sounds like youre discounting evolution as a whole and underestimate early human innovation.
I'm not discounting evolution or underestimating human innovation. I said humans were once ruled by extraterrestrials.
geological records clearly show we did not need outside influence to exist, work together or build large structures.
Okay, but that's not the argument here. I didn't say humans need this theory to explain that. I'm sure homosapiens were capable of much.
known physics demonstrates the universe is too large and chaotic for alien interaction to even be a thing.
Which physics is that? I've not found anything of the sort. In fact, the fermi paradox exists because there should be abundant civilization observable to us, but there isn't. Also your video only gives reasons why we would suppose communication hasn't occurred between us and ET life.
considering how easily weve already nearly killed our planet in only a very short span of existing, how 99.999% of everything to ever exist (including at least 15 other hominid species, our former close cousins) has already gone extinct
Extinction events are very circumstantial and dare I say random. The dinosaurs just happened to be wiped out by an extinction event with a probability of around 10^(-8); homosapiens have been around even a fraction long enough for that probabilitic chance. Plenty of time for an advanced civilization to evolve. So please explain more on these supposed limiters that are giving you that probability.
and how absurdly far away/extreme lengths of time it takes for interstellar travel to be a thing, that relative existential clocks are not just arbitrary notions but set timetables based on the physics of elements (universal, not just our interpretations), the universe is just literally too big for life to interact across it.
Travelling in 3d would be absurd, but even general relativity leaves room for wormholes and warp drives. Manipulating space in 4d in order to reduce distance travelled, and this is just what is currently understood to be possible.
we cant just break the laws of physics and neither can other life that would interact on our level of interaction or observation.
Which laws are being broken?
if they exist beyond that level? highly, highly, HIGHLY unlikely but then they may as well not exist for all that we can detect them and why would they downgrade a creation to 3d when they can hop across spacetime like we do across town
Sorry, I don't get this part. Downgrade a creation to 3d?
Do remember that scientists love getting proved wrong (the point of the scientific method), so seti, ligo and cern literally exist to prove people wrong and if they cant, thats not us going "look we're smart" thats us going "look we made a bunch of predictions and tried over and over to throw the books and counter-math at it because scientists generally dont get funded billions on useless bullshit so we were left no other options but to use massive machines to prove the math wrong but it happens to say we're right". vast majority of experiments ever throughout history are wrong until theyre not, and those small amounts of "success" are the ones we hear about
Okay, but how does this relate to what you said earlier?
We have very limited or virtually no free will. Our brain is already aware of our actions before we consciously are aware ourselves. Neurologists have already proven this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#:~:text=Free will as illusion,-It may be&text=The discovery that humans possess,idea that intention initiates actions.
"One significant finding of modern studies is that a person's brain seems to commit to certain decisions before the person becomes aware of having made them. Researchers have found a delay of about half a second or more (discussed in sections below). With contemporary brain scanning technology, scientists in 2008 were able to predict with 60% accuracy whether 12 subjects would press a button with their left or right hand up to 10 seconds before the subject became aware of having made that choice.[6] These and other findings have led some scientists, like Patrick Haggard, to reject some definitions of "free will"."
Free will is overated. What would that even mean, no philosopher or scientist can coherently explain what a free will would be like.
Autism should be eliminated (talking about prophylaxis here, not genocide).
But how, I doubt that's controversial. Everyone agrees autism is not a great thing to be burdened with. It almost sounds you're implying something can be done, but people are avoiding do that thing.
Fair enough
I believe that there's no afterlife of any kind. The concept of the soul is a myth. Human consciousness is tied to the existence of your body and mind in the physical realm
Does that mean you believe philosophical materialism? Honestly, I can understand why someone would believe as you do. I have an open view, I've seen a compelling case for both there being no afterlife and there being one.
I believe dogshit (and piss) all over the sidewalks, parks, streets is deplorable. It's horrible for the environment even when it is picked up, though it seldom is. Humans are (mostly) not permitted to do it so why do we think it's so sweet and cute and that dog shit somehow feeds the ecosystem with love?
In the USA anyway, it's everywhere. It must be controversial because everyone else seems to love it.
There's gotta be a top prize in physics available to whomever can solve the mystery of how all the shit and piss ends up everywhere, though, because every owner will swear up and down they are very responsible and always pick it up. So how is it getting there? 
If this is controversial, then I get burned at stake with you.
.
