lothar

subcultured
the world will end on 12/12/12

12/21/12

Who came up with that? Was it the Mayans or something? They're probably wrong anyways, I think they're the ones who died out because they didn't grow the crops right; using 360 instead of 365 (days in a year).

Anyway, I believe the weather/environment will kill us all before any of that other stuff mentioned. While I don't believe in all the Global Warming hype, times are changing, and I think Katrina and all the earthquakes are enough of a sign that we're in deep trouble.

StaceyMontgomery
We are clearly racing into a postmodern infoclysm, which will, in effect, be the Human Singularity, a point beyond which we cannot imagine. Extropia Rising.

Or, possibly, there will just be more of the same. Only cell phones will be smaller than grains of pollen. I can feel my eyes starting to water already.

Oh, and Star Trek will keep getting worse.

it's not getting wo- oh, I see...

I think a lot of people are confusing the beginnings of the potential death of the U.S. with the end of the world. As a nation, we're becoming a bit of a problem in the world -- this is a process that's been ongoing since, what, after WWII? We import a lot of our best scientists now, we outsource a lot of our production, we're largely a complacent nation, and we've adopted that attitude that's characteristic of a people about to fall: "we deserve what we have."

You've heard about the three-generations cycle of wealth? The first generation makes the money, the second generation -- raised in wealth -- generally manages to hold on to it but not expand it, and then the third generation -- totally born to priviledge and with no direct exposure to the determination and intelligence that created the wealth in the first place -- generally squanders it.

I think this model works well for governments/nations/economies, too. The pattern can be seen over and over throughout history. Nation gets wealthy, nation forgets what it takes to accumulate wealth in the first place, nation begins to deteriorate.

So while I believe the "American way of life" might be ending in this century (possibly sooner rather than later), I don't think the world on the whole is going to hell. Global warming might present a problem, but there are a lot of smart people eager to solve big problems in the world (just perhaps not so many coming out of the U.S. anymore), and pretty much everybody with a qualified opinion seems to agree that while the problem is serious, there's time to reverse much of the damage.

There are plenty of eager nations out there to pick up the pieces that we may leave. Greek thought largely lived on through Islam and into the Renaissance -- I'm pretty confident that a lot of what America has had to offer the world will do the same. I'm sure we'll cause a lot of trouble on the way out, there'll be a war or three, hopefully nothing nuclear, but it seems likely to me that life will go on in the broader context of the world.

And just to clarify, I'm not a frothing rabid U.S.A.-hater. ^.^ I live here, I like it here, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. While I don't like everything I see happening as our government grows increasingly paranoid and our population grows largely more listless, I still think it's probably one of the better places to live in the world (for now). I don't see that lasting forever, but I don't see the collapse of my own country as being synonymous with the collapse of all civilization either.

I think it's extremely difficult to predict if and when the world will end. Global warming could kill us all, but the international community is starting to take action on it. Depending on how effective that action is, we might get through it with only droughts and the loss of Florida. Or, we might have frog-in-boiling-pot syndrome (an apt analogy, in this particular case) and all die. I would be inclined to say that an action as large, unified, and immediate as would be necessary to survive global warming with society basically in tact would be impossible, but similar things have happened in the past. The U.S. ended slavery in a matter of just a few years. If radical action was possible then, why not now? There's no real way to tell.

I do feel fairly certain the U.S. will decline, though. We're already declining. However, that could actually be a good thing. We're really pretty problematic. China might be more problematic, but they might collapse like the USSR, become democratic, etc. Or they might stay strong and take over the world (economically, anyway; the chances of them actually agressing on every single other nation in the world and becoming the acknowledged ruling party there seem pretty slim). So again, there's no way to tell how it will turn out.

Given this, I've decided that it's pointless to worry about whether or not we're all going to die. I can use public transportation and force everyone else I know to do the same, but beyond that, it's a waste of energy to fret about what I have no control over.

Half of the horror is the human imagination
the other half is the actual event

marine

Poke Alster
You're all mad, because people tell you stuff you believe them

You're right. I believe you when you tell me that I just believe when people tell me things.

Marine, that was really one of those most confusing posts I've ever read (I had to double-take on that post).

Always aim for the worst that could happen and the world will seem brighter by comparison.

I've been waiting for the human race to just up and destroy itself since I became politically aware four years ago: the signs are all there that, tomorrow, someone could do something quite incredible--in the sense of "world ending".

I'm constantly amazed and relieved this isn't so.

Kilre
Always aim for the worst that could happen and the world will seem brighter by comparison.

I've been waiting for the human race to just up and destroy itself since I became politically aware four years ago: the signs are all there that, tomorrow, someone could do something quite incredible--in the sense of "world ending".

I'm constantly amazed and relieved this isn't so.

When I was hip deep in the cold war back in the day, I worked on wallstreet, and my boss used to say that nuclear devastation and global environmental destruction will never happen because too many rich people around the world would lose money if it did, and they are way too powerful to ever let that happen.

I never could decide whether that was optimistic or not.

:P

The world isn't going to "end" for the human race or civilisation any time soon. ^_^

But there are many potential causes of major conflict. One is China's claim of sovereignty over the country of Taiwan. If it annexes Taiwan through force like it constantly threatens to do, Taiwan will collapse in a heartbeat. The US has vowed to protect it, but the Chinese could probably take Taiwan before the US knew what was happening. Sanctions and condemnation would follow, but I seriously doubt there'd be any reprisal, counter attacks or attempts at "liberation". China ISN'T Iraq. Iraq was a joke, the liberation of Kuwait was one on the simplest ever fights that the US ever participated in. Liberating Taiwan from China in the event of an invasion by the Chinese would be beyond the capabilities of the United States. Not just because of Chin's power, but also it's close proximity, superior preparation, greater focus and stiffer resolve.
-And unlike the US they don't have major military resources committed and tied up all over the world.

The other main sources of potential conflict: Energy and the rights to fresh water. Both are dwindling resources. We've already seen the start of the energy wars, that started with WW1, and the focus of many wars has continued in this vein since, sometimes more about energy, sometimes less. Both Iraq conflicts were almost entirely for this reason, (involving a larger, long term energy acquisition and resource control strategy). The Russian Federation has proved itself agressive in it's former territories in this mode too, pursuing control of oil and gas supplies, as well as trying to secure transport routes for these resources.

The water wars are predicted, but so far they're smaller in scale, nothing but skirmishes...

and of course we'll still have ideological conflict risks: Pakistan and India fighting over Kashmir. Both are nuclear armed powers with large armies and advanced weaponry. The sovereignty of the province of Kosovo in Serbia is still in dispute. Israel is has advanced plans to strike deep into Iran and is prone to invade her neighbours such as Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria whenever she thinks she as a cause, all with the tacit support of the US. Various Russian states are suffering wars of independence driven by Muslim nationalism and hamfisted Russian persecution in places such as Chechnya and Ingushetia...
-All of those potential conflicts have a very real potential to explode and drag in many move lives in many more nations...

None of those are "world enders" nothing like it! But all are bad for us and at the moment, all are getting worse.

bobhhh
When I was hip deep in the cold war back in the day, I worked on wallstreet, and my boss used to say that nuclear devastation and global environmental destruction will never happen because too many rich people around the world would lose money if it did, and they are way too powerful to ever let that happen.

I never could decide whether that was optimistic or not.

:P

Sounds too optimistic to me. In that, hey, the world won't be destroyed. It smacks of sarcasm but I still get a slight upbeat feel.

Big Corporation Is Watching. Kinda.

ozoneocean
None of those are "world enders" nothing like it! But all are bad for us and at the moment, all are getting worse.

I wonder at what point will the world be over. Where do we draw the line and say here be dragons?

Aside from actual devastation, Nuclear, environmental or cosmic, where does the diminishing global ecosystem have to sink to be considered catastrophic?

We as a planet seem to be fine with pushing our biosphere as close to armageddon as possible and pretending we care enough to let up at he last possible moment to avert disaster. So at what point do we say , hey this is unacceptable? Extinction of animals, unnacptable air quality, poisoned oceans, ruined ecosystems, nuclear waste proliferation, chemical and biological polution, violent weather fluctuations, melting polar ice, etc...

Who will decide whether the world is over, or that "things aren't as bad as they seem"?

kyupol
As far as the end of the world is concerned...

In world politics, the USA hegemony is actually not gonna be complete. Because Russia and China are allied... and these two countries are courting countries that USA considers an 'enemy'.

It would be very helpful if the US considered fewer nations to be enemies.

If the Russians and Chinese want a second Cold War--which seems very feasible given the false front of their "capitalist democracy" image (WE aren't even a capitalist democracy, let alone the Chinese)--anti-US terrorist recruiters could not hope for a better pair of stooges than Cheney and Bush. Ugly, stupid, and drunk with power.

I don't see the end of the world coming, but I give 'the end of civilization as we know it' better than even odds.

in about 20 billion years when the sun expands out to mars' orbit all life will be burned from this planet. that is how it will end.

bongotezz
in about 20 billion years when the sun expands out to mars' orbit all life will be burned from this planet. that is how it will end.

more like 5 billion , the universe itself isn't even 20 billion years old

lothar

bongotezz
in about 20 billion years when the sun expands out to mars' orbit all life will be burned from this planet. that is how it will end.

more like 5 billion , the universe itself isn't even 20 billion years old

lol. i was exagerating. either way you wont see it.

In all honesty, I try not to waste time and energy thinking about it. Humanity seems almost preprogrammed to obsess over death and destruction, simply looking at every major and most minor religions in the world would show and incredible amount of thought been put into death. Furthermore, this obsession is taken a step further with the grand vision of an apocolypse, an ultimate death that destroys everything. Again drawing back on religion, from Ragnarok to the Rapture, we all seem to be obsessed, almost hoping for the end of the world. For a more recent example, just look at all the predictions people were spewing that the world would end in the year 2000. So really, while everybody fusses over it, its been something we as a species have been doing since we gained intelligence. So whilst all evidence points to it actually happening at some point, I have much better things to do then ponder the time of humanities' end. *Goes to watch reruns of Frasiar*

snark
In all honesty, I try not to waste time and energy thinking about it. Humanity seems almost preprogrammed to obsess over death and destruction

Well I'd say that we weren't. Not at all. It all comes from a limited groups of sources.

1. The Japanese have a big thing about it, mainly because of their location on the pacific rim. That's meant Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tsunamis that have had a direct affect on their civilisation, and has become embedded. The defeat of WW2 with the massive death and destruction due to the fire-bombing and the lessor death and destruction but more impressive explosions of the two atomic bombs cemented that idea quite firmly.

2. Judaeo Christian Mythology, but Christian specifically. Think about it: Christianity came into being just as the greatest empire Europe had even known collapsed. That has to skew their focus a little... Well there are of course the northern and the Germanic people with their "Ragnarock" ideas, but again; they originated it a very harsh environment where most of the time Winter meant death, quite literally, not just for the old and the young but possibly entire villages. Then there were the storms, the catastrophic failure of crops, and they have their share of volcanoes and things... That's life on an edge so precarious that they'd rather turn to a culture of piracy to support their community. Not surprising their outlook was a little bleak.

And as you know, the Viking people and all the Germanic peoples succumbed to Christianity quite easily and relatively peacefully. It's a sure bet that they brought that outlook with them and it became a solid part of the Northern Christian faith from then on.

When Christians (and only Christians) reached the first millennium they had plenty of mad doomsday cults that sprang up and thought the world was going to end- going by some strange idea that heavenly beings would care about years in round numbers or a base ten counting system or something... lol!

On the eve of the second millennium, the same mad Christian cultist type dopes popped up again to claim doomsday, the trouble was that Christianity is now a LOT more widespread around the world than it was back during the first time so you had more crazies thinking "their time had come". For other cultures they were simply going along with the embedded hysteria and all the things connected to the unassailable Christian convention of the year 2000 (lol millennium bug). -People who subscribe to "rapture" are simply another one of those useless millenialist cults, just like all the ones who were jilted at the failure of the original millennium. They'll last for a while before dying out again. Same thing happened last time, look it up.

We're not programmed for it at all. It's just a dominant cultural meme (I hate that word but it's oh-so useful), we've learned to interpret events with that in mind. The sources for the apocalypse thinking are quite identifiable and easy to trace. Sure, cultures develop doomsday ideas from time to time, but there are usually very good, very real reasons for it (Those South American people's had witnessed the failure of a few civilisations- and now they're all Christian too). So rather than thinking that way because they're just made that way or pre-disposed to crazy ideas, rather it just happens the way things always do with enduring cultural movements like religion: Something occurs or a trend gets noted down, it gets mythologised, passed into lore, and becomes the bed rock of a society.

Um... sounds like you believe we ARE programmed for it.

TnTComic
Um... sounds like you believe we ARE programmed for it.

I've just explained why we are not. ;)
Man, you actually bothered to read through all that, that great long boring spiel of a rant and still come to the wrong conclusion? Looks like I better give up. lol!

No. I say: Humanity isn't programmed for anything.
I also say that: Culture influences the way we think, it doesn't control us or preprogram us the way a mythical god force might or some genetic imperative, but it endures to influence successive generations because ideas tend to endure.

And ideas have certain sources that you can trace: logical reasons for being, even if the final form they take is not logical.

And that's about it. No, were are not "programmed", I don't say that. And that's obvious, since even though dominant cultures like that of the Christian Western culture are all pervasive, those within them are still capable of free thought, able to reject whatever ideas they chose and follow different paths. Apocalypse is just one of the crazy notions it brings there are others that we reject as well.

-It's just helpful to know where the ideas come from and that they're definitely external and historical in origin, not internal.

No no, you're not understanding me.

What you're really saying is that we are not hard-wired for it, but are programmed for it later.

Dig?

Its a semantical disagreement on the use of "programming". You seem to be using the word "programmed" in place of "hardwired", which are two pretty big differences. My computer is not programmed for Command & Conquer, but I can change that.

Ok then.

So the idea would then be that culture "programmes" us?
That's an interesting variation of my original intention, but it's still not entirely what I'm saying... If I'm to apply it in that way though: culture as a programme; (or is it Program? Damn English and US spellings...), then I'm still not saying that humanity is "programmed" for apocalypse. (as Snark contended).

With that take on the idea, all I would be saying is that the humans who're influenced by that aspect of their culture are "programmed" for that way of thinking. -Hardcore Christians, the Christian influenced who don't think over much about where those ideas come from... That's a GOOD many these days, but I'm pretty certain there's still a good lot of humanity that don't subscribe to the notion.

I know what you're saying about programming and hard-wiring too, but I was thinking of say, a PC that you buy with nothing but a bios VS one that comes fully set-up with the Mac OS... -That's what a Mac is afterall; a custom made PC that comes preloaded with it's OS.

But I agree, it's a good way of looking at things- culture as a form of programming! I'm just glad we still don't all have exactly the same cultures...

Its not my idea. People in cults are often described as being "programmed". And since every religion is a cult to me, I don't make any distinction. I see all religion as programming.

Ha! But I still like the way you described my notion as one of being Culture as a programming force. Then we're all programmed, but not all the same way, -depending on what culture and what aspects of it influences us.

It also fits with those studies they were talking about a while ago (they being the mass media), about comparing the performance of human babies and young baby apes. They found that it was the cultural influences (or something similar), that gave the human babies the edge over the apes, and without that they would have performed the same.

Religion then is only a part of the programming we face... Largely the more traditional and often obsolete parts? -Given the way I'm looking at culture in general.

I was programmed as an english speaking american, with the manner set my parents installed. Following that rudimentary structure set, I was programmed with the standard K-12 Education Suite, provided by the Indiana Department of Education. With that base set of programming, my non-artificial intelligence has generated the remainder of my programming, based on preferences and views accumulated through my experiences.

That makes religions and cults no more sinister than the Indiana Department of Education.

Whilst I agree with TnTComic's definition of 'programming', I still stand by my original point that humanity is instinctively fascinated with death. I draw again on the notion of religion, and not just the monotheistic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, but every religion as a whole. Whilst I can never claim to have an indepth understanding of every religion that has ever existed, I can state that every religion that I know of does indeed obsess over death, especially on our fate after death. Therefore, for all these different belief systems that have developed (sometimes independently, sometimes based on each other) over the globe and across many different time periods to all share this similar obsession, I thus propose that humanity, by nature is fascinated with death.

((By the way, hardcore atheist here who will gladly argue that every single religion has been developed by humans independent of a transcendent deity, so Im not sure, but my argument might not be as convincing if read from a religious standpoint))

Snark, you may be Atheist, but what culture were you raised as part of. If it was a Western one, Atheist or not you will have an inherently "Christian" outlook on the rest, to a greater or lessor extent.

That just means you'll tend to see a lot of religions in a similar light and see similarities of emphasis that aren't actually always there for those cultures. I've heard similar stuff about how "all religion is about good and evil" etc. That's wrong too, it's just part of a wider and deeper Classical Western Christian "programming", if you will. Death for all of us is part of life and of course it's a part of most culture, but seeing it as a primary focus is only because of the way you look at it. Most of the time "death" in many religions isn't about dying at all, but renewal and rebirth. That's especially true of the South American traditional belief systems; blood and drowning sacrifices weren't about glory in death and killing but about ensuring the good of the people by appeasing the gods in order that they might have good rains for the next harvest or triumph over their enemies in battle.

Even in Christianity, the most famous death of all is about rebirth (resurrection). And the famous apocalypse with the great flood was again about renewal, not about the horror and destruction of the flood at all. Indeed, most of what we know about the more apocalyptic themes in Christianity didn't even really start to become a focus until the last centuries approaching the first millennium, when they'd seen the old civilisations crumbling, with technology, literature, and much knowledge lost, and also the encroachment of alien Muslim culture from the south and East.

There's a lot more to it than "death" and abandoning the world for some heavenly paradise... Heh, that's a very "Goth" outlook on them I must say. :)

-Bit of a joke there in that of course the Gothic tribes were one of the threatening forces that helped to instil the fear in the early Christian empires, and later on it was a style of architecture that was very much about showing how the heavens were a nicer alternative to the horrors of the world.

Hawk
That makes religions and cults no more sinister than the Indiana Department of Education.

I didn't say a word about anything being sinister.

snark
Whilst I can never claim to have an indepth understanding of every religion that has ever existed, I can state that every religion that I know of does indeed obsess over death, especially on our fate after death.

Well... yeah. That's kind of the raison d'etre of religion: to postulate on the events that follow our death.

Ozoneocean
Snark, you may be Atheist, but what culture were you raised as part of. If it was a Western one, Atheist or not you will have an inherently "Christian" outlook on the rest, to a greater or lessor extent.

Actually, no. I was born and raised in a primarily Muslim culture with strong Buddhist and Hindi influence.

And to draw on your comment about the way in which religion views death, especially in light of rebirth and renewal, I believe that further proves our obsession with death. We fantasize about it so much, that we become willing to romanticize our demise, attempting to give it meaning and turning it into a thing of beauty. Whilst I cannot claim any expert knowledge in psychology, I find this romanticization of death to be strongly concurrent with the denial stage of depression, where we try vainly to reason with ourselves that death actually has a meaning rather then being the simple ceasing to being.

Perhaps I best clarify my position on religion in order to avoid misunderstanding, I believe and will gladly argue that ALL, not just the monotheistic religions, are completely man made. Therefore all the teachings and beliefs of religion are personifications of the fears and dreams of the culture and civilization which birthed that religion. Therefore, whilst disrepencies in belief and values obviously exist between religions, some similarities exist, one of them being the fascination with death. This is the basis on which I draw my conclusion that humanity, by nature, not nurture, is thoroughly fascinated with death.

Anyway, enough about religion, let us not forget this conversation is about the end of the world, to which I still stand by my argument that we as a species are fascinated with death. Therefore whilst it is in all likelihood that an end will one day come for the human race, I believe it is futile to expend as much energy as we do fretting about it.

Nice theory about religions there, but you're both looking at it the wrong way. The "death", "heaven", "unseen" aspect is only a small part of them, any of them. Consider: they began as forms of social organisation, proto-government, ways of gathering and passing on simple knowledge about the world, laws and culture of small agricultural communities. As technology improved and the pace of life got faster, their forms of government and law became a bit less relevant to the day to day: too slow to adapt to the pace of change. So hereditary cheiftanships took on the role and religion becomes more about tradition, still retaining guardianship of the knowledge that doesn't tend to require much revision: seasonal stuff like planting times, historical information, lore like marriage ceremonies, stuff about what you should eat or not, and speculative stuff about where we came from and were we go when we die etc.

And as we know, technology continued to improve, secular institutions took on more and more of those roles (and still do), until all religions are left with are certain traditions the secular world can't really take (the mythological speculations on where we came from etc.), as well as retaining the social organisation role. But we can still point to places where it didn't entirely happen that way and the religion still retained its original role: Tibet was a prime example of this.

And even if you say you do have a Muslim background, as I've said before I'm afraid Christian Western Culture is pretty dominant. Most of us are affected by it even if we don't realise it. Even the language we're writing in now comes from over a millennia and a half of it, just for starters.

Renewal isn't about death... Just like mulching up garden scraps isn't about the decay of leaves but about what you'll grow with them afterwards. The focus is always on life. Those Christian examples I bought up were not about "life" in heaven either, but about life on earth. I say again: the most famous world apocalypse account in the bible is the "great flood" and the focus there is entirely on starting anew; renewal of life on earth. They could go on and on about how all the planet was drowned etc, but strangely, they do not. It's all about Noah and his family, the animals etc making a new start.

Ha! To think that religion is primarily about death, especially because "humanity is programmed for it" is to get the whole concept arse about and backwards: It's a small subset of culture with specific influences.
Jebus, we really, genuinely, honestly are obsessed with sex and what results from it more than anything else. You want a connecting thread in religions, look at that! There's so much about the regulation of it, the suppression of it, the encouragement of it, stuff about progeny, ancestry: all about sex and children. That's what we're really obsessed over. And that's renewal. In fact most religions in their earliest forms have much more focus on "mother Goddess" figures, births, and planting times. :)

And all that is entirely the focus of this subject. Lothar talks about the world ending. I say that people only think like that because of certain specific cultural influences, -that are especially popular right now, just the same as they were after the first millennium had just passed. And then I've gone to prove why that's so.

Truly. Your world will end, but only when you do.