LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDoesn't it seem like the world is in so much turmoil. so many natural disasters all of a sudden. George Bush as President of the U.S. Anyone else find this even a little bit intriguing?
September 20th, 2005, 10:45 AM
Doesn't it seem like the world is in so much turmoil. so many natural disasters all of a sudden. George Bush as President of the U.S. Anyone else find this even a little bit intriguing?
Well lets go back to 1941 when the second world war started. It was very bad times for the Earth then with bombs dropping, hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, diseases, poverty, slavery and on and on...Every so often shit hits the fan and the Earth vomits as well as humans. It is expected.
You left out the evolution antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria.
And the disintegration of Antartica.
the Great Depression, Dawn of the Nuclear Age and Cuban Missile crisis (not till later realy but still).
Still.. he does have a good point with the whole G. Bush thing...
and back then he would have had a point with the A.Hittler thing.
personaly i think he's just being pessimistic, the worlds hit a low but we've recovered from worse and last time we did we got into an age of extrordinary advancement.
we'll recover from this low and we'll be better of at the other end.
Do you really think this is a low?
World War II and the whole death camp thing? That was a low.
World War I and it's obcene advancement of technology over tactics? Pretty bad.
That world wide depression beween the two? Not much fun.
Let's not forget the influenza pandemic, or Galveston in 1900.
Or, for simple human suffering as well as extensive economic disaster, we can always fall back on the Black Death.
You think Dubya is bad? What about Nero or Caligula? Charles II, or for that matter, Cromwell? The Tsar of your choice? And I don't even know that much about Asian or African tyrants.
those were massive lows and hey we're only in an early phases of my wild imaginings.
explain.Originally Posted by j
I think I'll just research this one a bit ... [I think I was trying to suggest a ruler not overly burden with intellectual abilities]explain.
A quick pop over to Wikpedia gives no clue as to what the hell I meant; he seems to have been the most reasonable of the Stuarts, if one discounts adultery.
I've been skimmng around there for a while, and think I must have meant James II. Unless I was thinking of the putative Charles III, but he was never actually a ruler.
Let's try Bartleby's ...
Oh, yes, I meant James II:
"The king favored autocratic methods, proroguing the hostile Parliament (1685), reviving the old ecclesiastical court of high commission, and interfering with the courts and with local town and county government. "
I've always thought he had to be completely clueless; hadn't he noticed Inter Regnum?
thank you, I did wonder why charles II, and I also think james II to have been clueless.I think I'll just research this one a bit ... [I think I was trying to suggest a ruler not overly burden with intellectual abilities]explain.
A quick pop over to Wikpedia gives no clue as to what the hell I meant; he seems to have been the most reasonable of the Stuarts, if one discounts adultery.
I've been skimmng around there for a while, and think I must have meant James II. Unless I was thinking of the putative Charles III, but he was never actually a ruler.
Let's try Bartleby's ...
Oh, yes, I meant James II:
"The king favored autocratic methods, proroguing the hostile Parliament (1685), reviving the old ecclesiastical court of high commission, and interfering with the courts and with local town and county government. "
I've always thought he had to be completely clueless; hadn't he noticed Inter Regnum?
The Great Apocalypse - predicted after the time of Jesus Christ in the Revelation To John. War, disease, hunger - the collapse of civilisation, and the end of the world as we know it. The Whore of Babylon, 666, the Seventh Seal.....
But the end of the world as John and Jesus knew it.... that was long, long ago. If we think of the destruction of the Temple, that followed Christ's death by a mere 40 years or so, though it may have preceded Revelation. Either way, the civilised world as represented by the Roman Empire came to a final end in 1453. And that was after 500 years of Dark Ages.
Seriously, I really don't know why people always point at George W. Bush as if he's either some kind of touchstone of evil or the crown prince of democracy. The only thing that's special about him was that 9/11 was on his watch. His reaction to that was inadequate at the time (the airliners should have been shot out of the sky prior to the crash) and his response to Katrina four years later was no better, with the resultant unbelievable breakdown of law and order (to say nothing of the overt neglect of those poorest and least able to defend themselves). Then fresh from that flop to thinking he could appoint a close legal aide with no judicial experience to the Supreme Court, and tihs week walking out the wrong door at the Chinese shindig. In the history books he will score barely above his own dad, in the mediocre dross of Chester Arthur and Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding and Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
There's three main things that can kill the planets civilization within 100 years.. nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons.
only if used incorrectly...there mere presance does not imply certain death. its the presance of the people who will use them for bad that imply death.
Given how much trouble we have caused with the internal combustion engine, to you really think we can be trusted with nukes?
BTW, Silas, what about the war? An awful lot of people are rather upset about that.
trouble with internal combustion engines or fossil fuels and there effects on our environment have only been studied in the last... ohh its before my time so i'll label it recently.
that was unintintentional, however we fully understand the dangerous effects of a nuclear explosion and have developed measures against them.
some mad men however can not be contained so your right we can't trust ourselves, its just a shame the technology has so many other uses.
Bush always did make me vomit, but enough to make the earth vomit as well, ......ha....heh....hee.......I really like that.
Ah, wallaby, you have brought up an interesting question; which is more dangerous, malice or ignorance?
Malice can do more harm, but there is so much more Ignorance ...
it all falls under the catagory of Human.
Sometimes we walk over the Earth. Then Earth walks over Us... but all the time We walk over eachother
Like it ? Just created it hehe
Pithy.
A shame?
Personally I think that technology is great. Of course that's just because I wouldn't be alive with it.
i know i was refering to the fact that some madmen give nuclear technology a bad name because they hold the desire to make a bomb out of it, it is this fear of being bombed that makes some people afraid of nuclear power stations.
I think the fear of nuclear power stations is related more to Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
I not as worried about people building nuclear weapons as I am about the people who already have them.i know i was refering to the fact that some madmen give nuclear technology a bad name because they hold the desire to make a bomb out of it, it is this fear of being bombed that makes some people afraid of nuclear power stations.
You're right wallaby, it is unfortunate that now new nuclear power plants have been built for some time because of public fear. It will take a lot of education to get people to accept fusion as a viable power source.
we'll push through no doubt.
| « Science and its numbers | the value and distortion of statistics » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
