MaxCathedral Posted September 4, 2003 Posted September 4, 2003 Yes, yes..its time to think about our own species. Are we destined for the big check out soon? Will an asteroid do us in, like one did for the dinos. (Whispers:) They say the big one is coming in 2014. Or will some super Virus, like Captain Trips in King's The Stand, do us all in or a super Alien Invasion for our precious metals or maybe just water be our demise? Will one day we be nothing more than a gigantic archelogical dig for some aliens?
JaKiri Posted September 4, 2003 Posted September 4, 2003 We're more likely to kill ourselves, ala Stark.
Sayonara Posted September 4, 2003 Posted September 4, 2003 The best thing about Stark was the music (although not in the book, obviously). And the camel too. Ps - I agree with MrL. All indications point to a non-glamorous, non-dramatic end to humanity. "Not with a bang, but with a whimper" and so on. Bottom line though is that unless we can colonise the galaxy, we will always be at risk of complete extinction.
YT2095 Posted September 4, 2003 Posted September 4, 2003 Suppose there were a crew aboard the ISS at the time an asteroid wiped us out like the one due in 2014, would it effect their orbit in anyway? or would here (Earth) just be a not so place to come back down to? the one in 2014 will miss us (not by much) but it will
Sayonara Posted September 4, 2003 Posted September 4, 2003 They'd be screwed either way. Nobody to supply them, and no hospitable planet to land on even assuming they could get back down here safely with no shuttle and no ground crews.
YT2095 Posted September 4, 2003 Posted September 4, 2003 probably be better to die in the 1`st blast I guess I`m a survivalist sure, but I`m a realist also and faced with the options, I wanna be right under it with my base ball glove and a beer!
IMI Posted September 5, 2003 Posted September 5, 2003 I've read that nuclear war has been supplanted as the greatest threat to the planet. The current greatest threat is population itself. We are fastly outgrowing what the planet can sustain. Societal classes will change from 3 to 2 tiers. The middle class will disappear leaving us with only a large lower class, and a small upper class. Disease will flourish in the slums of the poverty stricken lower class. Hunger will be the meal of the day. Lawlessness will pervade. The elitist upper class will attempt to control the minions, in order to segregate themselves from them, but will ultimately be crushed. Some would say that this is a paranoid expectation. Others would say it is already happening, today, all over the world.
Erador Posted September 6, 2003 Posted September 6, 2003 i belive that, as said earlier, mans greatest threat is himself. greed will tear up this planet. there will never be a perfect society, or utopia. there will be some that are close, but there will never be the perfect place. me, i dont think that we will die from an astroid or whatever. its this policy of dominance which will wipe our population out. there will be advanced countries looking to harness the resources of the world. to ensure they gain what they need, puppet governments will be established. a war behind the scenes. but there will be resistance, there always is. wiether good or bad. if only people recognized themselves, and stopped biegn so pompous. im tired of people killing people who kill people to teach people not to kill people. how does a country sending soldiers to kill other soildiers solve anything?
Sayonara Posted September 6, 2003 Posted September 6, 2003 We cannot say that there will never be a utopia or perfect society without acknowledging that we are discounting the possibility that mankind's drives and behaviour will ever change. Since we know that man's ability to adapt (and indeed react) to the environment around him is one of the major evolutionary advantages we have, and the reason we pretty much dominate the planet, that is not a reasonable assumption to make. "there will be advanced countries looking to harness the resources of the world. to ensure they gain what they need, puppet governments will be established." You mean like Bush's administration? Yes, have to say I agree with you on that one. "how does a country sending soldiers to kill other soildiers solve anything?" It creates a real-terms cost and a genetic cost for the country under attack, and reduces their capacity to defend their ideology. This has massive knock-on effects in the way that the country manages its resources and makes its decisions.
Sayonara Posted September 6, 2003 Posted September 6, 2003 People don't have to join the armed forces. People don't have to live in strategically important cities. People don't even have to live in the country they were born in. If humans were more inclined to take the responsibility for their actions and choices seriously, and recognise that every country is part of the same population, we would not be the puppets of a few men in suits. It is perfectly possible to manage the planet and its resources properly without people killing each other off - the reason that this does not happen is not because of the fact that different people rarely agree, but more in the way that we react to that fact.
matter Posted September 6, 2003 Posted September 6, 2003 Well, if they're not forced to join wouldn't that mean they want to join? Isn't that part of human nature? Wanting to kill?
Sayonara Posted September 6, 2003 Posted September 6, 2003 For many people the attraction of the armed forces is a balance between education and finances, nothing more. I'm sure there are people who join the army in order to kill other people, but fortunately these kinds of people are the ones who are most likely to die first in a conflict and find it difficult to successfully mate. Every single person I have known who has joined any of the armed forces - and there have been quite a few - has done it because they wanted to, but the major factors involved were that (i) they would be accepted into that occupation with less qualifications than required by other jobs offering the same salary, and (ii) overheads will be reduced due to provided clothing and accomodations, even for immediate family - therefore the salary can be more efficiently utilised. The fact that these attractive factors influence their decision does not mean that they have no choice to begin with. If people took a longer view of their lives, and accepted the fact that even one person's single decision in a single moment affects outcomes for everyone around them, then they would not join the armed forces. Because if there is no armed forces, there is no war. However, because of the way we are taught to think by our "cultures", this is as far as most people bother to take it: "They pay well, and I can get out after three years, and I'm not likely to actually fight anyone, and it's not like I am the one declaring war on people even if I do have to fight anyone..." Most people you see are programmed to believe that their actions and moral obligations are just a drop in ocean, so they don't need to take responsibility for the evils and horrors around them because it's society's problem. The 'longer view' dictates that this may well be so, but just as ultimately an ocean is made only of drops, so is society ultimately made only of individuals making choices.
KHinfcube22 Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 Ok....heres hows its going to happen...We're going to create a black hole...Its going to fall through the ground till it orbits the center and eats up all the dirt and magma and we die.......Thank you David Brin.................
Sayonara Posted September 7, 2003 Posted September 7, 2003 Why would it fall through the ground? Wouldn't the ground fall through it?
IMI Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war.
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2003 Posted September 8, 2003 IMI said in post #17 :If there were no militaries there would certainly still be wars! In fact, maybe more. A strong, well armed, well trained, military is a deterrent to war. There would still be war? Really? How would this happen (bearing in mind that I already know what your answer will be and have formulated a response ).
YT2095 Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 I guess it depends on what you define as a "Soldier" if there were no .Gov military, then no maybe there wouldn`t be WORLD wars. but look at street gangs? or terrorists? maybe even just neighbor against neighbor in a battle over who uses the hose pipe during a ban, or whose dog craps where and what side of the fence so long as there are 2 men alive on this planet, there is always that potential for "War" sad but true
Sayonara Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 Doesn't that depend on how you define "war"?
IMI Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 Only if you define war as other than how it has already been defined.
Sayonara Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 As opposed to defining "soldier" other than how it has already been defined? That's inferred in the question
blike Posted September 9, 2003 Posted September 9, 2003 I meant that two people fighting could be called a war. "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." Sounds kinda like the Hatfields and McCoys. Doesn't take soldiers or an army, though it would probably help the cause
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now