The End Of The World

[Atomic Waffle]

Well, it is bound to end eventually. How it will is a subject of debate.

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
This website has many interesting scenarios, though their factuality may be disputed, they are still quite interesting.

Of all the possible ways for the world to end, what would you predict?

Keep in mind, i'm not talking about the end of the Earth itself, though many of these scenarios would cause that; I'm talking mainly about the end of civillization.

I would say myself, that the most likely possibility would be a large space-bound object slamming into the Earth, or a nuclear war. Simply out of the fact that not many others have presented themselves; we haven't had a 'close call' with them, so to speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i-7AxJb4OE

Your thoughts and opinions?

[intooblivion]

Actually just read a book for english 161 called "Surviving the Apocalypse" It was quite interesting, had a huge amount of ways civilization could end and what we could and are doing to avoid such scenarios and or eliminate them/dampen their effects.

[1337_Byte]

That site is hilarious, the stuff is very interesting on it.

[Psyborg]

I've always thought it would be a really beautiful sight just to look out the window and watch the world end. I think I'd drink cocoa and dip a chocolate muffin in it. I've always wanted to do that. I think as the world was ending would be a fitting time.

[Atomic Waffle]

I know... I probably wouldn't be all that saddened, as everyone else is going down with me anyways.

[zim]

It will be cool when it does end though, Id kind of like to be around to see it actually.

[brokenfridgehinge]

Well, that's a rather morbid yet strangely entertaining site...I like Psyborg's idea, it reminded me of something from a movie that I can't remember, might of been the end of Fight Club or something else...

[Flarty]

well unless we are blasted in to total obliteration through some kind of cosmic event, i dont think the human race will ever end, we allways find a way to survive, even if its just a small pocket of us. But it might be reminiscent of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOIda9iT6So :P

[rtanger]

I'm rather curious to see if this whole "Pole Shift-- Dec. 2012" business plays out.
Unless the world gets nuked into oblivion before then...which is the most likely scenario altogether.

[Mad Scientist]

Well, it is bound to end eventually.

See that's where i disagree. The first sentence. To put it simply, i think it is far more likely that human civilisation will continue into the indefinite future, then it would get wiped out. Humanity is NOT going to destroy itself through any technological means. I believe this so strongly, that I'm willing to bet my descendants lives on it. We aren't going to nuke ourselves quite simply because it is not in our best interests as a species to do so. The guiding hand of evolution has seen to that. This is the fundamental reason why the ability to produce a technology also coincides (more or less) with the technological maturity to use it responsibly, and regulate its use amongst others, at least to the point of preventing total species extinction. It is no coincidence that those countries that have the most sophisticated weapons are those least likely to use them. That's why the cold war never truly heated up. That's why no conflagration can EVER escalate to the point of species-wide extinction.

This only leaves an external threat such as asteroids and the suchlike. Considering that the entire nuclear arsenal at the height of the cold war was sufficient to melt the crust of the earth twice over, i think knocking a few mega-tonnes of asteroid off course will not pose too much of a problem.

[Flarty]

I'm rather curious to see if this whole "Pole Shift-- Dec. 2012" business plays out.
Unless the world gets nuked into oblivion before then...which is the most likely scenario altogether.

even the mayans used 2012 to end their long calender.
http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html

[Dr.Aaron]

I don't think civilisation will end either, until the very end of the universe, if there is one.

[Atomic Waffle]

This only leaves an external threat such as asteroids and the suchlike. Considering that the entire nuclear arsenal at the height of the cold war was sufficient to melt the crust of the earth twice over, i think knocking a few mega-tonnes of asteroid off course will not pose too much of a problem.

True, but how would we go about stopping something such as a Gamma Ray Burst? Or what happens if some crazy-as-all-**** terrorist decides to use a nuclear weapon? There's substantial evidence of Al-Qaeda attempting to create a nuclear weapon, and they did get moderately far into it.
3. Detonate a disaster
Difficulty: Medium
Needed: An atomic bomb

Give a terrorist an atomic bomb or a huge amount of explosives, and he will immediately run off to blow up Washington DC. Dumb, of course. There might be better targets.

A well-chosen spot on the Western Arctic ice sheet might accelerate the melting of the pole. This should give you four to six meters of worldwide sea level rise, inundating many vital areas in Europe and the US.

A big enough boom in Yellowstone Park might awaken the now dormant supervolcano under the park, turning half of the US into an ash-covered no man’ s land and bringing ice age to Europe.

Blowing up the already unstable volcanic island of La Palma could prompt a mega-tsunami, which would slosh cities like New York City, Boston and Miami to kingdom come.

A massive explosion on the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico could trigger a vast methane gas eruption, warming up the world’s climate and -- with some luck -- causing a huge firestorm over the US.

And the really good part is: you will find no guards on ocean floors, pole caps and volcanic islands.

Of course, the needed weapon would have to be within the Megaton range, but during the Cold War, Russia stockpiled quite a few of these. It is possible to steal one of them, given the disarray of Russia's nuclear program.

[Manbearpig]

Not that 2012 business again, anyway humanity is very adaptive and we would probaly find a way to survive almost anything although not unscarred. I liked the mass insanity one, although I think the rising number is due to doctors calling everything under the sun a "disorder" or some such rot.

[redgrassbridge]

See that's where i disagree. The first sentence. To put it simply, i think it is far more likely that human civilisation will continue into the indefinite future, then it would get wiped out. Humanity is NOT going to destroy itself through any technological means. I believe this so strongly, that I'm willing to bet my descendants lives on it. We aren't going to nuke ourselves quite simply because it is not in our best interests as a species to do so. The guiding hand of evolution has seen to that. This is the fundamental reason why the ability to produce a technology also coincides (more or less) with the technological maturity to use it responsibly, and regulate its use amongst others, at least to the point of preventing total species extinction. It is no coincidence that those countries that have the most sophisticated weapons are those least likely to use them. That's why the cold war never truly heated up. That's why no conflagration can EVER escalate to the point of species-wide extinction.

This only leaves an external threat such as asteroids and the suchlike. Considering that the entire nuclear arsenal at the height of the cold war was sufficient to melt the crust of the earth twice over, i think knocking a few mega-tonnes of asteroid off course will not pose too much of a problem.Ahh... hmm...

It seems off-base to completely rule out the possibility of nuclear war as the end of civilization, especially if the basis of this belief is the survivalist influences of evolution. There is a problematic interpretation of evolution in your post, the likes of which I see with surprising frequency in today's writings.There is no "guiding hand" of evolution. Evolution is only the statistical likelihood of the better fit to reproduce, applied over billions of years. No natural force or coincidence of time helps the "successful" carry on; in fact, many that have what would be called a successful mutation don't pass it on. Evolution is statistics; it has no power over the choices or fate of an individual OR a species as a whole. Any human anywhere is entirely capable of taking actions that are not in their or humanity's best interests. So can large groups of people. If some STRATCOMM general or Chinese 2nd Artillery commander or extremist religious leader actually starts to launch a nuclear attack, no natural force will stop him. Fear has kept this from happening up unto today, but one launch among a million not-launches still starts the whole chain reaction.

I would, however, like to hear more about your belief that, beyond a lack of technological disaster, nothing will end humanity. How can anything endure eternity?

[Psyborg]

Hostess Cupcakes are proof positive of eternal existence.

[Manbearpig]

Well the fact is, if we as a species lives long enough to spread far enough across the universe than practicaly nothing couls snuff us all out as there would be too many of us to far apart. Unless of course there is a universe ending event.

[Mercer]

Or a advanced group of sentient machines sent to snuff out all intelligent life in the galaxy <.< >.>

...I've been reading too much Alastair Reynolds...

[Psyborg]

Silly Mercer, people on the internet can't read.

[Mercer]

Isn't that the sad truth...wait...

[intooblivion]

Sorry, I can't read what you just said. :(

[rtanger]

There's a topic. Stay on it.

[Mad Scientist]

True, but how would we go about stopping something such as a Gamma Ray Burst? Or what happens if some crazy-as-all-**** terrorist decides to use a nuclear weapon? There's substantial evidence of Al-Qaeda attempting to create a nuclear weapon, and they did get moderately far into it.

As the potency of a potential disaster increases, so does the timespan of how often it occurs. A volcano may blow up every couple of years, whereas an extinction level asteroid only hits every few hundred thousand years at least. The more potent the natural threat (gamma ray burster, black hole collision etc) the longer we have before we would have to deal with it. The only question is if we are developing fast enough, to stay ahead of the disaster curve. Based on the ever increasing rate of technological progress, i would say the answer to that is most likely a guess.

And as for a terrorist nuclear threat, a single nuclear weapon, although powerful, is not enough to end civilisation. This "nuking the ice caps" scenario is quite simply flawed. You would need several nukes to significantly damage the polar ice caps, and although all those disasters mentioned would be terrible, they would not destroy all of civilisation.

I also doubt a terrorist faction could actually get hold of a nuke. Stealing the things is extremely unlikely, and as for building one? People read that all you need for a nuke is a few hundred pounds of weapons grade uranium, and they think that this makes them easy to build. So what about the tamper? the neutron reflector? do you make it out of a titanium, or a beryllium alloy? is the mechanism gun type or implosion? what type of conventional explosive do you use? do you know how difficult it is to machine uranium into useful shapes, let alone enrich it in the first place. Now once you've built your bomb, how do you transport it? if you went for the simple gun type bomb you could actually set it off by accidentally dropping it. How do you stop reaction fizzle? what alloy do construct the casing out of? How can you shield the damn thing to get it to you target city? Do you have a big enough plane to fly it anywhere?

Nukes are a lot more complex that the media make out. That's why you rarely find an individual with a private nuclear program. You need a lot of professors and some very specialised and well regulated equipment to produce and maintain a nuclear weapon.

Ahh... hmm...

It seems off-base to completely rule out the possibility of nuclear war as the end of civilization, especially if the basis of this belief is the survivalist influences of evolution. There is a problematic interpretation of evolution in your post, the likes of which I see with surprising frequency in today's writings.There is no "guiding hand" of evolution. Evolution is only the statistical likelihood of the better fit to reproduce, applied over billions of years. No natural force or coincidence of time helps the "successful" carry on; in fact, many that have what would be called a successful mutation don't pass it on. Evolution is statistics; it has no power over the choices or fate of an individual OR a species as a whole. Any human anywhere is entirely capable of taking actions that are not in their or humanity's best interests. So can large groups of people. If some STRATCOMM general or Chinese 2nd Artillery commander or extremist religious leader actually starts to launch a nuclear attack, no natural force will stop him. Fear has kept this from happening up unto today, but one launch among a million not-launches still starts the whole chain reaction.

I would, however, like to hear more about your belief that, beyond a lack of technological disaster, nothing will end humanity. How can anything endure eternity?

I do not COMPLETELY rule it out, but as i have said TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME IN MULTIPLE POSTS ON A WIDE VARIETY OF SUBJECTS IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT TOPICS i go on probabilities. It is not impossible that humanity will nuke itself, but the balance of probability states otherwise.

As for the subject of the "guiding hand" of evolution, of course there isn't one. It doesn't NEED one. I have said on numerous occasions how powerful evolution actually is, and how there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. To say it is just statistics is somewhat belittling to something that has constructed nearly every aspect of the world around us, from living organisms to social constructs.

And this is why i do not believe that some mad general will be pushing the button any time soon. Any society mature and sophisticated enough to construct nuclear weapons (and remember its not just the weapons. They need universities to train the scientists and engineers, they need an economy to pay for them, they need all the fantastic level of infrastructure required just to make sure they can machine metals into the correct components) is also mature and sophisticated enough to install safeguards that no one madman has his finger on the button. So far, this has worked pretty well. To my count, we have had zero nuclear apocalypses.

As for how humanity will survive eternity, that will have to wait for another post.

[rtanger]

I think it would be very, very easy to throw civilization as we know it into the crapper. Humanity may survive, but everything we associate with being 'civilized' could be wiped easily in a single global disaster.

I know a fair amount of people who go nuts just because the grocery store was snowed in and they forgot bread. When there's no more bread delivery, period, how will they cope?
Knock out electricity in a big city, and a fair amount completely lose their head. Imagine if that power never came back on...

Even, the disaster itself may not do much to hurt civilization, but sometimes I believe that civilization as we know it would easily do itself in, in the wake of a disaster.

Survival of a species is one thing, and the odds are in our favor, but our civilization is a grudging tolerance of those around us for everyone's gain. Throw that balance off, and the true extent of survival instinct rears its ugly head and makes generally good people do very bad things.

[Dr.Aaron]

^^
The power issue could easily be fixed by installing some kind of solar panel on the top of your house(bit more complicated than that but still), ****, why did'nt I think of that before.

[Sersoft.corp]

Well, that's a rather morbid yet strangely entertaining site...I like Psyborg's idea, it reminded me of something from a movie that I can't remember, might of been the end of Fight Club or something else...


I watched fight club a couple of days ago, that movie is crazy, also yeah the ending is that they watch through the window as all the tall buildings of the city explode. I guess I missed that movie cuz in 1999 i was still in russia.

[redgrassbridge]

I do not COMPLETELY rule it out, but as i have said TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME IN MULTIPLE POSTS ON A WIDE VARIETY OF SUBJECTS IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT TOPICS i go on probabilities. It is not impossible that humanity will nuke itself, but the balance of probability states otherwise.Not to be condescending, but that kind of invective is entirely unnecessary, especially considering that I was responding to such a resolute statement as "Humanity is NOT going to destroy itself through any technological means. I believe this so strongly, that I'm willing to bet my descendants lives on it." My point was a relevant address to the post you made in this discussion, and I have the right to make it without you jumping down my throat. It's not my fault that your opinions and mine tend to differ, and I'm truly sorry if my arguments don't take into account your previous discussions with others to the extent that you wish, but I am simply not on these boards often enough to read even a majority of your 1,951 posts.

Opinion based upon probability is not just fine, but it is inevitable in light of the ultimate inductivity of human experience. However, you are taking a probability that, while certainly high, is not nearly high enough to make across-the-board ultimatums. Case in point:As for the subject of the "guiding hand" of evolution, of course there isn't one. It doesn't NEED one. I have said on numerous occasions how powerful evolution actually is, and how there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. To say it is just statistics is somewhat belittling to something that has constructed nearly every aspect of the world around us, from living organisms to social constructs.I understand evolution as well, and its implication on species-wide genetic development as well as psycho-social construct. While its influences definitely cannot be dismissed, they are not absolute, and their existence does not create absolute rules about anything. Handicapped animals, no matter what species of animal, reproduce in such minority that their flawed genes are passed on through that given species negligibly. However, in just the human species, specimens with multiple sclerosis, dystrophies of various systems and mental retardation breed large families, even after diagnosed of their conditions. Social patterns that encourage self-destruction died out early in primitive history. However, there are still suicide cults today, and religious martyrs are praised in every mainstream modern faith. Evolution is a law over large groups over large periods of time, but it cannot be used to dismiss the validity of a single and specific event transpiring.And this is why i do not believe that some mad general will be pushing the button any time soon. Any society mature and sophisticated enough to construct nuclear weapons (and remember its not just the weapons. They need universities to train the scientists and engineers, they need an economy to pay for them, they need all the fantastic level of infrastructure required just to make sure they can machine metals into the correct components) is also mature and sophisticated enough to install safeguards that no one madman has his finger on the button. So far, this has worked pretty well. To my count, we have had zero nuclear apocalypses.I agree that it is very unlikely. As such, I have made no modifications to the way I live my life to anticipate this kind of event. The point I was trying to make is that the threat of nuclear catastrophe is far different from anything that the theory of evolution has influenced before. Never in history has a foolish decision been able to create such far-reaching consequences. The moment the first bomb was made, the destructive power of war increased exponentially. Even if I did anticipate a nuke in my life, there is effectively nothing I can do to protect myself, to ensure that I could rebuild my life to the state it is in today. A nuclear disaster ruins everything beyond repair for generations.

That is not a possibility that evolution has faced before. (Not to overly personify evolution.)

I lived through some of the worst of the Cold War. I am not naive, nor have I been duped into an exaggerated fear by propaganda. I agree that nuclear weapons do need the support of an entire society to exist and to be used. However, the maturity you support is not as evident. If you will kindly note, there is not one, not a single example, of a military disarming itself (EDIT: of nuclear weapons). Surely, if societal evolution and humanity's communal sense of self-preservation had the power you suggest it does, the superpowers of the world would have organized something more than the limited deployment and test ban treaties they have now? Even if they were dishonest about it, don't you think they would have done something, publicly, when the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction was at it highest? Why have the safeguards you mentioned ended where they are? So long as the arsenal exists, a situation in which the safeguards will allow its use also exists. I see it as incomprehensible to say that situation is impossible, or that it ever again can be impossible.

EDIT: Minor edits to syntax have been made.

[Manbearpig]

the fact is even if there is a nuclear war not every nation would be hit and not every inch of the nations that are involved will be nuked. Lets say Iran decides to use the bomb, they would only have the capability to hit targets as far west as Isreal, as far east as India, as far South as Somalia and as far north as Kazakhstan. Yes the region would be devastated but nnot the entire world. Lets look at a larger scale, Russia and America. Both countries would have the capability to nuke anywhere on Earth, but just because they can nuke anywhere doesn't mean they will nuke everything. The nations that would be nuked are Russia, America, almost all of Europe, Canada, possibly China and Australia but thats about it. That would still leave Africa, South America and parts of Asia and Asia-minor.

[redgrassbridge]

And what of the after-effects? Surely you've heard of a nuclear winter. You should read up on it.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900067303_1990067303.pdf
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie6.shtml

[brokenfridgehinge]

I watched fight club a couple of days ago, that movie is crazy, also yeah the ending is that they watch through the window as all the tall buildings of the city explode. I guess I missed that movie cuz in 1999 i was still in russia.

Yeah, That movie is awesome, one of my favorites. I read the book first, it's much better. In a way, it is about trying to destroy modern society as we know it, and to rid ourselves of material possessions. It's quite philosophical ,you should read it some time.

[El]

nuclear fallout would be cool imo.

[Manbearpig]

Yes I've heard of nuclear winter and fallout, but it takes a while for it to take full effect and that radiation won't kill us all and the areas that will experiance the worst of it will be the areas hit and areas close by. The economic effect would be catastrophic if America, Europe and China are hit, I do not dispute that but countries like Egypt, Malaysia, Venezuela, South Africa etc. although not super powers, still have power and are relativly modernized and would become dominant powers in the world. The nuclear devastation of a nation does not ensure the destruction of its govt. as many countries have had large scale bunkers for key figures in said govt. and powers like America, NATO countries, and Russia still have emergancy poulation protection plans for their civilians.

[Atomic Waffle]

It was estimated that an all-out nuclear war between India and Pakistan would result in the immediate deaths of over 20 million people, and a massive cloud of dust that would travel throughout the globe, causing incredible amounts of radioactive contamination. It is very, very difficult to remain untouched by it. Radiation isn't localized. Of course the immediate areas will be more irradiated, but there's nobody there anymore anyways.

[TheTaxidermist]

I think the best way would be the "We are in the Matrix" scenario that website presents. No pain caused by it. No suffering at all to go along with it. No warning, just end it.

Here's a few other apocalyptic scenarios that weren't mentioned in that page posted: www.theendoftheworld.com (http://www.internetisseriousbusiness.com/)

[Manbearpig]

I'm very upset that they didn't include a Cthulhu one.

Edit: I would like to thank Atomic Waffle for introducing me to a site that has just stripped away all the hope I have and will ever have.

[intooblivion]

www.theendoftheworld.com (http://www.internetisseriousbusiness.com/)

I actually heard that song when I went inside tiger direct today. I guess somebody rick rolled everyone in the entire store.

[Atomic Waffle]

It has been on a few radio stations here, too.

[TheTaxidermist]

You've been rick roll'd.

[Atomic Waffle]

So has this thread. More debating, less rolling. Or i'll request a lock.

[TheTaxidermist]

Well in my post where I posted it, I did add to the debate. The Rick Roll thing was just a sidenote.

Like I said, no matter who you are, the matrix scenario is always possible. You might say "we could never do anything like that." Yeah, us in matrix world couldn't. Who knows what the people who designed the thing are capable of.

No, I'm not saying we live in the matrix.

[Atomic Waffle]

That's quite confuddling, actually... Maybe when you die, you just wake up younger, and time here is passing by really fast in their world, so that our experiences lead us to become better citizens of their world. They could also filter out all of the criminals, as well.

[Krakn3Dfx]

It's not the death that bothers me as much as the pain that could potentially come with it.

I'm not big on pain. If I'm going to go in a nuclear explosion, I want to be right at the epicenter of the blast, so it's instant.

I think in the end, when and if it comes, it will likely be in a way that none of us could have foreseen, or it will be a simple thing that was right in front of us, but that we always took for granted as being completely innocuous, Spam that sits on the counter for a week, mutates, create spores released into the air that infect all life and turn us all into Spam.

Actually, that's way too cool to actually happen.

[jackattack502]

HELLLLOOOOOOO gigabump


On a more serious note, thing such as painting the ice caps black and destroying the dollar are more feasble, but more expensive than playing a bomb.

[intooblivion]

I bet we'll all just get bored and kill ourselves.

[Manbearpig]

The most likely one is the mole people coming up and destroying us all because we kept stealing their holy liquids or as we call it "Oil" Open your eyes people, the signs are all there.

[Atomic Waffle]

I think we're going to go in one global orgy. When it reaches it's climax - Pun intended - the world itself will orgasm, spewing ash and magma into the atmosphere, burning us all to death in a sea of fiery cum.

[rtanger]

This is still a debate thread, not a "let's one-up each other with increasingly more ridiculous scenarios now that somebody bumped it" thread, so let's keep this relevant or let it return to a nice long sleep.

Please, don't make me put it down for good.

[Kaze]

2012

That is all.

[Manbearpig]

Oh not that again. I'm going to laugh so hard when nothing happens.

[BahamutBBob]

It would be nice to know why, exactly, the Mayans stopped their calendar in 2012. Did they think they "read" far enough into the future, so they put some random BS on there? Were they just lazy and guessed everything with such a high success rate? Is there really going to be something big happening?

Either way, I'm sure someone would laugh at you, Manbearpig, if something does indeed happen on December 21, 2012.

[rtanger]

The Sun, the Earth, and the Center of the 'dark rift' of the Milky Way will have a grand alignment, for the first time in 13,000 years or so. There's theorization that this event could have profound effects on the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun, and, in the worst case scenario, might cause a polar shift. A magnetic pole shift of even just a couple of degrees is hypothesized to create global earthquakes of unprecedented scale as our tectonic plates rearrange over themselves.


It's all theory, more-or-less they have no clue what will happen exactly, but the date is indeed highly significant by astronomical/astrological standards. It'll either be the most radical event humanity has ever experienced, or just a really cool look through a telescope. No one really knows...

[Mad Scientist]

Howdy again folks, just thought i'd drop by.

It's all theory, more-or-less they have no clue what will happen exactly,

Correct. Correct in the sense that we don't know what will happen, in the same way that we don't know for certain that the sun will come up tomorrow.

We don't know if anything will happen, but I'd be willing to bet everything I own that nothing much will happen. If I'm proved wrong, i will accept it with good grace, and give my stuff to the first person who can quote this post. till then, i'm not really going to be living in fear.

[Kester]

Post saved. I always wanted a boat!

[Psyborg]

We don't know if anything will happen, but I'd be willing to bet everything I own that nothing much will happen.
Something did happen, just a few moments ago. I stubbed my toe on that chair. Certainly we can all agree that that counts as something.

If I'm proved wrong, i will accept it with good grace, and give my stuff to the first person who can quote this post. till then, i'm not really going to be living in fear.
I'm quoting it right now, so... whenever I can get that house boat...

[Mad Scientist]

When looking at that post, note the small print that is so small it needs an electron microscope to be visible. In paragraph 4, subsection II.b. it clearly states that in the above context, "something" is defined as "apocalypse, end of world, judgement day, or any other phenomena that results in the end of human civilisation, and or life on earth in general".

Sorry, but you're going to have to wait.

[Viktor Berg]

If we indeed suffer an apocalypse, Doomsday or a global catastrophe that would wipe us all out, who would need your boat, Mad Sci?

On a more serious note, I do not believe in the End of the World. It has been predicted many times, and it never happened. WHy would it now? Okay, okay, 21. december 2012 may be a significant astronomic date, but nothing proves this day will be the day the humanity ceases to exist. Mayans... what do we know about what the mayans thought when they ended their calendary on that date? Maybe it's just a countdown calendar until the spectacular show, and they planned to make a new calendar after the "show". Only they never made it to XXI'th century.

[Manbearpig]

Or maybe their calender was going to continue but the Spaniards killed them before they could finish.

[rtanger]

Their calendar was a self-contained mathematic device, not something in a constant flux of change.
As far as I can remember, the original Mayan calendar is accurate to this day, if you know how to read it.

In an unrelated note (sort of), I was talking this 2012 business with another guy last night, and he mentioned a theory completely different about 2012. That by that date is when humanity might achieve 'social singularity' (look it up) and completely redefine our idea of social and technological progress. This is only a potentiality if you buy into the Novelty concept of time, but is an interesting take nonetheless. I plan to read into this rather more optimistic theory, just for fun.

[Russell]

The World doesn't end. Chuck Norris ends it.

[jedipoodoo547]

The end of the world will be at the hands of another Civil War. Poverty will be at it's highest before the next Millennium ends. Resources will be sparse and the rich will........just get richer. The world will end because we will implode from within, not because of Terrorists. Our time on Earth is numbered, but we have the power to change that.

[Viktor Berg]

Third World War, perhaps? A-la Fallout scenario? After all, an all-out nuclear war can be considered the End of the World, when below 1/100,000th people survive, or something.

[Mad Scientist]

Poverty will be at it's highest before the next Millennium ends. Resources will be sparse and the rich will........just get richer.

Tell me, at what point in the past has the outlook NOT looked bleak. Analysts have been forcasting nuclear war, and that humanity will not survive the century for a long time now. I have failed to notice the world end in the intervening years.

Why? Because human civilisation doesn't like falling apart. Every time things look bad, some social, economic or technological force appears to stabilise things. Its a societal defence mechanism, that has evolved along with our own cultures to prevent immanent collapse. After all, if humans were so destructive as to wipe ourselves out at the drop of a hat, I'd hardly expect us to last very long at all, by our own time-frames. Let alone geological ones.

[Psyborg]

My theory- the world won't end until the Doomsday Clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock) says it does! So let's hope that them scientists don't get a bit inebriated one night and decide to push the minute hand forward five minutes.

[Flarty]

2012

That is all.


pfffffffft, read between the lines, many cultures including the Mayans and aborigines have prophecies about 2012, well they ain't even prophecies, its just the end of an age, and the beginning of a new age. Though the Mayans never did get round to starting a new calender due to them pesky Spaniards. If your interested in the 2012 phenomena then read into modern shamanism. Intresting and yet sometimes trippy stuff.

Their calendar was a self-contained mathematic device, not something in a constant flux of change.
As far as I can remember, the original Mayan calendar is accurate to this day, if you know how to read it.

In an unrelated note (sort of), I was talking this 2012 business with another guy last night, and he mentioned a theory completely different about 2012. That by that date is when humanity might achieve 'social singularity' (look it up) and completely redefine our idea of social and technological progress. This is only a potentiality if you buy into the Novelty concept of time, but is an interesting take nonetheless. I plan to read into this rather more optimistic theory, just for fun.

I believe in this theory more than the doomsday theory, look at the mayan calender and each age is attributed to social events, this is the supposed age of greed according to the mayan calender, they got it right.

[Manbearpig]

It was an age of greed before, the fact is foolish doomsday prophecies make us think that a disaster is going to happen on a certain date and we are powerless to stop it so we don't think of the more likely cause of an end of the world scenario, us. We are way more likely to kill ourselves, not some invisible man in the sky and by realizing that it allows us to try and avoid the real causes of something like that.

[Flarty]

so the day we destroy ourselves (if it ever happens) would not be considered doomsday?

and i do apologies for not being alive during the last age so i could attribute whether or not society was propelled and thrived on greed.

the fact is we are in a **** state of affairs, ****ty enough to shock the world in to working together for a social and economical as well as a geographical balance, this is already being demonstrated in the latest global warming talks when it was basically the world against America, once the bush administration is out maybe theory of the new Mayan age will be right,

maybe we should change this topic title to "2012, what does it mean really."

P.S i dont think you even read my post properly.

[Manbearpig]

It would be a doomsday but not caused by some deity. Yes i read that it would be the dawning of some new age, but once again that is the idea that it would just happen and we don't have to work for it which we do. I say we should do away with these old prophecies and forge ahead on our own accord.

[Flarty]

one word: epiphany

and of course you have to work towards everything

[Russell]

Our last drop of Oil, will be burned by a tank.

Nations fighting over natural resources for survival.

But sorry to let all you emo kids down, but the end of the world wont be for a very long time.

[Psyborg]

Sorry, Russell old boy, you're wrong on that count. (grins manically, clutches an object in his left hand)

[Viktor Berg]

Sorry, Russell old boy, you're wrong on that count. (grins manically, clutches an object in his left hand)

PSYBORG! I thought I told you to stay away from my pr0n collection!

[Russell]

Sorry, Russell old boy, you're wrong on that count. (grins manically, clutches an object in his left hand)

What am I wrong about? That the world won't end right now?

People have been talking about the worlds end for centuries and everyone of them have been wrong.

I bet if you go back many years you will see some caveman thinking that the world will end soon because he saw his mom or dad die or a fire that torched almost everything insight.

But I do know that through history with everything that was bad that has happened and all the genocide and the myths of the end of the world, Life continues...

So, don't go kill yourself like many people in cults did on new years of 2000.

[Psyborg]

(plays idly with the object. A glint rushes over the surface as he spins it. You see the word "FIRE" etched into the smooth surface of a button)

[Manbearpig]

Russel: Slow to catch on

[Mad Scientist]

[Reads Psyborg's post then goes and looks in doomsday device box]

Uh oh.

PSYBORG!!

[Wasabi]

Is he tieing a func_physbox to a sphere with a torus carved into it again?

[Mad Scientist]

If its the one i'm missing, then it is merely a piece of buttered toast strapped to the back of a cat. If my theory is correct, then dropping it from a height will cause the universe itself to scream "WTF?!" and then implode.

[Kester]

I just thought that was a perpetual motion machine?

[redgrassbridge]

The cat would land on its feet and the toast would never touch the ground.

Then everybody would be disappointed and there would be no cake.

[rtanger]

That entirely hinges on the relative mass of the buttered toast.

And this is becoming horribly trite and off-topic now, no?

[zim]

I had this crazy dream about the end of the world last night, oh man it was crazy. And there were aliens.

[Manbearpig]

Were you descriptive in the dream, because we know that's impossible.

[Harold_HTFC]

I had this crazy dream about the end of the world last night, oh man it was crazy. And there were aliens.

That is how it's all going to end in my honest opinion:haha:

I'm a big true beleive of UFO's and aliens visiting earth. From now we are going to get warnings and stuf and more UFO sightings shown on the news channels to gear us up for 2012 when they will come and make contact but not in a friendly way!:salute:

[Manbearpig]

Actually everyone will be so panicked about 2012 that the world will be destroyed by nuclear war in 2011.

[Harold_HTFC]

Actually everyone will be so panicked about 2012 that the world will be destroyed by nuclear war in 2011.

lol. Proberly would happen but if it did turn out that aliens was coming to destroy us all would you hide or would you stand and fight?

I know what I'd do. Always fancied being in a war:)or maybe that's just war games curupting my mind:lol:

[Manbearpig]

I for one welcome our insect overlords.

[Mad Scientist]

And i for one think that alien invasion be the most far fetched.

I'm a big true beleive of UFO's and aliens visiting earth. From now we are going to get warnings and stuf and more UFO sightings shown on the news channels to gear us up for 2012 when they will come and make contact but not in a friendly way!:salute:

Oh dear. Prepare for a long post.

Let us examine the Fermi hypothesis once more, and we will see why, although not impossible, this is very far fetched. I explained the fermi hypothesis is explained more in detail in THIS (http://forums.gamernode.com/showpost.php?p=237542&postcount=51) post, so I'm not going to go into it in too much detail. What i am going to analyse is what the paradox tells us.

Consider, the principle of mediocrity. This basically means that we are not privileged or special in any way - that we assume that the universe how we see it is generally what out there. There are many reasons for assuming the principle of mediocrity, but i will not elaborate them here.

So, if we take an extreme example, and say that what our solar system and species is typical, then we have an interesting model. Remember this part is only a model to help us understand the true nature of life in the universe:

consider that like our star, every star has planets on which life will evolve life at the same rate we have evolved. You would get intelligent aliens popping up in every star system at the same time. This means they would all invent radio at the same time as we did. Think of Alpha Centauri, 4 light years distant. If aliens around alpha centauri invented radio at the same time we did, then 4 years after we invented radio, their radio waves would reach use, and we would know they exist. Barnard's star (6 light years) would light up with radio waves 6 years, after we discovered radio, wolf 359 after 7.8, Sirius after 8.6, etc.

Now, what if the aliens around Barnard's star were a bit smarter than everyone else, and invented radio two years before the rest of us. Well, we'd see it 4 years after WE invented radio, instead of 6, same time as we said hello to the folks on Alpha Centauri. If they invented it even faster, we might even see it as soon as we invented radio ourselves.

Although this model is ludicrous, it does tell us interesting things. We cannot see ANYONE who has invented radio. As far as we know, we are alone in the universe. This means that nobody in a 60-70 lightyear radius has invented radio either at the same time as us, or since then. Considering the nearest 30-40 light years contains well over 300 objects, there are plenty of places where life could evolve. If we assume they are brighter than us, or had a head start, then we can include millions of star systems that we know are free of civilisations that have invented radio.

We believe that life is likely to be quite common in the universe. This is due to us finding out how quickly and easily it evolved on earth.

In other words, the facts are demonstrating that unless aliens are hiding from us (why?) then we are the most advance civilisation in our neck of the woods. If we are the most technologically advanced folk around, it seems unlikely that aliens are going to be raining death rays out of the sky.

[zim]

Mad Scientist's posts pump me full of knowledge, but sometimes make me sad. :(

[Flarty]

while true story, still only theory, we live ina universe where anything is possible.

[Mad Scientist]

Aye, that is true. But possibility and probability are two different things.

[Manbearpig]

In all probability there are probably savage alien creatures and bacteria out there or at least in this solar system. But at the same time there are still endless possibilities out there so who knows, but the Fermi Paradox is certainly interesting. But to quote my favorite game "We cannot see beyond the veil of reality, it's there to protect us and we should not look beyond." I don't really think ike that but I just wanted to say it.

[Harold_HTFC]

Maybe we could be the most intellegent and I do beleiev they are hiding...

They have designed technology what we would only dream of having. And for them to be able to travvel at super fast speeds is also what we can't do. And we might not have the same technology they have. They might have been around since the solar system began.

[Mad Scientist]

Right i see...

You have yet to answer the case of why they are hiding. What would it gain them? If they are as technologically advanced as you claim, why would they bother to conceal themselves? Surely it would be of no military intelligence benefit, if they are so advanced they could sterilise the planet without even thinking about it, particularly if you claim that is their ultimate goal.

This entire scenario lacks evidence and logic. As, we live in an uncertain and shifting universe, evidence and logic are the only things we have to go on, even if they aren't perfect. I am forced to conclude that you need to consider your facts a little better.

[Harold_HTFC]

Right if you was visiting another plannet in the universe and you knew that they had billions of people living there and you didn't know what they was capable off and if they was friendly or nice. To learn more about us I think tbh.

[Mad Scientist]

Simply because you can paint a picture of what you think aliens would do, it doesn't mean it is true. You need to provide evidence rather than pure supposition about the existence of aliens, and if they will be the cause of the end of the world.

If i had the technological capability to travel to another star system, tapping into any communications nets and learning all i needed to know from their computer networks (haven't they heard of wikipedia?) wouldn't pose much of a problem. Even language difficulties can be overcome in a very short time if these aliens are as crafty as you claim. They certainly wouldn't need to skulk around for several decades. I suppose your going to claim Roswell and crop circles as evidence.

At the end of the day, to back up incredible claims, one must provide incredible evidence. You have yet to do so. The mere fact that something is possible at the outside edge of probability is insufficient. Any miraculous claim must pass the criterion set out by the philosopher David Hume: That it must seem MORE miraculous that a phenomena could be explained by illusion and mistake, than if it were actually true. Make good on this criterion, and i will accept your claims, but you have yet to do so by a very large margin.

Oh, and please clean up your grammar a bit. I know nobody is perfect, myself included, but it pays to make an effort.

[Harold_HTFC]

[QUOTE=Mad Scientist;276508Oh, and please clean up your grammar a bit. I know nobody is perfect, myself included, but it pays to make an effort.[/QUOTE]

Don't judge me on my grammer:tongue: I know my grammer is terrible I never claimed it wasn't but I do at least try. I've been out of school since year 8.

And sorry but I don't need hard evidence to believe in what I think might happen in the furture.

People believe in God without having real hard evidence he even existed imo.

[Flarty]

yes but the point of this thread and forum is to debate, what you said was just stating an opinion and adding no real content to the discussion.

i believe in god, but i don't believe in the church, and i do believe in aliens, but i don't believe theres some big conspiracy and they're already here.

The fact of the matter, anything is possible, and this thread is rather a guessing game than a true debate anyway.

[Mad Scientist]

And sorry but I don't need hard evidence to believe in what I think might happen in the furture.

People believe in God without having real hard evidence he even existed imo.

If you don't require evidence to accept something, then what's the point? One might as well believe in well near ANYTHING, simply because it suits them. I might as well believe i am the king of the world, because i wouldn't need to accept the overwhelming evidence that i am not. The evidence presented to us by our eyes, ears, noses, tongues and skin is how we formulate an internal picture of reality. Without that, we are nothing.

God is a different kettle of fish to requiring no evidence. People accept different things as evidence. They argue that the existence of suffering, the complexity of the universe, our perception of morality is evidence either for or against the existence of God. They do NOT claim that evidence is unnecessary.

So make your mind up. either say you require no evidence whatsoever to decide something, and this little sub-debate ends here and now, or say that you have evidence that is sufficient enough for you personally to believe in manipulative aliens, who wish to bring about the end of the world, and we will have an intellectual discussion on what it is.

[redgrassbridge]

Of course, assuming the mediocrity principle, although intended to give the issue some sense of perspective, does add an element of anthropic bias into the discussion. If a hypothetical alien species is to be entered into the discussion (such as to say an alien species would have no logical reason to remain hidden from us), a wide range of unknown variables temper the conclusions we can draw about this species. The necessary considerations run the gamut from very far-fetched but still applicable ones, like the idea that "aliens may exist only partially in the existance understood by human conciousness and may act outside even the laws of causation," to very real ones, like the probability that "the species' biochemistry could be radically different and their concious-existance may be entirely incompatable with ours and may not concern itself with logic in the way we would." All of these and everything in between hamper any attempt to anticipate the activities of a non-earth faction.

Now, I'm not saying I anticipate an invasion any time soon. I'm just pointing things out.

[Mad Scientist]

In otherwords, "how can we know anything about them?! They're ALIEN!". Admittadly, your argument was expressed more eloquently than that, but the basic argument is one i have heard many times before.

Firstly, one must take the pragmatic point of view. There is no point in contemplating aliens that we would be unable to contact by the laws of physics (different universe, dimensional atributes, etc). If we cannot come into contact with aliens in ANY given time frame, then as far as we are concerned, they might as well be imaginary and not exist.

From this, we can infer that if we CAN contact them, then at the point of contact their must be some form of comonality. We would have to see them or gain evidense of thier existance through some method, either direct or indirect. If this is the case, then their must be SOME similarities, otherwise we are back in the case of the uncontactable alien. Therefore, from this we can infer a number of truths. They must be capable of influencing physical matter. This means they must be subjected to the laws of physics, and therfore logic and mathmatics. From this, we can infer that thier logic will be broadly similar to ours, as our logic and science is a construted reflecton of the universe we are subject to.

To put it simply, yes it IS possible that aliens are out there with unfathomable motivations, hellbent on ending the world in 2012, but i doubt it. Probabiltiy and logic are the only things we have to go on, and chances our that we will only start finding aliens shortly after we start going out and looking for them.

[vincian]

I don't think the world will end as much as the world that we know will end.


Unless you count the sun dying, but that's still a few billions of years away. By that point, if there are still humans, we'd be so advanced, we'd be able leave.

[Kester]

...in theory.

[Skull-Fire]

Wow... not a good thing to read at 4 in the morning byself. The robots thinknig for themsevles and taking over the world though, is obviously a load of crap. theyre basically computers on legs, computers cannot think for themselves. It is impossible to make them think for themselves, the best we could do is give them the option of killing humans, etc. Somehow, I dont see that happening, apart from maybe killing the enemy in a war. But then they would have off buttons and a way to be controlled. But the robots will never decide to kill us, that theories just stupid.

[ninjalegend]

If there are aliens somewhere out there, the chance of them visiting here are slim to none. Think of what a hurculean task it would be just for mankind to go beyond our solar system. Where would you get the fuel? How would you collect it? What about food, water, and O2. How long can you recycle? This is not a month or 1 year task. Then your finally at Pluto. You don't even want to know how far until the next solar system. Where do you get your material now? No planets or moons in between the two. Forget about intergalactic travel for mankind's close future. In my opinion, forget about intergalactic travel for mankind period.....still love sci-fi though.

And as far as getting communications from beings of other planets, who is to say we can? Yeah, we get radio waves from cosmic events and such, but how do we know we could detect a radio signal produced by an alien race 7 or more light years away? Do we have a control group? NO! How about cosmic events that may scramble the waves to seem like background noise or destroy them entirely? Black holes, gamma ray bursts, ext. That's 7 years at 299,792,458 meters per second without running into anything.

And as for the people saying "But the aliens have a power source as powerful as a star and can travel at the speed of light or faster, or can bend space time to create worm holes with said power source...........":pshh: I'm an atheist. I don't believe in alien gods or the ones invented for earth. Give me proof any matter can break that speed. Without even getting into Einstein’s special relativity vs. Lorentzian relativity, suffice it to say you'd have a real hard time crossing that threshold. Nearing it is almost as implausible.

So all you xenophobes, rejoice! Them visiting us or us visiting them? Not.........gonna'..........happen.

[Kester]

Wow... not a good thing to read at 4 in the morning byself. The robots thinknig for themsevles and taking over the world though, is obviously a load of crap. theyre basically computers on legs, computers cannot think for themselves. It is impossible to make them think for themselves, the best we could do is give them the option of killing humans, etc. Somehow, I dont see that happening, apart from maybe killing the enemy in a war. But then they would have off buttons and a way to be controlled. But the robots will never decide to kill us, that theories just stupid.
Not as stupid as totally disregarding it as a stupid theory.

Real AI is possible. It's just a matter of time.

[Psyborg]

I'm just waiting for Weird Science to come to pass.

[Taikis]

Humans turn into robots or cyborgs.

[MaxTheLimit]

Or better yet...both.

It is very likely over the years humans will incorporate more robotic on non biological objects into our bodies. Making us basically cyborgs.

[Manbearpig]

If there are aliens somewhere out there, the chance of them visiting here are slim to none. Think of what a hurculean task it would be just for mankind to go beyond our solar system. Where would you get the fuel? How would you collect it? What about food, water, and O2. How long can you recycle? This is not a month or 1 year task. Then your finally at Pluto. You don't even want to know how far until the next solar system. Where do you get your material now? No planets or moons in between the two. Forget about intergalactic travel for mankind's close future. In my opinion, forget about intergalactic travel for mankind period.....still love sci-fi though.

And as far as getting communications from beings of other planets, who is to say we can? Yeah, we get radio waves from cosmic events and such, but how do we know we could detect a radio signal produced by an alien race 7 or more light years away? Do we have a control group? NO! How about cosmic events that may scramble the waves to seem like background noise or destroy them entirely? Black holes, gamma ray bursts, ext. That's 7 years at 299,792,458 meters per second without running into anything.

And as for the people saying "But the aliens have a power source as powerful as a star and can travel at the speed of light or faster, or can bend space time to create worm holes with said power source...........":pshh: I'm an atheist. I don't believe in alien gods or the ones invented for earth. Give me proof any matter can break that speed. Without even getting into Einstein’s special relativity vs. Lorentzian relativity, suffice it to say you'd have a real hard time crossing that threshold. Nearing it is almost as implausible.

So all you xenophobes, rejoice! Them visiting us or us visiting them? Not.........gonna'..........happen.

So basically what you are saying because we have never down it and don't know how to do it know it will never happen. I see that working for you. The possibilities are there, and it isn't even about finding resources and new colonies, it's about the radical technological advances we make when going through the program. We owe almost all of our modern technology to the space program. I too am an atheist, but I find the idea that we were created by some other species far more plausible then traditional god myths. One thing I know for certain, man created god and one day with our technology man will become gods. But excuse my semi-dogmatic love for technology.

[ninjalegend]

Dude, I was just speculating it is an improbability. I think we will become godlike in our ability to control our environment, but to create power sources rivaling the sun, or wormhole travel.........no. But that is just my educated opinion. That and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

[goatlinks]

Or a gallon of gas...


(stupid, mother effing worthless 5 dollars....)