Multiple Crises on Earth

[KJbushway]

Weren't the World Wars worse?

That's all that needs saying on the subject really, it renders the idea that we are spiralling towards some sort of apocalypse simply absurd.

But what if a third world war happens this century and nukes are used?

Thats the war there. Nukes will be used to take out other nukes. Thats about 1/3 of the population of any country with nukes. Then comes the nuclear winter, which will take out 2/3rds of the human population, due to zero planning. Military and governement will clapse, as they have a place to hid and survive. In the end, there is a serious case that there won't be any troop fighting.
After 60years the planet starts again, winters are less cold, oceans start to warm to the right temperature, nature takes over. Human come out in groups, as that is the only way we could survive. Towns sprout, population increases, The world population is now in the millions(mid). Medicine and technology, computers, radios, working on primitve land line connections come back. Life starts again.

 

[Brent]

The bible does speak of wars, and rumors and wars, towards the end time, and I'd say we definitely have that in abundance lately.

 

[Ghost07]

I see a bad moon rising
New York City had a fleet of electric taxicabs in 1897, and a specially built electric vehicle surpassed 65 miles per hour in 1899.

Wiki: Electric Cars — Early History

. . . the first working electric car was made in the 1920's.

I am proven wrong. I had never heard of that.

I found that Wikipedia entry fascinating...I hadn't known any of that.

 

[KJbushway]

Have fun with that whole fighting in the middle of the Jewish home country with satan's army on one side and god's on the other.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

The bible does speak of wars, and rumors and wars, towards the end time, and I'd say we definitely have that in abundance lately.

In the entirety of human history, when haven't there been wars and rumors of wars?

 

[Gryffindorian]

Which is why I think this is, always has been, and always will be the normal order of things. When I was a member of a Christian congregation, I always had to roll my eyes when the minister's sermon talked about Judgment Day in relation to current issues happening in the world (natural calamities, wars, epidemics, etc.) as though the end of the world were next week. Don't get me wrong. I am Christian and have faith in God, but some things in the Bible need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[scotpens]

After 60 years the planet starts again, winters are less cold, oceans start to warm to the right temperature, nature takes over. Human come out in groups, as that is the only way we could survive. Towns sprout, population increases, The world population is now in the millions(mid). Medicine and technology, computers, radios, working on primitve land line connections come back. Life starts again.

And the babes have two belly buttons.

 

[Lookingglassman]

I don't care about any of these. I just want to know whatever happened to teh baba?

 

[KJbushway]

Maybe girls with two belly buttons, I have actually meant a girl with that, if you hit her in the stomach she would die.

 

[sojourner]

While the loss of life in the Middle East is tragic, the people of those many countries rising up against tyrannical regimes of their own accord is a good thing, regardless of what the final outcome may be.

Shouldn't that be "depending on what the final outcome might be"?

No, I meant what I said. Even if people in some of those countries ultimately fail in their goal of regime change this time, that doesn't diminish their efforts, which can serve as inspiration to their peers in the future, attract international attention to their plight, or prompt their respective governments to reconsider their treatment of the people (even if it's done for self-serving reasons like wanting to remain in power).

Or the revolution gets subverted into an even harsher regime (communist russia and Stalin's purges), or leads to an all out war that triggers other countries into the war through treaties (similar to what lead to WWI), or any other number of scenarios. I would say it very much depends on the outcome.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Which is why I think this is, always has been, and always will be the normal order of things. When I was a member of a Christian congregation, I always had to roll my eyes when the minister's sermon talked about Judgment Day in relation to current issues happening in the world (natural calamities, wars, epidemics, etc.) as though the end of the world were next week. Don't get me wrong. I am Christian and have faith in God, but some things in the Bible need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Or perhaps a pillar of salt.

 

[KJbushway]

^ Sojourner's post.

Thats the worst of the worst scenarios. You don't switch one harsh rule for another one. Thats why it was BS when Fox news was saying that the revolt in Egypt, would lead to higher numbers for the taliban. Even whats happening in libya now wont turn into higher numbers for the Taliban. Becuase it would just be like switching from mayo to lard for health reasons.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

The problem right there is watching Fox News.

 

[KJbushway]

I don't actually. If you read my posts, you'll see that I dislike it. I was flipping through channels, and stumbled on to it when they were talking about it.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Shouldn't that be "depending on what the final outcome might be"?

No, I meant what I said. Even if people in some of those countries ultimately fail in their goal of regime change this time, that doesn't diminish their efforts, which can serve as inspiration to their peers in the future, attract international attention to their plight, or prompt their respective governments to reconsider their treatment of the people (even if it's done for self-serving reasons like wanting to remain in power).

Or the revolution gets subverted into an even harsher regime (communist russia and Stalin's purges), or leads to an all out war that triggers other countries into the war through treaties (similar to what lead to WWI), or any other number of scenarios. I would say it very much depends on the outcome.

There's been no indication of any significant hardline Islamist elements involved in the protests, and these are internal grass roots pro-democracy, pro-human rights, or pro-social justice movements without international political connections or aspirations, so I don't see anything on the scope of either of those extremely negative possibilities being remotely likely. So again, I'm sticking with my choice of wording.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

I don't actually. If you read my posts, you'll see that I dislike it. I was flipping through channels, and stumbled on to it when they were talking about it.

Yes i know. It was a joke.

 

[Jadzia]

There's been no indication of any significant hardline Islamist elements involved in the protests, and these are internal grass roots pro-democracy, pro-human rights, or pro-social justice movements...

The Arab nations are guided by Islam, which adds a strong authoritarian layer to the role of government. So the Arab nations have a different attitude to politics and government than we do in the west. They may not see democracy in quite the same idealistic way we do. They may be most comfortable with powerful leaders, and not really minding who that is as long as they are effective.

Being able to seize power and hold onto it could be a strong visible indication of how powerful that person is (democratic elections seeming rather lackluster in comparison). The hope being that their new leader continues to play as powerfully on the world stage, bringing prosperity to their nation.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

There's been no indication of any significant hardline Islamist elements involved in the protests, and these are internal grass roots pro-democracy, pro-human rights, or pro-social justice movements...

The Arab nations are guided by Islam, which adds a strong authoritarian layer to the role of government. So the Arab nations have a different attitude to politics and government than we do in the west. They may not see democracy in quite the same idealistic way we do. They may be most comfortable with powerful leaders, and not really minding who that is as long as they are effective.

Being able to seize power and hold onto it could be a strong visible indication of how powerful that person is (democratic elections seeming rather lackluster in comparison). The hope being that their new leader continues to play as powerfully on the world stage, bringing prosperity to their nation.

One meaning of "Islam" is submission to God, and, presumably by extension, submission to anyone who fulfils God's will by their actions, or by dint of claiming descent from the Prophet. It's a mindset that people in the West gave up largely as a result of the various Reformations, overthrowing kings who claimed Divine Right, and various degrees of secularisation of government. I imagine they'll get there eventually, but we had a head start.

 

[Davros]

If only Superman or Wonder Woman or the whole Justice League could save the day ...

That's what we get for living on Crime Syndicate earth instead.

 

[Pingfah]

Weren't the World Wars worse?

That's all that needs saying on the subject really, it renders the idea that we are spiralling towards some sort of apocalypse simply absurd.

But what if a third world war happens this century and nukes are used?

Well that would BE the apocalypse, wouldn't it?

Anyhow, wake me up if it happens, until then i'll just assume things are ticking over normally for Homo Sapiens just like they have been for the last quarter of a million years.