Discussing Human Survival Theories

Any advice for those people with the means

who are convinced that this catastrophe might exist

in their lifetime or their grandchildren's lifetime

and they're starting to think about how they might,

their legacy might survive the next human bottleneck?

You know, I'm not a prepper.

I have had several groups ask me to join them,

either a science advisor,

and these are powerful groups in two of the instances,

or the eschatology advisor for those groups,

and they are prepping for an event and

they wanted to review the theory.

I've had several private presentations,

including members of the royal family of the UK,

but that doesn't necessarily mean they subscribe to the,

you know, ECDO theory.

They definitely wanted to hear it.

However, I haven't prepared, and there are a number of different reasons just yet.

There are a number of different reasons,

the first of which I'm not agnosticating, you know, another rotation.

My purpose here is not to scare people to death

or introduce the ontological shock that comes with this,

that I suffered over the last 25 years.

You know, I tabled the theory for eight years

just to protect my mind,

but I kept researching it because,

you know, what F. Scott Fitzgerald said,

that the sign of a key intelligence is that

you're able to hold two disparate or diametrically opposed ideas in mind

and not go insane.

The research drove me to this,

and the key here is I'm not prognosticating.

What I'm saying is that this theory has surpassed Occam's Razor,

the real Occam's Razor, not the,

oh, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Occam's Razor is not a decision heuristic.

I don't know where we got this.

Occam's Razor says plurality should not be posited without necessity.

What we've done here with the book,

what we've done with the articles,

is establish that necessity.

You cannot skeptically treat the article now.

You have to go out and actively disprove it,

the theories, the hypotheses.

We have surpassed Occam's Razor.

It doesn't mean it's true,

doesn't mean 100 percent of it's true.

There's no way with this much complexity 100 percent of it could be true,

but it has compelled us to the, of the need to research this now,

and that's what's been established here.

Those who skeptically deny that achievement of Occam's Razor are

not using the scientific method.

They're not using sound philosophy.

It must be now dealt with at face value,

and that's, of course, our next step.