05-06-2012, 12:24 PM
Ah! I see. Now you want to hedge your bet. But that is not what the Mayan calendar supposedly implies. Certainly the world can change, as we have examples of that, such as the fall of Rome, the Vikings losing Greenland, or the Aztecs being wiped out by Western disease to which they had no immunity. History is full of these type of examples, but generally they are not considered the end of the world, and I doubt that is what those who say such about the Mayan calendar mean. If my girlfriend dumps me, or I get fired and lose my house, this would seem the "end of the world to me". Any personal tragedy generally qualifies as that.
Actually, your original thesis of
"i think the end of the world as we know it is possible in the next 100 years or so. not from natural disaster but from wars. it wont be long before we all armed for bear, someone is bound to do the deed, i think the dead leader of n korea if still alive when they had the bomb, may have been such a person Sad"
was fine, although I don't think it will happen, but when you say
"we're all doomed i tell you "
that expands it into a completely different area. But since I know you were joking, I will allow you to withdraw that part
Seriously, even if, as you so merrily project, there was a cascade of nuclear detonations, we are not talking about releasing the power that was available during the cold war. Even nut countries are aware of the possible "fallout" effecting them should they let loose with mega nukes necessary to render their enemy helpless. We are much too aware of how local events effect the rest of the globe. Using nukes on a massive scale is like shooting yourself. Sure China may hate the USA and plot it's demise, but not at the expense of killing itself. I think the only two reasons people can be convinced in a global domino effect is because of all the Armageddon mythology, and/or because it acts as such a wonderful argument for disarming. Also, as the standard of living increases, as it is globally ( just consider the amount of relief brought to bare to deal with the 2000 was it? tsunami), even though there is still starving, and malnutrition, percentage wise it is far below what it once was. As such "affluence" increases (as well as civil liberties), people have more to lose, and are less willing to lose it. This in combination with the general populace in a larger number of countries having more of a say in how their government acts would tend to limit or preclude any massive use of nukes, or even conventional warfare. Plus, as with Korea and Iran, things no longer happen in economic isolation, and such sanctions cause pressure to be put on the government by the populace to behave.
To me it seems less likely to happen now than any time since the 1950's. Any kind of oops, sort of occurrence is going to be fairly localized as we have too much redundancy built into the overall technology grid.
If something on a global scale was going to happen it would probably be something biological that would continue on it's own without human intervention such as an engineered virus. Nukes are just too overhead intensive.
Dale
Actually, your original thesis of
"i think the end of the world as we know it is possible in the next 100 years or so. not from natural disaster but from wars. it wont be long before we all armed for bear, someone is bound to do the deed, i think the dead leader of n korea if still alive when they had the bomb, may have been such a person Sad"
was fine, although I don't think it will happen, but when you say
"we're all doomed i tell you "
that expands it into a completely different area. But since I know you were joking, I will allow you to withdraw that part
Seriously, even if, as you so merrily project, there was a cascade of nuclear detonations, we are not talking about releasing the power that was available during the cold war. Even nut countries are aware of the possible "fallout" effecting them should they let loose with mega nukes necessary to render their enemy helpless. We are much too aware of how local events effect the rest of the globe. Using nukes on a massive scale is like shooting yourself. Sure China may hate the USA and plot it's demise, but not at the expense of killing itself. I think the only two reasons people can be convinced in a global domino effect is because of all the Armageddon mythology, and/or because it acts as such a wonderful argument for disarming. Also, as the standard of living increases, as it is globally ( just consider the amount of relief brought to bare to deal with the 2000 was it? tsunami), even though there is still starving, and malnutrition, percentage wise it is far below what it once was. As such "affluence" increases (as well as civil liberties), people have more to lose, and are less willing to lose it. This in combination with the general populace in a larger number of countries having more of a say in how their government acts would tend to limit or preclude any massive use of nukes, or even conventional warfare. Plus, as with Korea and Iran, things no longer happen in economic isolation, and such sanctions cause pressure to be put on the government by the populace to behave.
To me it seems less likely to happen now than any time since the 1950's. Any kind of oops, sort of occurrence is going to be fairly localized as we have too much redundancy built into the overall technology grid.
If something on a global scale was going to happen it would probably be something biological that would continue on it's own without human intervention such as an engineered virus. Nukes are just too overhead intensive.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.