What’s the future of society in a world where ideologies create facts, billionaires run countries and isolationism invites global war?

The previous entry was about the future of a post-capitalist world, and contains lots of sources to facts for further reading.

This topic is deeper. It’s about a future where facts themselves come second to ideologies, and where ideologies include large-scale war as a viable option.

We have two widely accepted versions of reality on offer now, bolstered by social networks and mass media.

1. Mainstream mass media, which adheres to a journalistic standard while reporting some facts and under-reporting or ignoring others.

2. Non-mainstream mass media across the political spectrum. The non-mainstream media is based on pushing a polarized, identity-based set of talking points that require the audience to pick a “team”. Once you support one ideology, the other becomes the “enemy”. Ideas become personal possessions and are instantly accepted or rejected based on ideology.

Solipsism Becomes Dogma

The tribalistic “non-mainstream” media is, at core, based on the principle of solipsism — that if you can’t physically verify a fact, it could be false and is therefore suspect. Ideology then defines what is and is not a fact. And ideologies are, at core, tools to inform (and manipulate) large numbers of people. Religions offer metaphysical ideologies. Economic theories become religion-like dogma (capitalism vs. Marxism, for example).

In a functioning society, citizens first accept that facts exist independently from ideology. If citizens prioritize ideology over acceptance of facts, facts become tools for ideological manipulation. This is true regardless of your particular ideological preferences.

Third War

We now have regressive tendencies on display across the planet, for example in France, Germany, the U.K. and the United States.

Nativism, protectionism, xenophobia, isolationism, racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia are all rising. Even Naziism — an ideology explicitly based on calls for genocide — is being normalized as “free speech”. These are the same dynamics that gave rise to the second world war.


In the United States, the president’s administration — based on constant, blatant lies — is now gutting institutions like health care and environmental protection. Tapping into citizens’ mistrust of globalisation, the American president champions a “strongman” approach that promises to crush dissent in the press and across society. These are the first steps toward dictatorship, and they are accelerating by the day.

Pretences and Guarantees

The American president has literally ushered Wall Street into the White House, under the proven false pretence that rich people will help common citizens become rich, too. Gullible working-class Americans immersed in an alternative media bubble have apparently forgotten what happened to them as recently as 2008 (i.e. the Great Recession). Revocation of trade deals with China and support of the fossil fuel industry virtually guarantee that the United States will fall far behind in four years.

Overall, it seems like the world is headed for pre-World War II conditions. Now, though, several nations have nuclear capabilities. The world’s largest economies have forgotten what made them great — cooperation rather than antagonism. And billionaires seem to be trying to take what they can before global corporate capitalism based on oil and American Empire finally destroys itself.

What’s next?

– Will people keep pretending that dismantlement of social services, glorification of militarism, and destruction of the environment will somehow yield social mobility and opportunity instead of terrorism, poverty, war and chaos?

– Will people wake up in sufficient numbers before it’s too late?

And if they do wake up, what kind of government will take the place of the current corrupt and dysfunctional one? Clinton was an opportunistic politician who took money from Wall Street. Trump is an egomaniacal billionaire who embodies the concept of vulture capitalism.

It all begins from how we define and accept the meaning of a fact.

Apocalyptic visions aside, if this isn’t the end of democracy in the U.S. and across the world, how does global civilization repair itself?

Now may be the perfect time to start a new story — almost definitely a story that includes less talk and more action.


Revenge of the Anthropocene

2064: roboticization and artificial intelligence have progressed to a level whereby automatons can convincingly simulate humanity. Robots are not yet conscious, but are emotive to an extent that the majority of their owners feel that they now deserve “robot rights”.

Note: this is a plot outline rather than a completed story. See if you can spot any parallels to real-world events. ;) This post may be updated as more details emerge.

The current prime minister of the PanAmerican Union begins integration of robots into society, advocating for legalization of human-robot civil unions as a first step.

At the same time, World War III looms again, after four decades of international rapprochement between the major global power spheres. Robotic terrorism is reported as a fatal menace to humanity, although less than .005% of robots are susceptible to algorithmic radicalization. Easily-exploited, obsolete robotic neural networks are overwhelmingly based on archaic Internet 1.0 architecture, often called the “Internet of Things”.

The 2064 PanAmerican election season arrives. A set of candidates is put forth. One of them is an opportunistic technocrat mired in scandal. The other candidate: a trillionaire neoagriculturist, promising to rid PanAmerica of robots and return society to ancient agrarian glories of fabled past.

Despite amassing a fortune by employing robots rather than humans, the Trillionaire Agragrian touts the slogan, “Purge the robot scourge”! The pseudo-populist Agrarian constantly, blatantly and proudly lies to his supporters using condescending childspeak. “Make the human brain great again!”

Millions of human workers displaced by robots rally to the cause. “We don’t hate robots, but they’re unnatural, inauthentic. We’re pro-human. All humans matter.”

Humanity stands at the cusp of universal basic income and unparalleled prosperity. Still, many yearn for an anachronistic “frontier” lifestyle defined by hard struggle to survive.

The Agrarian wins Election 2064.

PanAmerica, along with the rest of the world, plunges into an abyss of war and terror that rivals the darkest hours of the early 21st century.


Ending The First (Muslim) World War

After watching events unravel in Paris earlier today, the common Muslim sentiment seemed to be: we are victims, too.

Think of the “Muslim world war” happening throughout the Islamic-majority countries of the Middle East right now. Who is murdering whom? As we saw yesterday in Beirut, Lebanon, the casualties in this war are overwhelmingly Muslim. The unspoken reality is that the world only pays attention to this ongoing tragedy when the explosions and gunfire strike close to home.

An Ideal Far Deeper than Extremism

The beginnings of the current conflict have roots that grow deeper and spread farther back in time than American President George W. Bush’s utter failure to reconstruct Iraq after the second American invasion of 2003.

What is ravaging the Middle East right now is obviously deeper than ISIS. It has become commonplace over the last year to observe that we are witnessing the collapse of the post-Ottoman order—that the “lines in the sand” conjured in 1916 by the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot are being blown to dust.

We haven’t reckoned with how the insurgents perceive that process. ISIS has religious, psychological, and technological faces. But in some fundamental respects it is an anti-colonial movement that takes as its reference point Islam’s pre-colonial conception of power—an Islamic state, a Sunni caliphate. Even if ISIS is crushed, this idea of “our caliphate” is likely to persist, and return.

How ISIS Spread in the Middle East

In other words, the problem of Islamist extremism cannot be sufficiently packaged into retroactive anti-Bush propaganda. It would also be unwise to heap blame solely upon President Obama’s administration for mishandling the transitional government and practically ignoring the extremist threat.

As we’ve seen in the aftermath of both Bush-led wars, however, heavy-handed foreign intervention will not lead to lasting peace in Iraq — or, for that matter, Iran and Syria (intentionally leaving out mention of Israel versus Palestine).

Medieval versus Modern

If the medieval “fundamentalist” faction is to reconcile with its more tolerant “moderate” counterpart, Islam may undergo a kind of self-destructive reformation similar to that experienced by Europe and Asia between the first and second world wars.

To heal itself, Islam may have no choice but to destroy its current incarnation first.

In order to avoid that fate, extremists are currently using terrorism to goad and galvanize “the West” (i.e. Europe and the United States) into becoming a monolithic army against them. This would lead the citizens of those countries to ostracize and target Muslims as a single stereotypical group. If “Islam” becomes synonymous with bloodthirsty extremism, Muslims would have no choice but to be profiled, criminalized and persecuted, or to join with their extremist brethren and fight for their rights as a unified Islamist entity.

World War Islam

Here is where science fiction comes in.

– what if, as we saw today, the Parisian people stand as a model for all of Europe and the rest of the non-Muslim world? What if the extremists fail in polarizing the populations of Western countries?

– what if, in the next decade or so, moderate Muslims — who have been so viciously victimized by extremists — finally decide to take up arms, give their lives for the sake of a better world and mount a counteroffensive?

We could witness the first Muslim World War.

What’s most enticing about this idea — fictionally speaking — is the underlying moral quandry: both sides believe that their moral authority comes directly from God. Moderate Muslims always say “the extremists do not represent ‘real’ Islam.” Yet, the extremists say the same about moderates. There is no way to placate either side by consulting scripture, because the scripture itself contains self-contradictory verbiage that can be construed to support either side. Such is the case in most major religions, thereby widening the question to encompass violent fundamentalist undercurrents of all kinds.

When it becomes clear that moderate and fundamentalist interpretations cannot coexist (i.e. one will pursue a genocidal crusade against the other), who decides right from wrong when the time comes for inevitable bloodshed?

Plotline: a young American Marine officer of Iranian-Lebanese ancestry leads her Allied combat unit in the final days of the War. Mostly moderate Muslims of varying ethnicities and nationalities, they will face the fiercest foe of all: desperate, war-hardened extremists in Iraq who gladly fight until their dying breath.

Will the moderate Allied unit succumb to an “ends justify means” efficiency that breeds merciless war machines? How else can they defeat those who embrace an ethos of medieval savagery using mid-21st century weaponry? Can the young officer rise to the challenge while maintaining her humanity and that of her comrades in a ferocious fight to the death?

Is World War III Inevitable? What Can Smart Independent Science Fiction Say About It?

Now may be a crucial time for intelligent indie sci-fi to paint a plausible picture of the next global conflict.

Recent news has made clear that a “hands-off” approach to war in the Middle East isn’t working. Does this mean that a United States-led ground war is imminent?

Officially called the New Syrian Force, the contingent was trained by the U.S. military at a base in Turkey and sent across the border into Northern Syria, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported. But instead of fighting ISIS, they unexpectedly came under attack by al Nusra, a different radical Islamic group.

The New Syrian Force called for American airstrikes, and the al Nusra attack was repulsed. Only one member of the New Syrian Force was killed while the enemy lost an estimated 30 fighters.

But what appeared to be a victory turned into a defeat when the rest of the New Syrian Force scattered. Some were captured by al Nusra. Some made it back to Turkey. Others were simply missing. 1

As seen after the most recent Iraq war led by George Bush, the American public rejects the prospect of a U.S.-led ground war unless attack is imminent. This is at least in part because it is now common knowledge that the war was based on deception.

We know now that American sentiment for the 2003 Iraq war was the result of a series of public relations gambits. Those gambits, from handpicked persuasive stories to falsely interpreted satellite imagery, were crafted to manufacture and manipulate public opinion:

The first Gulf War was sold on a mountain of war propaganda. It took a campaign worthy of George Orwell to convince Americans that our erstwhile ally Saddam Hussein — whom the US had aided in his war with Iran as late as 1988 — had become an irrational monster by 1990.

Twelve years later, the second invasion of Iraq was premised on Hussein’s supposed cooperation with al Qaeda, vials of anthrax, Nigerian yellowcake and claims that Iraq had missiles poised to strike British territory in little as 45 minutes. 2

None of the claims and justifications were true.

The current, globally expanding conflict has been met with political banter and fashionable rhetoric about “religions of peace” and “troops on the ground”. No religion is inherently peaceful or warlike; regardless, religious dogma can be used either to incite war or promote peace, as has been done from their inception. It is also clear that Americans do not want to send ground troops back to Iraq (or into Syria) while nursing fresh memories of the catastrophic nine-year Bush-lead war. 3

Isolation versus Engagement

Most Americans’ “head-in-the-sand” mentality is strikingly similar to World War II isolationism.

During the debate over whether to invade Iraq, or whether to stay in Afghanistan, many people looked back to World War II, describing it as a good and just war — a war the U.S. knew it had to fight. In reality, it wasn’t that simple. When Britain and France went to war with Germany in 1939, Americans were divided about offering military aid, and the debate over the U.S. joining the war was even more heated. It wasn’t until two years later, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war against the U.S., that Americans officially entered the conflict.

. . .

“It’s so easy, again, to look back and say, ‘Well, all the things that the isolationists said were wrong,’ ” author Lynne Olson tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross. ” … But back then, you know, in ’39, ’40 and most of ’41, people didn’t know that. People had no idea what was going to happen.” 4

Are we headed for another world war as we were back then?

Two major problems with the current American minimalist military strategy1:

1. Aerial bombardment has made essentially zero progress and surely won’t win on its own;
2. The tried-and-true “train rebels to fight” approach has failed yet again.

One apparently inevitable outcome: militant extremism spreads across the world,
eventually encroaching on U.S./allied interests. Ultimately, isolationists and hawks will join hands only to fight an enemy that looms on the existential scale of World War III.

War Never Went Away — It Evolved

Beginning in 2011, professionals as knowledgeable as celebrated Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker predicted the decline and eventual demise of conventional warfare. “Violence has declined because historical circumstances have increasingly favored our better angels,” Pinker explains. 5

The intervening years of destructive human ingenuity have seen the rise of a different kind of threat. Conflict has morphed into “hybrid war”, which is a new buzzword for asymmetric, unconventional tactics used by adversaries of varying size and strength.

The term ‘hybrid warfare’ appeared at least as early as 2005 and was subsequently used to describe the strategy used by the Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon War. Since then, the term “hybrid” has dominated much of the discussion about modern and future warfare, to the point where it has been adopted by senior military leaders and promoted as a basis for modern military strategies.

The gist of the debate is that modern adversaries make use of conventional/unconventional, regular/irregular, overt/covert means, and exploit all the dimensions of war to combat the Western superiority in conventional warfare. Hybrid threats exploit the “full-spectrum” of modern warfare; they are not restricted to conventional means.

In practice, any threat can be hybrid as long as it is not limited to a single form and dimension of warfare. When any threat or use of force is defined as hybrid, the term loses its value and causes confusion instead of clarifying the “reality” of modern warfare.

. . .

Most, if not all, conflicts in the history of mankind have been defined by the use of asymmetries that exploit an opponent’s weaknesses, thus leading to complex situations involving regular/irregular and conventional/unconventional tactics. Similarly, the rise of cyber warfare has not fundamentally changed the nature of warfare, but expanded its use in a new dimension. 6

As noted by Pinker and colleagues, conventional warfare among developed nations may have declined. Hybrid war, though, is most often fought in the so-called “third world”, where almost half of the human population lives. 7

By 2050, seventy percent of the world — those in “developing” (i.e. third-world) nations — will live in megacity slums. Protoype: Mumbai, India.

These staggering statistical trends are driving the evolution of the “megacity,” defined as an urban agglomeration of more than 10 million people. Sixty years ago there were only two: New York/Newark and Tokyo. Today there are 22 such megacities – the majority in the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America – and by 2025 there will probably be 30 or more.

Consider just India. Though the country is still largely one of villagers – about 70 percent of India’s 1.2 billion inhabitants live in rural areas – immigration and internal migrations have transformed it into a country with 25 of the 100 fastest-growing cities worldwide. Two of them, Mumbai (Bombay) and Delhi, already rank among the top five most populous urban areas. 8

Manipulative Media Hysteria is Now Business as Usual

The American public is currently too short-sighted and fear-driven to prevent the conflagration that has already begun. As we’ve seen in the 2003 Iraq war, both fear and short-sightedness are attitudes eagerly driven by mass media. Both history and future stand as casualties of the twentyfour-hour “shock and awe” coverage of news and incessant “expert” opinion. Practically every news story now has the word “terrifying” in the headline.

If you want to create (or enjoy) a hard sci-fi — that is, reality-based — style in your science fiction, the paragraphs you’ll read below are a primer on what will likely be the backstory for World War III.

Iraq May Be Remembered as Where It All Began

Similar to the division between North and South Korea, “Iraq” is a set of political boundaries that were not designed with consideration of the people living within those boundaries.

Iraq and Syria were artificial creations of British and French diplomats when the Ottoman Empire disintegrated on the eve of World War I. Each contains communities of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Iraq is run by a Shiite-dominated government with ties to Iran, while the Bashar Assad government in Syria is dominated by Alawites, a Shiite sect. The Islamic State is a fundamentalist Sunni group.

Iraq and Syria were artificial creations of British and French diplomats when the Ottoman Empire disintegrated on the eve of World War I. Each contains communities of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Iraq is run by a Shiite-dominated government with ties to Iran, while the Bashar Assad government in Syria is dominated by Alawites, a Shiite sect. The Islamic State is a fundamentalist Sunni group.

Ironically, it was Vice President Joe Biden who initially called for a more human-centric approach:

In 2006, then Sen. Joe Biden argued for splitting Iraq into three autonomous ethnic zones with a limited role for a central government. The George W. Bush administration sought to keep Iraq unified, but Sunnis eventually became disaffected with a Shiite government in Baghdad that excluded them. Kurds have been in continual disputes over budgets and oil with Bagdad, and they have seized control of the strategic northern city of Kirkuk. 9

In 2011, American President Barack Obama faced a conundrum:

1. Remain in Iraq.
This decision, as mentioned above, was becoming increasingly unpopular with the public. Moreover, sustained military presence in the country would most likely have done little to solve the sectarian disputes that were the source of ongoing strife.

2. Pull American troops out of Iraq.
Popular with the public, this choice would leave Iraq with an unprepared army, fractious political situation, and a perfect opportunity for those who sought power and/or revenge against their sectarian enemies.

Of course, we know that President Obama had little choice at all, after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded complete American withdrawal from Iraq. 10

This created an ideal opening for the revival of old grievances and the settling of scores — and what quickly degenerated into the present predicament.

The Rise of Militainment

Sketchy “official sources” are relatively rarely fact-checked in any depth; dissent is framed as the actions of hooligans, criminals and potential “terrorists”.

Such an incessantly churning, attention-deficient media climate makes hard, necessary choices about war impossible to support publicly, while turning war propaganda itself into jingoistic “militainment”.

Challenges for Smart Sci-Fi

For science fiction, one key question is this: how can we create speculative fiction about a third world war that is not:

– nihilistic prognostication about inherent human evil,
– conveniently defeatist oversimplification about a “post-apocalypse” world;
– pornographic indulgence about the destructive beauty of future warfighting technology?

Science fiction can be used as part of what Steven Pinker calls “cosmopolitanism”. Pinker writes: “These forms of virtual reality can prompt people to take the perspective of people unlike themselves and to expand their circle of sympathy to embrace them.” 5

It’s an exciting challenge, and one that, in the end, we may not be able to afford to ignore.

Further Reading:

1. Congress hears bombshell admission on program to fight ISIS. (September 16, 2015). Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-program-isis-fighters-syria-general-lloyd-austin-congress/.

2. Holland, Joshua. (June 27, 2014). The First Iraq War Was Also Sold to the Public Based on a Pack of Lies. Retrieved from http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/.

3. Clement, Scott and Peyton M. Craighill. (August 8, 2014). Iraq airstrikes will test a war-weary American public. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/08/iraq-airstrikes-will-test-americans-tolerance-for-military-action/.

4. ‘Angry Days’ Shows An America Torn Over Entering World War II. (March 26, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175288241/angry-days-shows-an-america-torn-over-entering-world-war-ii.

5. Pinker, Steven. (September 24, 2011). Violence Vanquished. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180.

6. Hybrid war – does it even exist? (2015). Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/Also-in-2015/hybrid-modern-future-warfare-russia-ukraine/EN/index.htm.

7. Shah, Anup. (January 07, 2013). Poverty Facts and Stats. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats.

8. Bruinius, Harry. (May 5, 2010). Megacities of the world: a glimpse of how we’ll live tomorrow. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/0505/Megacities-of-the-world-a-glimpse-of-how-we-ll-live-tomorrow.

9. Intelligence Chief: Iraq and Syria May Not Survive as States. (Sep 11 2015). Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/intelligence-chief-iraq-syria-may-not-survive-states-n425251.

10. MacAskill, Ewen. (21 October 2011). Iraq rejects US request to maintain bases after troop withdrawal. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases.

From Messiah to Mutant: Nerve Gas, Nuclear Power and Post-Apocalyptic Superheroes

Article headline: It's Time To Wipe Out ISIS Fanatics: West Must Get Extreme. | Written by Dr John Coulter.
It’s Time To Wipe Out ISIS Fanatics: West Must Get Extreme. | Written by Dr. John Coulter.(+ source)

A headline in the Irish Daily Star howls feverishly, “It’s Time to Wipe Out ISIS Fanatics!” The message is clearly an incitement to begin a third world war.

It’s truly amazing that anyone in the modern Western world so blatantly craves World War III, using chemical weapons to “exterminate” the enemy.

A New Crusade

This post begins with genocidal mania and ends with science fiction.

Read the original article by Dr. John Coulter text here: It’s Time To Wipe Out ISIS Fanatics: West Must Get Extreme (click here).

The article, written by Dr. John Coulter of the Irish Daily Star, mentions the Crusades, Irish suffering in WWI, and Japan in WWII.

Western democracies need to waken up to the bitter reality that the only solution to the threat posed by Islamic State and other radical groups is to use chemical weapons and biological warfare.

Maybe “satire”. Maybe not.

One mainstay of WWIII nerve-agent advocacy is a commonly repeated, yet factually false analogy to the previous world war. By some estimates, “millions of lives” were saved by 1945’s nuclear incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A mass deployment of nerve gas could similarly save lives in the global allied fight against ISIS.

World War II (1945) Hiroshima and Nagasaki death toll infographic.
World War II (1945) Hiroshima and Nagasaki death toll infographic. (+ source)

Although over 200,000 people died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, many believe that a ground war would have been even more deadly.

Is that belief true, though?

Do verifiable facts support the jingoistic ideology?

Did the summer 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings Actually Save Lives?

…it was clear that Japan would be defeated. And secondly, it was seen as a kind of anti-Soviet, a kind of sly, or cunning anti-Soviet political move. So yes, it was seen very much as directed against the Soviet Union and directed against the Soviet Union, not only in order to deprive the Soviet Union of gains in the Far East, but generally to intimidate the Soviet Union.

David Holloway

Answer: no.

By the summer of 1945, Japan was already on the edge of defeat and at the brink of Soviet invasion. Given Japan’s weakened state, they certainly were not expected to pose a serious threat that would warrant a show of destructive force as a deterrent.

The real target was the Soviet Union.

Atomic bombs were a failed intimidation attempt against the Soviets, and an indefensible crime against humanity. “Millions of lives saved” is a lie, and a pale rationalization for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

From Messiah to Mutant

Pacific Rim (2013). The Striker Eureka Jaeger piloted by Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba).
Pacific Rim (2013). The Striker Eureka Jaeger piloted by Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba). (+ source)

From a science fiction perspective, it’s fascinating to see how the post-nuclear narrative threads its way into practically every storyline.

Sci-fi interpretations of the “Chosen One” archetype are mutants with superhuman powers, usually through some kind of radiation exposure.

Godzilla. Akira. The X-Men. Deadpool. Spider-Man. Even the true hero in 2013 kaiju film Pacific Rim, Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), was irradiated as a pilot of a massive Jaeger robot while fighting multidimensional aliens.

The list of radiation-saturated science fiction heroes continues: The Hulk. Daredevil. The Fantastic Four.

An interesting secondary question might be, “why are there so few depictions of the Holocaust, when the destruction wrought there was so much worse than the WWII nuclear bombings?” It may be that the world’s obsession with endless power and technological prowess may have found an irresistible combination in the splitting of the atom.

Comprehending the historical reality of what that entails can spawn fictional stories for decades to come; some of those untold tales may naturally inherit both a feeling of hope and a cautionary edge.

Further Reading

1. PBS: American Experience. (n.d.) David Holloway on: Soviet Reactions to Hiroshima. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/filmmore/reference/interview/holloway05.html.

2. American Chemical Society. (2015, August 4). Can Radiation Give You Superpowers? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbmSmgTIQ8s.