Subunit 6.2, trade study examples. Okay, let's go through a very complex trade study. So a lot of trade studies you might do would be very simple, right? You're trying to pick between two different things that you could use to perform a function, say, two different types of gyroscopes, and two different companies build them, and you want to make a selection, you do a trade study. Well, that's a fairly straightforward trade study. Let's look at one that has a lot more subtleties and layers to it and kind of bring out some of the things about how trade study is done. So what you see here is some folks walking around on Mars, and this has been a goal of NASA and many other space agencies for a lot of years, right? So robots have gone to Mars, some have gotten into orbit, some landed on the surface, some have even roved on the surface at this point. They've always gone on one-way trips. One's never come back and brought samples back or anything else. And the idea of taking humans to Mars, once you add humans, they're kind of a consumable nightmare, right? You have to bring air for them to breathe, water for them to drink, food for them to eat. You've got to keep them alive. It's very difficult compared to a robot, which doesn't require much of that at all. So getting humans to Mars and bringing them back is quite a challenge. You think about in the history of spaceflight, people have only traveled to the Moon. That's only about a quarter of a million miles away. So going off to somewhere that's 50 or more million miles away from Earth and bringing and crew with you and then bringing them back. That's going to be quite a challenge. So those trips to the Moon back in Apollo took on the order of a week to two weeks to complete. That's from, like, going from Earth off to the Moon and come back. Missions to Mars are going to take years for a crew to accomplish from the time they leave Earth until the time they return. So it's going to be a pretty big challenge and that's why it wasn't like it was the next step and then all of a sudden at the end of Apollo people were headed to Mars. It's a much bigger step. And so we're going to talk a little bit about how NASA has gone through to try to figure out how do you do this kind of mission where you send humans to Mars and bring them back? How do you do that as optimally as possible? Because it's going to be very expensive. It's going to take a lot of massive equipment. And so we want to try to optimize this mission as much as we can to try to make it affordable so that someday we can actually execute this mission. So we're going to talk about this trade in a little bit of detail. So the first thing you see on this chart here of the orbital mechanics or the two planets going around the Sun is that you notice they don't go around at the same rate and so there's a lot of orbital mechanics equations you could use to look at this Kepler's laws of motions and things like that. But the basic is that the one closer to the Sun, the Earth, is going around in one year. It takes a year to go around the Sun, 365 days. Mars, much further away from the Sun, is taking almost twice as long to go around the Sun. So you think about that. As you think about the two traveling around the Sun, there are very few times when Mars and Earth are anywhere near each other. Now you can see here that they could be only 55 million kilometers from each other if they were on the same side of the Sun near each other. There could be other cases where they're on opposite sides of the Sun and it's almost 400 million kilometers. And so there's a lot of distances to be traveled here to get humans to Mars and bring them back. And so the other thing is that because of this fact that one is going faster around the Sun than the other, the times when they line up close to each other on the same side of the Sun only come about every few years. So every few years there'll be an opportunity where Mars and Earth are on the same side of the Sun. And that's the primary time when you'd like to take the crew and get them there because it's going to be the shortest path. And so when you look at that orbital mechanics and you look at the alignment of these two planets as they go around the Sun and see, well, what's the easiest way to get them there and back? If you go to the next chart, what you see is that it breaks down into the two different kinds of missions that you could execute and they're very different. So let's take the one on the left first, the short stay option. So in this mission scenario, you wait for the two planets to be on the same side of the Sun. You launch to Mars from Earth, take the shortest path as you can.  Now Earth and Mars have moved since you got there. So now it's going to be a little bit of a difficult journey back. And as you can see here, you actually, if you follow the path back from Mars you actually swing in to that green planet there shown on the chart, Venus. You're actually going to fly all the way past Earth's orbit, all the way to Venus. And I'm not going to go into the orbital mechanics, but let's just say this is the cheapest way to get back from a fuel standpoint is to fly all the way into Venus, let Venus use its gravity to slingshot you around and get you back to Earth. And so that sounds like a complicated mission, right? So what happens here is the mission takes about 650 days. So not quite two years, but it's a quite a long mission. And on that mission, most of your time is being spent going to Mars and coming back from Mars. Very little time is spent on the surface. And so that's the short stay mission. So in our trade study, that's going to be one option. It's a short stay option. The other option is long stay. And so here, again, you look at the planets going around the sun, when they're on the same side of the sun, you launch and go to Mars. Then you sit on Mars for well over a year and you wait for the planets to get back on the same side of the sun and then you drive yourself back to Earth. And if you look at that plot there, that looks a lot more straightforward but you spent a long time on the surface of Mars, right? So you spend these shows here 496 days on the surface. So these two trade, when you do this trade study, these two options don't look a lot alike at all, right?  The other option, you get to Mars and you just sit there, wait for the planets to come around in a line again, and then you drive yourself back. Is it safer to be on the surface for a long time or safer to be in transit? Is it more fuel economical to be on a short stay mission or fuel economical to be on a long stay option? What are my figures of merit, my measures of effectiveness, my measures of performance that I want to use to evaluate which one of these two is the way I would like to go? So that's what's on this next chart here. I'm not going to go through them all, but these are all the different figures of merit or again, as we talked about before, measures of effectiveness or measures of performance that you might use to be able to evaluate which one of these options is the way I'd like to make my decision.  It's a really easy thing to look at, the amount of mass of a ship, and you start to think about things like how complicated will it be. If it's really massive, it's going to be complicated to get it up in the space. It may be complicated because you have to dock a lot of pieces together. It's also sometimes a corollary to say how much will it cost because a big spaceship is going to probably cost a lot more than a little one. So if I can say that one of these is going to be a much smaller spaceship, I might also be able to say it's probably going to be a less expensive mission to be able to develop the system for. So total mass in low-earth orbit is a key measure that I'm going to want to evaluate for both of these options to see which one of them will provide me a better answer for mass in low-earth orbit. So you can walk down the slide here. There's things like crew exposure to radiation. Which one of them will put the crew in a more risk of radiation exposure? Some of these are going to be discrete and defined things like mass. How much mass for option A? How much mass for option B? Some of them are going to be a lot more perception, like how safe is option A versus option B for the crew. There might not be a way to calculate that, but it might be more of a sense of complexity or exposure to radiation or other risks that you might say, well, this one sounds more risky than this one does. And so there could be some parameters in your figures of merit that are judgmental versus just discrete answers. So the other thing to think about is that all these figures of merit are in this case kind of being treated equally. In a lot of cases you might give them maybe values against each other, like a weighting, right? You might decide, hey, what's most important to me is how much mass I have in low-earth orbit or what's most important to me is the cost through the first mission. And so if you take some of those figures of merit and say, well, when I do my evaluation, if one of these options is much better in those areas, that's going to be the dominant part of my decision. And some of these other areas might be just a very small part of my decision-making process. So you could put a weight against each one of these, some kind of a measure of how important that criteria is in your final decision. But in this case, we're going to treat them all equally. We're going to say that all of these are important figures and we want to evaluate each one of these options against all these different figures. So we're only going to talk about a few, but this is just to give you an idea of how you would develop a table of figures of merit to be able to do that evaluation. One of the things we're going to look at here in this trade study is how much delta V, very technical term, right? Change in velocity is going to be required from the beginning when you're sitting on the ground ready to take off to go to Mars all the way until you return back to Earth. Think of what is delta V, change in velocity, what does all that mean? Well, we have to think about how much fuel we're going to have to carry. Mars is a long way away, it's going to take a lot of propellant to get there. Well, we want to know is a short-stay mission or a long-stay mission going to be better when it comes to propellant. It's going to take less fuel. So one of the easiest ways, we don't know what kind of rockets we're going to use yet when we do these trade studies sometimes. So we're at a very high level. So first if we know how much acceleration is required to go from Earth to Mars and how much acceleration to go from Mars to Earth, that's going to help us understand how much fuel. It's kind of like you're going to leave your house and go to the store, right? You're going to get in the car, you're going to accelerate, get out on the highway, you're going to decelerate when you get to the grocery store. On the way back, you're going to do the same thing. Now, in a car, you've got to keep your foot down on the accelerator burning gas because you have road resistance, you have air resistance, but think about this in space, right?  Once you've accelerated to the right speed, you just coast all the way to Mars. There's nothing to slow you down, but unlike on Earth, you can't just step on the brakes. When you get there, you have to actually turn around, fire the rocket the other way to slow down enough that you can go into orbit or you just go flying past Mars. And so, same thing is going to happen on the way back. And so, that change in velocity or acceleration that's required at the beginning to get going, to stop at Mars, the deceleration, and then the acceleration to get going and then the deceleration to get yourself back to Earth, those are all going to take fuel. And so, this is an easy way to look at the amount of fuel that might be required. Even before you know what kind of rockets you're going to use is which one of these options is going to require more change in velocity from the beginning of the mission to the end of the mission. So, what you see here is up on the top side, you see the long-stay missions. And so, you see the amount of fuel required to go to Mars on the bottom. You see the amount of fuel required to come back from Mars on the top. And then you see that one other bar that says mid-course corrections or whatever deep space corrections. It's just a time when you might need to steer a little bit along the way and so you need to fire some rockets to steer yourself to make sure you get to your destination. So, all of those fuel requirements add up. And so, you can see that the bar here in delta V or kilometers per second of acceleration on the y-axis just says that for all these different Mars missions that are long-stay in nature where you're going to have a long over a year on the surface, these different opportunities. And remember, we talked about that only every couple of years do the Earth and Mars line up where you can actually go to Mars. So, that's why you see a bar in 20, you know, 2031 or so, 2033, is that there's not an opportunity to leave for Mars whenever you want to. There are specific times. And this repeating cycle where they're close to each other, they're not always in the exact same position relative to each other. So, sometimes you're going to need a little bit more gas. Sometimes you're going to need a little less gas depending on which specific opportunity we're talking about. Then scientists have predicted for many, many years out into the future where the planets will be aligned on any one of these given opportunities. So, you can do this analysis of how much change in acceleration would be required, for any one of these specific opportunities. So, what you can see here is for all the long stay missions, the amount of acceleration is somewhere in the, what, 6 to 8 kilometers per second. That's all of the changes that will have to happen throughout the mission, all added up together, right? Well, and you can see that from opportunity to opportunity, there's not a big change. Although, when you get out here in the 2040s, there's a little bit of a hump. And so, you've got to think about that. If I'm going to design a system to go to Mars, to take crew to Mars, I'm probably not going to design it for one mission and one opportunity. I want to be able to use it again and again and again. So, that's why I'm doing this plot, not just for one opportunity, but I'm looking out across time at many opportunities to try to figure out if there's, you know, sometimes when the acceleration is going to be a lot more than in other times because my fuel tank is going to have to accommodate probably the worst case scenario. Unless I want to say, well, gee, I'm just not going to fly in that one opportunity, but then you're going to have to wait four years to go back to Mars and you might not be willing to do that. So, we've kind of laid it out here. And so, that's the long stay options. And then if you go down to the lower part of the graph, you see the same kind of chart for the short stay options. And again, you see, well, how much change in acceleration does it take to go to Mars for each one of these opportunities? How much does it take to come back? And then how much is required for some steering along the way to do any mid-course corrections? And you can see here now that in these cases, it's eight to, well, the highest one is what? About 15, almost 16 kilometers per second of acceleration required to complete the mission a lot more for each one of these cases. Now, the other thing you'll notice is that when you go from opportunity to opportunity, the amount of acceleration required to complete the mission is very different, right? So, there are some here that are all the way down below eight, a little below eight kilometers per second. But then there are these others that go up to 11, 12, 14, 15 kilometers per second. And so, again, if I want to build a system to be able to go back and forth to Mars and use it again and again or maybe build another copy of it, my fuel tank is going to have to be a lot bigger for some of these opportunities than for others, and I have to kind of think about that. Because if I say, well, I'm just not going to go when there's these parts where maybe the planets are at a line very well, so it's going to take a lot of acceleration to get home, well, gee, that's taking out a number of opportunities. And so I might not only be able to fly to Mars every five or 10 or 15 years if I take out the ones that have the higher requirements. So this was a good part to do. This analysis is really helping me understand what's a better mission to fly should I go with a long stay or a short stay. But this is only from one very limited perspective, and that perspective is change in velocity, which is kind of equivalent to how much fuel I'm going to have to carry. So there's a lot of other things I want to keep in mind, not just how much fuel am I going to have to carry to complete the mission. So the other thing is these different opportunities, again, because of their planetary alignment, it's going to make the mission maybe longer or shorter, depending on which one of those opportunities I fly on. So, again, look at this chart here, and you look in the upper right-hand side, and this time it's mission duration on the y-axis and all those different opportunities to fly to Mars for a long stay mission. And you see the time it's going to take in red to go to Mars, the time in blue that you'll be on the surface, and then the time in beige up at the top is how long it's going to take to get home. And so you can see that from opportunity to opportunity, there's very little variation again. They're all about 900 days in duration, right? So if I'm going to build the system to support a crew for 900 days or so, I could pretty much fly whenever I would want to. I could choose any one of these opportunities. And so that might be one of my big constraints is if some of these options I can only fly at certain times, I can make this a less attractive option for me in my trade study. So the other thing you see noted on this slide is solar activity. Now, the sun goes through a 12-year cycle where it gets kind of quiet, and then it ramps up. There are more solar flares. You hear about that in the news. Things called coronal mass ejections where particles come off the sun. So they can pose threats, both the radiation from the sun and the particles, can pose threats both to the crew on board a spacecraft if it's flying out to Mars or back. And to the systems on board, the computers and things like that. So you kind of like to know on this, where is the time when the sun is going to be more active? And then you could say, well, gee, if I have very long mission durations around that time, that might be really unhealthy for the crew or dangerous for the systems to be flying for long durations during that period of time. So it's just something you want to keep in mind as you're doing this part of the trade study analysis. So if you look at the lower part of the chart, see a very similar plot for the short-state mission. So here you're looking at for short-state missions, again, the time to go from Earth to Mars in red, the time on the surface above that, and then the time to return above that. And again, you're looking to see a couple things. One is, is there a big variation between the length of time from beginning to end of the mission? And you see here there is. And because these options for short-stay, most of your time is being spent in transit between planets, very little time on the surface. Now you do have to worry about that solar activity because the Mars atmosphere will protect you a little bit from radiation when you're on the surface. When you're flying between the two planets, you're exposed to that radiation. And remember, on some of these, all of these short-stay options, you're going to have to fly in towards Venus to get home to Earth. Well, gee, if the sun's very active, I surely don't want to be flying right in its face to be able to get home. So again, this could be a very dangerous kind of situation when I combine the length of the mission that I'm spending in space, the time I'm in space with the fact that the sun is going through active periods every 12 years, that might be a bad combination for short-stay missions. So again, this is only looking at it from one perspective. So to complete this trade study, I'm looking at a number of different things that I can evaluate that I could then apply my measures of effectiveness and measures of performance and be able to say, hmm, which one of these is going to be my better option. So just two things here. Here's some examples of what you look at. Now, another big criteria we talked about before was how much mass has to be in Earth orbit to start the mission. So when I go to leave to go to Mars, and I've got all my stuff in Earth orbit, how heavy is that vehicle? And that's going to give me an indication of how complex it's going to be to build this thing and how expensive this is probably going to be to build. So to do that, you have to have some sense of an architecture. So we've talked about architecture before. Now, early on in the mission planning phases here, we're starting to develop some minimal ops concepts and architectures. And so to do this trade study, you can start to look at what are the vehicles required in this architecture. And that's going to start to allow you to evaluate how much mass is going to be required. We talked about Delta V before. Once you take Delta V and add what kind of propulsion system you're going to use, you can figure out how much propellant you need. So the mass of the vehicle, the mass of the propellant, you could add that together and get kind of a sense of how much mass and orbit is going to be required to start this mission off. And so let's just look at two architectures and we'll look at the short stay first. And the goal in both architectures is to try to keep the architectures as similar as possible and only make changes that are related to the thing you're trading. Remember, we're trading short stay on the surface versus long stay. I'd like to have the rest of the architecture remain as constant as possible so I could do this head-to-head comparison of only one element of the architecture, which is the changing the requirement for a longer stay on the surface. And so what you see in the short stay architecture is I'm going to, working from the left, I have some equipment that I'll only need when I take the crew down to the surface of Mars. Well, I'm going to go ahead and launch that on a big rocket and I'm going to go ahead and send it to Mars orbit. The crew is still on the ground. They're still getting ready for launch. I'm going to go ahead and ship their supplies to Mars orbit. They don't need that stuff on their trip. Then separately, I'm going to launch the vehicle that's going to take them to Mars. And then last, when everything's ready, I'm going to launch the crew on that smaller rocket.  When they get to Mars orbit, they'll meet their supplies, which are already there in orbit. They'll dock with their supplies, their landing vehicle, which is kind of represented as the upside down here.  You dock in orbit with your return vehicle that's going to take you home and then that takes you all the way home and you splash down in the ocean just like in the Apollo missions of the old days. So this gives you a sense of how much equipment is going to be needed from the beginning to the end of the mission to accomplish a short stay mission. To figure out, at least at a gross level, how much mass is going to be required for this mission in all these different components. So this basic architecture, this basic ops concept is going to really help me drive out my requirements for mass. So you flip to the next one and you look at the long stay mission architecture, it almost looks the same, right? And that's the goal. The goal is to try to keep all the other parameters the same except to say, how about if I stay on the surface for more than a year now instead of just for a month? Well, and the original one in the short stay option, when you land that you're in a small lander. You have a small crew, they're going to live in the lander for a month. Okay, it's not going to be real comfortable, it's going to be a little close quarters, but for a month you can put up with having a neighbor three elbows away and you can survive and get yourself back. But if you're going to be on the surface for more than a year, not only do you need a little bit more room to have more equipment, because they're going to be able to go off and explore greater distances, they've got a lot of time. Maybe they want to bring a buggy with them to drive further away and maybe a camping outfit to go off and be able to camp at different spots on Mars, do further exploration. And they're going to want to have some privacy, so maybe you have to develop some bedroom facilities, some wash facilities, they're going to be on the surface a long time. I don't want to take a shower once in a while, so it's going to have to have a lot more facilities developed on the surface to support that crew. There is the same architecture as we saw before, but what's added all the way over on the left-hand side is you now have another set of vehicles that's going to launch and go directly to the surface with a large habitat module. So that adds a complexity too, because not only do you have to launch more mass to launch this habitat that they can live in while they're on the surface, this bigger habitat, but you notice that it lands on the surface independently.  So this second landing, when the crew comes down, they've already got their house sitting on the ground, they've got to make sure they pinpoint land right next to it so they can walk over and live there for a year before they have to come home.  You kind of know where the scientifically interesting place would be, but if you miss it by a little bit, no big deal. Here if you miss your house by a long way, you don't have a way to get there. It's going to be a very challenging mission. You might have to come home early. So, since we saw that the real driver here is the surface components, right, that there's a big difference between these two architectures, let's look at the surface in a little bit more detail, right? So here you have the lander, which is for the short-stay mission, and the lander which looks very similar for the long-stay. So you're going to, again, try to keep the architecture the same as far as the vehicle that will actually have the propulsion units and everything else to land you and then take you back off up into orbit. But then you have this separate habitat that's landed on the surface separately, and then a habitat's going to have everything from, again, some personal space for the crew, some common areas where they can work together, and then it's also going to have things like medical facilities, because now that you've said, I want to be on the surface for more than a year, well, the chances are going up that somebody's going to get hurt or have some other medical condition while you're on the surface. And so now your surface facility better have some kind of medical care facility, too, to deal with all the kinds of things that might happen to a crew member while you're on the surface for this long period of time. And so, again, you've maybe done enough study of this, and you've kind of thought about what the requirements would be so that you could then make a guess at how big it has to be and how heavy it has to be, what materials it has to be made out of to withstand a year or more on the Mars surface. And so, so that that analysis is just helping you again. You're going into a little bit of detail on what the surface systems are going to look like so you can make your assessment of how you're going to do this. So now the next thing is you've got all this data now on propellant, because you did your delta-v analysis. You've done your surface architecture analysis. You've done your transportation architecture analysis. Now you're ready to compare the mass in orbit at the beginning of the mission for long-stay versus short-stay. And you might be surprised if you go, we'll go to the next chart here and we'll look at two different options. One is you use chemical rockets, which is very similar to how the space shuttle worked. It's very similar to how all rockets work, most of the rockets work today, where they use some chemicals that are mixed together to provide propulsion for the system. Now for missions out to Mars, we've also thought about doing something a little different, which is to use nuclear rockets. The nuclear rockets would have a small nuclear fission reactor inside and you would flow hydrogen over that reactor and you would heat up the hydrogen and expand it, and that would allow that would push you the other direction. So it's a hydrogen fission engine. So that nuclear rocket is another option that's a lot more fuel efficient than current chemical rockets, but it hasn't been developed yet. So it's still a technology that needs to be developed. So if you had that technology you could see over on the left-hand side that how much mass you would need in low-earth orbit to do long-stay missions and short-stay missions is pretty similar. Same thing if you use chemical rockets, pretty similar. So you're not seeing a big differentiation now. You might have thought when you looked at that architecture and you saw the all the ground equipment you needed for the long stay, for that year-long stay on the surface that, jeez, that's probably going to make that a much heavier architecture than the other one. Well, no, not true, because the trip, when you get on Mars and you stay on the surface until the planets come back into alignment and then you come home, that's the lowest delta V. If you went back to that delta V discussion, that's the lowest amount of energy you need to get to Mars and come back from Mars. When you go for only a short time, you're going to need a lot of propellant to get home because you've got to take that shortcut in through Venus to get home. And so that's going to take a lot of propulsion. So what's happening is the advantages of the short stay mission and not having to have more surface architecture is outweighed in a lot of cases by the fact that you need more propellant to execute those missions. So what you see here is in the end the mass in low Earth orbit is really not a good deciding factor between the two because it's pretty similar. And I don't know that that would have been intuitive when you first started doing the trade study. So we'll finish up this set of options in this trade study by looking at, not going to go through again all of them, but this is what the team at NASA came up with for a comparison of short stay versus long stay missions. And you can see they've highlighted in green areas where they thought there was a significant advantage to one or the other. And so when it comes to things like the total mass in low Earth orbit they said, well gee, it's pretty similar. So I don't know that I would make a decision on one or the other based on that. But there are things like the complexity and the size of some of the vehicles because of the changes in propulsion. They said, boy, you know, I think the long stay the actual vehicles taking you back and forth would be a lot simpler to build. There's a lot less propellant, there's a lot a smaller vehicle would be adequate. And so there's actually a big advantage to the transportation part of this by going with long stay missions. So things like expected useful crew from a sole being a Mars day it's about 24 and a half hours a little longer than an Earth day but so the time it takes to spin on its axis.  I have a lot more productive time where the crew could be out doing scientific research. So from a scientist standpoint I'd say, ooh, boy, you know, long stay sounds great to me because I can get a lot more research done. So you can kind of go through all of these different factors here and just see that in the end this set of trades and in this option analysis, it looks like the long surface stay missions might be the best ones. But now let's stand back away from that for a second. So these tools are always a way to help in decision making, right? So it gives you a lot of information to help make a decision. You saw that you do a lot of very detailed technical analyses to help drive this decision process. But in the end you have to use kind of human thought too is that maybe in the end it's better to go with a short stay mission because I'm a little worried about the crew being on a 900 day mission away from Earth and all of the risks that can come up with a long mission like that. And so maybe overriding all of this is the fact that I just don't want to have the crew be away from Earth for that long. So that's the thing about this is it really tries to drive out what are the differences between the two options and a trade study tries to then give you as a decision maker the information to help make a decision. But in the end it's really never a perfect analysis it's always something that you're going to have to add a little bit of your own analysis on top of that to say which one do I think is really the way to go in this trade. There are no additional resources for this subunit.


Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. One of the first topics we wanted to bring up, we just had a shooting not too long ago here in Sacramento and there's been several recently as well too throughout the nation. But one of the crazy things is every time there's a shooting, especially nowadays in this last few years, everybody talks about the gun but nobody seems to care about the shooter and it seems like in a lot of cases with criminals we just kind of let them right back out on the street. It almost seems like, so Sam, what's that all about? I know you guys have some articles. In fact, I think we have one to share up there. You guys have an article on your website about this too. So, okay. Yeah, Sam, so you want to take us through a little bit of this? Sure.  I think the world about what you guys are doing and you're so much fun and so it's a pleasure to be with you. But this topic is super important. The fact of the matter is every time there is some sort of a gun violence tragedy that happens anywhere in the country, the leftist anti-gunners use that as an opportunity to promote their typical agenda on gun control. They haven't been able to pass either at the ballot box or through the legislative process, but they just can't let these tragedies go to waste without using them as a springboard to promote more gun control. It's fascinating that the shooting that took place in Sacramento, immediately the governor and the mayor of Sacramento came out and called for more gun control. We've got to get rid of ghost guns. We've got to get rid of assault weapons. We need universal background checks. We need that, all things that we already have here in the state of California, number one. And number two, as soon as they found out that this was not actually what is typically characterized as an act of random gun violence, but it was actually a gang-related shooting, the news quit. They stopped. They stopped reporting on it. Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative for what they're trying to do in taking away the guns from law-abiding citizens, because they know full well that there is nothing they can do to prevent criminals or those people who have evil in their heart and are willing to use that intent to create some act of evil violence.  So the shooting here, it didn't fit the narrative and now you've heard almost nothing. And you're right. Gun Owners of California was created by Senator H. L. Richardson in 1975 and we have maintained the same motto. We are a committee dedicated to crime control, not gun control. And in saying that, we testified before the legislature, we talk to anybody who wants to listen, we talk about it in our lawsuits and our amicus briefs, that as long as the policymakers focus on guns or the implements of crime and ignore the human element, you are going to continue to see gun violence.  Because we know that far more often, law-abiding citizens use guns to successfully defend themselves and prevent from being a victim. You know Sam, that is what you're saying is so true and I so totally agree with it. But even the expression gun violence is problematic because the left always speak about gun violence. Like if a gun does just jump out of a case or jump off somebody holster, just jump out there and start shooting people at random. They never talk about the fact that it's a criminal. Just like you said, it's a criminal committing the violence, not the gun itself. The criminal is using a gun to commit violence against another human being. But they never talk about that. But you're so right about this and I so much agree too. But I wish we would stop using the expression gun violence because it's not a gun.  Leon, it would be the same as if we were to start using the term car violence. Beer violence or whiskey violence or knife violence. You're absolutely correct. And we work very hard to be as careful as we can with the terminology because it is important.  There need to be consequences. Something that you said earlier, Jason, is absolutely true. We have a revolving door of criminals who are committed to committing crime. We know that of the people that we release from prison and we are releasing them earlier and earlier, at least 50% of them commit another act of violence and are brought back to prison within a very short period of time of their release. So if we wanted to cut the crime rate in the state of California by 50%, all we would have to do is keep those people in prison for a longer period of time. But that is anathema to our present policymakers and our governor. They want to let these people, it's not their fault. It's the gun's fault. It's society's fault. They were raised by poor mothers or underfunded schools or something like that. They do not place the blame where it belongs and that is squarely on the shoulders of the people who commit crimes. One thing too is that we often see this with government, especially if you've sort of got that liberty vision. You can kind of see these government failures stack up one after another. But the prisons, we spend top dollar, and this is kind of getting into another whole topic, but we spend top dollar on the prison and the reform rate is so terrible that we wind up letting the people back out there. Oftentimes they might be worse criminals than when they came in. I think we'd have the top rates of turning these people into productive citizens.  It just seems crazy that one failure after another, just like dominoes, and government jumps in with another solution constantly. I hate to be on the soapbox about that, but maybe one of you guys wants to jump in on this. No, but the left always just go to woods instead of actual policy because we have changed the wood, the Department of Prisons or whatever it used to be called before. Corrections, and it doesn't correct the wood. Corrections, and it doesn't correct anything. It doesn't correct anything. We just have criminals being cycled through the system and returning there as often as they can. Even in that case, you were talking about Jason and Sam in the case of the shooting in Sacramento. Even in that case, I think one of the guys who have been arrested was somebody who had been recently paroled and he had served less than half of a 10-year sentence. That's a long record also. Yes, even the district attorney from Sacramento had written a letter to the parol board saying that if you let this guy out, he has absolutely no remorse.  He will commit more crimes if you let him out. And what did the parol board do? They let him out and the words of the district attorney were unfortunately they came true. They were probably prophetic. We have to change the mentality.  Oh, so I spent a few years in prison but it's almost like going to occupational training. You go in there and you learn how to perfect your craft for committing crimes and joining gangs and doing all of these things. And maybe I'll learn how to do some woodworking in order to get some points to get out of prison early. But the penalties are not such that they're unwilling to commit these crimes. And back when we had a penal institution as opposed to a correctional or rehabilitation institution, our crime was steadily dropping over 20 years. Our crime rate and especially the homicide rate in America and in California were on a steady decrease. And then we changed the dynamic of our institutions and now we are on a dynamic rise in crime. So I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a knucklehead to really see what the facts are. But the unfortunate thing about all of this is that these leftist politicians, they are not connecting policy, whether it's early release or whether it's being soft on crime. They are not connecting policy to the recent rising crime that we are seeing. They are making no connection between these two things. And who is suffering for this? The law abiding. That's who's suffering for this. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always and forever.


McArdle's disease is a rare genetic disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme alanine amino transferase ALT, which leads to difficulty exercising due to muscle pain and weakness. Periodontal disease is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the gums and surrounding structures of the teeth. It is caused by bacterial biofilms, which are composed of bacteria and other substances that stick together and form a protective layer around the teeth. Patients with McArdle's disease may be more susceptible to periodontal disease because of their impaired immune systems. This case report describes a woman with McArdle's disease who developed periodontal disease. She was treated with a combination of oral hygiene instructions, probiotics, and debriement using D-Biot-E-C-H. After 60 days, her periodontal status improved significantly, with fewer pockets with probing pocket depth, PPD, greater than or equal to 4 mm, and fewer pockets with PPD greater than or equal to 5 mm. Her full mouth bleeding score, FMBS, also decreased from 48%. This article was authored by Salvatore Konitsoro, Carolina Mayrani, Andrea Scribant, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


I welcome to our FEMS microbes journal. We have our editorial board listed here and you've already met us three editors-in-chief. So let's go ahead and move on to the next slide. So we do everything we can to make this the best possible journal. FEMS microbes was kind of the idea behind it was to create a broad-spectrum microbiology journal in FEMS that accepted full-length papers. The other broad-spectrum microbiology journal, FEMS microbes letters specializes in shorter format publications we wanted to have full-length ones. So with this new journal we had a couple of things that we're doing that are different and good. All these are listed here. One big one here is the transparent peer review process we make it possible for. And it's a mutual consent situation for the reviewers and the authors to make all of that information available once the paper is published. Okay, so sailing into the attendees here, we really want to include and embrace early career scientists with this journal. So part of the motivation for this workshop is centered around this first idea involving early career scientists in the peer review process. We also are really happy to bring people in as guest editors for thematic issue. We've had several of these in process. So this is a situation that is ongoing. If you've got an idea for a thematic issue, please speak up and talk to us because we're very interested in these. We have FEMS webinars. I think this might count as one, but we also potentially have FEMS articles that are presented as their own thing that we welcome. And then we also have a social media presence as well. Okay, well then let's go ahead and move on to our discussion of the peer review process. This is where I take over. So we'll just take you through sort of the general approach that we feel is appropriate for reviewing for our journal. So that you might consider when we contact you. So can we go to the next slide? So the first thing that happens is you will get an email asking if you would like to review a paper. And usually in that email, there'll be an abstract and sometimes the authors are listed. I can't remember if it is for our journal, but the editors have selected you based on either your publication record or your expertise, areas of expertise that you've provided for us that we have in a database for all of our early career researchers that we're interested in reviewing. So we can try to match people as best possible, but that's not always going to work. Sometimes we get close matches, we do our best, but so this is why I say it's rarely a perfect match. And so this is a point for you to consider just because you've been invited to review a paper doesn't mean you're necessarily going to feel comfortable doing that. So things to think about are, is that a similar organism, similar model system, using similar approaches or techniques that you're familiar with. If this is way off in left field, don't do it at them, then the editor misjudged and you can absolutely say no. At that point. And by the way, Katie and Yana and Patrick, please feel free to just jump in at any point. I'll try to pause appropriately for you to do so. And so, okay, were you jumping in? No, just saying yes, I will. Okay, okay. And so if it's not a good fit, but you have a colleague down the hall who's an early career researcher or a faculty member or whatever, that would be perfect, please let us know that our editors really, really appreciate that for those of you that are ever on social media, you know, the editors are often complaining about the difficulty of finding reviewers. And so sometimes you're not quite perfect to review, but you're close enough to identify more appropriate reviewers. So that's very much appreciated. Another thing that's important to ask yourself is do you have sufficient time to do this? Because at least, you know, when you're not used to doing these frequently, they can take a fair amount of time. At an order of hours, I know some people that will take a day to really appropriately and fully review a paper. So it can take some time. And then the last thing to consider before you click on that accept button is whether or not you have any conflicts of interest. So do you know the authors? Have you published with the authors? The editors tried to check that before they identify reviewers, but we can miss them for sure. You have a relationship with any of the authors that could bias your judgment. Would you like them to review your paper? Do you have any sort of underlying bias that might color the review to the negative? And does it contradict your work? Is there a bias in terms of work, not necessarily a relationship, but are these competitors? Would you, might you be biased in that review? So think about that as well. And so, okay, next slide. Can I add something to that? I just think that it would be really good if you decide not to or you have a reason that you actually identify the reason because it's good for us to get that information as well. If it's, if we've missed the target subject. So that's actually really helpful and informative to the editor as well. Thanks, Yana. Okay, next slide then. So if you have then gone ahead and accepted the invitation because you think that you are appropriate to do this and ready to go. Some things that are important to do, especially when a journal is new to you. So you will not have reviewed for FEMS microbes before. So you'll want to get a sense of what is the scope of the journal. That's always on the journal's website. So you can find that look at the review criteria. This is sometimes listed in the website itself. Sometimes this is through a link. Well, usually you'll see it in a link once you accept the invitation. And so our criteria are shown here on the right. So these are the sorts of things that you'll be asked to evaluate. And you can just look through that as I talk. But this is always a good place to start. What are you looking for? And a lot of these, the criteria are here. I think one of the bullet points here that we was added was that to ask yourself, you know, is there gonna be significant significance or innovation sufficient for warranting publication? And so this often goes, speaks to scope. So what is the journal looking for in terms of advancing science? Different journals have different bars where we have to meet. And then so the author instruction for FEMS microbes are listed here where you can get then more information about the journal. So that's kind of the first step is just getting a handle on what the journal is looking for.


So premise number one, suffering is bad. No! All right guys, welcome back to the channel.  Today we're gonna have a closer look at his video titled The Vegan Blind Spot. Let's go. I want to begin this video by just explaining what motivated me to go vegan. I basically became aware of a large amount of suffering and I realized there was something I could do to reduce that suffering. So now, as you know, I spend most of my time trying to make other people aware of the suffering so they can gain the motivation to make the same changes that I did. Okay, wait a second. So first and foremost, you found out about some sort of suffering that you then in your mind equated to bad. Where your morality or ethics come from, we do not know. You decided that this suffering equals bad. Then you make the decision to go vegan. Good for you. I can relate to that because I was a vegan for four years.  And now you want to take your ideology and spread it to the masses. You want to brainwash more people into your religion. Let's proceed. So I'm going to take the general argument I'm making for veganism and put it into formal logic. And you could go through this with me and ask yourself whether you agree with these premises. So number one, suffering is bad. No, I do not agree. Right then, right there. We already have two different perspectives on this subject. Why is suffering bad? If you look into Buddhism, for example, you will see the phrase, life is suffering. So clearly there are different ideologies and belief system to this. And this is what it is. It is just a belief system. You believe suffering is bad. I do not. Let's proceed. Number two, we should try to reduce suffering if we can. No, I do not agree at all. Yet again, why is suffering bad? Why should we reduce it? You don't list a reason for why. Suffering, bad. I saw it on Disney, right? And therefore it must be bad. What is the reasoning behind it? What does it mean to suffer? Can suffering be transmuted into something positive, perceived positive? Of course it can.  And that idea can be multiplied and exaggerated. If you look into the mechanics of bodybuilding, yes, I'm a meathead. Then you will see that that suffering in the gym equates to a sacrifice.  But the idea of sacrifice is as old as humanity. You can see animal sacrifice, you can see child sacrifice in order to gain something. The name of this game is sacrifice, the name of this game is suffering. And therefore you to say suffering is bad is simply ignorant. Number three, it's obvious that farmed animals are suffering. What? Why? Have you ever seen farms? Have you ever visited those animals? Why would they suffer? They have amazing lives. If you see grass-fed cattle, for example, they're in a safe zone. They can graze all day. They're basically in a candy store that is heaven. They have an absolutely amazing life.  How do farm animals really suffer? Agree with these premises, as I'm sure most of you will. I'm sure, yeah, but I don't. Then a logical conclusion would be we should try to reduce. Okay, wait a second. Just because you say it's logical doesn't mean it is. Right out of your religious belief system, this makes sense. And everybody that will disagree with your belief system doesn't make sense. Don't you see how religious this is? It's a suffering of farmed animals. So I talk about suffering quite a lot. In fact, my friends and my girlfriend often tell me that I talk about suffering far too much. It's quite a miracle that you have a girlfriend first and foremost, but secondly, I'm not surprised. Of course you're talking about suffering because you yourself suffer on a vegan diet. It is nothing but projection. And it is the obsession with violence, with suffering. It is normal for vegans because they do not follow their natural instincts. And I often think it's quite difficult to comprehend just how bad suffering can be for an individual. For example, I have been to several animal vigils before. Animal saves, if you're unfamiliar with what these are, essentially activists stand outside of a slaughterhouse, stop the trucks on the way in and bear witness to the animals before they are killed. Exactly. So you basically disrupt the way from the farm to the slaughterhouse. Bearing witness, you're bearing suffering. You want to see it.  This is what you're doing. In reality, you're distressing those animals. If suffering is so bad, why do you distress them? Just let the trucks pass, get it done. Now, there have been several times when I've seen the animals in the trucks, they've gone past, closed the doors. I can no longer see them. And I turn around to my friend or whoever's there and just start to get at it as normal as if there isn't a serious issue going on as if behind those closed doors. It's called food. There is no serious issue. There isn't an immense amount of suffering going on. My ability to do... How is there an immense amount of suffering going on? I truly don't understand what you're saying. How is a bald gun to the head immense suffering? I really do not understand you. It makes me think that I'm not really fully comprehending how bad the situation is. How much this individual is suffering.  They want to feel the suffering of the animal. They're branding themselves. They're cutting themselves. They're absolutely ill. Just a few meters away from me. So maybe we could just take a second to think about how we feel when we suffer intensely. Why? It can be the only thing you can think about at times. When we're experiencing suffering at its worst, it seems like it's completely taking up all of our awareness, all of our conscious experience. When we are suffering, at that moment, it can feel like the most important thing in the universe. Okay, cut you off right there. Don't you see that this attitude leads to a weak society? This leads to safe zones. Oh, I don't want to feel that suffering. Don't call me fat. Listen, I was a chubby kid. People called me chubby. People called me fat.  With that, I acquired discipline and strength of character throughout my life. That suffering was the most valuable learning lesson. I'm gonna give you another example. I was severely sick for over a year. Viral infections and whatnot. I was bad ridden. I was partially paralyzed. That suffering was the greatest learning lesson of my life. Again, suffering is not bad. What you create are safe spaces.  If you go against suffering, you go against the rules of life.  So now let's think about an individual animal. Let's say a six month old pig going into a gas chamber. So this animal is feeling sick.  From the journey to the slaughterhouse. They're feeling confused. They can smell blood. So they're scared. And they're... How do you know that? About to experience an intense amount of pain. How? With a bolt gun to their head. How is that intense amount of pain? Lights are out in a second. For several seconds, they will scream in agony and thrash about in that gas chamber. If you really, really think about what this experience is like, we care a lot. And we desperately want to see it end. You want to intervene and stop this from happening. Okay, so now I want... Where is this going? I want to give you a thought experiment. And I totally understand how strange this hypothetical will sound to you at first. Everything that you said sounds very strange to me. But please bear with me because I think you'll find it really interesting in the end. Okay. So let's imagine for a second that we had a world where rather than a man made a slaughterhouse, we had a slaughterhouse appearing naturally, organically. It grew out of the ground like a mushroom in a forest. And rather than a pig in the slaughterhouse, there was a deer. And this deer is going through exactly the same experiences that the pig went through. So the deer is feeling nauseous. The deer is scared and confused. And the deer is about to be thrashing around in that gas chamber, screaming, begging for mercy and just hoping it will end. Okay. My question for you is this. Would you still care about the suffering of this animal? Do you still... I didn't care in both cases. Want this suffering to stop? No. Do you want to stop this from happening? No. For me... How manipulative.  The answer is yes. Of course it is. I absolutely care about this individual. And I really want this suffering to end. I don't want this to happen. To the animal, it makes no difference whether or not the slaughterhouse was produced by man or produced naturally. And here we go. The vegan got complex, right? Now nature is evil as well. We have to change it. The example of the natural slaughterhouse, I assume, will be shown as the natural world itself where animals eat animals. Am I right? So now in this example with the natural slaughterhouse, which is absolutely ridiculous, vegans always have to come up with multiverses, different dimensions, human consciousness in a pig body and whatnot.  They always come up with outlandish examples. Anyhow, to follow your logic, an organic slaughterhouse is better than nature itself because in the slaughterhouse, they would experience less suffering. It makes no difference to their experience, their awareness of what's happening to them. Okay, so now what I'm going to do is I'm going to tweak this hypothetical a little bit and ask you the same questions. Even more. So now let's imagine that in this hypothetical world, the slaughterhouse is no longer there. The naturally occurring slaughterhouse is gone. We are just left with the deer suffering. They're in pain, they're screaming, they're confused, they miss their families. How? See how vegans have to drag you down the rabbit hole, right? First and foremost, the organic slaughterhouse didn't make sense. But now out of the sudden, there is a deer just suffering out of nowhere. Great philosophical excursion. Would you still care about this deer? Would you still want this deer suffering to exist? The interesting thing is this last scenario is an accurate depiction of reality. We've got animals in the wild and they're suffering and the suffering is occurring naturally. We idolize nature and for 99.9% Who idolizes nature of wild animals? Their suffering is completely hidden from us, out of sight, out of mind. And likewise, 99.9% of farmed animals, their suffering is completely hidden from us as well. The reality is that there is an immense amount of suffering in the wild. Yes, life is suffering. You realize that. Now what? We're in the wild. And if we saw their suffering, we would care deeply about it. No, you would. I want to go back to the formal argument I made earlier. And again, you just come with me on this journey and ask yourself the same questions. So premise number one, suffering is bad. No! Premise number two, we should try to reduce suffering if we can. No! Premise number three, it is obvious that wild animals are suffering. When? If you agree with these premises, then a logical conclusion would be that we should try to reduce wild animal suffering. If we care about the suffering of the individual, then surely we should care about all individuals. What do you want to do? Not just the ones in farms and slaughterhouses, but also the ones suffering in nature. So we've talked about how bad. So let me cut you off right there. That is a transhumanist belief. There is this guy, David Pierce, who is a transhumanist, good friends with Bostrom and like, he wants to create a reality where nothing is suffering. Very similar to your vegan belief system here. And of course, the guy is a vegan himself. His idea is to convert all the carnivores into herbivores, by implanting them with chips and changing their biology, their DNA. That is a fantastic way to wreck the whole environment. And this is a beautiful display of your ignorance, arrogance and God complex, where you believe that you understood this reality. You understand how everything works and now you're gonna impose your will on the natural world because suffering is bad. You're gonna decide what is good and what is bad. You're gonna play God. Discuss it. Friend can be for the individual, but how big a problem is this? How many wild animals are there? It is estimated that the total number of wild land vertebrates is between 10 to the power of 11 and 10 to the power of 14. This is trillions of animals. Quite possibly hundreds of trillions. And guys, this isn't even including fish. The total number of marine vertebrates is estimated to be at least 10 to the power of 13. Again, we are talking about trillions. It's called the cycle of life, life and death. Vegans do not understand this. This is not a Disney movie, man. You have to wake up.  It is normal. This is the name of the game. And trillions of wild animals being alive at any given time. To put this number into perspective, the total number of livestock animals on earth at any given time is around 10 billion. So the number of wild animals in existence right now is completely unfathomable. In order to understand what life is like for a wild animal. Which is actually quite cool because with that you can see that your vegan logic doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We want to reduce suffering. The humans are so, so bad. In reality, we humans kill less animals than anything in the wild. It's useful to consider population dynamics. So the population of a species generally remains stable. This means that for every one animal that reaches sexual maturity, they will have an average of one offspring that also reaches sexual maturity. Now let's briefly consider reproductive. That is a healthy environment. It's strategies. So some animals have a very small number of children. Good examples include humans and other apes. So if you think about two adult humans, they will average two children who receive a lot of attention and get a lot of resources. Other animals who have less dependent babies have lots of offspring. We're talking hundreds or thousands of babies. And all animals exist somewhere on the spectrum. Examples of animals who have lots of offspring include turtles and species of fish as well. Now regardless of the reproductive strategy used, the population dynamics remain the same in that each adult individual averages one baby making it to sexual maturity. And the most prevalent reproductive strategy by far is the one in which the animals have lots of offspring. So what is happening in nature? Well, let's say we've got three points in time. We'll call them point one, point two, and point three. So at point one. How can anybody take this serious, really? We have two individual adult animals. At point two, we have lots of animals. They have lots of babies. At point three, we know because population dynamics remain stable, there are two individual animals remaining. What is happening between point two? Oh, it's called natural selection if you believe in evolution. And of course, veganism is based on Darwinism. So therefore you truly must believe in it. You must believe in the survival of the fittest. So what is the problem here? Where do your ethics originate from? You didn't make the case. Where does moral come from? Where do ethics come from? Is there universal ethics? Yes or no? Two and point three. My God. The vast majority of animals are dying before they reach sexual maturity. Of course. It is a sad reality. It is a reality. But for almost all animals, they are born and then die as babies. We are shown biased nature documentaries that paint this picture of beauty and wonder.  Now I totally follow nature is metal on Instagram. There you will see the true face of nature. First and foremost, yes, nature is beautiful. Yes, it is magical. It is majestic. All of it, it is beautiful. It is destructive. It is both nature gives life and nature takes life. It is beautiful. This is this reality. Welcome to planet earth. I totally understand the idea of potentially intervening with nature is probably going to be a controversial topic, which is why I wanted to make this section addressing some questions you may have. And these are questions that I too will have. You may have. Now let me explain it to you, the enlightened one. Thank you. Thought of when first considering the topic. The first question may be, is it really that bad? Surely. No, that's not the first question. The question is, is it bad? Is it good? And who are you to judge it? Can't compare the suffering of wild... Why is the sky blue? I want it red. Animals with the suffering of farmed animals. Well, the vast majority of baby animals will die from being eaten alive. They'll die of starvation. They'll die of disease. The very small number of animals who make it to sexual maturity will live a life of struggle, fighting for a limited number of resources with fear of being attacked by predators. And now you see how good farm animal have it. And will eventually die a gruesome death, either from starvation, from disease, or from being eaten alive. It would not be an exaggeration to describe this situation as a living hell. But wait! No, I wouldn't agree. You would describe it as birth. This is not heaven. This is not hell. This is our reality, where good and evil exists and where we have to cope with it. We have to see it. We have to face it. We have to embrace it. You want to pussyfoot around like the rest of this weak generation. Absolutely disgusting, effeminate soy boys. We're not causing all the suffering to these wild animals. And surely we're only responsible for the suffering that we inflict.  This baby is very much vulnerable. She can't walk. She's blind, can't see.  So the first question is, did it fall out of the nest or did the mother toss it out of the nest for natural selection? Yet again, birds will do that. The strongest shall survive. The weak get shunned. This is what is happening. So therefore, if you walk by, you pick it up, put it back into the nest, that thing will get tossed out again. Either from starvation or from being eaten alive. Now, all you need to do to prevent this suffering from happening is take 10 seconds out of your day to pick that baby up and put her back in the nest with her mother. Do you think you should do this? Disney, yes. In fact, would you think less of me if I walked past? Listen, man, I'm not a monster, right? Of course. If I would see a suffering dog, for example, I would help him out. In this scenario, though, if you touch the bird, the mother doesn't accept it any longer. So therefore, nobody can help that bird anyways. And on top of that, yet again, you do not understand why that suffering is there. You do not understand a bigger purpose. You do not understand the greater picture. You do not understand anything you think. Picking up bird, putting back in nest, very good. Because I was too lazy to put the bird back. I know I would think less of myself. We have to remember that to the individual, it makes no difference whether or not you personally caused their suffering. It makes no difference to their experience. Obviously, every normal human being understands that suffering is suffering. But now, because you're talking to vegans, you have to tell them that suffering is bad no matter if bad, bad human did it. If we have influence over the life of an individual, we would rather they didn't suffer. When our pets get sick, we take them to the vet. As our ability to... Because we own them. ...to influence the lives of others grows larger. So too does our responsibility. If we should try to reduce the suffering of a dog who lives in our house, surely if there's a dog just outside your door, outside with a broken leg, crying in pain, surely we should help them too. And as a society, we could be doing so much more for the suffering of wild animals than we currently are. Where is this going? Yet again, if you rewind a little bit, you talk about, hey, there are two animals, then there are 100 animals, and then there are two again. Exactly, right?  If you stop that, you will overpopulate the planet. But wait a second, we already overpopulated by bad, bad humans. So many bad humans are everywhere. But what about the animals, right? What about their carbon footprint? How about we have billions and trillions more animals? How is that sustainable? What are you saying? And on top of that, nobody eats them, right? But suffering in the wild is natural. And therefore we should just accept it. Well, just because it makes it natural, that doesn't make it good or desirable. Malaria is natural. And we wouldn't accept abstaining from prevention interventions because it occurs naturally. But this is absurd. We can't just please. Why do you talk like that? Nature.  Oh my God, you are equating, fighting for your own survival, which is an intrinsic biological mechanism to changing the blueprint of Earth. Do you understand this? I think it's safe to say that we try to prevent the cruel reality of nature when the victims are human. You may also wonder, but surely there are bigger issues to worry about. Bigger problems. I just wonder why I wasted half an hour of my life listening to you. Well, we need to consider what makes a pressing problem. I think it's fair to say that the size of the problem is important. And if we look at the size of this issue, there's a huge number of animals suffering. Another important point is... Yes, but it's not an issue. The improved ability of the problem. And I think it's fair to say that if you want to make a positive, significant difference in the world, you should pay your attention to areas that have been underfunded, under-resourced. This is one of the reasons that vegan activism appeals to me so much, is that there's not enough people working in this area to reduce this. Exactly. You can feel like a special little snowflake. This is what you want. I understand the vegan niche very well. I've been there for four years. Everybody wants to capitalize.  Humane, handcuffed. What an arrogance, creating a false idol, worshiping himself, and he wants you to worship him as well. Suffering and exploitation. But when it comes to wild animal suffering, there's barely anyone working in this area. It's got a huge scope for improvement. But what about rewilding and introducing natural predators to control populations? Isn't this something that vegans promote as an alternative to hunting? I think it would be useful to see how this sounds in a human context. So let's imagine a tribe of indigenous people and their population is going out of control. And this is creating huge issues for biodiversity. It's destroying habitats and it's going to cause problems for other humans down the line. How would we feel about introducing an animal that is going to hunt them down and eat them alive? Pretty good. If there would truly be an issue with those people, we as a society would feel pretty good about getting rid of them. How do I know this? Because we already do it with war. This is what people do. If there is a problem, they will fight each other off. This is not some new concept. We would think this sounds utterly barbaric if introducing a predator to control the population of humans seems utterly evil. Why would we think it's an acceptable thing to do to non-human animals? I'm getting tired of this because yet again, this is the natural cycle. This is the natural food cycle. This is what has to happen in order for this planet not to explode. Everything has its balance. You are not God. You cannot intervene with it.  Well, look, I'm not saying we should kill anyone. And up to this point, I haven't been talking about specific interventions. But perhaps we could look at things like contraception as a way to reduce the number of predators in the wild. But guys, the truth is, I don't have the solution. All I know is that this is a problem. And the more I look... You're mentally ill, man.  There is no problem. You are judging certain things as bad. Again, this is a pattern that we have in this society. Fat shaming, bad. Bullying, bad. Animals dead, bad. It is idiotic. It is moronic. It is childish. Jean-San Pierre, UFC champion, got bullied as a kid. Now he is the UFC champion. And guess what he's doing now? Now he is campaigning against bullying.  If you really look into it, he became the man that he is through bullying. That is again a natural system. Kids try to point out your weakness.   I'm doing the right thing. No, weakness has to be pointed out. Weakness has to be eliminated. This is the only way forward. Into this, the worse it gets. I don't have the solution. And that's exactly why we need to raise awareness about this issue. Dude, you need to raise awareness of your malnutrition. You need a stake right now. We need to get greater minds than mine thinking about this. That shouldn't be too hard. And we need to actually acknowledge it as a problem. So that may be one day we can find a solution. You may be concerned with biodiversity. A loss of biodiversity can cause problems for humans, big problems. And at the level of the species, genetic variation is important too. It can allow a species to handle changing environments. And by that I mean genetic variation in the species means that some individuals will be better suited to survive and reproduce. And natural and sexual selection will favor these individuals. However, as vegans, we value the suffering of the individual. Who cares what you value? Who cares about your religion? Nobody. You described it yourself. It is a natural process that if disrupted, will lead to catastrophe.  Let's see what happens, because we as vegans, we value it so much. Or so, than the success of the species. Species is an abstract concept. As a concept, the species isn't sentient. Think about the fact that on a species level, it could be argued that chickens have benefited hugely from factory farming. They did. There are more of them in the world. At the gene level, this could be seen as a success. Absolutely. However, at the individual level, the chicken isn't doing very well at all. And that's what's more important to us. So we need to focus on- Exactly, great point there. This is what is more important to you. You guys don't understand about collective. You guys don't understand about the greater picture. What you are obsessed with is the individual, right? You, your individual perception. This is what you're obsessed with.  This is what you're obsessed with.  They must feel the exact same way.  The individual, not the species. But we'll only make things worse. Humans always make things worse. Yes, looking at you, humans make everything worse. Actually, there have been a number of programmes that have helped wild animals before. We have rescued wild animals from natural disasters. In Europe, we vaccinated foxes against rabies. And programmes have successfully used- Why did we do that? Because we don't want to get rabies. This contraception, rather than hunting as a means of population control. And yes, of course, of course there are risks in intervening. But we have to look at the risks of both options. And the other option is to leave things alone. Leave the situation as it currently is. Well, that would be a catastrophe beyond our wildest nightmares. Okay, wait a second. So that would be a catastrophe, right? If you look at the planet without humans, it has been a catastrophe for billions of years. Again, I am appealing to your sense of evolution and history. So in that case, billions of years, no humans, everything fine. But now, human history. Tuck, veganism. No, nothing is fine. Reset the whole thing, right? God complex. It is not even possible for me to do justice to how bad the current situation is for wild animals. It is awful. So the risks- Why do you keep on saying that? You do not know that. The risks of not intervening are far greater than the risks of- Look how he wants to appeal to your emotion. That's all they try to do. Oh, it's so bad. It's so bad. It's so much suffering. Isn't it? Isn't it, guys? Of intervening. So what can we do as individuals about this issue? Well, we can raise awareness about wild animals suffering. We can talk about it in social and political conversations. But we can get intellectual circles to take this issue seriously.  So the researchers have this topic on their agenda. Influential people are directed by public discourse. So let's acknowledge this as the problem that it is now. It's not a problem. When we do have the technology to make a significant difference to the lives of wild animals, the idea isn't just laughed at. Another thing we can do is focus on veganism. I guess it's a fair assumption to make that in a world where we don't even give animals their basic fundamental rights. It's actually a great example with veganism. If you look at veganism as I said in the beginning, you are creating more habitat destruction, more environmental damage, and you're killing more animals by trying to do something good, eliminating suffering. When you try to change the fabric of this reality, you mess it up. And this is already seen with veganism. Of course, the natural implication of your body not getting nutrition and becoming a soy boy like yourself. So now you already see veganism is failing. And instead of going into regenerative agriculture, we're going to destroy the whole planet, right? We're going to castrate the lions, infuse them with microchip, play God. This is the reality that you want to create. Don't you see this? Not to be stabbed for burgers in a world where we inflict this suffering needlessly. Of course, this society isn't going to work. Because I am God, I know that it is needlessly. The card towards reducing wild animal suffering. So let's try and get a more compassionate world for animals in general. Let's promote veganism as much as we can. And guys, this isn't like when we learned about farmed animal suffering and we were obligated to make this big lifestyle change. For this issue, you just need to acknowledge that all animals matter. To acknowledge that their suffering is important. And it doesn't matter whether the animal is in our house, in a farm, or in a jungle. They're suffering matters. Logical, guys. It matters to them. And it should matter to us. Exactly. So thank you for watching this video and considering this viewpoint. Let me know what you think in the comments below. I think I did. And I think I'm getting pretty close to getting 10,000 YouTube subscribers. Wow. That is pretty cool. Yes. Because for the first year of doing this, I had a very, very small group of people, less than 1,000. More brainwash people following you. And I guess it's starting to grow a bit more. That's really exciting. Thank you so much for all of the encouragement and support. Thank you so much for my Patreon team. If you want to join my team, I will leave it. Okay. Let's cut it off right here. So this is Humane Hancock's standpoint. I think we set enough during that video just to sum it up yet again, guys. This is the God Delusion. Absolute egocentrical narcissistic behavior of people that believe they have the truth. Based on what? Where do morals come from? Where do morals originate from? Do you believe in God? Yes or no? Do you believe in Darwinism? If you believe in Darwinism, why all of a sudden you do not believe in natural selection? The logical consistency they're speaking of is lacking. There is no logical consistency. Nothing makes sense under real scrutiny. If you look into it, you will see that it's just a pipe dream based on emotions, based on Disney movies. It doesn't add up. Those people don't hold the truth. They're holding a collective delusion that they don't want to be infiltrated by reality.  Of course, this is industry funded and of course you have the big transhumanists behind this that want to push it onto us. They want to get rid of humans. This is basically it. Maximum population control within the human realm and within the natural world. Control every aspect of this reality. Control every aspect of this creation and keep you in delusion. This is veganism in a nutshell. All right guys, but this is today. If you liked the video, leave it a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed already, please do so. And guys, if you want to support the channel, all the links are in the description box below. If you want raw grass-fed liver but you cannot stand the taste, grassland nutrition has the solution. Grassland nutrition takes grass-fed organic beef liver raw and freeze-dries it for you. It is a convenient, fantastic way to get the nutrition of liver without the taste. With Amazon links for you, you can head over there buy whatever you might want to buy and it doesn't cost you anything extra. We get a small share that is a fantastic way to support Bobby's perspective. If you want grass-fed beef delivered to your doorstep, butcher boxes for you. And we have CBD links as well. On top of that guys, consider supporting Bobby's perspective through Subscribestar or Patreon. We have a VIP community there where we have Skype group calls every single week where we can discuss any topic, no matter if it is health, lifestyle or nutrition related. On top of that, by joining you straight away receive your comprehensive nutrition guide. It is an e-book that teaches you the basics of nutrition but goes beyond as well and is catering to your personal goals no matter if you're keto, primal, paleo or even raw. All right, but this is it for today. Thank you very much guys. And as always, much love and peace.


I'm super excited to be in the sim lab today first real round I feel like my birthday in the sim lab I'm kind of nervous but I'm excited I'm entering my first round and I'm super excited to try something new I feel like I'm being like blown into like such a new world of experiences and I'm excited yeah I just finished my first round and it was very stressful because I didn't know what to say but it was fun


Here's another teaching idea for the present perfect tense. If you'll remember, the present perfect tense can be used to talk about present results of past actions. Oftentimes, these will be changes. In this picture here, you'll see that there have been many changes made in picture B versus picture A. You can tell your students that in this picture it's nine o'clock, yet in this picture it's ten o'clock. Now, we'll ask our students to make sentences based upon the changes that have been made. Here, as a prompt, the students have been asked to make sentences using these words. The teacher will give the students a time limit in order to make those sentences, and of course ask for feedback at the end. Here, we can see that possible sentences would be, He's done the ironing. He's hung up the towel. And now, this is just one idea using this particular picture. After starting with the basics, we could ask our students to do something a bit more complicated, such as perhaps even bringing in a picture of themselves from years past. You could make sentences based upon the changes that have happened in the appearance of the student. You could also talk about changes within the local town, or even perhaps within the country.