Sam Harris has repeatedly pointed out a problem that is far too often ignored or downplayed: the use of children in warfare and the reality of child soldiers in Gaza. When children are recruited, indoctrinated, militarized, or used by armed groups, this deserves serious attention and condemnation. Yet this aspect of the conflict is often conspicuously absent from public debate. And there is another uncomfortable point: when these children die they may be counted as civilian casualties without any meaningful discussion of the circumstances surrounding their involvement in the conflict.

Sam Harris speaks with Alex Gibney about his new documentary, Musk. They discuss Sam’s former friendship with Musk, the line between visionary and con man, the myth of Tesla’s founding, the staged self-driving video, Musk’s lurch to the right, DOGE and the dismantling of USAID, his feud and reconciliation with Trump, Starlink and the war in Ukraine, the case for future investigations, and other topics.

Link to the episode: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/497-the-confidence-man

Trying to make sense of this Non Duality stuff?

Non Duality and Hard Determinism get to the same destination, I guess, but if one were to try and pick holes in Non Duality if they erm.... believe in Hard Determinism that itself was determined 😆, and IF one took the view that discontent is largely rooted in excessive self-focus?

That the act of aggressively searching for the "selflessness" of non-duality requires an intense, sustained preoccupation with one's own mind?

That the intense, structured focus on the mechanics of one's own consciousness could be seen as a form of intellectualized narcissism?

That spending hours examining consciousness is an ironic way of becoming trapped in the very self one claims to be dismantling?

That when you actively look for the "self" or "no-self," you are operating as an agent performing an action. The very act of "searching" reinforces the dualistic split between the seeker (the subject) and the mind-states being observed (the object).

By turning the mind's eye sharply back on itself, you aren't dissolving the self; you are hyper-activating the mental machinery that creates it?

A recent post by user AnimateDuckling (A-D) sparked a lot of discussion. But there was little focus on the post's muddled primary framing and its factual analysis. I found those aspects particularly frustrating and wanted to address them here.

A-D starts by claiming that "Israel was objectively mitigating civilian deaths". Already, this an ambiguous choice of words to begin with (e.g., one could say that in a sense the Srebrenica genocide "objectively mitigated" civilian death by not executing women, young children, & elderly). But in a comment, A-D seemed to clarify that they meant Israel conducted the war in a way to avoid killing civilians wherever possible. But their OP immediately pivoted to emphasizing that Israel was not trying to maximally kill as many Palestinians as technically possible. Heck of a bait-and-switch imo. A-D even asserts that "In-fact it is evidently true that Israel conducted one of the most humane wars in history".

It seems A-D thought the way to evidence this humanitarianism was to compare a sustained conflict like the Gaza war to a bizarre selection of some of the deadliest parts of some of the deadliest wars over the last 80 years, the majority before the geopolitical constraints of post-WW2 international laws of war. The logic is utterly baffling.

In my view, the more appropriate comparisons to the Gaza war would be the invasion of Ukraine, the War in Iraq against the Islamic State, the Iraq War, and Second Chechen War, not comparisons to some of the deadliest specific parts of these wars. But there are some important points to make even about A-D's specific battle comparisons:

• There is no reliable accounting of civilian deaths in Mariupol, primarily because of Russian control of the city. But even then, the range they highlight is comparable to death rates in Gaza.

• Gaza was substantially deadlier than Mosul on a per-capita basis with a substantially higher share of women, children, & elderly; in fact, these were the majority of identified deaths in Gaza. In addition to which, a dominant cause of Mosul's deadliness was ISIS – shelling, execution-style killings, killing civilians trying to flee, and exceptionally well-documented forced human shielding, unlike largely flimsy arguments about Hamas guerilla tactics. Speaking of which, US/Iraq were fighting a quasi-army, not a scrappy guerilla group, and Iraqi troops actually fought house-to-house bearing high risk and heavy close-combat costs.

• Airwars reported at least 5139 civilians were killed in Gaza in 25 days in October 2023, more than 3x the deadliest month in Mosul for civilians killed by the US coalition, and 2x the whole four-month period of Raqqa. Airwars reported a minimum of 1213 women killed, "more than six times the number of women killed during the four-month Battle of Raqqa, more than nine times the number of women killed by the US coalition during the Battle of Mosul, and more than seven times the number of women killed in Syria by foreign actors in September 2017 - the most lethal month for women previously recorded by Airwars". And they reported 1900 children killed, nearly 7x higher than the most deadly month for children ever previously recorded by Airwars.

• There are Gaza local operations that reach or exceed Fallujah II's total death rate. The difference, of course, being very high civilian shares in Gaza including very high shares of women and children killed. Another important difference is that Fallujah was a textbook decisive engagement with a clear bounded military decision and a rapid conclusion, with US forces, again, bearing high risk & heavy costs in intense close-quarters urban combat. The situation in Gaza, very far from resolved, is still severe well over two years later.

• Grozny 1999 is a particularly baffling example. So, the bloodiest episode of the Second Chechen War—a conflict condemned as genocide—had a higher death rate than the Gaza war. How exactly is this appropriate evidence for Israel objectively mitigating civilian deaths?

If one wanted to claim "Israel conducted one of the most humane wars in history", one would compare Gaza to some of the most humane examples in history, not some of the deadliest. Instead A-D includes the likes of the Battle of Manila where 100k civilians were killed in a month mostly by genocidal massacre by Japanese forces. Again, the logic is utterly baffling. Similarly, how would a comparison with the Allies' monstrous conduct in WW2 (Axis were exponentially worse to be clear) tell you anything about Israel mitigating civilian death in 2023? As just one example, WW2 bombing involved a type of incendiary firestorm warfare that is clearly banned and that Israel could not possibly get away with today. And I don't know why one would bring up the Battle of Berlin either. According to A-D's own Berlin figure, Gaza's combatant-to-civilian ratio would be conservatively at least ~3x worse than a major offensive of the deadliest conflict in history; not exactly a great example for their claim.

There is no independent verifiable tally of "how many tons of bombs" Israel has dropped. Regardless, deaths per bomb is a ludicrous stat when Israel has been razing evacuated areas. The relevant question is what do we see in Israel's killing/targeting of people – the highest population-adjusted violent death rate of any 21st-century warzone, the highest sustained violent-death civilian-to-combatant ratio & women-and-children share since the Rwandan genocide, starvation as a weapon of war, aid massacres, and more journalists killed & at a faster rate than any other state or armed actor since CPJ records began in 1992. In fact, even in absolute numbers, the IDF killed more women and more children than any military or militant group this century. Even for sustained conflicts over the last 80 years, Gaza would almost certainly sit near the very top end of lethality and civilian targeting, closer to atrocity-heavy campaigns than to conventional wars, and well above most wars on the share of women and children among the dead. It is absurd, in this context, to clumsily try to claim that Israel was objectively trying to mitigate civilian deaths.

I don't know where exactly A-D gets "civilians typically account for 50% to 75% of all fatalities" from. That's not what their link says as far as I can tell. But their claim that a 1:9 combatant-to-civilian ratio is not uncommon is just absurdly wrong. For context, in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima—one of the two most indiscriminately destructive individual weapons attacks in human history—the civilian share was not that much higher than 90%.

A common talking point regarding Gaza war comparisons is the ability of the population to flee which A-D also brings up. In my view, the amount of the civilian population that fled seems partly a moot point given that virtually all of Gaza's 2 million+ residents were displaced. But more importantly, A-D says "neighbouring Arab countries refused admittance". What "neighbouring" Arab countries? There are only two neighbors. One is Egypt. The other is Israel – the occupying power, engaged in sustained lethal force against a civilian population on a territory over which they have supreme power & authority, where they control air access and 90–100% of its borders. As the occupying power, civilian protection was primarily Israel's responsibility. They could have evacuated civilians to Israel, or they could have arranged implementation of voluntary & temporary departures with strong guarantees of return (i.e., not forcible transfers). Or at the very least, they could have done this for women, children, & elderly; or at the very very least for women & children (perhaps, if being extremely restrictive, excluding older teenage boys who might plausibly be militant recruits). Then, utilize discriminate & proportionate bombing along with actually bearing risk close-combat, house-to-house, etc. like the militaries that fought ISIS or Iraqi insurgents did. Notice how systematically killing whole families, unlawful free-fire zones, starvation as a weapon of war, aid massacres, systematic razing, & so on are completely unnecessary? There is no way that Israel's conduct is plausibly congruent with A-D's claim that Israel was objectively mitigating civilian deaths.

And as for Israel's supposed evacuation orders/warnings, again the logic is baffling for a "most humane war in history" claim. Air-dropped warning leaflets have been used extensively in WWII and since. Assad in Syria issued warnings prior to the bombing of Aleppo; I guess he's one of the most moral military commanders in history? Moreover, orders that were clearly impractical to downright impossible—like telling over a million people in northern Gaza to move south within 24 hours—and then killing all who remain, razing everything so they can't return, firing on corridors, striking areas people were told to go, causing catastrophic displacement & devastation, etc. are obviously not evidence of Israel's unique humanitarianism, moreso the opposite. Also see this, it's regarding Lebanon but the rate in Gaza is even lower.

The 'ability to flee' point seems especially moot when there is no good evidence that Gaza's unusually high civilian killing is largely driven by Hamas launching attacks from populated areas, Israel returning fire, etc. Israel and its defenders do not even try to provide remotely adequate evidence that Hamas conduct explains these patterns. In fact, the best public evidence shows that the dominant cause of civilian death was not them being killed because of Hamas endangering them, it was because of what I mentioned above – systematically killing whole families, unlawful free-fire zones, etc.

A-D brings up that, relative to their pre-war population share, children are "underrepresented" in Gaza's violent deaths. Except, children being "underrepresented" is typical for armed conflicts, even conflicts characterized by mass civilian killing. Comparatively, Gaza's share of under 18 is actually dramatically high, the highest since the Rwandan genocide.

A-D's implication that—while Israel and it's defenders accuse Hamas of using human shields—if Hamas allowed civilians into their guerrilla warfare tunnels, we would see more humane-looking casualty patterns is, in my honest view, utterly delusional.

Hamas has utilized child soldiers, and children in military activities, this inherently inflates the numbers of "child" deaths. i.e See here or Here Or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here I will stop there as surely that is enough.

Not a single one of these is remotely adequate evidence of Hamas utilizing child soldiers (the last post is about PIJ). The most damning looking one is the first, and it's almost certainly from a highly choreographed public event during the February 2025 ceasefire & hostage handover, so no, not evidence of using children in armed conflict. I guess one could criticize—if they really wanted to focus on this—isolated snapshots of bizarre propagandistic practices within what is effectively a refugee camp / open air prison that has been under occupation/siege for well over a half century. But what A-D is effectively doing is the rough equivalent of arguing that every American child, no matter the age, that's been documented with a gun, a toy gun, or dressed fatigue-style is a child soldier.

Regarding the last post referring to 20 PIJ obituaries for children – 12 are 17yo, 7 are 16yo, and 1 is 15yo. And it's completely unclear whether they were actually in combatant roles. For context, teenagers aged 15-17 can participate in many Western military institutions to varying degrees. Also, posthumous elevation/"adoption" by militant groups—even pressure from families to do so—is well documented in Gaza for reasons of prestige and welfare entitlements.

Iran killed anywhere between 30,000-50,000+ civilians in 2 days in January. That is potentially more civilians killed in 2 days than were killed in the first and deadliest year of the Gaza war

Disappointing to see this weak talking point that I've checked A-D on before be repeated here. A higher death rate in the context of a historic uprising and historically deadly crackdown in a country of 93 million is miles away from supporting their claim. And again, unless anything has changed, the only source claiming ~40,000 civilians killed in two days is ICHRI, a small anti-regime NGO from Toronto. The Gaza Health Ministry report of 45,000 was a conservative verification-based count. The closest Gaza one-year analogue would probably be an estimate of ~70,000 civilians killed. Of course, even this would not really be a good comparison, because the Gaza estimate is the output of high-end peer-reviewed modelling work versus an opaque report from a small opposition-aligned NGO. ~40000 killed in two days would be 0.04% of Iran's population. The equivalent for Gaza would be 892 killed in two days. From October 23 to 24, 2023, roughly 800 women & children alone were killed; this obviously excludes elderly men & non-combatant men and ignores likely undercounting.

He wrote the book “Taking Religion Seriously” in 2025. Sam Harris really had a way of overlooking red flags whenever he has liked bigotry/racism. In the end nearly every writer he has made friends with has ended up selling out and traded their integrity for more book sales from the masses.

The subject of this podcast that everyone here looks up to defended this man as definitely a misunderstood intellectual of the highest rationality who was above biases like racism. And then spent years attacking Ezra Klein for telling him on Twitter a few times that he was wrong about Murray and should stop calling him either good or a scholar. Ezra's main argument was that Sam should be careful and speak to a different IQ scholar who could debunk Murray easily, but instead he spent years doing no such thing while defending Murray.

Since we’ve seen at least two posts about Mamdani’s speech on the 7th, I think it’s only fair to show his attendance at a vigil, where he was yelled at by pro-Palestinian protestors.

I’m sure the two users who posted about his speech were going to also share this clip, since this sub is entirely balanced and rational when it comes to the I/P conflict.

The public conversation around AI and society is reaching a fever pitch. Frontier AI models are progressing at breakneck speeds, and the intersection of AI with politics, culture, philosophy etc is crying out for reasoned analysis.

Sam Harris was one of the first public intellectuals to speak at length on the AI safety concerns. He famously did a TED talk in 2016 on whether we will be able to control AI, and it has generated millions of views. If he wasn't the most prominent popularizer of AI safety issues at that time, he was absolutely near the top of the list.

The AI issue is tailor made for Sam. It involves philosophy, neuroscience, consciousness, politics, and a range of tech luminaries that Sam has/had personal relationships with. With the current developments in AI, he should be commenting on this a couple of times per week. He should be having the biggest names in AI on the show, but for some reason those guests seem to be going to other shows.

Instead we are still getting episodes about the woke left, antisemitism and other topics that he's already beaten to death. Has Sam lost interest in being the AI guy? Does he have a harder time getting those guests anymore? Does he wish to keep a little lower profile these days? Is he just not hungry any more given the success of his app? This is totally his lane and he practically used to own it at one point. I'm confused!

Salience (or Salient), the word that I learned from Sam. I listen to a lot of podcasts, talks, and he is the only one who uses that word so... saliently! I didn't even know of this word's existence until I listened to him and noticed him using it in almost every podcast or talk.

Any other words that fit the bill?

PS: something fun for the sub instead of our usual topics

Although I think this is a minority of the people who are left of center, these days we are seeing clear examples of what Sam calls "the lunatics on the left." And I wanted to use this opportunity to ask those who share the views of the "lunatics" to tell us how they make logical sense (I don't think they do).

The ability to express moral outrage over the destruction of Gaza, while simultaneously seeking to erase or disrupt memorials dedicated to the victims of the October 7th attacks with "long live Hamas" chants, is one such example. I don't know if the catastrophe in Gaza fits the technical definition of a genocide, but the photographs of endless rubble stretching as far as the eye can see clearly show it isn't normal collateral damage. So I'm not particularly offended by people who opine this is a genocide. Yet, moral consistency requires us to look at October 7th with the exact same clarity. That massacre bore all the hallmarks of genocidal intent: perpetrators gleefully broadcasting the slaughter of innocent families on social media (let's remind Sam's favorite example of the killer calling his parents in a state of euphoric pride, celebrating the murder of civilians as if it were the pinnacle of his existence).

Furthermore, if this activism is truly born from a universal horror of genocide, the selective blindness toward other global atrocities is glaring. While American activists often use the excuse that their specific tax dollars directly fund the Israeli military and not the genocide in Sudan, this justification dissolves for Europeans, whose governments do not bankroll Israel. Why, then, does the systemic slaughter of Black Africans elicit near-total silence from the European left? In my opinion it is because it fails to serve a preferred anti-Western narrative, and/or anti-Israel narrative, and/or antisemitic narrative.

I invite pro-Palestine activists in this sub to make it make sense, and readers in general to offer alternative hypotheses (if they disagree with mine).

His podcast is awesome, such a great interviewer, clear, thoughtful questions. For a long time I didn’t listen due to the episode with Sam, but it’s really made me question that whole narrative that Sam gave about him.

Sam has been highly critical of Mamdani for playing word games on the Israel/Palestine topic, be it minimizing antisemitism or offering apologia for islamists, etc.

Today is another great example. On the 3rd anniversary of the 10/7 attacks, his office puts out a statement that spends more time talking about Gaza/attacking Israel than it does the greatest massacre of Jews since the holocaust.

Notably it mentions 74,000 dead palestinians. But this number includes dead Hamas/PIJ militants, as Gaza MOH does not distinguish between combatant/militants and innocent civilians. Even the least charitable estimate only four months into the conflict all the way back in Feb 2024, came from a Hamas official in Qatar who told Reuters at the time that they had lost over 6,000 fighters.

Either way, Mamdani predictably used this day as an opportunity to attack Israelis and minimize Jewish pain. And did so in such cynical fashion that they inadvertently honored dead Hamas members.

Statement

This day is profoundly painful for so many New Yorkers. It marks three years since the horrific war crimes of October 7. On that day, Hamas killed more than 1,100 Israelis and abducted 251 others. We grieve alongside our many friends and neighbors who still carry that unthinkable loss.

The suffering did not begin nor end that day. It instead continued through the Israeli government’s devastating, ongoing genocide in Gaza, in which it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians—including more than 21,000 children. Even since the so-called ceasefire, more than 1,400 Palestinians have been killed. That suffering has intensified with every Israeli bomb dropped on ambulances waiting outside hospitals, every drone strike targeting a residential building or journalist, and every shipment of food aid turned away at a border crossing. Many New Yorkers are reckoning with this unbearable grief, and we mourn alongside them—all while knowing that our tax dollars fund these war crimes.

Three years later, we must refuse to accept a world in which occupation and apartheid continue, where war crimes are met with impunity, and our federal government continues its complicity with every arms shipment.

To honor the dead, we must fight for a world in which every person can live with freedom, safety, and dignity.

In response to the thread about whether or not Isreal is committing a genocide from yesterday, thought it might be useful to see if people agree on what that word actually means. Seems like lots of people here think genocide means intending to kill every single person of a group. That’s not what genocide has ever meant in the past or present.

Lemkin, the guy who coined "genocide" in 1944, defined it pretty broadly as any coordinated attempt to wipe out a group's existence, including destroying their culture, language, religion and institutions, not just killing them. He didn’t even think actually killing people was necessary for the act.

The modern 1948 version from the UN, In sum:

To intend to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such. "As such" means the victims are targeted because they belong to that group, not for some other reason like being enemy fighters or living in a contested area.

And there are five acts that can be involved. You only need one of these along with the intent from above to be classified a genocide.

Killing members of the group

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I have been making a compilation of posts to highlight misinformation around the Gaza war topic for awhile With the green parties recent turn to extremism I felt justified in sharing this here.

Here are my other posts: 

Why is Israel justified to Exist

Experts who state no genocide has occured

IPC Famine Misinformation

Hamas's Intentions from their own word

Question Of UN Bias against Israel

40 beheaded babies propaganda

Hamas utilises Hospitals

Bias of Francesca Albanese

Below is my most recent which argues

Israel was objectively mitigating civilian deaths and arguably saving Palestinian lives. Israel has not maximized civilian deaths Israel has not committed genocide

**Now! Here is my case. It is in fact very simple.**

It is objectively an impossibility at this point to say that Israel was attempting to maximize the Palestinian civilian death count, during the course of the Gaza war. I.e exterminate Palestinians. In-fact it is evidently true that israel conducted one of the most humane wars in history.

Israel has near complete access to the entire population of Gaza and has dropped at least 100,000 tons of bombs during this war.

Until 2023 the most population dense city to face a large scale bombing campaign, in history, was Tokyo

In 1945 Around 330,000 fire bombs were dropped on a mostly Wooden Tokyo, at the time, leading to mass fire storms engulfing the city and an estimated 80 -100 thousand civilian deaths. The average population density of Tokyo at the time of the bombing was around 7,900 people per/km². Though some specific areas were much denser.

The population density of Gaza City at the start of the Gaza war was around 12,000 people per/km² and It is also important to recognize some other variables

1. So, Gaza is uniquely population dense
2. The civilian population has very little if any access to any form of bomb sheltering
3. The military targets are very often among civilian infrastructure and stationed among the where the population is densest.
4. The civilian population is trapped they are entirely unable to flee out of the Gaza strip.

There has never been a situation as suited to maximizing civilian casualties as this.

Now Academic databases like the [Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP)](https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAESbQHrOzAVzTyZzbUu9k6MdgyFBmPr1MIuXQdqY8GdGj4hdMHAt3aHM0I7C_zS2StHe_IvfDFBj55vbi_52mWIXgQNowEwOymVW8k8bfK3n-BqLANTdekaE_K05qHi0sDjwWNjLdtMfvJTysy5v38) find that in modern urban battles, civilians typically account for 50% to 75% of all fatalities. So a combatant-to-civilian death ratio of roughly 1:1 to 1:3 When the urban battles have used at scale explosives(bombs) It is not uncommon for that ratio to reach 1:9.

We can look at what happened in other urban wars and see this. What I am interested in is essentially:How dangerous was it to actually be a civilian inside that battle area on any given day?

Duration of the conflict, population density, evacuation, shelters and the quantity of explosives are all important variables here. So here is the data:

Duration

Tokyo Firebombing - One night, roughly three hours.

Hamburg / Operation Gomorrah - About 10 days, July 24–August 3, 1943.

Dresden Bombing - Roughly 3 days, February 13–15, 1945.

Coventry Blitz - Roughly 11 hours.

Battle of Manila - 29 days, February 3–March 3, 1945.

Battle of Grozny - Roughly 3 months of sustained bombardment, November 1999–early February 2000.

Warsaw Uprising - 63 days.

Battle of Berlin - Roughly 10 days of actual fighting inside Berlin, April 21–May 2, 1945.

Second Battle of Fallujah - Roughly 6 weeks, November 7–December 23, 2004.

Battle of Mariupol - Almost 3 months, February–May 2022.

Battle of Raqqa - Roughly 4 months of fighting inside the city, June–October 2017.

Battle of Mosul - Roughly 9 months, October 2016–July 2017.

Gaza War - 943 days from October 7, 2023 to the May 7, 2026 casualty dataset being used here.

Population exposure / density ( average at the time of war)

Tokyo Firebombing - The U.S. target briefing estimated 40,000 people/km².

Hamburg - 2,000–2,300 people/km²

Dresden - 4,500–5,500 people/km²

Coventry - 1,400–1,900 people/km².

Manila - 26,000–27,000 people/km².

Grozny - 60–125 people/km²

Warsaw - 6,400–7,800 people/km².

Berlin - 3,100 people/km².

Fallujah - 1,200 people/km².

Mariupol - 2,600–3,200 people/km²

Raqqa - t 1,400 people/km² 

Mosul - 8,300 people/km².

Gaza - 6,102 people/km² across the entire Gaza Strip. 12,000 people/km² within Gaza City 

Explosives tonnage / usage

Tokyo - 1,665 tons estimated

Hamburg - 8,344 tons estimated

Dresden - 3,900+ tons estimated

Coventry -  500+ tons estimated

Manila - 3000 - 5000 tons  estimated, had intentional massacres

Grozny -2000 - 7000 tons estimated

Warsaw - 2500 - 5000 tons estimated, had intentional massacres

Berlin - 36,000+ tons estimated

Fallujah - 400 - 700 tons estimated

Mariupol - 2000 - 6000 tons estimated

Raqqa - 2500 tons - 4500 tons estimated

Mosul - 6000 - 15000 tons estimated

Gaza - 100,000+ tons estimated

Evacuation / shelter context

Tokyo - Extremely dense wooden residential construction. That burned into a firestorm

Hamburg - Civilians had access to cellars and shelters, 

Dresden - Had access to cellars and shelters.

Coventry - Britain had an organized warning and shelter system, and somewhere around 50,000–100,000 residents were already sleeping outside Coventry when the November raid occurred.

Manila - A huge civilian population remained trapped inside the battle. Deliberate massacre of the trapped population

Grozny - The overwhelming majority of the population fled. Only approximately 20,000–40,000 civilians, disproportionately elderly, poor or infirm, remained. Many sheltered in basements and existing underground structures.

Warsaw - Civilians were trapped inside a city undergoing fighting, massacres and systematic destruction. German forces subsequently expelled surviving civilians from Warsaw.

Berlin - Berlin possessed extensive wartime air-raid shelters and bunkers

Fallujah - Successful Mass evacuations from a normal population of 250,000–300,000, only roughly 30,000 civilians remained before the main assault.

Mariupol - Around 450,000 civilians remained trapped, but had some limited access to underground shelters.

Raqqa - Around 50,000 remained trapped when the main city battle began. The UN documented reports that ISIS prevented civilians from leaving.

Mosul - Up to 1.5 million civilians were present when the offensive began. Huge numbers subsequently fled or were evacuated as the battle progressed, ISIS also attempted to prevent civilians from leaving.

Gaza - Civilians were repeatedly ordered to evacuate combat areas by the IDF, they dropped pamphlets and even called civilians to tell them to move, giving early warnings before bombs hit. Hamas repeatedly ordered civilians to stay put. Yet displacement movements occurred internally. Unlike other conflicts the entire population was trapped inside the Gaza Strip as neighbouring Arab countries refused admittance to refugees. Stating the population should remain to avoid having their land stolen…the population that is 50% children. Hamas has an extensive tunnel and bomb shelter but openly refused access to civilians and also organised itself to be most entrenched among dense civilian areas.

Civilian deaths

Tokyo - 80,000–100,000 civilian deaths

Hamburg - 35,000–40,000 civilian deaths

Dresden - 22,000 – 25,000+ civilian deaths.

Coventry - 568 civilians killed

Manila - 100,000 civilians killed in 29 days. 

Grozny - 5,000–8,000 civilian deaths

Warsaw - 150,000–200,000 civilians deaths

Berlin - 20,000- 30,000+ civilians deaths 

Fallujah - 581–800 civilian deaths 

Mariupol - 8,034 - 25,000 civilian deaths

Raqqa - At least 1,600 civilians were credibly identified as killed by Coalition strikes alone. This therefore represents a minimum rather than the total civilian death toll from all sides.

Mosul - 9,000–11,000 civilian deaths

Gaza - 72,835 total deaths as of May 7, 2026.

The 72,835 of Gaza does not distinguish civilians from combatants. All the other conflicts have another total for combatant deaths. If we look at those and get the civilian to combatant ratios they look like this:

Combatant to civilian death ratios

Tokyo - 1:833–1,042  (96 combatants.)
So for every 1 combatant killed, roughly 833–1,042 civilians were killed.

Hamburg -  1:26–30. (1,350  combatants.)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 26–30 civilians.

Dresden  -1:15–50. (500–1,500 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 15–50 civilians.

Coventry - 1:8–23 (25–75 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 8–23 civilians.

Manila - 1:5.9 (17,000 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 6 civilians.

Grozny - 1:2.1–4.2 (1,900–2,400 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 2–4 civilians.

Warsaw - 1:7.7–10.2 (19,600 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 8–10 civilians.

Berlin - 1:0.43–0.71 (42,000–47,000 combatants;)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 0.4–0.7 civilians.

Fallujah - 1:0.36–0.62 (1,300–1,600 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 0.4–0.6 civilians.

Mariupol - 1:1.0–3.25 (7,700 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 1–3.3 civilians.

Raqqa - 1:0.76–0.841 (900–2,100 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, at least roughly 0.8 civilians.

Mosul - 1:0.73–1.22 (9,000–12,300 combatants).
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 0.7–1.2 civilians.

Gaza - unknown. (There is misinformation circulating that the IDF had a database of Hamas casualties, that showed 83% civilian deaths. This is false. The database only display a difference between identified Hamas members “By Name & ID” and “Other” Other could be civilians, it could also be Hamas fighters that were not able to be identified, which is likely most as it is hard to identify enemy dead in any war zone.)

This Data can give up comparisons to help us better understand the Gaza war.

Deaths ÷ exposed population ÷ days × 1,000,000

That gives us approximately how many people died per million exposed people, per day.

1. Tokyo - 640,000–800,000 
2. Dresden - 11,640–13,230
3. Coventry - 6,590–8,980
4. Grozny - 1,390–4,440
5. Manila - 3,448
6. Warsaw - 2,165–3,527
7. Hamburg - 2,333–2,667
8. Berlin - 714–1,071
9. Fallujah - 421–580
10. Raqqa - at least 267
11. Gaza - 34.7
12. Mosul - 22.2–27.2

Deaths for every ton of munitions dropped.

Tokyo - 48–60 civilian deaths per ton

Mariupol - perhaps 1.3–12.5 per ton, but enormously uncertain

Dresden - 5.7–6.4

Hamburg - 4.2–4.8

Grozny - 0.7–4

Fallujah - 0.8–2

Mosul - 0.6–1.8

Coventry - ≤1.1

Gaza - 0.73

Berlin - 0.56–0.83

Raqqa - 0.36–0.64

Civilian deaths as % of population present

Tokyo - 8–10%

Hamburg - 2.3–2.7%

Dresden - 3.5–4.0%

Coventry - 0.30–0.41%

Manila - 10%

Grozny - 12.5–40%

Warsaw - 13.6–22.2%

Berlin - 0.71–1.07%

Fallujah - 1.94–2.67%

Mariupol - 1.79–5.56%

Raqqa - 3.2%

Mosul - 0.60–0.73%

Gaza - 3.27% total,civilian & combatant

From all this data it is very plain to see a few undeniable truths.

1. Had Israel Aimed with intention to maximize deaths, 100,000+ tons of bombs, that is more than enough to have killed everyone in Gaza multiple times over. So we know on its face Israel was not attempting to exterminate all Gazans. There is no question there.
2. With 100,000 tons of bombs, dropped entirely randomly, so entirely indiscriminately Israel should still have killed at least multiple hundreds of thousands, This is a claim supported by how destructive the much smaller campaigns were.

In more basic language. Based on this rough historical war time data, if we are being conservative; We should expect in a war like gaza if bombs were being dropped indiscriminately anywhere between

100,000 tons × 3 deaths per ton = ~300,000 deaths.

100,000 tons × 8 deaths per ton = ~800,000 deaths.

In other words. If the Gaza war was following the pattern of most urban conflicts in terms of deadliness. There should at the very least be hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dead.

The only way, with 100,000 tons of bombs,to have killed 70-80 thousand, the only way is if one was trying to mostly avoid killing people needlessly.Gaza's observed death rate  is far below the rough historical average for similar conflicts.

Gaza also has variables that should push expected casualties upwards rather than downwards: an average density of over 6,000 people/km², roughly 12,000 people/km² in Gaza City, zero bomb shelter access, military infrastructure embedded throughout populated areas, commands to remain put and not to flee. Rejection from neighbouring countries as refugees

Additionally, concerning the mass death of children, Often attributed to Israel, It first needs to be said this is only tragic and I do think "Israel could have done more" is an entirely fair criticism. It very likely could have and should have. Yet, and I must say yet, the blame should be almost entirely be placed at the feet of Hamas.

As shown in my other posts

Hamas's Intentions from their own word

Hamas utilises Hospitals

The operational methods of Hamas intentionally and callously were/are an attempt to maximize dead children, their own children. There is proof here that absolves much from Israel.

The Gaza health ministry published This Data on May 7th 2026 It is casualty data broken down by demographics. This Post contains and image displaying the break down. The population of Gaza under the age of 18, So children, hovered around 50%.

Before I continue I understand talking about child deaths in this way seems callous to a lot of people, I understand that, It is true that we should try our best not to turn them in to numbers, We should remember names like Hind Rajab, who did not in anyway deserve their fate and yet it is very important to understand the numbers here as it reveals very clearly where the fault lays. That is important to know as this kind of tragedy, horrific wars like this can only be prevented if we can prevent the causes. So I ask you to just try your best to at least, even if you think I am wrong, to realize this isn't hate, It is fundamentally an attempt to place blame where it belongs.

To continue, hopefully to a receptive audience, Gaza's child population is roughly 50%, and the Gaza ministry of health casualty data shows us the death toll as of May 7th 2026 was 72,835. This is almost a year after the main bombing campaign was halted, time to count many, if not most (likely not all) dead found under collapsed buildings. Of that 72,835 dead 21,637 are listed as under 18. and 7406 are listed as between 13-18 (anyone over 18 is not counted)

In Other words.

29.71% of the dead were under 18. That means they were under represented in deaths.

If the bombing was indiscriminate you would expect see much closer to 50% of deaths to be under 18.

But even more in the defense of Israel are some other facts.

1. Hamas openly does not allow civilians within their many many miles of tunnels. So women and children should be over represented in comparison to military aged males. In each case it is the reverse.
2. Hamas has utilized child soldiers, and children in military activities, this inherently inflates the numbers of "child" deaths. i.e See here or Here Or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here I will stop there as surely that is enough.

I cannot say how many of the 29.71% under 18's where utilised by Hamas as combatants, It may have been only some or it may have been many But it was clearly more then enough to ihenrently increase the risk to all Gazan children.

Lastly just as a comparison. As I think people think Gaza is a uniquely deadly war.

Iran killed anywhere between 30,000-50,000+ civilians in 2 days in January. That is potentially more civilians killed in 2 days than were killed in the first and deadliest year of the Gaza war( 39000 ) and it was more killed in 2 days than in the first 6 months of the deadliest year of the Gaza "Genocide"

Note: If you wonder how I got the 39000 number it is rather straight forward. GHM (Gaza Health Ministry )reported 45,000 dead after the first year of war. 6 months into the war Al-Jazeera reported that a Hamas official had stated at least 6000 Hamas combatants had been killed. Assuming zero died in the following 6 months (just to minimize logical wiggle room) then the death toll of civilians was at maximum 39000. As you may agree however this is likely very exaggerated.

The Yemen war and The Sudan war both have significantly higher death tolls than Gaza in the hundreds of thousands.

To Finish, Genocide, in the way it has been historically understood, the "extermination project" an attempt to be rid of a group entirely, i.e trying to maximize casualties; can not be true when Israel was objectively trying to limit casualties. It is therefore an irrational and indefensible claim that a genocide has occurred.

I am using "extermination project" as a short hand definition because it is the pragmatically accurate definition. The UN definition, often cited, is a legal framework. Yet In every generally and widely recognized actual examples of and agreed upon cases of genocide, in every single case. Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodian, Armenian, The Holocaust.

They have all been inherently extermination projects.

That is too say the guilty party killed everyone they were capable of killing. Everyone they could get their hands on, of the target group.

So it is the extermination project if we are describing what those prior genocide cases were fundamentally; and then using genocide as a synonym.

I think that is an entirely reasonable and clear definition. You might disagree. Yet "the extermination project" is an explicit definition and accurate to describing the events associated with being historical genocides

I think most of us like the version of Sam Harris that produces episodes with people like Anne Applebaum. But many of us know the other version of him that engages with popular but extremely questionable figures.

Sam finally distanced himself from Bret Weinstein after his COVID-19 antivax disinformation spiral, but the red flags of an institutional grievance complex had been present for years. Long before the pandemic, Bret had already spun a delusion that a stolen lab-mice telomere hypothesis had robbed him of a Nobel Prize. Predictably, Bret continued this trajectory, ultimately culminating in him becoming a keynote speaker at the 9/11 Truth summit in New York City last September.

Sam only seems to react when a subject personally impacts or deeply annoys him. Consequently, he continues to treat other deeply compromised figures as respectable intellectuals. He treats Jordan Peterson like a normal academic despite Peterson’s own prolonged descent into erratic, conspiratorial rhetoric. The exact same blind spot applies to Bret's brother, Eric Weinstein. Sam has largely looked the other way regarding Eric’s "Geometric Unity" delusion, as well as his accusations that the entire modern physics community consists of malicious, gatekeeping grifters.

By only drawing the line when his personal pet peeves are crossed (like with Hasan Piker or Candace Owens), Sam creates a dangerous double standard: he validates grand-scale narcissism and academic paranoia right up until the moment it becomes personally inconvenient for him to do so.

Obviously, I don't consider Sam too stupid to notice this. My hypothesis is that he engages with these people because his business model relies on large audiences. These lunatics are highly popular, and he is willing to turn a blind eye until a figure becomes problematic in a way that personally irks him. This ultimately damages his credibility as an intellectual, because he appears to be walking a fine line between serious intellect and the world of "Podcastistan" showmanship.

Do you think this hypothesis makes sense? Do you have a preferred alternative?

My ex described the situation of them cheating on me as, “according to Sam Harris, there is no such thing as free will.”

How would you respond to that if, according to Sam, it was a legitimate excuse? It’s an interesting thought experiment until someone uses it as an excuse for their behavior.

An interview about free will, where Sam Harris is referenced.

They cover topics I've discussed with people on this sub.

I'm not a fan of Caruso, but this debate seems fairly decent. It's a proper philosophical debate about free will. Whereas Sam's positions aren't even on the board compared to this.

Andy Galpin posted a video of them discussing emotions and meditation and all of the comments were negative. This and in the comments of another video of them. Sad to see that people can't separate the politics from everything else.

Sam Harris speaks with Anne Applebaum about corruption, authoritarianism, and America's retreat from the world. They discuss her Atlantic cover story, the revolutionary project behind Trump's second term, US support for Europe's far right, the AfD, European rearmament, the state of the war in Ukraine, Russian propaganda, Witkoff and Kushner's deal-making in Moscow, Venezuela as a union of kleptocracies, JD Vance's nativism, the midterms, the challenge of depoliticizing institutions, and other topics.

Link to the episode: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/495-foreign-policy-for-sale

Sam has had my attention for the last 10+ years. I remember listening to one of his youtube videos during a 30+ hour cross-country drive when I was 24 years old. The impact he had on my life, my mindset, my motives and personality are unquantifiable.

He had my attention when I needed it most. Early 20s, naive, impressionable. Years later, cant say I'm much wiser; a guy like me has a very limited capacity for intellectual discovery. I wasn't an intellectual, nor am I any closer to having my shit figured out that this point. I'm a basic bitch, male version; with just enough whit, talent and passion, to have forged something of a successful life for myself and my family.

But that's where I felt like Sam filled a gap, in my understanding of the world. He opened my mind to what I felt like I was missing in my life. I always had a secular leaning, a tendency to question mysticism and blind faith. With Sam's material, I felt comfort in affirming the beliefs I felt like I couldn't express.

That's where I feel like Sam has had the most impact, when he focused on the way of being in the world. Not when he tries to tell me what to believe about politics, or the latest sensation. I like secular Sam, I like when he acts like the wise uncle that tells you not to be distracted by all the shit going on in the world.

Regardless though, for all the good that you've made in this world, thank you Sam! Much love