The 2012 movie is coming out soon and I think it might be a good movie (in my opinion of course). I'm a fan of giant explosions and disaster movies. As I watched the trailer, the same question pops up: is the world going to end?
Of course by now everyone has heard of 2012. Mayans predict it, Nostradamus predicts it. And so many other sources of doomsday predictions like the Book of Revelations say the end is nigh. I'm sure everyone has commented on it on one post or another, and everyone has their own opinion on when, how, and if our world, as well as our existence, will end. So I just want to know exactly your opinion on armageddon: the end of teh world.
In my opinion 2012 is possible, but very unlikely. no one can know for sure. However, i guarantee you one way or the other, Earth will be destroyed, wether it be by an expanding and exploding sun, or a 200-mile wide asteroid slamming into the planet. Even the very unlikely possibility that a black hole wanders into our system or a gamma ray burst from a quazar or pulsar just so happened to point in our direction. Earth will disappear, but humanity doesn't. One day Humanity will face a danger, either by the Yellowstone SuperVolcano, a meteor, or the final World War, that will test our ability to survive against insurmountable odds. If we are able to stop or survive a major catastrophe, then that proves that we are ready to face any danger the universe has to throw at us. And yes, we can probably survive a zombie apocalypse
Soo...what do you think?
Note: This kinda has to do with Sins because the Invasion of both the Vasari and Advent will prove wether humanity can fight an alien threat on two fronts.
-I am Noobis, GOD OF FAIL AND NOOBITRY!!!! BOW BEFORE MY FAIL! BOW!!
Read my pst before you quote it. I said the MAYAN cities were abandoned. I did not mention the aztec cities, or the inca. And actually, Tenochtitlan the aztec capital was one of the largest cities in the world for quite a long time. And since the mayans are the ones who may have predicted the end of the world, they seem to be the group to talk about when discussing the end of the world.
"The Maya Civilization existed in some form from 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1500 on and near the Yucatán Peninsula of southern Mexico and northern Central America. The population and culture reached a maximum from A.D. 250 to 830. During the century of A.D. 830 to 930, the population crashed and cities were abandoned across the area. Almost overnight, from a historical standpoint, the Maya Civilization collapsed."
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/fitch1/abrupt_e.html
That enough fact for you?
And seeing as the europeans had access to most of the world i think that their sciences were not as "isolated" as you claim them to be. They had gunpowder, brought from asia. They knew how to navigate using the stars, an arabic discovery. They had compasses, map making skills, ocean-faring vessels,...
This is not a thread about the superiority of the meso-americans over the heathen european invaders. I have said that the native americans had accomplishments, cultural and scientific, the only thing that matters is if one of those accomplishments was the prediction of the world's end.
Astronomically align the galactic center back then WITHOUT Galileo telescopes, Kepler trajectories or Newton mass.
Codex. Burnt by Spain, France and Britain.
Visit the right museum for universally accepted proofs. Even carved.
They didn't predict an end, they "speculated" on a mathematical idiom based on time tracking devices of their own making where churches & cathedrals didn't gather crowds on catholic Sundays.
Fair deal, when taken in *A* (Yours or/and mine, btw) rational perspective without any biased Mayan empire failure, although quite successfully reborned into something that vanished by epidemics and wars.
Nobody can/could/will predict world's end, ever.
Well we all speak of the end in terms of a mass disaster destroying the earth thus bringing the world to an end. What if 2012 represented the end of something else? The end of something we all love and strive for but yet take it for granted. What if 2012 is the end date of freedom? Maybe we've already lost our freedom and 2012 is when everyone will finally realise. Maybe 2012 stands for the end of all non-gmo food or the end of free trade. I personally don't know who stands to gain from the propegation of the idea of there being a "2012" other than the movie makers but i do know this change Obama speaks of is not the change we all believe it is.
Don't you think that if Obama actually was trying to institute a dictatorship or kill everyone over the age of 65 or whatever, he would be doing a bit of a better job of it? So far, he's attempted to institute a stimulus package, energy reform, and health care reform. It seems like Obama The Dictator would be.... i dunnow.... declaring martial law or whatever.
Why can't we just all get blown away by the Death Star? Simple nerdy explainations are often the most satisfactory.
No one on earth knows what exactly 2012 stand for it only stand for the end but the end of what no one knows exactly only the mayan themselves knows exactly what 2012 means when they predict it.
Oooooohh Boooy not another one of these opinionated rubbish spreaders again............................................
Who said anything about killing people or trying to institute a dictatorship? I think Obama in office is a great thing. A black president provides an idea that anyone can accomplish anything in life as long as they never give up. I kinda like that cause i'm black. Only thing i spoke of is Genetically Modified Organisms. Also, what makes you think this all started with Obama? Don't you find it amazing that a father can be the president of the U.S.A. and his son can also be president? Is that family rich? How many presidents of this America are related? If you knew anything about ruling systems or the psychology of the masses you should understand what a figure head is and how decisions are made. You don't need a phd to open your eyes and take a look at whats going on around you. But then again that would force people to understand themselves which can be a bit scary for some.
Obama is bi-racial.
Why is it that everybody always go right towards passive aggressive when someone disagrees even a little bit?
Notorious, your first post had undertones of political paranoia, and this thread has already been through the conspiracy phase...
I must confess that i have almost no idea of what you mean by this post, in particular: "If you knew anything about ruling systems or the psychology of the masses you should understand what a figure head is and how decisions are made."
A figure head is someone like the emperor of japan, the pope, or the royal family of the U.K., an important cultural symbol, but someone with almost no political power. The president has power, it is checked by the legislative and judical branches, but it is there.
What does the "pyschology of the masses" have to do with "how decisions are made"? In government, decisions are made based on the perceived needs of the nation and its people.
From cataclysmic claims to politics... yep, Mayan tribes would still kick a ball in the proper location at the right time.Okay then, i'll bite; Presidents beware, you can't do ziltch_nada_void_infinitely zero against the past or any evidence gathered by people who didn't breath in co² within their lifetime.
Mystical subjects always turned myths into a reference to deny or prove and it's not a result of political or religious endoctrination of the masses either.
Fool a monkey, ya know.
In being bi racial that means he has some black in him. In other words he's black, he's white, he's whatever else he is. So when i say he's black i don't mean he's totally black i mean he's got some black in him so he's black.
"I must confess that i have almost no idea of what you mean by this post, in particular" It's a simple statement. Study the topic and you will understand more about it as with anything else.
Those are good examples of a figure head if you prefer to stick to the most basic kind. The president represents a collective group of ideas from people both in public and behind the scenes. He does not just represent himself. He is the figure head of American government.
I'm sure you know what i mean by the masses so i won't insult you with a definition but you must understand that while in a group of individuals we all have our own minds, people tend to think as a collective when presented with the idea of the group. It's a little known fact that if one hears multiple people say that same thing it is easily accepted as truth wether or not it is true. Media can do this stuff. Did we truly have a need or was it a percieved need to invade iraq? What about about going to Kosovo? If thats so then why haven't we gone to Dar-Fur? Why on Osama Bin Ladins warrant for arrest it is not stated that he is wanted for the attack on the twin towers?
I just like to ask questions.
This is why race is a silly metric to judge people by. At what point does someone become black? At what point are they legally white? Race is subjective.
I agree. Color of skin doesn't define who you are. It does, however, provide you with a set amount of experiences due to cultural differences. Our personalities are pretty much developed through what we experience. We tend to identify with those who look like us or represent similiar lifestyles as us. It's just the way it is.
Notorious, the "psychology of the masses" you reference has almost nothing to do with politics. And psychology is a science, it is the study of the mind. If you mean the mindset of the people, then you have a limited point.
You mentioned that if one hears many people say the same thing they will accept it to be true. This was confirmed in a experiment on group compliance, in which, people were asked to judge which line of several was the longest. The first answers were given (incorrectly) by people who were aware of the experiment, and the person not aware of the experiment doubted there own judgement and went with the group's answer the majority of the time.
Now that THAT is out of the way...
A figure head IS exactly what i defined it to be.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/figure%20head
"The president represents a collective group of ideas from people both in public and behind the scenes. He does not just represent himself. He is the figure head of American government."
You confuse "Figure head" with"Public Face" The president is the national and international face of america. His actiona reflect on all of us.
"I'm sure you know what i mean by the masses so i won't insult you with a definition but you must understand that while in a group of individuals we all have our own minds, people tend to think as a collective when presented with the idea of the group. It's a little known fact that if one hears multiple people say that same thing it is easily accepted as truth wether or not it is true. Media can do this stuff. Did we truly have a need or was it a percieved need to invade iraq? What about about going to Kosovo? If thats so then why haven't we gone to Dar-Fur? Why on Osama Bin Ladins warrant for arrest it is not stated that he is wanted for the attack on the twin towers?"
It was a perceived need based on intelligence gathered by multiple allied countries and validated by the C.I.A.
Invading iraq had NOTHING to do with the events on September eleventh. There was intelligence that stated there were WMDs in the country, a violation of several international treaties and a threat to the entire world. May i also mention that the U.S. was not the only country that went in to iraq? and that the C.I.A. was not the only intelligence agency that believed the false intelligence.
And about the warrant, maybe because "Attack on the twin towers" is not a legal charge? "Murder" is a charge. "Killing bob" is not a charge.
The end of the world will happen because people believe they are free-thinkers when they are simply believing what they hear on so-called "smart" tv shows and "maverick" news networks.
Anderson, you've definately ran with this one.
When i speak of psychology of the masses it has everything to do with politics. Go and study the science of psychology, where it came from and where it's heading. Find out why the schools teach certain psychological principals as opposed to others. Also while your out there learning about yourself, take a look into mass marketing and persuasion. If you understand how your own mind works then you may be able to pick up on the effects of multiple minds at work. Then if you'd like go ahead and study political science. By then you should be ready to take office in any political arena.
Please clarify your meaning when you say "psychology is a science, it is the study of the mind. If you mean the mindset of the people, then you have a limited point." I'd like to know what specifically this was in reference too and what your specific point was. It seems as if you've assigned meaning to my statement while making an assumption and without providing sufficient back up too your claim.
This study you speak of is 1 of many. I like to run my own experiments from time to time too see if its all dribble or real. In life a lot of these situations arise and you can just reflect on your own expience too see if its real or not. I'm a bit unsure of what your stance is with that statement. Are you trying to refute my previous statement or agree? To me it looks like agree.
"It was a perceived need based on intelligence gathered by multiple allied countries and validated by the C.I.A. Invading iraq had NOTHING to do with the events on September eleventh. There was intelligence that stated there were WMDs in the country, a violation of several international treaties and a threat to the entire world. May i also mention that the U.S. was not the only country that went in to iraq? and that the C.I.A. was not the only intelligence agency that believed the false intelligence."
Look at what you're saying! You have succefully made a statement and then ran the counter arguement too that very statement in one paragraph! If it was a perceived need based on intelligence gathered by multiple allied contries and validated by the C.I.A. then i guess the fact that when Iraq was invaded and NO weapons of mass destruction where found, the C.I.A.'s claim as well as multiple allied countries had become INVALID. Simply put, the term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' was phrase used to stir public support and rally the troops to go into Iraq for the Oil, and maybe to also get a tronger foothold in the middle east. But thats my personal objective belief.
Blamed for the death of someone is not a charge, murder is a charge. Attack on the twin towers is not a charge, so then whats the legal name for a terrorist attack? It doesn't matter what you call it. If he did it they will say he did it and put it on his warrant, which they haven't done. Oh yeah and btw i don't watch TV and i'm not apart of any activist groups nor do i believe in any free-thinking movement. These are all assumptions you've made because you feel as if i'm telling you that you're wrong for living your life the way you have. I'm indifferent.
There will be no end of the world. Just the end of one idea and the beginning of another. I wouldn't be surprised if Stardock ran things.
To clarify my statement on psychology, there is no "psychology of the masses". In psychology, there are 3 generally accepted levels: the brain, the person, and the group.
How big to make "the group" is determined by the person performing the study. Psychology literally means "The study of the psyke". So the "psychology" of the masses would simply mean to study EVERYBODY'S mind, not what those people believe. What they believe would be their mindset, hence "the mindset of the people"
In mentioning Iraq, my point was to show that the invasion of iraq happened not because of popular demand, as you seem to think. The CIA was presented with intelligence, which it investigated and found valid. Because it was found out later to be false only shows a failing in the intelligence gathering agency and not a flaw in the argument.
Can someone please remind me how a thread about the end of the world turned in to a juvenille argument about psychology?
Back to zombie apocalypse plz...
You ran with it again.
Study psychology, marketing, political science and then you'll understand.
Find out what i mean rather than to apply a definition to what i've said that will fit your arguement.
I thought i clearly said i believe Iraq was invaded for oil and to get a stronger foothold in the middle east. Maybe that translates to popular demand in the world of captains. Maybe rally the troops means somethin else too.
I can tell you how this thread was derailed. I said what i said. It was misinterpreted. I explained myself. It was misinterpreted. I explained myself again. It was misinterpreted. I explained again! It was overly misinterpreted. And now here i am for the last time but without further explanation because it will just be misinterpreted again.
To close this derailment i'll just say this. Take a look into what a GMO is and what it does. Understand the long and short term effects and then decide what you will about your own health. All i want is for people to eat better.
I minor in psychology.
You did, and you are wrong. Ask yourself this, why would we invade a country, surrounded by other countries that have not been strong American supporters in the past, and expect to get one of the world's most important resources? We wouldn't. We invaded Iraq for one reason, figure it out.
A GMO is a genetically modfied organism. I am guessing the type you mention are the ones consumed as food. They have been shown to have differing compositions to organic foods and the health effects are currently being studied, your point?
The "Green Revolution" is the 1960s is the only reason we are here to debate this stupid topic today. I am going to tell you something, you are going to refute it, but that is besides the point. For most of the last decade the world has been consuming more food than it has been producing. In the 60s, before the "Green Revolution" that brought fertilizers and monoculture techniques to agriculture, the world was running out of food, much like we are now. (Check National geographic if you do not believe me)
"All food Should be organic" sounds great, but organic plants do not produce nearly as much food as modified plants and plants grown with chemical fertilizers and other methods of ensuring crop success.
This is it, there is nothing left to say. Have a wonderful day.
....Bless to all......as we await the end.....
or is it THe Beginning?
DUN DUN DUUUUHN!
Hey bud. I can't get mad at you because you sound just like a lot of people i know who don't really take a look and keep runnin back to the books rather than to see with there own eyes. A minor in psychology does not = a major in psychology, marketing, or political science. But then again i'm not here to refute your accomplishments.
I'm gonna keep it simple so try to stick with me here. If a batch of GMO apples consist of 20 apples grown in the same amount of time it takes to grow 12 organic apples thats a great thing because there are more apples. But its only great if the nutritional value from the 20 apples is greater than the 12 organic apples. In a batch of GMO anything, no 2 items will ever be consistant in the amount of nutrients it contains. Organic products are products that do not vary in nutritional content as nearly much as GMO's. To be frank on a scale of 1 to 10 GMO's start at 3 and can be anywhere from 8 to 0. Not to mention most if not all GMO have been engineered to contain pesticides. GMOs cost less to maintain and sell for more because of a larger harvest. Organic food starts at 10 and sometimes drops to 8 depending on the season. Organic food can sell good but due too having a smaller harvest most farmers opt for GMO.
You can heal disease eating a total organic raw food diet. You cannot heal disease and often introduce problems to your body eating a total GMO diet. This is my point. I'm not here to argue with you because youve decided long ago not to listen and just to be as right as you can appear to be. I know first hand from once having diabetes and now i no longer have after adopting a total raw food diet. I am friends with an individual who the hospitals gave 3 months to live after being diagnosed with cancer and now 2 years later after switching from GMO food and adopting organic raw food now has no trace of any cancer in his system. I speak from experience. You speak from theory and speculation. You must OPEN YOUR EYES.
Lastly stop assuming things. You just look to me silly. BTW i've been to iraq. Pipes are being built all throughout Iraq to transport the oil so what are you talking about?
Neat trick, that.
If I could do that on a local level, I would never have to go to the grocery store again.
Tell me. How do you consume that which has not been produced?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text
That is a link to the article. The short answer is stockpiles.
"Human population, he observed, increases at a geometric rate, doubling about every 25 years if unchecked, while agricultural production increases arithmetically—much more slowly. Therein lay a biological trap that humanity could never escape." Thomas Malthus realized this.
That is because the pipes were destroyed and oil is a HUGE part of the middle east's economy. You tell me to "open my eyes", i tell you to relax.
GMOs are of questionable nutritional value, that much is certain. But it is better to distribute those 20 apples and then 20 people have SOMETHING to eat, rather than distribue 12 organic apples (more expensive BTW) and have only 12 people have something to eat.
Look, this is a stupid argument. We obviously do not understand each other's points of view enough to intelligently debate this.
Edit: I am a realist, i do not assume zebras when i hear the beating of hooves. Much like i do not assume international conspiracy when i watch a country invade another under the belief that the invaded country had weapons capable of harming the invading country.
If your world could be realized grime, it would be great, but that is not the world we live in and it is not the one that will be brought about anytime soon
Half of an organic apple will provide more nutrition than a full GMO apple. But then there are health risks with GMO foods. The amount food is not a problem. It's the amount of food being consumed thats the problem. People are over eating. GMO's currently provide a problem more than a fix but i'm sure as research continues one day there will be perfectly healthy GMO food.
I've never said anything about a world in which all people will eat organic food. A world like that won't exist. It's the nature of man to want to be an individual, so there will always be people eating different things and loving it.
But one thing is true, this is a stupid arguement. Only thing we don't agree on is Iraq so lets just end this here.
1 billion people who live on less than a dollar a day rely on a surplus of food to keep prices low. There is no longer much of a surplus, so prices are high and people are starving.
I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE NUTRITIONAL VALUES OF GMOs, but if you are THAT hungry, it will not matter what you eat as long as it is something.
I agree to disagree, and it is done. You are a formidable opponent Notorious Grime
The reason people are starving is because people that have the food keep it for themselves.
A GMO apple in the hand is worth 2 Organic apples in the tree....
Speculation on starving people...? Taste less
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
