End of the World

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But don't you think of those things in the same category as 'shadow people' or the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot or vampires or any number of other things some people claim exist but which cannot be scientifically verified? None of these are seen as a threat to all life on Earth at least in the same sense as a giant asteroid impacting Earth or the planet being drawn into the sun.
Check out the radio audience response to the first radio broadcast of War Of The Worlds and then tell me "None of these are seen as a threat to all life on Earth".
Quote:
Orson Welles' famous radio adaptation of H. G. Wells' classic novel The War of the Worlds was performed by Mercury Theatre on the Air as a Halloween special on October 30, 1938. The live broadcast frightened many listeners into believing that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. Although it is sometimes stated that there were many disclaimers pointing out the fictionality of the invasion, there was only one disclaimer at the start of the broadcast, and then two close together near the end, leaving ample time in the middle for confusion and fright on the part of listeners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)

Well yes, and there are also real terrifying things on a large scale such as threat of a nuclear showdown or the possibility that the ice caps could melt or some insiduous highly contagious mutant disease could get loose. And there are those who think alien abductions are a threat and that Bigfoot has killed and Nessie takes a victim or two now and then. But seeing something as a threat--which certain things qualify even now--and seeing something as a threat that could 'end the world' are two different things.

As far as a supernatural end to the world, I think the true believers don't necessarily view that as a 'threat' as much as a predicted conclusion. I think they would face it with more anticipation and curiosity than dread while the idea of say that enormous asteroid actually bearing down on Earth would be terrifying.

0 Replies

Re: End of the World

EpiNirvana wrote:

Do you think the world will end? What does your religion or lack there of, say about this? Is this a good rebirth of mankind or a terrible destruction of our race?

We are either going to:

1) Destroy the Earth's resources in the near future

2) Colonise other planets and then get destroyed by another species of life form

3) Die by AI (hey it rhymes!)

4) Expand at an exponential rate and reach a technological event horizon

5) Any combinatation of 1, 2 and 3 except just surviving at the end of all events but the last one

6) Any combination of 1, 2 and 3 (surviving each one) and then 4

0 Replies

This topic fascinates me (if it is minus supernatural).

0 Replies

I voted no.... just that being old, I thought my vote would save the world!!

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

This topic fascinates me (if it is minus supernatural).

I agree!

0 Replies

Well, the topic is posted in "Spirituality & Religion" and the poll offers a supernatural option. I posed a question earlier that went something like:

"What would it take to convince nonbelievers that the destruction of the world was by supernatural rather than by natural means?" You have millions of people who believe in a supernatural being with the power to destroy what (he/she/it) has created.

So far nobody has taken up the gauntlet on that one.

A second question that remains unanswered is whether obliteration of all life on Earth would qualify as destruction of the world or does the physical planet itself have to be destroyed?

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

This topic fascinates me (if it is minus supernatural).

I immediately suspected the motives of the author because this thread appears in S & R, and i therefore suspected that it has everything to do with allegations of the supernatural. The responses so far convince me that a great many people immediately think "supernatural," "end of days." Fox is a christian fanatic, and Raul is a muslim fanatic.

That's why i asked two questions of the author--which were not answered.

What is meant in the titular question by "world," and what is meant by "end?"

Without answers to those questions, it is not possible (for me at least) to reasonably answer the titular question.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

"What would it take to convince nonbelievers that the destruction of the world was by supernatural rather than by natural means?" You have millions of people who believe in a supernatural being with the power to destroy what (he/she/it) has created.

So far nobody has taken up the gauntlet on that one.

A second question that remains unanswered is whether obliteration of all life on Earth would qualify as destruction of the world or does the physical planet itself have to be destroyed?

As to your 1st point, let me know when you discover how belief is relevant to evidence, let me know what you mean by "nonbelievers" & "supernatural being". Does a super powerful jellybean count as a "supernatural being"? Is my dog a "nonbeliever"? As to your 2nd point the earth must (of course) be totally vaporized, that's the most fun.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
"What would it take to convince nonbelievers that the destruction of the world was by supernatural rather than by natural means?" You have millions of people who believe in a supernatural being with the power to destroy what (he/she/it) has created.

So far nobody has taken up the gauntlet on that one.

A second question that remains unanswered is whether obliteration of all life on Earth would qualify as destruction of the world or does the physical planet itself have to be destroyed?
As to your 1st point, let me know when you discover how belief is relevant to evidence, let me know what you mean by "nonbelievers" & "supernatural being". Does a super powerful jellybean count as a "supernatural being"? Is my dog a "nonbeliever"? As to your 2nd point the earth must (of course) be totally vaporized, that's the most fun.

I dunno. Can your jelly bean part the Red Sea or even walk on water? And how smart is your dog anyway?

0 Replies

Whether or not the world will end by supernatural powers is based purely on one's belief. To change that would take a lot. It's circular. It would be pointless arguing the supernatural aspect.

But if we subtract that from the equation, we suddenly have a world of options. Discussing which one is most likely, is possible and interesting. Maybe someone should start a thread for that topic.

0 Replies

Fox fyre invokes the science from "Armegeddon", I beleive Billy Bob THornton played in that movie?

Quote:

A second question that remains unanswered is whether obliteration of all life on Earth would qualify as destruction of the world or does the physical planet itself have to be destroyed?

when the sun blows out well have that situation. Im gonna vote that "yes" world is over, big chunk of really cold rock begins

0 Replies

But what if those supernatural or even natural occurences cause the world to blow up into tiny fragments of superheated temperatures (due to the molten core of the Earth)? Then, it is neither a huge chunk nor cold.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Fox fyre invokes the science from "Armegeddon", I beleive Billy Bob THornton played in that movie?
Quote:
A second question that remains unanswered is whether obliteration of all life on Earth would qualify as destruction of the world or does the physical planet itself have to be destroyed?
when the sun blows out well have that situation. Im gonna vote that "yes" world is over, big chunk of really cold rock begins

Yes, Billy Bob was the NASA chief who organized the rescue mission. And Bruce Willis headed the deep core drilling crew who planted a nuclear bomb in the middle of the asteriod to split it from within. I wish they had focused more on that aspect of it instead of spoiling the movie with excessive (and confusing) special effects.

I love 'end of the world' kinds of plots though and like to think the solutions they come up with to save the world are not totally outside actual possibilities.

(I also tend to think that when all life as we know it has been destroyed, then the 'world' no longer exists.) Of course there may be other worlds with other life elsewhere, so......

0 Replies

sturgis. Itll probably be a cold dark hunk of rock with a molten core. Think about it, the ice caps exist even now. maybe wed have a planet with a frozen water mass, The ocean levels would actually rise because water expands as it freezes, so wed be like one of the moons of Saturn. Maybe we could live under the sea in the unfrozen part of ocean.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I dunno. Can your jelly bean part the Red Sea or even walk on water? And how smart is your dog anyway?

I'm tickled to see you have a sense of humor about the whole thing, as when all is said and done, I sometimes feel it's one of the few redeeming qualities that can be shared unequivocally.

0 Replies

End of the World

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know