'The chances of you living 50 years are very small': Theoretical physicist explains why humanity likely won't survive to see all the forces unified
Posted by fleetingwords@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 119 comments
Interview with a Nobel winner who is somewhat pessimistic we will see a unified field theory. Collapse oriented because of what he says:
“Currently, I spend part of my time trying to tell people … that the chances of you living 50 [more] years are very small.
Due to the danger of nuclear war, you have about 35 years.
TG: Why do you think that we'll blow ourselves up, essentially, within 35 years, give or take?
DG: So it's a crude estimate. Even after the Cold War ended, [when] we had strategic arms control treaties, all of which have disappeared, there were estimates there was a 1% chance of nuclear war [every year]. Things have gotten so much worse in the last 30 years, as you can see every time you read the newspaper.
I feel it's not a rigorous estimate, that the chances are more likely 2%. So that's a 1-in-50 chance every year. The expected lifetime, in the case of 2% [per year], is about 35 years.”
LevelSkullBoss@reddit
22 years, if you count the stats from a crazy man I once talked to on Discord who said the world ends in 2048 because Israel starts a nuclear war
MeepersToast@reddit
For anyone who cares to understand the math, it's this:
0.98^35 =0.493
This is so incredibly back of the napkin that it's hard for me to take seriously. But I'll explain the math a little more in case you care
How to stack up probabilities over time is not immediately obvious. Especially since you're effectively working with multiple hypothetical parallel universes. Let's say we're considering 100 parallel universes. After year 1, in 2 of those universes a nuclear war has broken out. Now there are 98 universes that have escaped nuclear war. After 2 years, in 2% of the remaining 98 universes we've broken out in nuclear war. Thats 980.02, or said another way it's 980.98 survive another year. After 35 years, in about half the universes we've avoided nuclear war.
This sounds complex but it's super basic if you know any stats. Don't take it seriously
daviddjg0033@reddit
Following this math but the p(event) cannot be the same every year?
poop-machines@reddit
But the 2% is the estimated average year on year. Obviously with climate instability that will be higher.
Also there will be years where it is much higher, and years where it will be much lower. For example, Ukraine is winning hard against Russia and pushes into Russia, Russia claims it's an existential threat, this year has a higher risk. Other years, nothing really happens and countries mostly get along, these are lower risk (but not zero risk).
The math is extremely napkin math based off an estimate extrapolated to the distant future. Don't take it too seriously. I think it shouldn't be used to make predictions.
Firstly, even if he is totally right, the chance of us making it 35 years are even lower. This is because nuclear war isn't the only risk. Pandemic, conventional wars, climate change, ecosystem collapse and more can also take us out. But if they were right, then we probably would've been taken out already. I think the risk of us dying out is lower than what we think. Generally, self preservation means that people refuse to fire nukes, for example. It's happened before. Still, the risk is increasing.
ginger_and_egg@reddit
2% chance of nuclear war each year is crazy
Masta0nion@reddit
Is this psychohistory?
MeepersToast@reddit
Good question. We should put more effort into finding and killing the Mule
Masta0nion@reddit
Maybe social media is the spell the Mule puts us under to affect our emotions and placate us from fighting back.
dannuic@reddit
Following up to this, if you accept that it's 2% per year, you're at 63% or so of nuclear war after 50 years. He was being very precise with his language (saying "expect"), but 63% isn't exactly guaranteed. Also, as you mention, that math model is overly simplistic and doesn't really hold up out to 50 years anyway.
theCaitiff@reddit
Not to mention that the 2% number is a little suspect.
We cannot know what sort of crazy is going to be in the white house, the kremlin, Number 10, or Balfour in five years time, let alone 50. While things seem to be unravelling globally, it's entirely possible that Putin, Trump, Bibi and the new Ayatollah all drop dead simultaneously tomorrow. Unlikely in the extreme, but possible. If such a thing happened, the risk of nuclear war would probably decrease. If a xenophobic fascist won the election in France, it might increase the risk. Under current conditions that we can observe, this guy thinks it's a 2% risk. But that 2% is not a hard and fast rule with which to make real predictions beyond the next few years.
StringTheory@reddit
Is the 2% per year figure dependent? Like at year 50 it will definitely happen? Of course not, that's not how probabilities work.
So 0.98^2 is way too simplified.
kingfofthepoors@reddit
0.98^2 +- (35%3) where pancakes > waffles
iggyazalea12@reddit
No wonder people are ‘weirdly’ disinclined to have children. I think we all sort of … know.
metalreflectslime@reddit
If a BOE happens in September 2026 as predicted, I probably would not live past 2030.
new2bay@reddit
Why is that?
metalreflectslime@reddit
A BOE will cause global crop failures.
Global famines will happen.
new2bay@reddit
Ok, but what makes you think you in particular will die within 3 years if it happens?
metalreflectslime@reddit
I am not that rich.
Poor people will be the first to die.
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1s66nye/experts_warn_global_mass_starvation_is_coming_by/
There is a chance a lot of people will die this Summer 2026 due to global famines even before the predicted BOE of September 2026.
PavelN145@reddit
Are there serious people even projecting BOE by September of this year? Like is there a concrete study or something I missed?
metalreflectslime@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1q6809n/cfsv2_climate_model_is_forecasting_a_blue_ocean/
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1rl7z9m/models_are_highly_confident_on_a_blue_ocean_event/
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1sr4w66/models_are_highly_confident_of_a_boe_this_summer/
Deguilded@reddit
It requires far more energy to transition ice to water than it does to heat the resulting water, or to warm ice while it remains frozen.
Melting polar ice is essentially a giant sponge soaking up the energy entering the system in order to change state. Once the ice has all (or nearly all) transitioned, all that energy goes straight into warming the waters themselves and will get much more mileage per joule of energy.
Now, that sounds smart, but I will admit I did google to see exactly what the differential is and make sure I had things correct.
thejuryissleepless@reddit
BOE?
metalreflectslime@reddit
Blue Ocean Event.
thejuryissleepless@reddit
ty
AutoModerator@reddit
Blue Ocean Event (BOE) is a term used to describe a phenomenon related to climate change and the Artic ocean, where it has become ice-free or nearly ice-free, which could have significant impacts on the Earth's climate system. This term has been used by scientists and researchers to describe the potential environmental and societal consequences of a rapidly melting Arctic, including sea-level rise, changes in ocean currents, and impacts on marine ecosystems.
When will a BOE happen?
Scientists predict that the Arctic could experience a BOE within the next few decades if current rates of ice loss continue. When a BOE does occur, it is likely to have significant impacts on the Earth's climate system, including changes to ocean circulation patterns and sea level rise.
Has a BOE ever occurred?
A BOE in the Arctic has not yet occurred in modern times. However, there has been a significant decrease in the Arctic sea ice extent in recent decades, and the Arctic sea ice cover has been reaching record lows during the summer months. This suggests that a BOE may be a possibility in the future if current trends of sea ice decline continue.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
merianya@reddit
Good bot!
switchsk8r@reddit
best bot evah
Trenchdick3@reddit
Remember that Manhattan had a snow free winter in 2023-2024.
The last time that happened? Roughly 100,000 years ago. Shit is FUCKED.
roytay@reddit
Huh? It wasn't even the recent lowest. 2022-2023 saw 2.3 inches in Central Park.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/weather/weather-stories/weather-nyc-snow-winter-forecast/5225379/
I'm not saying those number are good, or that we're not fucked, but...
Adacyn@reddit
Might be a bit fast, in case of Super El Nino it will probably be September 2027-2029. And then everything gets fucked. Will be interesting to see how warmer Arctic due to this will affect AMOC up to 2040.
Freshprinceaye@reddit
Was BOE actually predicted this year?
metalreflectslime@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1q6809n/cfsv2_climate_model_is_forecasting_a_blue_ocean/
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1rl7z9m/models_are_highly_confident_on_a_blue_ocean_event/
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
collapse-ModTeam@reddit
Hi, FutureNewZealander_. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/collapse for:
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
You can message the mods if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
jbond23@reddit
Going to be 70 next month ... Ok, ~~B~~ Doomer!
Batbuckleyourpants@reddit
This is asinine.
tediousdetails3@reddit
Mr Physicists doesn’t seem to understand statistics.
oleolegov@reddit
Nuclear war will happen, but it won’t destroy the whole world. I don’t need math to prove that, thanks god.
UncleBaguette@reddit
Humanity as a species will survive, I'm sure. Humanity as a overconsuming horde of hi-tech delusional parasites - nope
nickiter@reddit
I'm reading a book where humanity survives as a scattering of island communities. Seems as likely as anything.
That's nowhere near several billion people, though.
Deguilded@reddit
Which book, out of curiosity?
nickiter@reddit
What We Can Know by Ian McEwan. It's not about climate change/collapse, to be clear, just set in the future.
One of the best books I've read in years, I'm obsessed.
eternallyfree1@reddit
For the next 50 years? Yes, the human race is almost certainly gonna survive. 500 years from now? The odds are not looking good… like, at all
rick-reads-reddit@reddit
i wont be here but I would be more concerned about the tech advancements and robots than nuclear war or the climate shift happening.
UncleBaguette@reddit
Well, robots are better people anyways
summercookiess@reddit
How?
GreenFalling@reddit
Fallible humans program those robots. Including our biases and prejudices. Which we're already seeing with LLMs (which was trained on huamn writings). Why would "autonomous" robots be any different?
Admirable_Advice8831@reddit
"will survive" how long exactly (and how can you be so sure anyway)
UncleBaguette@reddit
Depends of the actions of certain man with bad hair
StringTheory@reddit
There will be 10 more like him with more nefarious motivation, more IQ and alfabetism and also charisma. He's just a symptom.
smarmy1625@reddit
alfabetism?
Deguilded@reddit
Yea, but if this one goes about as well (badly) as can be expected, the subsequent more-competent versions won't have nearly the same power to destroy since it'll all be frittered away.
ishitar@reddit
Nah. The technical reverb after collapse will wipe out survivors. I think by that time we'll have 20 billion tons of plastic carrying a whole host of POP, persistent synthetic entities and heavy metals/organotins and lack the technological sophistication to remediate. We are totally going extinct along with most life on earth.
bodybyxbox@reddit
In line with my own educated guess. I think I'll be lucky to live for 25 more years.
Weird_Cake3647@reddit
Here's my view. We are just beginning to recognize the sheer scale of the inevitable collapse and its underlining feature: that the world is going to change irrevocably, in terms of predictability, reliance on structures and norms, ability to sustain stable local governance, it's all going to be in turmoil, more and more and ever more rapidly.
Policy will limp behind research, as it always does, but this will continue to have fatal consequences. When all the appealing to governing bodies and the alarming is said and done and nothing changes - what is all the science, all the knowledge good for, apart from being aware of the changing times?
An important loop being in effect here is that the descriptive social sciences cannot but trail the lived situation, while humanities are stuck in an interpretative loop, rendered seemingly irrelevant to the current issues.
The main problem I see here methodologically is that of fragmentation - just as our shared world fragments before our eyes due to the incessant crises, so does our ability to grasp the common meaning of these processes.
The crises may be global, but their multifaceted and intertwined nature affects in a fragmenting way.
What we lack is the abilitiy to think this very fragmentation and then figure out how to deal with it, how to respond to it in a way that isnt just restricted to survival (what currently many resilience studies aim at), but maintains a creative, ethical, meaning-sustaining orienation, that manages to preserve at least some residual refuge of a shared, common world, if nothing else, then as an idea, a practical idea, sustained through attempts at communication, oriented towards caring social action.
ekjohnson9@reddit
Theoretical physicist has a theory. Wow big scary.
LowOne11@reddit
Yet I am 50. All this gobbledygook bs, they still really can’t figure it out because “gravity”. They win a Nobel cuz they found a thread with working inside the box of pre-ordained rules. Great. When will they start thinking outside of the box? Oh, because money prevents that. Not math. Funding is kindly given by faceless individuals, to perpetuate numbness, because that’s what science is. I’d assume global understanding by intrinsic means. We actually know more intrinsically than then the science we are spoon-fed.
LowOne11@reddit
As a “Thinks-too-much-layman” of 50 years on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, in this Universe, pretty sure if I even make it to 100, I’m probably not going to understand what the fuck is going on, sooo…
But what about exponentials and “accidentals”, chaos? Some whack job running a government decides to use nuclear… where’s the formula predictions for that? 35 years? As in born today, or when this article was written or the interview taken place? OR, what if, as if a miracle, threats to human life actually decline? The Pope or some terrestrial deity intervene and have a way to quell our near-extinction? I say “near”, as I am sure the faceless ones have a way to carry on.
NFTArtist@reddit
just another day on r/collapse
chickey23@reddit
Nuclear physicist misunderstands job, speculates wildly.
Loosen_Your_Bullets@reddit
Theoretical Physicist
sup3r_hero@reddit
As a physicist: physicists generally wildly overestimate their knowledge in other fields lol
ThrowRA-4545@reddit
Gets name published. Success
ashvy@reddit
Vibe collapsing
NyriasNeo@reddit
"I feel it's not a rigorous estimate, that the chances are more likely 2%."
Lol .. and how is the 2% more rigorous? "I feel" is the measure of being rigorous? That is just stupid.
"So that's a 1-in-50 chance every year. The expected lifetime, in the case of 2% [per year], is about 35 years.”
Where is the 35 comes from? If you assume p=0.02, and independent, the expected time for an incident is 50 years. If you do not assume independent, well, write down the assumption. You can come up with any duration of time by having the correct assumption, meaning whatever number is meaningless, unless the assumption is well justified.
I guess this theoretical physicist, even with a nobel prize, does not understand statistics that well.
Top_Hair_8984@reddit
I'd say that's optimistic. I doubt I'll be here in even a few more years. I'm expecting my demise any time, mostly due to heat. My wet bulb moment might be this coming summer.
Deguilded@reddit
35 years huh? Well, i'll have had a good run imo.
MagicSPA@reddit
Hahahaha, joke's on them, I'm already 51!
ShodoDeka@reddit
Mr scientist is just stacking a random probability he pulled out of his ass.
His base claim is that there is a 2% chance every year that we start a nuclear war that year. A number that seems very high, and completely unfounded.
HommeMusical@reddit
We've come close several times, and the reason we didn't die those times was much more good luck than anything else.
What number would you choose?
People should be fscking scared of nuclear weapons. The number of times in the last year that I've read people say, "We're much better off now than in the 1970s, because we don't have the threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads", and I think, "There are still enough nukes to scour the planet."
Specifically, there are almost exactly 10k nukes, and the two biggest stockpiles are held by countries ruled by psychopathic individuals, one of whom seems to be suffering from dementia.
ShodoDeka@reddit
You are literally missing the premise of science here, you don’t just choose a number and then stick that into a formula and claim it to be true because the formula is right.
Garbage in, garbage out applies here.
I can make the somewhat sound argument that we haven’t had a nuclear war between two peer adversaries ever, so the closest thing we have to a real estimate is a probability of zero.
Obviously that is also not right, since there is always some chance. But just grabbing 2% out of thin air, is absolutely bs. The truths is we do not have enough data to have any meaning full estimate of this probability.
And when I think about it, I’m pretty sure that the probability of this year having a nuclear war is independent of last year’s outcome is also false. Which means not only is the number put into the formula unfounded, the formula it self would also not be right for this application.
HommeMusical@reddit
If every year for all time to come, there is a non-zero probably of nuclear war, then the probability of eventual nuclear war is 1.0.
It's impossible to come up with accurate numbers; using a seemingly small number and seeing how the cumulative possibility grows over time is a demonstration of how even small probabilities of doom do add up to certainty over the longer term.
Given that we've had one incident where only someone disobeying orders saved us from what would have been a very bad exchange, I'm not inclined to put the probability very low.
And there is also a moral hazard in setting the probability too low.
DasGamerlein@reddit
Pretty big if considering the fact that the earth will stop existing in a couple billion years, if our civilization even makes it that far.
But that is a completely pointless exercise because the world doesn't work like that. The decision to launch nukes is not determined by chance
So the moment arrived to launch nukes, the people in charge refused, and this makes you more sure of nuclear war, not less?
SDI and Golden Dome clearly prove that there is an equal if not larger moral hazard in pretending the world is constantly on the brink of pushing the button.
Admirable_Advice8831@reddit
Why would that number be any higher than during the Cold War tho
HommeMusical@reddit
We have no idea what the number was in the Cold War, or now for that matter.
What I am saying is that idea that nuclear warfare is no longer anything to worry about is false.
And no matter how small this annual risk is, if we keep playing this stupid game indefinitely, then the chances of actually having that nuclear war will approach 100%.
ShodoDeka@reddit
We have had zero actual nuclear wars where there were an exchange of nuclear weapons.
A single or even a handful of nukes being detonated, while it is bad, is not something that hasn’t happened a ton of times already as part of weapons testing.
The world won’t end, nothing is collapsing, would it be bad, yes, absolutely. But mostly for people that live close by, and it would be bad because of the precedent it sets.
The real problem is two peer nations going at each other with nukes.
HommeMusical@reddit
A very limited exchange would be bad but minor.
I think several nuclear countries, specifically Israel, Pakistan, India and Russia (but not China) might use the opportunity to clarify long-running border disputes in a dramatic fashion.
Same_Bug5069@reddit
Makes sense to me given the instability we're already seeing due to climate change.
This report from the UK government is pretty eye opening:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696e0eae719d837d69afc7de/National_security_assessment_-_global_biodiversity_loss__ecosystem_collapse_and_national_security.pdf
SaltBackground5165@reddit
link isn't working
Same_Bug5069@reddit
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696e0eae719d837d69afc7de/National_security_assessment_-_global_biodiversity_loss__ecosystem_collapse_and_national_security.pdf
ansibleloop@reddit
Or my favourite report from Jan 2025
https://actuaries.org.uk/media/ni4erlna/planetary-solvency.pdf
Page 32
Same_Bug5069@reddit
The geopolitical and military moves the more aggressive nations are making these last few years leads me to believe it
Shppo@reddit
believe what exactly?
hamcicle@reddit
Piggy-backing for related info:
US Intelligence Assessment
Same_Bug5069@reddit
Seems like something the current administration would denounce while it's military operations suggest otherwise.
SaltBackground5165@reddit
nice that works
dudes_indian@reddit
A sign of things to come...
masturbathon@reddit
I’d take a quick death with nuclear war over the long drawn out death I’m expecting from the climate wars.
Nom-de-Clavier@reddit
Clearly this individual doesn't keep up with climate science or they'd have other doomsday scenarios in mind besides nuclear apocalypse.
NewMeNewMethyl@reddit
lol, I was expecting to read about ocean acidification, temperature increase and reduced turnover killing the phytoplankton that make most of our breathable air or crop collapse and famine, instead, nukes. OK. 👍
Shoddy-Childhood-511@reddit
Nuclear war would do serious economic damage. We'd target ports and refineries, so involved countries would mostly halt trading.
Nuclear war would not bring long lasting radiation like nuclear power plant meltdowns do:
"An estimated 60 percent of the deaths were from burns, 30 percent from the blast, and 10 percent from radiation."
"Although some scientists expected that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be uninhabitable for generations because of the radiation caused by the atomic weapons, in reality radiation in the cities had returned to near normal one month after the bombings."
Also nuclear winter was always grossly exaggerated.
The pessimistic nuclear winter model starts from roughly Owen Toon estimate of acreage burned from megatonnes, after which one assumes some atmospheric conditions and argues what the hot soot does.
In 2023, the Canadian wildfires alone burned enough acreage that if you run this estimate backwards, then the fires resembled a nuclear war of 2000 megatonnes. It darkened the skies above NYC for several weeks, so really quite major, but not crop failures.
We do not have 2000 megatonnes of warheads deployed, because of treaties, and because warheads got smaller as missiles became more accurate. Afaik nuclear winter seems impossible with current stockpiles. China building more bombs shall not change this picture.
I've never checked if nuclear summer maybe real, but James Anderson says climate change shall cause similar ozone degradation anyways.
Nuclear war would directly effect people who live near relevant infrastructure in the involved countries, with ports and bases being the major concerns. It'd effect others primarily through trade disruptions
In brief, climate change should scare you far more than nuclear war:
IPCC predicts +3°C by 2100, but +4°C should mean uninhabitable tropics and world carrying capacity below 1 billion humans. See page 37 of The Nature of the Challenge or 36m in Will Steffen's 2018 talk), or Steve Keen on Nordhaus et al
If otoh you lead a nation then clearly you should make choices that keep your nation out of nuclear wars. It'll likely be oil deependence that causes nuclear war though. We should increase fuel taxes, expand production of renewables, and expand electrification, so that we can keep out of whatever conflicts do turn into nuclear wars.
Mal-De-Terre@reddit
I'm still not looking forward to it.
Suckamanhwewhuuut@reddit
35 years puts be just shy of 80. That’s fine
dinkyyo@reddit
Hard to take a guy seriously that says ‘if you read the newspapers.’
Otheus@reddit
If we're going to kick this off can we do it now, so I don't have to work
clovis_227@reddit
krostybat@reddit
This is not how statistics works.
At 2% chances of death per year. You have 49% of survival after 35 years. 13% survival after 100 years.
Who is this scientist ?
pakZ@reddit
Theoretical physicist shares his belief on geopolitics. Okay...
jbiserkov@reddit
theoretically, he's not wrong :-)
In practice, I believe most people alive today will die in less than 50 years due to much simpler causes like lack of food, lack of health care and conventional wars.
StringTheory@reddit
Even Nostradamus was occasionally right.
Besides his math is way to simplified.
03263@reddit
If there were billions of dollars behind research into quantum gravity I bet we'd have a workable theory within 10 years. That's enough time for students attracted to the field to study and graduate into now well-paid careers, and for experiments and testing to be underway.
StringTheory@reddit
Is the 2% per year figure dependent? Like at year 50 it will definitely happen? Of course not, that's not how statistics work.
3six5@reddit
If at lights peed, physical matter became light, why wouldn't it pass thought the atomic subspace unrestricted?
AstronautLife5949@reddit
Lol "lights peed"
3six5@reddit
XD . Leaving that typo up.
loco500@reddit
What a relief...
Plane_Speech_6101@reddit
Be careful who you listen to, we were supposed to be under water by now with rising sea levels
lowrads@reddit
150 Tg of soot injected into the stratosphere could be good for other species, even on relatively small time scales, compared with ongoing exposure to humans over the same span.
For the oceans, it's somewhere between a third to half of phytoplankton dropping out for ten years. Not great, not terrible.
LostInTheLodge@reddit
Mmm, nuclear is a risk, but, it's like, always a risk, and it can also just, not happen, because we get lucky enough and all the relevant people don't press their buttons.
Climate change, on the other hand...
RichieLT@reddit
Means I got 12 years left damn!
GloriousDawn@reddit
Lucky you ! Just realized I've been dead for some time already.
FieldsofBlue@reddit
Isn't 1 in 50 to say that each year there is a 1 in 50 chance of this occurring, not that 1 will definitely happen at some point in the next 50 years?
Anraeful@reddit
If you are pregnant the chance of having a girl is 50%. If you have 5 children, the chance of having a girl is 50% each time. However, the chances of having 5 girl children from 5 pregnancies is only 3.125%
TieConnect3072@reddit
This doesn’t hold up because each year is not an independent event where you could just multiply the probability of it not happening to find the probability of it happening once within that timeframe there will certainly be periods of rising and falling instability, but to treat every year like an independent event is ludicrous
civicsfactor@reddit
As the environment yields less food, as people cut each other off for water, as more things become out of reach, as more others are blamed, using nuclear weapons is always an option, by people so insulated from material desperation except for making the biggest decisions about internally failing states.
What makes it a gamble depends on who thinks they're good at gambling and people are lousy gamblers.
If the bet is there will never be a set of circumstances and leaders who would use one or several, without the precedent being set and many more flying... I got five bucks.
switchsk8r@reddit
this is pretty fun to read as a change of pace from the usual climate agony
Leather-Cobbler-9679@reddit
Hardcore doomer post. Fuck off.
RachelRegina@reddit
Nuclear war chances are up but crime and violence are way down...? For a physicist, they sure did not bring their stats game to this
AlienFromDC@reddit
To shreds you say?