What does Father nature have to say about it?

And so does Skynet

From a farming community The earth always rejuvenates itself We just have to get greedy beings off it. The rest of us a very happy to lead a simple life on it

@@coldawson8486 farmers are some of the worst polluters out there, over farming causes desertification, while forests are cut down to make room for pasture and crop fields, cattle produce methane and farming animals to produce meat or dairy uses up more water, food, and energy than the entire human population, per year.

@@MrNhojstrebor excellent joke got me

“Humans don’t know when to stop.” *Earth destroyed by asteroids* “Humans are terrible.”

It was a dead tree lol

Dude, that WAS the "last tree". And, yes, it was a cool short. The animation was fabulous, for not being more highly funded, but the writing was lacking. Either that or the writer was purposefully being coy in order provoke what is obviously happening here: discourse. On the one hand, I'm appalled by the lack of skill in composition. On the other hand, I'm impressed by a master tactician. Still, a truly skillful writer would make it more obvious which was true, so, all-in-all, I'm mostly just entertained. But that's just me.

@@shaunsimmons204 Or the writer could be woefully ignorant of the science he casually invokes. “For unknown reasons, the Earth’s ionosphere has weakened dramatically during the course of the last century…” The Earth’s ionosphere is relatively simple (apologies to all the atmospheric physicists reading this). You have the Earth’s atmosphere, and you have solar radiation. When the solar radiation strikes the atmosphere it creates ions, hence the name ‘ionosphere’. For the ionosphere to ‘dramatically weaken’ you would need to “dramatically” decrease the amount of atmosphere available or “dramatically” decrease the solar radiation. Either of these would “dramatically” change the Earth, likely eliminating humans as a species, but it would NOT eliminate life on the planet. Life is incredibly hard to eliminate. For an example, look into the biodiversity of the Bikini Atoll. We nuked it. The planet was unimpressed. 😊 Likewise, the ‘with no shield to protect it’ so meteors bombard Earth’ is lunacy. The ionosphere does not protect the Earth from meteors. The THICKNESS of the atmosphere does, causing most to break up and/or burn up upon entry into the atmosphere. The most consistent background for this would be a massive loss of the atmosphere, at least half. At this point plant life would have issues, but some would survive. Same goes for animal life, including humans. BUT humans would not be running around outside without suits to protect their air supply. Hive cities would be highly unlikely. So the entire premise of this video, from the very first sentence, has no foundation in science. Thus, any attempt to determine the ‘real reason’ for the state Sumer is in is ludicrous.

@@kevincaruthers5412 You are correct. Did I not already invoke the "Bad Writing" clause here, though?

But we are tho

@@damienechter3014 Planets aren't alive to be killed.

@@redking8585 uhhh...

@@redking8585 even if isn't a living thing by itself it has and supports millions of life forms....and the planet itself not being a living thing makes it justified to desemate the life present on it for our needs?

Thank you! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

But it was 46 years with no animals. Without animals there would be too much oxygen. and not enough carbon dioxide, hence why the trees died. That's why the censor on the bike said O2 toxicity.

@@spuriouseffect 1) People are animals. 2) Oxygen is the drunk at the party. It will hook up with anything, so there would not be "too much oxygen". 3) While Oxygen can be toxic at high levels, you can breathe PURE oxygen for quite a while before clinical symptoms occur. As I said in another post, 'Fun graphics, but the science is awful'.

@@kevingraves7431 Your Science is False also. Falsified scientific data is the norm these days, it's a way to keep people stupid, believing in false information, while the big-tech cooperation use hidden /suppressed science to control the stupid mine-controlled people.

​@@MrNhojstrebor Which part do you think is false? That people are animals? Yep, we are. Mammals to be slightly more precise. Or maybe you think oxygen is a noble gas that will rarely combine with anything? Sorry, oxygen is well known for its affinity to form bonds. Examples abound, but I will leave you with two: rust and sand. Or perhaps you think pure oxygen will incapacitate humans in minutes? Nope. Not only can we breathe pure oxygen for hours, but we can also do it at pressures greater than atmospheric. You should look up 'hyperbaric oxygen therapy'. It has several medical applications. So, given your statements and the ease with which they can be proven false, I have to assume you don't actually have a degree in any hard science. That is the problem with pretending to be a science nerd on youtube. If you do it long enough, you will eventually run into someone who is. :)

@@kevingraves7431 Human beings are NOT animals. Animals are NOT Human beings. Speak for yourself. Learn the difference. Both have a soul. But only one has a Spirit.

It's not a kid, it's CGI.

@@MrNhojstrebor thanks for clearing that up.

Life imitating art?

..of course

Ask Roko

If we are, you should worry. Warhammer 40K is a rather grim place to live. ;)

Actually, we're generating the future by our ACTIONS. Our imagination can only give us glimpses of the future. Our continued use of items and systems that are already proven to cause harm, and our inability to change that fact, are the things that will bring about the future. Our imagination can give us glimpses of beautiful possibilities, like Star Trek, but it can also bring us warnings, like this short animation. Our actions in the present are what set us on the path to one or the other.

Besides Expanse Contact and The martian win matt Damon What's a good science based movie

get meds

Or may it's just reality and you can't take it.

Agreed. Really enjoyable.

It was more than likely peoples inability to _defend_ against the meteors that lead to the earth's destruction. They were stricken with greed and depleted everything to a point where they became vulnerable to ANYTHING. I came to this conclusion the very first time I watched this. If this is the case then the meteors are literally nothing more than Collateral damage. If human beings start to wage war among themselves then they are going to be too distracted to deal with anything else, and I think that this is the meaning behind the message being sent. Also going by what we can clearly see in this film, the world in which this fictional tale takes place in has more advanced technology than that of our own. So this could mean that earth was probably already equipped to deal with these types of disasters (prevent them) before hand and this critical aspect is why the narrators interpretation of the destruction is presented as something of a tragedy that could have been avoided. Ultimately it _would_ be the humans fault for not coming together. I could be overthinking it, but that can't be ruled out as a possibility.

Especially when what appears to have done the damage were the impacts of multiple meteoroids. I can only assume that silly bint was repeating a misunderstood verbal history

We brought about a change that could not sustain our way of life, that does not mean Life will not continue, or continue in a way that is meaningful to you.

Hey, here’s an idea: don’t watch then!

@@ericb6784 YES Greta is god and Science

programming the masses to accept whatever they throw at them , like masks ?

I've seen a few people commenting on this aspect in the same way, but I think they are missing the point. If you consider the possibility that the earth was already at a point where it was so advanced and equipped to deal with cosmic threats, then yes. Given the setting in the animation, technology already appears vastly superior to what we have today outside of this fiction, and that was probably already the case even before the events which lead to the destruction. More than likely, people had become so lost in their own nonsense, and self indulgence that civil war broke out. At that point in time, they probably could't keep up earths defenses because they had already burned through so many resources during all of that fighting and bickering. Remember that everybody became selfish and greedy: "We never knew when to to stop..." and this could be what ultimately lead to defenses being lowered and making the whole planet within this story line vulnerable to an external threat. Things can really change depending on what perspective you view it from and sometimes stories ask US the questions instead of giving them. These are my favorite types as I prefer the mystery of it all.

Just spitballing here, but probably human meddling thinned out the atmosphere enough to lessen its protection against asteroids... trying to make it make sense...

Learn how stories are told.

49 years since the last animal ---> shows a city with people. People are animals. duh!

@@austin1839 The story-teller set the stage and then immediately violated it. Suspension of disbelief is needed for many stories, but the teller has to do his part too. i.e. eliminate plot holes.

The people did not know that there are trees and animals. But the boy discovers them.

Soylent green.

Then shows a kid jumping down to the street. People are animals too. Duh!

Pretentious.

@@jamesbaker3153 Sure. Let's say that I am. But you have no argument against what I have to say, and therefore your only option is to insult me. You lose.

@@shaunsimmons204 Only this video is arguing that a lack of carbon dioxide killed the planet. So animals making carbon dioxide would be saving the planet.

"Who is more evil"? Easy. The people who predict it without acknowledging any data which does not support their prediction and then use that prediction to try to force their will upon everyone else.

@@spuriouseffect The video is not arguing that a lack of CO2 killed the planet. Any direct suggestion falls to 2 things, one which is said, "human greed", and one which is shown, a meteor. The outcome is one bastion of humanity, and one bastion of nature, each cut off from the other. Honestly, though the animation is good, and the message, that people need to stop being greedy, is great, the overall writing and composition is lacking. But no, the video never says anything about a lack of carbon dioxide being what killed the planet, and you thinking that because you apparently equate oxygen toxicity with a lack of CO2 just shows that you don't understand how nature works.