Apocalypse Files

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

There are many different versions of the story of the apocalypse of the earth. Religious texts dating back thousands of years have spoken about how all of life on earth can or will come to an end. Believeing these texts the peoples of history tried to live by the rules of their religions. Lately, the past few hundred years, even the past few thousand, we have been looking at the world through science. A type of belief that is based on evidence and fact, not to discredit any belief based on faith, science is simply a story of life with considerable accuracy and clarity. It is with science that we can really see a clear picture of what is happening around us, a picture supported by much evidence. Through the use of many different fields of science (natural, social, mathematical, theoretical, historical, technological, etc. many hundreds exist) I wonder if there is anything that is happening on the earth today for whatever reasons that is really harming life and posseses a serious threat to the continuing existence of life. Is there something that is happening, however gradually, that will spell apocalypse for life on our planet, even our galaxy? Is life increasingly in danger of death? Is everthing we knew, we know or ever will know going to disappear one day? Is the apocalypse real?

[3nigma]

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

In colonial America, it was widely believed that white men were smarter than black men. Therefore, the colonialists decided that education would be wasted on black men, to put them in formal schooling. As a result, the black men did indeed become temporarily less educated than the white men, in that area at that time. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

I don't think the world is coming to any doom-and-gloom anytime soon. However, I believe that if people adopt this mentality, and it becomes widespread, it will happen- absolutely. People will withdraw from being active to change the world, and it could fall into a state such as this.

 

No, I don't think it would/should happen. Yes, it could happen.

 

-3nigma

[Mebster]

There are many different versions of the story of the apocalypse of the earth. Religious texts dating back thousands of years have spoken about how all of life on earth can or will come to an end.

As a muslim I believe the world will come to an end. In Islam it fairly detailed how this will take place (an interesting read to be honest). The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) told us of minor and major signs as a indication of when the world is close to an end. I think most scholars agree all/most of the minor signs have been displayed we're now just waiting for the majors which if I remember are very close to the end. It is a bit of a scary thought.

 

Anyway, I just thought I'd add that for anyone interested.

[gwprod12]

If you mean all scholars in general, I think probably only a tiny comparative number would agree with the statement that the minor signs of the Islamic end of the world have shown themselves.

[hecker]

Every person on earth will live through his/her own personal apocalypse someday.

 

hecker

[Mebster]

If you mean all scholars in general, I think probably only a tiny comparative number would agree with the statement that the minor signs of the Islamic end of the world have shown themselves.

Really, I have never looked into it that much but from what I've heard it sounded like most of the minor signs had now been shown.

 

Anyway gwprod12, long time no see (that's sounds weird when you write it)

[Takuro]

If you define "world" as the planet Earth: Well the end of the world is inevitable. It's not going to be as immediate as global warming. It will happen before entropy gradually takes over the universe and everything dissipates into useless heat energy.

 

One thing I don't understand: humans are under the impression that when it's the apocalypse, Earth will be obliterated and they will die. Who ever said we'd exist as a species to see Earth's demise? It is possible that the sun can dawn on a world without humans after all. It can still exist without us. Earth's orbit and rotation don't depend on us, but we like to feel that we're important. Nonetheless, when the human race disappears, it doesn't necessarily mean the rest of life on Earth will also.

 

Of course, my Catholic faith says there will be signs of the apocalypse, such as the blood-red moon. Jewish people have their own signs. Muslims do too. Some signs overlap. Either way, most of these "signs" are too open-ended and free to interpretation. Eg: does "blood red moon" mean nuclear fallout polluting the skies? Who knows.

 

Bottom line: Humans will die. Maybe we'll evolve into something else. Maybe our line of the animal kingdom's family tree will end. It's probably not within our lifetime. Every generation since the beginning of mankind thought their generation would be the last. Earth will one day be destroyed, but we won't be around. Much much much later, the universe will gradually finish entropy.

[killbot1000]

I am assuming that when people are talking about "the appocolypse" and "the end of the world" they are referring to the end of mankind. That I believe is all in ones head. If enough people really really really believe that the world is going to end, then it's going to end. We should be focused on fixing our problems instead of waiting for "something" to come wash us away, if we all work toward this goal, the world wont end as we "think" it will.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

I began this discussion because I was thinking about how the moon is slowly creeping towards earth, how the sun is continuing to expell its energy heading ever further towards super nova and how the Andromeda galaxy is heading towards the Milky Way. It is extremely interesting to think about how far humanity is willing to go to survive. If we do want to become an immortal species then we are not going to have to move not only from our planet, but our solar system and our galaxy too! Needless to say this is an immensly difficult task. The truth is, the universe is an unbelievably harsh environment and we live in it, not even stars and galaxies can maintain their identities for too long, can humans?

I understand that these events will happen billions of years from now, but do people have hope for their great, great, etc. grand children? Or will humanity meet the cosmos?

 

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Is the fact that an asteroid could hit the earth at any instant, without warning and kill most of all life on the earth a self-fulfilling prophecy? If we start believing that it won't happen, will it not? Cause if that's the case then asteroids definitely don't exist in my book!

 

I am assuming that when people are talking about "the appocolypse" and "the end of the world" they are referring to the end of mankind.

No sir, this is open to any ending you can imagine, from the end of the world to the end of mankind to the end of reason or belief. It's all in the air here. Besides you sholuld know its troublesome (fallacy) to just assume things, Mr. Logic and Science.

 

And by the way, there hasn't been too much science going on here, though some very great ideas. C'mon! Opinions are great and post them here too, but back it up! I'm really, very interested to see if there are serious, documented and observable signs of apocalypse. We're all intelligent here, do some research on how you think the world might end or how we are in an ever increasing danger of death.

[killbot1000]

I began this discussion because I was thinking about how the moon is slowly creeping towards earth, how the sun is continuing to expell its energy heading ever further towards super nova and how the Andromeda galaxy is heading towards the Milky Way. It is extremely interesting to think about how far humanity is willing to go to survive. If we do want to become an immortal species then we are not going to have to move not only from our planet, but our solar system and our galaxy too! Needless to say this is an immensly difficult task. The truth is, the universe is an unbelievably harsh environment and we live in it, not even stars and galaxies can maintain their identities for too long, can humans?

I understand that these events will happen billions of years from now, but do people have hope for their great, great, etc. grand children? Or will humanity meet the cosmos?

Is the fact that an asteroid could hit the earth at any instant, without warning and kill most of all life on the earth a self-fulfilling prophecy? If we start believing that it won't happen, will it not? Cause if that's the case then asteroids definitely don't exist in my book!

No sir, this is open to any ending you can imagine, from the end of the world to the end of mankind to the end of reason or belief. It's all in the air here. Besides you sholuld know its troublesome (fallacy) to just assume things, Mr. Logic and Science.

 

And by the way, there hasn't been too much science going on here, though some very great ideas. C'mon! Opinions are great and post them here too, but back it up! I'm really, very interested to see if there are serious, documented and observable signs of apocalypse. We're all intelligent here, do some research on how you think the world might end or how we are in an ever increasing danger of death.

 

I know its dangerous to assume, which is why I SAID I was assuming, that way I could plug a situation into a controlled formula (ie are we talking about the apocolypse from a religous standpoint, an ecological standpoint, etc.?) In this case I picked religious and rolled with it. I have a completely different outlook when it comes to ecological.

 

Ecologically the Earth will recover quite quickly after we're gone. We are the parasite, we are the plague, the earth will one day cleanse itself of this infection, much as you do when bacteria invade your body. Sorry to get all metaphorical but...I don't like people much...NOT that I am ruling out the possibility of POSITIVE change, but I highly doubt it

 

I think by self-fulfilling prophecy, 3nigma was referring to us destroying ourselves (war, oppression, etc.)

[gwprod12]

Agreed. Humans cannot destroy the earth. The earth will destroy us way before that and fix itself. Humanity's best defense is to learn how to spread. I have no doubt that even if Extra-Terestrials exist, that there's plenty of free real-estate. And if someone wants to fight us for it, all the more reason to expand (they would extinquish us eventually if we dont). Let's leave all the Muslims and Christians here though. They dont believe in science anyway, and would be happier left on a theocratically run Earth (without all those damn liberals, lefties and blashphemers).

[OryHara]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_cIVJwNWL8

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

Humans cannot destroy the earth.

 

How far do we have to go before the world is concidered 'destroyed,' is it after we kill a few more species, or is it after we raise the temperature another degree, or when we over populate into every livable hole on this rock? A ticking bomb with a five second timer next to a beetle; the beetle ain't dead yet, but we can certainly consider it destroyed. Or an even better example, poison; once someones poisoned they can survive for days, weeks, months, even years but they are still dead. Humans have, in many ways, already destroyed the earth. We've definitely destroyed thousands of forms of life and counting so far...

[gwprod12]

I guess it depends. I suppose we might eventually have a piece of technology that could crack a planet like an egg, but... Usually people say "Humans are killing the planet." They arent. They're killing the planet's ability to support them. And one day, the planet might be uninhabitable to humans, and all humans might die, taking with them the human poison, thus allowing the planet to recreate it's own human-habitable balance.

 

Global warming is a good example. Global warming is definitely happening. If it continues, it will eventually be a problem. People may debate whether or not humans are causing it, but what does it matter? We have to do something about it, or leave. No matter what the cause.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

"Humans are killing the planet." They arent. They're killing the planet's ability to support them.

Humans have been killing the planets ability to support not only themselves but many other natural species too. Thousands upon thousands of different species have died off now, never to be seen again. Plants, animals even certain types of humans are dying off. We have already started the process of destruction and uninhabitability.

I would also argue that the apocolypse hit the Dodo birds over a hundred years ago, and that apocalypse was us. We have to see the broader picture, and not only think about our own survival on this planet, but the survival of the system of ecology in place today. Sure it will repair itself, but that doesn't make hurting the planet any less wrong. Stop thinking so selfishly, and start thinking about the effects that humanity has had on everything in this planet.

[gwprod12]

Ultimately, except for the practical sense of protecting a working ecology, what do the extinction of plants, animals, etc mean to humans? Aside from practical considerations... who cares? And if someone does care for impractical reasons, they shouldnt. (A practical reason might be... if you kill all the wolves, then wild deer will explode in population, eat all of the grass, then die off). Mostly I just hear impractical reasoning for protecting the environment. Like it's the right thing to do ;-p

 

Now, I'm not an environmentalist or a capitalist, but I can understand the perspective of the anti-environmentalists. Our technology and powers increase every day, but never so fast as when we NEED them to advance. If the earth starts really becoming problematic, we'll figure out something very quickly. Necessity being the mother of invention, as it were.

 

Now, while this is not necessarily the case, it's seemed to work out okay before. There are ways to stop global warming. We could put a large soletta in orbit between the earth and the sun to block out the sun's rays. That would work, and power a space station besides. We dont do something drastic like that until everyone agrees it's worthwhile. The problem with environmental groups is that what they are suggesting doesnt stop or reverse global warming, and even the most ardent environmentalist isnt convinced to produce negative CO2 emissions. So why bother?

 

Anyways, people should focus on environmental science if they really want to do something to protect the earth's ability to harbor humans (as we're used to). And every roof in the United States to start should have a solar panel.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

Honestly, gwprod, I was enjoying the conversation until your last comment. Um, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. It seems as if you have not thought and definitely not learned enough about this issue. You can't just philosophize about everything and think youre right and smart. This discussion was supposed to be about science, and you don't seem to know anything about that. Sorry gw, but I can't believe what you've just written, it's too selfish and narrow-minded for a person I thought had some good argumentation skills. I guess to me sitting around talking about humanities survival while philosophizing about why it doesn't really matter that we're KILLING everything is just, well, ignorant. Please, gw, for your own sake, learn something about this SCIENTIFIC subject before spewing your philosophical opinions and baseless theories, unfortunately they weren't asked for.

[gwprod12]

No, what's ignorant is when someone says "Oh, those poor spotted owls, they didnt do anything, leave them alone". Which is exactly why no one cares about the spotted owl. The reason to protect the spotted owl is not that the spotted owl deserves to live, it doesnt, it is because it is a vital part of the ecosystem that needs to be maintained in order for balance to exist.

 

Ignorance and apathy are why this situation exists to begin with. Sure, anyone can say that they want to protect the planet, but how many trees have you chained yourself to? The argument I laid out is the straight up and down situation without moral connotations.

 

What exactly do you disagree with? The fact that carbon emissions cannot be set to a negative or even zero level? That's a fact. Global warming cannot be stopped, it can only be slowed, and very difficultly (that way, anyway). Do you disagree that the animals on land, in the air and under the sea serve only one overriding purpose to humans, and that is to keep the ecology functioning? Do you disagree that human technology and powers increase daily, and any problem facing humans has been surmounted? Do you disagree that environmentalists as a group tend to dry-wash their hands and whine about how we're killing the planet, while doing nothing environmentally friendly themselves, such as living in a solar-powered yurt.

 

What exactly is functionally untrue about my previous post?

 

(I actually know quite a bit about this topic)

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

The problem (and I know a LOT about this topic) is that you only can think about how it affects humans, you. And the absolute arrogance shown in you judging what deserves to live is unbelievable. I really wish you'd stop posting on this discussion.... I never wanted to argue about how humans are #1 and how no other animal is as important. And you keep bringing up the usual popular (not scientific) anti-arguments for increased care of the ecosystem. Gwprod, sorry buddy, but any biologist, chemist, scientist, naturalist, etc. of any sort would feel sorry for you, just stick to philosophy, it's what you're good at and please stop posting things because there is no proof in the world that you could offer that would show that humans are the all important species of planet earth. And no, sorry again and I'm not trying to be mean here or start a fight, but you have still said nothing of worth or proof besides some philosophical theories about humanity.

[gwprod12]

I hate to say it, but I think you're being intentionally obtuse. When someone says to you "Do this, because if you dont, then a plant will become extinct", almost no people care. Why should they? Humans care about themselves, is it a crime to point this out? The problem with your position is that it completely deflects the notion of playing to a human being's interests. That's why environmentalism has so little support. When someone says to you "Do this, because if you dont, then this plant which produces oxygen for you to breathe will become extinct and you'll die", then people care. If a solar car could be produced that would be more efficient and cheaper (both in investment and in fuel costs), everyone would buy one.

 

I do not advocate the philosophy that the ecosystem is unimportant, or even unimportant except for it's affect on humans. I'm merely stating the facts, which are glaringly obvious. People will not (read WILL NOT) do what violates their perceived interests. And paying $8 a gallon for gas so that the wildlife in anwar can be preserved is unreasonable to ask of anyone. The function of government is to give people the incentive to do what is in their interest. Environmentalism is in everyone's interest. Period. But mewing about the poor trees doesnt fix anything.

 

In fact, it's absolutely absurd for anyone who has anything higher than a null carbon footprint to be a zealot for environmentalism.

 

Please tell me where I have misunderstood the science of ecology?

 

Let me restate what I have said, in different words. People do not care about the environment and conservation of animals and plants because they do not KNOW that they are important for their own well-being. And environmentalists, who pander to the feel-good hippy crowd, absolutely refuse to enlighten them.

 

Anyway. If you have a cogent position that will solve the current ecological crisis, I'm sure it'd be worth hearing. Because what I see is a decision to whine about mean people who hate animals, until the world turns into a desert.

 

As a note. Even Al Gore, the most vocal important person on the issue of Global Warming offers no solutions to the problem. None. He's not wrong, as I'm sure you'll think I'm saying. But what exactly are people supposed to do when they realize we're all about to die?

 

AND. Human beings are the only beings that ultimately matter in this question, as Human beings are the only beings capable of affecting change either for good or ill.

[killbot1000]

I hate to say it, but I think you're being intentionally obtuse. When someone says to you "Do this, because if you dont, then a plant will become extinct", almost no people care. Why should they? Humans care about themselves, is it a crime to point this out? The problem with your position is that it completely deflects the notion of playing to a human being's interests. That's why environmentalism has so little support. When someone says to you "Do this, because if you dont, then this plant which produces oxygen for you to breathe will become extinct and you'll die", then people care. If a solar car could be produced that would be more efficient and cheaper (both in investment and in fuel costs), everyone would buy one.

 

I do not advocate the philosophy that the ecosystem is unimportant, or even unimportant except for it's affect on humans. I'm merely stating the facts, which are glaringly obvious. People will not (read WILL NOT) do what violates their perceived interests. And paying $8 a gallon for gas so that the wildlife in anwar can be preserved is unreasonable to ask of anyone. The function of government is to give people the incentive to do what is in their interest. Environmentalism is in everyone's interest. Period. But mewing about the poor trees doesnt fix anything.

 

In fact, it's absolutely absurd for anyone who has anything higher than a null carbon footprint to be a zealot for environmentalism.

 

Please tell me where I have misunderstood the science of ecology?

 

Let me restate what I have said, in different words. People do not care about the environment and conservation of animals and plants because they do not KNOW that they are important for their own well-being. And environmentalists, who pander to the feel-good hippy crowd, absolutely refuse to enlighten them.

 

Anyway. If you have a cogent position that will solve the current ecological crisis, I'm sure it'd be worth hearing. Because what I see is a decision to whine about mean people who hate animals, until the world turns into a desert.

 

As a note. Even Al Gore, the most vocal important person on the issue of Global Warming offers no solutions to the problem. None. He's not wrong, as I'm sure you'll think I'm saying. But what exactly are people supposed to do when they realize we're all about to die?

 

AND. Human beings are the only beings that ultimately matter in this question, as Human beings are the only beings capable of affecting change either for good or ill.

 

 

I know where we can start, we continue research on alternative fuel sources but at the same time tighten the restrictions on car makers year after year, in order to push them to make cars with better and better miles per gallon and fewer and fewer emissions, this way we are using less gas and putting less {censored} into the air. If we make the restrictions on an annual basis, slowly, it wont seem that bad, but add 10 years and before you know it, we would have cars with 60 mpg and far fewer emissions.

 

Our problem is that we haven't been pushing this AT ALL, but if we push too hard we will create economic problems (ie oh this car was 22,000 dollars last year, and now its 46,000).

 

Also, what we could do is augment our existing power producing facilities (coal power plants) by putting solar panels on ALL new houses built that feed power back into the grid and reduce the amount of coal that needs to be burned. If the government feels bad making the house building companies put these solar panels into place, let the taxpayers pay the bill, they will save just as much money on reduced electricity anyway.

 

These are just a few easy, practical solutions that would help out a lot, there are thousands of other practical solutions that are just as useful that we have just been lazy to implement but despite what we're all told, this ISNT hard, it just takes a little extra cash, build a few less tanks and missiles each year and we've got our money

[gwprod12]

I agree with you 100%, and you've read my mind. Except I think nuclear power needs to be phased in more, with fuel-rod reprocessing plants (which the US currently bans).

 

This will not solve Global warming, though it will make it less bad, less quickly.

 

It's just like Mary Poppins always used to say "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down...".

 

Well, people wont spend their hard-earned money on saving the planet unless it can be made to work for them.

 

Also, anything that can be done to get us off fossil fuels should be done, and soon.

 

Here is an example. Let's say Joe has a car that gets 30 miles to the gallon and pays $2.50 a gallon for gas. Let us say that the government mandated an $8 tax on every gallon of gas bought. It would definitely make the new car that runs on electricity look pretty fing good. Thus saving Joe money in the long-run, and making gasoline less desirous, and less valuable.

 

Back to your (killbott's) idea about solar panels: Germany currently runs a program that mandates that excess electricity from a home solar (or cogeneration, I think) system can be sold back to the grid for 5 times the current cost of electricity. In the US, that would look like this: 5kw panels at a cost of 50,000 investment over 30 years. $0.07 per kwh from grid sources. If the customer sells back all of the power he/she generates instead of using it, that would be $17.50 in profit per day of 10 hours of light. That's $6000 a year in profit. A worthwhile investment. Encouraging people to put up solar panels and penalizing those who dont, until everyone has a solar panel on their roof. That's a program that works. Not wringing your hands and complaining about big oil ;-p