2012 is ripe for major disaster... my son turns 16 and gets a driver's license. There will be mayhem and death throughout the land.
2012
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
Given the state of the world at the moment -- I can see a confluence of events that could very well result in the demise of mankind in 2012.
No, I am not referring to the mythical "global warming"...
The ultimate enemy of man...is...himself.
I've thought for awhile now that these are turbulent and scary times.
However, I think it's always a mistake to put a date on the end of the world. Dates come and go and then those who make the predictions lose credibility and become a joke.
Remember Y2K?
No, I am not referring to the mythical "global warming"...
The ultimate enemy of man...is...himself.
I've thought for awhile now that these are turbulent and scary times.
However, I think it's always a mistake to put a date on the end of the world. Dates come and go and then those who make the predictions lose credibility and become a joke.
Remember Y2K?
However, I think it's always a mistake to put a date on the end of the world. Dates come and go and then those who make the predictions lose credibility and become a joke.
Remember Y2K?
It upsets me that Y2K is seen as an example of the futility of prediction, when in fact it was an example of the importance of prediction. By predicting the risk of a worldwide computer breakdown due to the Y2K bug, people were able to make a widespread, systematic effort to fix the bug in advance, and that's why we didn't have a problem. It's not true that the prediction was wrong. The prediction was right, but the response to that prediction was also right, in that it prevented the prediction from coming true. This is why it's so important to make projections about the future, so long as they're legitimate extrapolations rather than sensationalist, mystical gibberish. Because knowing about future problems in advance gives us the power to prevent them rather than just waiting around until they happen and trying to clean up the mess afterward.
And that's why superstitious nonsense and outright deception like this 2012 hysteria is a bad thing -- because it gives prediction a bad name and leads us to dismiss the importance of legitimate, useful predictions of soluble problems like Y2K, overpopulation, global warming, etc. There are so many genuine risks that we have the power to do something about in advance if we recognize them and react intelligently, as we did with Y2K. But instead we get distracted by sensationalist lies that serve only to panic us and instill us with the dangerous and false notion that there's nothing we can do to affect the future in a positive way.
Not a big deal, but I thought I'd point out that his first name is actually "Whitley", which is odd.
However, I think it's always a mistake to put a date on the end of the world. Dates come and go and then those who make the predictions lose credibility and become a joke.
Remember Y2K?
It upsets me that Y2K is seen as an example of the futility of prediction, when in fact it was an example of the importance of prediction. By predicting the risk of a worldwide computer breakdown due to the Y2K bug, people were able to make a widespread, systematic effort to fix the bug in advance, and that's why we didn't have a problem. It's not true that the prediction was wrong. The prediction was right, but the response to that prediction was also right, in that it prevented the prediction from coming true. This is why it's so important to make projections about the future, so long as they're legitimate extrapolations rather than sensationalist, mystical gibberish. Because knowing about future problems in advance gives us the power to prevent them rather than just waiting around until they happen and trying to clean up the mess afterward.
And that's why superstitious nonsense and outright deception like this 2012 hysteria is a bad thing -- because it gives prediction a bad name and leads us to dismiss the importance of legitimate, useful predictions of soluble problems like Y2K, overpopulation, global warming, etc. There are so many genuine risks that we have the power to do something about in advance if we recognize them and react intelligently, as we did with Y2K. But instead we get distracted by sensationalist lies that serve only to panic us and instill us with the dangerous and false notion that there's nothing we can do to affect the future in a positive way.
If there was anything to Y2K, there would have still been some major problems despite the best efforts to fix it since not all fixes are flawless and perfect and available to everyone at any given moment (Just take a look at how many people don't even have good anti-virus/spyware protection). However, as I recall, the day came and went with a yawn...
There were assorted problems, but nothing on the chiliastic scale that the popular imagination expected. See, this is part of the problem. There was a genuine threat of technical problems arising from the Y2K bug, but the danger got blown out of proportion by the sensationalists until people were expecting the downfall of civilization. So even though there were some unresolved issues, they were so far below the exaggerated expectations people had that they seemed inconsequential and didn't get mass-media coverage.
So as usual, the truth lies between the extremes that most people fixate on. The problem wasn't as massive as people were frightened into believing, but it was still a legitimate concern and it was wise to address the risk in advance. It's just stupid to say "We can't know if something bad will happen so we should just loaf around and do nothing and assume we'll be fine." It's simple common sense to identify legitimate future risks and take reasonable measures to safeguard against them. If the risk was exaggerated, no harm done. But if the risk is genuine, you're better off having done something than done nothing. How much better off would America be if the Bush administration had listened to the warnings of an imminent terrorist attack, or to the warnings that the New Orleans levee system wasn't strong enough to withstand a large hurricane? Those were genuine concerns, and it was shamefully negligent to fail to take safeguards against them. How many terrorist attacks have been prevented since 9/11 because the government did act on warnings in advance? We'll never know. But just because the attacks didn't happen, that doesn't mean that taking precautions is stupid. Preparing in advance for the Y2K bug was the right thing to do even if the bug wasn't as bad as feared. And it's dangerously naive to mock such preparations as pointless hysteria.
Um, I certainly was not "mocking such preparations". My point was that had it been as grave of a threat as predicted by the Y2K soothsayers, it STILL would have been felt somewhere...somehow...if it was anywhere near the kind of threat as predicted. We're talking about an alledged global systemic flaw. No doubt there were SOME problems, but these must have been miniscule minor annoyances in the overall scheme of things.
But, that's beside the point. My original point was about blowing things out of proportion and making pin-point date predictions of doom.
Things tend to happen when people are NOT expecting them. To your point about 9/11 -- no one was predicting that exact day for that event to occur. There was a general chatter of something going to transpire, but nothing specific by any means.
But, to conclude, sure -- I'm all for being proactive. What I am not for is all this this soothsaying with regard to specific dates. That's not to diminish the threat or possibility of such things occurring...
Only a fool would do that....and "my mama didn't raise no fool"...
I like Emmerich's movies.
This one looks cool.
This one looks cool.
Eh, I was 9 when I first saw it.
The only Emmerich films I've seen are "ID4", "Godzilla", "Day after tomorrow" and "Eight Legged Freaks". Out of the four, I enjoyed "ID4" the most. The others were okay, but nothing memorable. I'd have to see a trailer that has more info and footage from the film before deciding if I want to spend $11+ on it.
It's not supposed to be "National Geographic" quality material...
There are some movies that are just popcorn movies...and there are some -- like Blade Runner, 2001, The Andromeda Strain...and others...that are supposed to be "thought provoking".
I never went into an Emmerich film expecting great intellectual material...
But, I still enjoy them.
Emmerich is very good at what he does...at making those kinds of movies. I'd say Emmerich is today's Irwin Allen...
And let's not forget, there would be NO Stargate franchise without him.
Never said it needed to be. Like I said, I enjoyed ID4 quite a bit. It had action, humor, lovely cheesiness and fun. I'm curious what elements "2012" will have. Is it a dark drama? Are there quirky characters in it? Is it just one disaster after another? I'm just want to know the movie's "hook" before paying to see it.
A Monk ringing a bell and waves of water on mountains don't quite tell me all that. All that tells me is that the movie will probably be a visual feast - but with Emmerich's name on it, that was a given to me.
It's entertaining. Just turn off your brain and enjoy the ride.