Step 1: refer to CO2 as plant food

Ending this discussion with the idiocracy movie opening is just a cherry on top tho 🤣😅

Utilitarians are ultimately fools at the end of the day because they have NO understanding or grasp of the real value and purpose of human life: contentment and enjoyment in the moment. Nothing else actually matters and nothing else lasts. That is the actual peak thing all humans strive for in whatever way they do. You can’t remove human arousal and enjoyment from existence and expect humans to do anything but self destruct and mass unalive themselves. There’s a reason anhedonia drives people insane, people exist only to gratify themselves.

The theory about the Earth not being a greenhouse is wrong. Radiation is the least effective method of heat transfer. If radiation were so effective, then normal greenhouses would be useless since the light would effectively enter the greenhouse, get absorbed, then re emitted out of the greenhouse. Another example, the biggest problem that spaceships will have in the future is heat management since their radiators will only be able to lose heat via electromagnetic radiation.

23:20 Yeah, I mean the problem is that governments are notoriously bad at addressing and anticipating the scale and magnitude of these humanitarian crises.

20:00 Yes? If a bunch of species go extinct simultaneously around the globe, how will that affect humans who are alive today? Again, humans as a truly interplanetary species is not a shift that is going to happen in the next few years.

18:07 It's not that changes are bad. As you said, they are inevitable and natural. The issue is not exacerbating extinction events because we depend on currently extant species and ecosystems. There is no need to wipe out entire ecosystems because humans can find other ways to get by. It's a wasteful and destructive approach to completely disregard human environmental impact as it also affects the health of human populations.

The real question is why did we go back to 1950s style thick rim glasses? 🤓

We will discover that Climate change is the same a Covid, whatever small thing exists is blown out of proportion and we won’t see any major tragedies from climate change.

Climate change _is_ a real, albeit not an existential problem. But as far as I'm concerned, Elon has already gotten the ball rolling to the point where the economy will finish the job on it's own. The CO2 emissions are already peaking and the absolute concentration will peak around 2050.

15:28 We live in the now. A thousand years have not elapsed. Our descendants are not colonizing other planets yet. Humans cannot afford to turn a blind eye to major issues that exist now, even if those won't be the problems that affect OTHER people centuries into the future.

The actual environmental problems are things like plastic in the ocean & forever chemicals. Things that are novel & the environment is unable to process.

14:52 Mosquitoes are an important food source for other insects and invertebrates, fish, amphibians, and even carnivorous plants. 🤦‍♂️ Food chains and webs are pretty delicate. Although mosquitoes are a nuisance, wiping them out entirely has deleterious effects downstream.

"I have no problem if East Asians come to US/Western. They wont procreate anyway" 1. US, Canada, Europe, will be forever lands open to outer colonization?? 2. Only 60% of US population is White now.

12:41 There are unknown consequences to seeding the oceans and playing around with cloud formation. These are complex dynamical systems that are not perfectly understood, even with mathematical models. Caution should be used as there may be serious repercussions.

Since the first earth day, back when I was in junior high, environmentalists have predicted at least 20 different major disasters. There is no reliable evidence that any have occurred. By 1990 I had stopped believing that humans could do anything to seriously affect the earth. My advice, as an engineer and science nerd, is to ignore everything that "The Science" says and live your life.

All things considered, hard work consistently over many years is the key to success.

9:00 That is absolutely not the point. Life is adaptable, but unless you want the organisms to be primarily represented by extremophilic unicellular archaea, you want to protect the environment to prevent mass extinctions, especially of multicellular organisms.

7:23 A temporary decrease in Earth's biodiversity?!?!?! 😮 That's called mass extinction. Humans are of nature, and many beneficial compounds and plant, animal, fungi, and bacteria species continue to be discovered every year. During extinction events, that is lost. Other organisms and humans are harmed during extinction periods as we do not exist in bubbles separate from the natural world as much as people want to be chronically online and pining about being an interplanetary species. That's not happening today or tomorrow or next week. For the foreseeable future, we are earthbound, and protecting the biosphere is necessary for us to thrive and flourish as well. It's a really poor job at sugarcoating such a biological catastrophe to call it a temporary decrease in biodiversity. Life is resilient and will find new ways to adapt and evolve, and new organisms will emerge as long as minimum conditions are met, but that does not mean that it's beneficial nor helpful to turn a blind eye to the loss of biodiversity.

6:06 Sounds like the same number of deaths as those that die from extreme heat exposure. 🤔 People need some degree of homeostasis to survive. 🤷‍♂️

5:53 Using up resources from the polar regions is not good for people as global reserves of fresh water are diminished and then contaminated by mining-related pollution. 🤔

5:14 This was actually covered in ACT science questions when I was helping students before the pandemic. The issue is that the increase in photosynthesis will follow an inverted U-curve. Yes, more carbon dioxide can help plants, but apparently, there are species-specific thresholds that can be exceeded. Yields and production then decrease again after a certain point. So, we encounter "the dose makes the poison" scenarios.

I thought I was going to strongly dislike this segment just based on the title, but after listening to half of it at the point of writing this comment, you guys are outlining basically all the same priorities I've had since I was a little kid and thought completely in First Principles (TM) terms after my dad taught me the basic mechanism of how evolution works (wrote a fun paper about that in 3rd grade Bible school). I think Musk has a lot of these same priorities as well; the survival of humanity is primary, and the preservation of Earth's ecosystem is instrumental to that, not superordinate above it. In my opinion though, we need to actually start terraforming other planets and get them past some sort of basic viability threshold before getting too crazy with anything on Earth's ecosystems. Almost everything you're saying about GMOs and whatnot is in line with how I think, but we also have to remember the kinds of misanthropic trxxtxrous psychxpxths who run these industries. There's a reason why the Musks are a persecuted minority in all these spaces and industries (because they are all for-profit misanthropes and categorically believe anything that puts humans first in any way whatsoever to be the literal coming of the 4th Rxxch). If all the people making AI were more or less meritocratic human-sxprxmxcxst/-identitarian/-nxtxxnxlist normies like Musk instead of woke lunxtics, people like me wouldn't have our guards up so much against AI, and the exact same thing applies to bioengineering, but even moreso. There's a little bit of a Chesterton's Fence in that regard, in terms of Earth's ecosystem. You can't really embark on the slippery slope of terraforming Earth until you've successfully terraformed at least 2 or 3 other planets and proven you know what you're doing while also having backup plans in case this one gets screwed up too far beyond repair.

You've got to allow clipping

I'll care about the environment when all of India and China does.

Well let's not forget about the sexualization of criminals. There's a real disturbing attraction of today's modern woman to people who are murderers and rapists. I would say that's one of our biggest problems.

17:30 this is particularly amazing. My theory for why we moved in this direction is societal psychosis. When we gave up afterlife myths that psychologically protect us from the tortuous fear of death, we reject all change and cling dearly to the status quo. Which escalates into environmentalist totalitarianism.

i normally agree with your podcast. HOWEVER i live on an island where the water levels have risen and our interfering with our toilets and flooding neighborhoods. yes, you're hurting my planet. MY planet, as I am it's rightful King. So we will be fixing some things.

The warmth isnt an increase of highs in hot regions its a reduction in lows. Which means more plant growth further north.

I agree with Simone: Progs are fine with inconveniencing OTHER people with their policies, but they draw the line when they cannot insulate themselves from the damages. Progs might coddle criminals and tolerate large homeless populations, but they want to keep them out of their own privileged neighborhoods and gated communities. "Not In My Backyard" could have been coined by Progs.

In the last "ice age", AKA: major glaciation (about 20000 years ago), at one stage atmopheric CO2 fell to 180 ppm. That's barely enough for plants to live on. At 150 ppm most plants will die. During that glaciation, widespread desertification was experienced all over earth, Rain forest extent fell to only 10% of its current extent. BTW: there is no greenhouse effect. CO2 does not warm earth's surface. It does not make earth warmer - the sun does. CO2 does boost plant life. The idea of cutting CO2 is a gaslight. The elites have you where they want you - terrified of plant food ! - and bigging up their deranged geo-engineering agenda. Environmentalists are truly evil people. Carbon sequestration: Is insane. There is a carbon equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere. The ratio of carbon is about 50 : 1; with more atmosphere in oceans. So when CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it will predominantly ( 50 : 1 ) dissolve in oceans; and stay in oceans. In the ocean, CO2 reacts with carbonate to make bicarbonate. Most ocean carbon is bicarbonate. So: a carbon sequestration will - in the long term - REMOVE carbon from oceans! <- Insane! Oceans have about 38,000 Gt of carbon. The mass of oceans is about 270 times greater than the atmospheric mass. So the carbon in the ocean dominates longterm. Adding Iron to oceans stimulates growth of plankton, which is fish food.

Even in a worst case scenario, sea level change is slow enough that most buildings get torn down in less time anyway. It would not be much of a strain to just gradually retreat the seaside cities' ocean front as sea level rose. But this is not a real threat anyway, given where we are in the geological cycle, which is very much intact. Although we have been (and still are) slightly cooler than the previous interglacial, we have nevertheless been tracking its course for thousands of years, and still are tracking. No reason to think this will not continue.

Simone: "of course climate change is real." - Agreed! It has been real for four billion years! And it is no different today.

Modern agriculture is the most destructive thing done to nature period.

How do climate change models account for clouds?

You guys need to do a deep dive on Norman Borlaug, the anti-“environmentalist” environmentalist who happens to be the greatest human who EVER EXISTED

The CO2 "control knob" theory of climate change is fundamentally flawed. Climate changes beyond endogenous fluctuations are initiated by celestial influences. CO2 is at most a weak feedback, not a driver, and not even a strong feedback. Furthermore, earth's ideal temperature for life is at least 5C degrees warmer than today - and we will not get back to that level for probably a million years (about the time that earth emerges from a minor arm of the milky way that we have been passing through for the last 2.8M years.

We lose the interactive portion of the conversation? You mean they don’t read these comments?

I think you guys are pretty spot on with this one. One thing I'd add is that environmentalism is really two distinct groups. The first being the actual environmentalists. The types like Michael Shellenberger that talk about reducing humanities footprint through efficiency like nuclear power and factory farming. The other is what Simone touched upon which is the types who basically treat environmentalism as Gaia worship. They utilize scientific tidbits as gospels and treat global warming as the coming apocalypse. These people aren't worth listening to and should be treated as religious fanatics.

AGW / Climate Change worry needs to be seen as Boomer Provincialism. That we used to be able to walk across the Bering Strait, or that we used to ranch cattle in Greenland makes no difference. The 1960’s, when Boomers were in high school, represents the “Goldielocks” temperature.

EU : we have to save the planet. And reduce co². China comes with cheap solar panels, cheap EV cars and cheap batteries EU : We need protection from China's cheap renewable energy 😂 Even greedy parties don't care about the environment when their money is at stake.

I think you are mixing symptom and cause. Those who are "woke" don't have good storylines because their training is in deconstruction instead of construction. They can't put together a plot, they can take one apart. They are much like the critic who cannot create. Therefore when they try to make something that would appeal to others, even other woke people, their attempts fall flat.

35:30 On atmospheric physics: the problem with carbon dioxide is that it decreases the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared range where Earth emits most of its blackbody radiation. This makes it harder for such radiation to escape the atmosphere, as it is continuously absorbed and re-emitted like it's stuck in a pinball machine. However, the effect from CO2 is not the most severe. Water vapor is much more absorptive, and CFCs are more absorptive still. I work with the physics of radiation at my college lab to design passive radiative cooling materials. Lmk if you find this interesting, and I can email you with more nuance on the science of the situation. I find the climate alarmists annoying, too. But I do hope Florida continues to exist in the future. My backup plan is Utah, lol.

Insurance companies still insure people on the coasts. If there was a true risk of any of the climate change doom and gloom, insurance companies would be the first people to be aware of it, study it, and STOP insuring those areas. Pay attention to what people do when big money is at stake.

Just found your channel, binge watching my way through your videos while driving, bunch on thoughts, not all apply to this video. Of course the Flynn effect is multi-factorial, but while you focus on nutrition, I think Flynn focused on abstract thinking. As society moves from labor to intellectual classes, focus on abstract thinking increases and the IQ tests (idk about g score) is abstract thinking weighted. In one video you conflated Russia and the Soviet Union, I think you need to look into that a lot more. There's a lot of recycled cold war propaganda going around, but modern Russia is not favorable to sovietism on average, and few Russians are. I found you views on Christianity interesting, and I highly agree with them. I don't believe in god, but I think the Christian gospel an insightful and stoic religion, the worst part about Christianity is this watered down, believe harder, lassiez fair, believe-in-Jesus-and-be-saved basterdization of what was a fairly complete life philosophy. I take a more metaphorical view on it, but I come to many of the same conclusions on how it's ideally applied. I look forward to imbibing more of your views. I hope I take time to look up your info on IQ, I have often regurgitated those stats. Mostly to dispel myths about racism and performance, but I'll drop those arguments until I have time to check them. I'd love to see some on black populations too, are there misrepresentations going the other way? I've always argued that there pretty much has to be IQ differences between "races", because there are differences amongst almost every metric, and some of it is almost certainly genetic because the brain is such a caloric sink, it would be prone to environmental adaption, but they probably weren't mostly genetic because there are so many other factors (like nutrition, early childhood development, etc.) and there are periods in history when those races have outperformed others. Looks like I need a deeper dive. Love your take, hope the data pans out. Don't agree on your protectist views against China, Russia, and maybe your views on Israel. I think these are mostly corrupt government propaganda framings, but I haven't watched enough to really know what your views are they might be more nuanced. Don't agree with the death penalty, mostly because I don't trust a state run from DC, but even though I favor ostracism over death penalty (unless caught in the act of course), I'm more amicable to local community rules. "Consent of the governed." Almost didn't watch cause you "based" title, and most people I know that call themselves based, these days, are anything from it. They're usually just anti-semetic, saw a bunch of information, such as the disproportionate number of Jews among the Bolsheviks, higher success rates, and blame all their problems on "it's da jooz!" That in combination with the first video I stumbled across being about Jews not being as intelligent as represented, I skipped it a few times, but it kept coming across my feed, I think it sounded like you made a genuine and well cited case. Also super interested cause you come from a progressive upbringing. I came from a religious conservative upbringing turned anarchist. Find it hard to empathize with the progressive background, so it's interesting. I'll continue watching for a while. ✌️

Okay that was so cute.

Simone look very sad and dismayed about this topic

Can you do a video about how we should deal with a society collapse? If we will end up as South Africa, is it not better to try to move to a country with high social cohesion? Japan is a country with relative little crime, and strong social cohesion. Easier to have kids when it's not full anarchy. Which might happen with all these threats (AI/Woke/Deepstate/USA bankruptcy/Communism). It's also easier to move before the collapse. The collapse might happen pretty quick. If a collapse happens, is it safer with diversity or a homogeneous society? I kinda get the feeling that a diverse society will lead to more racial gang tension if we see a collapse.

40:35 honestly coastal cities aren't the primary concern for me. Sea levels would rise maybe 0.5ft-2ft. 4ft max. Manhattan isn't exactly mountainous, but parts of it are already 150ft above sea level. It might be more of an issue in places that were drained wetlands, and which are now sinking due to subsidence, like Shanghai, Venice, Amsterdam and New Orleans, but mostly because those places are either already below sea level, or sinking - rising sea levels are a relatively small part of the equation. Or Miami/South Florida could be in trouble due to saltwater incursion into the groundwater aquifers, contaminating the drinking water supply. But if it gets really bad, they could still desalinate? Medieval Prague raised the level of the street near the river by a full floor due to river flooding. That's 10-15ft, considerably more than how much sea levels rose. Big coastal cities could easily do that. And Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong, DC, Istanbul, St Petersburg and many more cities aren't really that low lying so it would be a non issue. Hurricane surges do make it worse for sure. You give an extra couple feet from sea level rise, and an extra couple feet from more powerful hurricanes. Still not the end of the world for large parts of the coastlines, but in a place like coastal Florida or coastal LA/MS/AL, sure. New Orleans' port and much of its population base might have to get relocated to Baton Rouge or something (the most historic neighbourhoods could probably still be preserved though). I think a bigger issue is changes in precipitation (some place might get more humid, which is mostly a good thing, but others would get dry and that might cause food security issues/agricultural impacts), as well as extreme heat. Extreme heat would be a concern in South Asia and Mesopotamia (Gulf states get extreme heat too, but they can afford A/C unlike Iraq). Other major population centers like SE Asia, W Africa, Brazil, E China, the Mediterranean, parts of Latin America, could get uncomfortable too, but not as extreme as the Middle East and South Asia.

Using South Park unironically is moronic. I can't believe we are doing the JBP argument of well more carbon is good for the plants.