Re: 2012 Apocalypse

Ok here's a question...If it happens/when it happens - dead or alive for the aftermath? Which will it be?

I want to survive and see what happens! I want to arm myself and a small plot of land with people who just want to survive. Any poachers will be shot on sight! I am not a man of violence but I think surviving would be interesting to say the least.

Re: 2012 Apocalypse

Alive, even you only have a miniscule chance of surviving there is still a chance.

Re: 2012 Apocalypse

I'd choose dead but the idea of just finding out how much can you live after seems amusing at this moment. Perhaps starting a new civilization and get all the chicks doesn't sound to bad for an apocalypse aftermath.

Re: 2012 Apocalypse

And red mutant eyes gaze down on Hunger City...

Re: 2012 Apocalypse

alive, I will be raising mutant goats in a yert in Montana, all are welcome to visit, byob

Last edited by thedeadshallrule (2007-01-29 10:36:43)

Re: 2012 Apocalypse

Alive. Just to be able to say: "I told you so". ;-)

Pole shifts: yes, poles shift, I found that out in Discover and they had a theory about the next one. Don't quite remember the details but this is the conclusion: We don't have to worry about it.

The sun will eventually extinguish and as a result earth will not be able to sustain life as we currently know and understand it. That is also expected... in a million years. We don't have to worry about it.

Asteroids, solar flares, dormant bacteria awoken by the melting ice caps, pendemics, meh, there are so many scenarios...

What I would worry about are quantified facts. Forget about global warming and the discussion surrounding as it hasn't gained overall consent - I personally believe it, but some people would argue against it, so let's just talk facts for which there is empirical data that noone can contest: diminishing water tables, diminishing arable land per person.

In layman's terms, the diminishing water and arable land essentially mean that eventually there aren't resources for everyone. Now, I don't actually believe in the "end of the world" - that's actually too vast a concept to discuss in a few paragraphs - but history has proven on many occasions that lack of resources leads to war, and that is just a fact. One way or the other, governments and people  attempt to increase their "vital space", and when they do, there are always governments and people to try and stop them - think first world war.

The difference is that today, the means to gain or defend the resources are more advanced and more destructive than they ever were, and there lies, I think, the greater risk for destruction, which is potentially nuclear... The thing is history has a funny way of repeating itself, and given the means to obliterate its opponent, man usually does so. Does that mean the "end of the world"? No, it doesn't, but it could be the end of "one world" and further proof that man doesn't evolve, only his genes do. :-)

Last edited by bloodee (2007-01-29 14:35:30)