in one hour (again, quantity per time) and predicting the life span of aligators from that. Sure, good luck with that theory.
xBris : Exactly. It's as though :
You make 20 cookies per hour.
And I magically know you will make 700 cookies and stop.
Tanks but no tanks.
Somewhere between 5000 and 8 million years.
Way to predict(!)
lol ikr
Would not the more appropriate metaphor be if someone predicted the end time of German tanks based on the serial number of German tanks currently produced? I wouldn't put much faith in that prediction.
Right? I really don't understand the parallel without him explaining the math
What I find strange is that even though modern humans are able to rapidly adapt to changing environments(which has led to our huge success as a species) we will most definitely not survive as long as other species of human.
human extinction is not a bad thing
It is the worst thing.
Sounds like a doomsday argument.
Edit : oh well, yea that's what it is, I recommand Isaac Arthur video : the doomsday argument if you want to go further on this.
I mean, by this logic I’m not gonna live that long, and a lot of people will live much less time than most people
4:33 your welcome
It needs to be soon. We cannot be allowed to further destroy everything we get involved with. The harm we cause will NEVER stop.
This was false reasoning, our relatives like neanderthal didn't have our capabilities.
I agree, they couldn't kill themselves with atomic bombs and climate change, we're gonna last way less than them
@@uvbe We also have the ability to migrate through the stars.Build underground shelters ....
your videos were better before.
"let us take a look at the serial number of tanks and calculate how many are produced per month. now let's use the same formula to calculate how many humans will ever exist."
there is absolutely no connection.
If we instead use that time Bob made a funny joke as the start of our species... Then it still won't exist millions or billions of years from now.
This video is full of logical fallacy. I'm disappointed.
This is quite a stretch.
Accurately assessing how many tanks were produced per month has nothing to do with how many tanks WILL ever be produced before stopping.
Or as you would say, "tanks going extinct. "
------------------
Top allied brass : 276 tanks per month. Cool. ...But how many will the Germans EVER produce ?
Mathematician : Sir, I can't imagine what confusion of ideas could lead to such a question.
Brass : whuht ?
Guys... Isn't it obvious that the math behind the predictions is more complicated then how they explained it in the video? It was obviously simplified for the sake of the viewers. Just because you don't know the reasoning behind the predictions doesn't mean they don't make sense. You CAN look it up though. :)
What ISN'T "dumbed out" these days?
But they are some pretty big flaws the premises of the arguments. I am not denying that they are using sound math, it just seems pretty obvious they are misappliyng it.
"We don't know, so I guess we are probably halfway to human extinction." No offence, but this 'reasoning' is an excellent example of the inherent flaws in your binary Earthling logic. You guys refuse to accept the idea that there are things we know nothing about, not even a probability distribution. Allow me to explain.
Most developed alien civilisations know a variant of fuzzy ternary true/false/dunno logic. You might visualise this as a triangle. In the bottom left corner you have True, at the bottom right False, and on the top Dunno - the value of claims you have absolutely no data about, not even probabilities. An example for something near this corner would be the existence of life in some faraway galaxy. This is different from the bottom edge which contains claims with a known position between true and false, like a flip of a fair coin - you Earthlings call this "probability". Of course, just as probabilities, positions in the triangle depend on knowledge - the more you learn, the farther away you get from the Dunno corner.
Now, with your binary brains, you are naturally inclined to project this triangle onto the lower edge. A proper way to do so would be to transform points in the triangle to _intervals_ on the bottom edge. The nearer to Dunno the point, the wider the interval. You guys call this Plausibility Theory. But what you can't do is simply project to points on the edge - that would mean inventing probability distributions out of thin air. But your reasoning "We don't know, so I guess we're kinda halfway through human history" does exactly that.
Guesses like this might work when you have reasons to assume a certain probability distribution - like the distribution of serial numbers of captured tanks. But I just assuming a distribution without any data to support this assumption would be like using tank serial numbers to guess when WW2 will end, or to guess when the country of Germany will cease to exist. It's like flipping an alien coin whenbyou don't even know how many sides it has, or if some of those show heads, or whether the coin is subjected to gravity. You _just don't know_ the probability, and you can't create information, even information about probabilities, out of nothing.
Does a cow have the Buddha nature?
How I think it’ll go
-Bees die
-Humans die
The end
It’s good that the earth will heal itself after pollution but I don’t wanna he completely erased from time
We know we fail the Copernican Principle, because the Fermi Paradox exists.
Still....good news about the chocolate oranges.
2160 is when, and I'll be there to make sure of it.
These are logical fallacies. Lets say it's 1999, and you ran these equations for google employees? it would predict that google will likely be dead and gone before 2005, because "statistically, it's not at the beginning, so it must be more in the middle". Dinosaurs lived between 230 million, and 65 million years ago. That's not an estimate for when that short slice of time dinosaurs where alive for, That's the entire range that they did exist for. So if you look at 220 million years ago, dinosaurs everywhere. and then you ask the question "how long will dinosaurs be alive" and see They've been around 10 million years, and "this is probably the middle", so another 10 million years. Except dinosaurs where around for another 155 million years after that. This is also a problem with bostrom's simulation theory. It's a fallacy.
Just a "minor" point... dinosaurs were a whole order of life, not a single species. It would be still more accurate to think of dinosaurs as theropods (similar body construct as birds) and sauropods (big four-legged critters). Altogether dinosaurs comprised tens of millions of species. Birds are direct descendants so it could be said that dinosaurs are still among us.
@@CarFreeSegnitz I'm not talking about dinosaurs as a concept. I mean specific species. Any given specific species of dinosaur, has a high likelyhood of having been alive for that entire time range. as in the likelyhood that your selection was one of them that was not alive that entire time, is very low.
I said "Dinosaurs" as shorthand, for rattling off the exhaustive list of species of dinosaur that did exist for that entire time period, again, because most dinosaurs that we know about did.
The point being, This method of dating things is the broken clock method, a broken clock is right twice a day. but if you take any given sample mere moments after it started, this method predicts that it will almost immediately end. 5 seconds after rocket launch, how long will it be launching for? oh, well we're probably in the middle, so about another 5 seconds, therefor, all rockets will explode before getting into space. This is not an accurate measure, It's selection bias.
I DONT WANT TO DIE 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Me either brother/sister...it's a sad reality that crosses my mind daily. I'm just glad I have the opportunity to live. 😢
Me: watches this in 2020
Laughs darkly
Heh heh, I’m in danger
is that a simpsons quote from ralph
That's kind of unfair. Since we've gotten nuclear weapons, we've got more peaceful. Coming to terms with our own existential fragility and mortality as a species.
Ikr, it’s also dumb how they say we don’t know so we must be in the middle, if we keep using this logic it’ll just be farther and farther away, and we do have a reason to think we’ll last longer cause we’ve gotten much farther
That is not 100% true, that can change and in one second 10,000 years of war will be done in one day. No one saw Corona either and here we are. Nukes as a deterrent pale in comparison to non-violent deterrents. ua-cam.com/video/bIAF7kBbGKk/v-deo.html
God wouldn’t let us all die right
I hope not🥺
Except that underground volcano that can litterally kill us all and speed up the process
Another Prophet of Disaster
Who says the ship is lost
Another Prophet of Disaster
Leaving you to count the cost
Taunting us with Visions
Afflicting us with fear
Predicting War for millions
In the hope that one appears
No point asking when it is
No point asking who's to go
No point asking what's the game
No point asking who's to blame
'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, die with your boots on
If you're gonna try, well stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you're gonna die, you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, die with your boots on
If you're gonna try, well stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you're gonna die, you're gonna die
13 the Beast is Rising
The Frenchman did surmise
Through earthquakes and starvation
The Warlord will arise
Terror, Death, Destruction
Pour from the Eastern sands
But the truth of all predictions
Is always in your hands
No point asking when it is
No point asking who's to go
No point asking what's the game
No point asking who's to blame
'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
You're gonna die, die with your boots on
If you're gonna try, well stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you're gonna die, you're gonna die
You're gonna die, die with your boots on
If you're gonna try, well stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you're gonna die, you're gonna die
They die with their boots on
Yes they die
The day, they die with their boots on
The day we die, we die, we die, we die, we die
No point asking when it is
No point asking who's to go
No point asking what's the game
No point asking who's to blame
'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
'Cos if you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, if you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, die with your boots on
If you're gonna try, well stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you're gonna die, you're gonna die
If you're gonna die, die with your boots on
If you're gonna try, well stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you're gonna die, you're gonna die
Die!
The production of a tank is compared to the life expectancy of humanity? lol this guy is nuts
honestly looking forward to a human extinction event. i'm sad i probably won't be around to see it
Why would you want to
Remove probably and you should be glad you won’t see the extinction.
@@TSJ99 Because we are an infection to the planet lol. Look what we’ve done.
@@fredericchopin2441 The extinction is like the earth getting cured from a virus
@@TSJ99why not?
Fantastic . Couldn't come soon enough .
While I agree that humans are animals we have faculties which are wholly unprecedented. Fire...no other species ever has formed such a partnership with fire. The wheel, such a simple device but that nature provides no examples. Highly symbolic language flexible enough to express the impossible. We're far from the first species with language but absolutely the first to express mythologies with it. Metacognition: thinking about thinking, so much so that we're on the brink of spawning intelligences greater than our own. Space travel, absolutely the first to likely develop extension of Earth's biosphere off of Earth. Humans have the mechanisms to not only smash species longevity records but even outlive our sun.
wait this argument is idiotic
the copperitarian argument says that it is unlikely we are at the start of our existence
So like, five minutes after home sapiens sapiens was born (assuming for simplicity's sake that species exist as a distinct thing) the first human would be like
"hey we've been hanging out for five minutes. wonder how long we'll survive for"
human 2: well it's been five minutes and it's unlikely we're at the start of our existence. So halfway or less?
So we'll be alive for five more minutes? time to fap furiously
and so on and so forth. the video loosely implies that if we redefine existence to post nuclear bomb time, we have about 70 years left. But what about 35 years after the nuclear bomb was created? Then we would have only 35 years left. But it's been 35 years since.
So does that mean every time(x) * 2 our chances of surviving another doubling of our existence goes up? We've been around 200 thousand or so years. So we're likely to exist another 200k. In the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Chris 202,000 AD we would have existed for 400k years and are likely to exist until the year 1MM
Then so on and so forth. I don't buy this thinking
PS: a more interesting argument which sidesteps the question is to argue that homo sapiens sapiens will go extinct much in the way that neanderthals did - by being bred out of existence by the next apex life form. Or less dramatic - we'll simply evolve into the next organism and homo sapiens sapiens will cease to exist.
Whichever. Whatever. We'll all be dead one day. Every species goes extinct.
Quit picking on Nazis. They threw good parties, invented cool cars, and had the best uniforms.
Time to Wake up. Jojo Rabit.
Answered nothing!
Global warming is not an existential threat, it is for some cities but most of us will be fine
Yeah... just the coastal ones. If you live away from that, the you just get to deal with the secondary effects. Do you think all of those people migrating and suffering is going to lead to a better life for those not directly affected?
You are stupid.
The central point in this video is based on an old and very weak argument, hope you do bit better next time.
5100 to 7.1 million years do you think that he could have narrowed it down a little bit
The sooner the better. I wouldn't shed a tear for any of you
I mean there's this thing called a gun you can turn it on yourself at anytime and do the world a favor by eliminating another mouth to feed if you want. Which I think is your point of view.
Until then quit whining I've been nihilistic as hell before.
Good, let the criminal side get out of you, we're all a bunch of animals anyway, we just don't want to admit it but we are. We created systems of belief to hide and conceal parts of ourselves, to play all goody goody but in the end life is a bitch that doesn't care about what happens after death, it just wants to destroy through death, the process of natural evolution is exactly that: survival of the fittest, the strong thrive and the weak are presented with no other option than death, there is no creator or afterlife. If this is life then i want to die, it's good in a way that death is permanent, even life hates itself. There is no heaven, life is hell and hell, there is no other option, like a game of chance.
I honestly think we got at the worst case scenario another 50 years and the most generous scenario is another 250 years.
My videos often buffer, but the ads never do.
So...70 years give or take?
This video in a nutshell: hooman stoopid, return to monke 🐒🚶
Can you remake the video with a fixed clock? This one is broken.
I need to see the math... I don’t understand how the numbers we derived...
I think comparison of the estimation of German tanks to the estimation of how many people there will be or how long we will live is pretty flimsy. Presumably the allies had a reasonably significant sample size. The other estimates are really just working from a sample of one
So anyone gonna talk about the Amazon?
Reminds me of mathematical modeling of epidemics. For the bulk of epidemic, the rate of growth is represented by exponential growth. But end is typically governed by factors not included in the simple, initially dominant model. The Copernican principle is at best just a rough approximation.
epidemics you say
This hits different in Quarantine.
50 more years tops.
Corona virus: “Allow me to introduce myself....”
Corona slaying genus that never was enabled until now: allow me to introduce myself
@@IvanTominski Tsar Bomba: "Allow me to introduce myself"
@@millerstation92 *Nuclear proof Swiss Government: Allow me to introduce myself*
Are you truly extinct if you evolve into something other than homo sapiens? Ok, literally yes, you are... but are you REALLY-
Poor analogy. Based on the tanks example we can only predict how many humans are alive now sampling from how many humans we have seen. Has someone predicted how many tanks will Germany ever produce?
Can you please cite your sources?
This is why space travel is important we can spread out to other planets making it way more likely we last longer
You doomed us all! With the population boom we will run out of our allotted serial numbers even sooner!
JK, let's Dyson up all the stars
Why? So we can screw those up as well?
@@winnie6203 exactly
fuck that, were a plaque
Interesting topic to add to the discussion!
In this world that is full of chaos, politically, socially and environmentally, how long can humanity sustain itself in 100 years?
i love how the channel is called the good stuff but then they talk about human extinction
What they mean is the interesting things
Youre loose interpretation of the word "extinction", is not what most of us were expecting this video to cover. Our mind set and societal norms aren't the only thing that seperates us from ancient humans. We aren't born a new as a species every time we redefine acceptable behavior. That's just social conditioning and you could introduce those rules to any person of any time period (withing the modern human range) and they'd adapt as long as it is accepted by the majority. I found your definition of "extinction" to be very misleading. I was expecting you to cover something like us creating the next step in evolution with ai and causing our own extinction. But you seriously are defining it as a change in mind set. Weak ass point. Up until that nonsense, this was pretty damn compelling. Its a shame you had to sprinkle bits and pieces of your belief system into the core of your argument.
id like to take this moment to congratulate us a species for making it almost 75 years with nuclear bomb technology without killing everyone 👌😅
You never know
@@karna5998 what a great time to start thinking about this again lol
@@brebytheway trump: I see they are partying in China, let me add more bass
2027?
i think that we can live long further than 9,000 years
*shrugs shoulders* not my problem *walks away and whistles*
Oh, large portions of the world are covered in radioactive waste from past bombs? Oh, the ocean is slowly filling up with garbage? Oh, the human race is going extinct? Meh, I'm just gonna kick back and rela- what's that? The wifi? THE WIFI'S DOWN?! *EVERYBODY PANIC!!*
The german tank production is a fallacious analogy to human species survival. The formula estimated the rate of production based on serial numbers, not the end of production. The end of production was determined by political and physical factors not included in mathematical equation, like Soviets turning on Germans and no longer supplying resources, end of War etc. With humans you don't need special equations to estimate the rate of reprodutcion, because we have it given and measured precisely. So its not the data you are looking for, but you begin with. However similarly here: you don't predict human extinction form maths, you predict it from outside, empirically measured data, like resources, global mean temperature, probability of deadly pandemics. Like this comment if you also see this video premise as fallacious.
Enjoy!
good info... but you are talking too fast
Please, governments aren't stupid enough to just annihilate humanity because of some conflict, plus, if a mass military conflict breaks out, global governments might collapse, humanity has become extremly liberal and anti-war, to they point a small conflict can cause massive internal problems
Now today's modern speculation
There will be 3 septillon humans ever existing in the year 10000
And timelords will survive until the end of the universe if it keeps on going like that
Lol humans are only present on earth
@@theneetaspirant7619 later in space
@@IvanTominski lol aliens are also present on other planets and they have better technology than us so they can easily kill us
@@theneetaspirant7619 no
I am taking about us time lords
We are the most advanced civilization
@@theneetaspirant7619 I am not talking about humans
Regarding environmental destrustion "it's the collective fault of all of us cooperating in a system that it appeared we had no choice but to cooperate as part of...we are where we're at now [abrupt climate disruption] because of millions of people doing the same thing, getting on the treadmill, having 2.5 children...to overcome societal pressure takes a remarkable human being"---Guy McPherson, Emiritus Professor University of Arizona
To overcome societal pressure one would have to successfully speak out against the dominant culture and show by example that there is another choice and doing so for a significant amount of time. There is such a group! Since 1943 Freedoms of Speech have been fought and won in the highest courts around the world by Jehovah's Witnesses in order to speak out against systemic problems for one. With the passing of these new laws, dissident movements were created but that wasn't the answer to overcome evil.
To counter movements for Freedom and against war, particularly the Vietnam War, a Blue Ocean Strategy (www.blueoceanstrategy.com/tools/four-actions-framework/) mockery became ubiquitously known as Christian fundamentalism i.e. 1. eliminate weekly confession, 2. lower moral consequences, 3. raise consumption, nationalism, 4. create an emotion driven social gospel, etc.
However, people like myself, have seen the need to change what they value most in support of an incoming world government i.e. God's Kingdom as detailed in Daniel 2:44 "...it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms." Evidence of this new world government is already on display; it's a reality.
After the end of human government "distress will not rise a second time (Nahum 1:9)."
"The good news of God's Kingdom must be preached" hence the reason laws regarding freedom were passed "and then the end will come."
Congrats, this is the first video I have ever watched where I have NO idea whether I liked it or not! :-/
Does remind me a lot of the old Greek argument (mentioned by Stephen Hawking in _A Brief History of Time_) that went 'The universe can't be very old, because if it were, we would be more advanced than we are.' As Hawking pointed out, this argument doesn't really hold a lot of water (or ethanol, or any other liquid). *shrug*
Eh, none of us will be around to see the extinction (most likely not) so I'm not worried
And your kids?
@@africanhistory Wish the best for them, see them on the other side
Here is a better question. How many people would not have watched this video if they could see all the dislikes?
The one supposition for eventual human extinction that I've never heard mentioned anywhere (except by me) is simply based on a presumption that the specie - as a whole - has a maximum life span the same as individual people have maximum life spans. At least generally, if not specifically, this ideal assumes that the human specie exists as a single organism and that it will likewise "pass away" the same as single organisms always do.
If that weren't the case, and supposing the life span of the entire specie is indefinite, then that ideal conjures up the question of mortality versus immortality. After all, though, since all individual people exist as mere mortals, then the most reasonable guess is that the specie itself is mortal and will die a mortal death. And there is likewise no evidence to suggest that any aspect of biological immorality truly exists in nature in any case.
So in other words, if humanity doesn't effectively "commit suicide" first by way of nuclear war, global warming, or some other self-inflicted "mortal wound," then the reasonable assumption to make would be that the specie will simply pass away from "old age," as in dying of natural causes. And presumably, such an extinction event as "death due to old age" would probably happen relatively suddenly.
One way it could happen is simply if fertility rates dropped to zero. Fertility rates among humans are known to be rapidly declining anyway on a global scale. So if fertility drops to zero, then any living humans would obviously be the last generation of the specie to exist.
Likewise, when you make the comparison, fertility among humans is also an individual characteristic. As babies are born, they grow into maturity (puberty) that peaks somewhere in full adulthood; then where individual fertility declines and will go to zero at some point, such as with "zero sperm count" production in geriatric males.
Let's just entertain the assumption that my thoughts here are correct, and that the human specie is destined to pass away from old age at some point: The question to then ask is, "So just how old is our specie anyway?"
Are we in our pre-adolescent stage of life? Are we just now into adolescence? Are we at the prime of our physical maturity? Are we middle-aged where our reproductive capabilities are now declining? OR are we in our "geriatric" years of advanced old age?
I don't think you could effectively use "math" to come to a good answer for this question the same as with the "tanks" scenario posited in this video. And I suspect there would need to be some other methodology to determine just how old our specie is relative to assuming a maximum life span of the specie.
All things considered, though, my personal rough guess is that humanity is indeed living in its twilight, or "golden years," as it were, and that our specie is very much "geriatric" in terms of advanced old age.
In terms of assuming a maximum lifespan, my guess is that we could go anytime, but that it's unlikely we will survive another 500 years before simply dying a natural death...
Turritopsis dohrnii!
Anyone else who also always understood "God's formula"? 😬😂
Could you enlighten us on what it is so we can make some god damn sense of this vid?
Hello, my name is Noone.
I’ve been looking into our current problem from a holistic view and unfortunately the problem is a-lot worse that you think. I’ll give you 2 examples of why and more specifically why by 2035, most countries will be at war and by 2045 the human race will likely be extinct. Also side note, everything I’m about to tell you isn’t new data, this has been reported for over 20 years.
Problem 1 - Economics.
Currently the average American household has a total expenditure and debt payments that are roughly $1,500 more than what they earn. Forcing Americans into debt by $1,500 a year. The problem lies in the fact that salary increase on average is less than 3% and expenses increase by upwards of 4% each year.
Calculating increased debt, increased expenses and the like. The average American will have to work 2 jobs by 2030 just to pay the bills, in fact by 2030 the average American will be going 10k in debt each year just to live with an additional 30k in debt for the past 9 years. By 2035 their total debt will be close to 100k and that’s just to live. Not even taking into account I don’t know buying a house, car or maybe wanting to go on vacation once in a while.
In fact if this continues all Americans will be crushed by debt long before the planet kills us, but wait that’s the good stuff because what I’m about to tell you will keep you up at night.
Problem 2 - Oxygen & Babies.
Studies have found that oxygen levels are dropping year after year. People wonder why but when you take into account that 80% to 90% of the oxygen we breath comes from the oceans then it’s no surprise. Our current fishing habits means the oceans will be out of fish by 2048, the problem is that we’ve current destroyed the eco-system that produced our oxygen.
In fact the breathing supply of oxygen on the planet which is mostly provided by diatoms and phytoplankton is being destroyed by toxic algae and other destructive organisms that would normally be kept in check by fish.
Now how this affects humans, well for a start human’s sperm, egg and full fetal production is impacted by decreased oxygen supply. In fact by the year 2035 its likely that less than half our species will even be able to reproduce. By 2050 that number will be 0% reproduction in humans. Even if somehow we survived the destruction caused by global warming, well I’m afraid that those who do won’t be able to have children.
In fact human reproduction is not the issue, what’s going to happen when the oxygen supply is not enough for us as a species to breath. In fact by my estimates by 2040 the lowered oxygen levels will create a feedback loop leading to the destruction of all life on our planet.
Humanity has to change, it has to make a difference and I’ve been working on something. Away to not just shelter from the storm but to stop the storm entirely and no before you ask it won’t involve violence as that will likely escalate the problem out of hand. We can save humanity but it would require dramatically changing how we live our lives.
ARE WE GOING TO GO EXTINCT SOON?! I’m scared🥺
We are all going to die :/ nothing will change that fact
It may be true that Neanderthalensis and Erectus didn't live that long all things considered but they were less developed than Sapiens and they didn't have the ability to colonize other planets, something we will be able to do in a couple of decades.
What? Neanderthals? Erectus? The hell? The whole theory of human evolution is just a joke. How do you explain that humans have multiple different nations across the planet, to me this spells our process of evolution is simply not evolved from primates but that we have been developing on our own. These so called scientists tried to explain human evolution through mutation, it is not possible for completely different species to mutate into one another, therefore giving birth to other species, the whole Darwinian evolution is nothing but so called mutation, man the human imagination must've been high in these days. And no we will not be able to colonize planets, where did you got that from? Your own dreams? We're incapable of maintaining our own habitat, let alone try to populate foreign worlds. We do nothing but multiply faster than rats, destroy other species through our own religious revenge quest, take a big dump on the whole planet through pollution and resource exploitations. First we'll just have to see if we can survive and make the world a true natural habitat again. Only after that can we consider that we're ready to colonize other planets, until then we are not ready.
I just hope humanity will disappear as soon as possible. Humans shouldn't even exist, to begin with.
I'm glad plants have no conscience, because otherwise they would be really disappointed to know that these insignificant humans waste the oxygen they work so hard to produce.
This is a pretty dumb argument. It presupposes that there is some coloration between resource constraints between the production of German tanks during WWII and resources constrains surrounding the production of human beings. There is literally no connection between the two.
Ah yes being extinct is better than dying
I do not think of a humidity extinction that would be bad It would be worse
We could probably live way longer than that, for billions or even trillions of years we will definitely become multi planetary and get better and better technology, gathering energy from many solar systems or even galaxies, as long as we don’t kill each other
probably...? sure why not
definitely...? stop the cap.. u dont know that at all.. wishful thinking = wishful thinking..
Honestly I feel like we will either kill each other in a war or nuclear fallout. Another possibility is that we start to conquer other planets, but only if we find a way to not start wars.
Trillions of years? Yeah people can definitely escape heat death of the universe... We really show sustainable stability in thriving in perfect conditions... Oh wait...😂
Problem with humans is that most of us think only in our generation, ‘oh ill be dead anyway so idc lemme joke about this and make stupid comments’. If there is a species that thinks in millions of years they will be the most succesfull ones because those dont do something stupid and help the future generation
Why do I feel like I just wasted time listening to this ?
can I join your group b/c I feel the same way. When the end came I realized I lost 6 min of my life
I’m 13 years old, does that mean humans will go extinct in my life time? I’m scared
If covid does, yes
Aaron DeLis you mean if Covid is still around it will kill everyone u scaring me man
Anything can happen in our lifetime - but with the advanced technology and science we have now (which will only get better) I think we would be sweet. :)
We all die
Ummm no animals are going extinct not humans also why?
The fact is that regardless of any of this, we are rapidly approaching a significant crash in our numbers IN THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES via a host of things, not the least of which is reduced food production due to climate change, reduced inexpensive water for growing thanks to us exploiting all our fossil aquifers and climate change, and reduced lands of habitability due to climate change. So you don't need to bring up nukes at all, although they don't help our chances at not crashing for sure. If you have a kid today that is under say the age of 30, chances are he or she will suffer and may even die from all this or the knock-on effects of it such as war. This is why the brightest scientists of our day have moved the so-called Doomsday clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it's ever been to Doomsday. The people who constitute the group that adjust that clock are not trying to get attention; they are being very serious. The fact that most of humanity is not taking this as seriously as they should doesn't bode well for us either.
We don't really have a good idea of how many humans ever existed. For example LIDAR research is blowing away all previously assumed knowledge about the Maya. Turns out there were probably 20-30 times more of those people than was thought. It's also proving major civilization in the Amazon nobody had really suspected before. Going back further in time to earlier humans i would trust population estimates even less.
Of course this is if we choose to stay on Earth if we span out to other planets even if Earth is destroyed we would have other planets with humans so if we die they won’t and one day we will span the galaxy and become impossible to go extinct