English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-08-06 19:05:48 · 8 answers · asked by Daniel C 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

8 answers

That and the threat of accidental nuclear holocaust...

2006-08-07 08:51:44 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

Nope It is our present eon's inability to come to terms with the environment. I find it interesting that so many people of the Christian faith are just salivating on the idea that Armeggeddon might occur in their lifetimes, and they're doing nothing to stop the horrors in the present world (horrors which are very similar to those horrors which occurred in the Roman times, also throughout history--where there have always been famines, wars, rumors of wars, killing of Christians, etc.). My money, Meggedo is an allegory of man's incompetence to stop wars because most want to be the big boy in the sandbox. Everyone hits harder and no one cries uncle until the nuclear bombs fall. Interestingly, when the Mongols ravaged Bagdad, about a million people (if I'm not mistaken) died. That certainly would be more deaths than in this apocalypse of Armeggeddon that people salivate over. Being ex-Christian and being Buddhist, I just hope that everyone can realize that their killing will only cause more killing, and more suffering and more suffering on all sides. Until someone relizes it, there will be no peace and no protecting the environment. However, I don't think it will be a singular war which causes man's extinction. It will most likely be 6 or 10 degrees warmer in average earth temperature which will probably do us in, destroy our agriculture, obliterate our cities, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be a world for any once and future king to rule for 1000 years or more. We could right now have a better world, but there is too much love for war and the hope for war to get peace.

2006-08-07 02:47:00 · answer #2 · answered by J. A 1 · 0 0

If it is, I'm going to get rich off armageddon selling all the cheap land I have been buying in mountainous regions.

_______________
libertarian_atheist, a microscopic few in the scientific community are disputing that global warming is occuring, and that there is a very clear relationship between it and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which are rising exponentially above what the earth, for the millions of years that can be accounted for, has ever seen.

The worst-case scenario is that the ocean will continue to rise and flood coastal cities. Which a) I don't see there being reasons against this case NOT happening, and b) we should still consider it even if it doesn't materialize (which gradually is happening, anyway)

It isn't armageddon, but it's still a huge problem. I don't see how you can address it without an international moratorium.

2006-08-07 02:12:14 · answer #3 · answered by -.- 6 · 0 0

No, not even the worst-case scenarios (credible ones, anyway) have the human race anywhere near armageddon.

You sure wouldn't know it from listening to the radical enviros & Chicken Littles though--but then again, that's what they want. The radical enviros would like to scare people into adopting their political & economic doctrines, which basically involve extreme socialism, economic regression, and whining about Bush and Evil Corporations™.

They are aided in their mission by the Chicken Littles, whose favorite hobby is teeth-gnashing. Chicken Littles enjoy hyperventilating about worst-case scenarios, even if they are totally ignorant of the subject and the worst-case scenario is completely made up. Chicken Littles will then, after repeating the worst-case scenario only a few times, become convinced that the worst-case scenario is, in fact, the MOST LIKELY scenario, and will henceforth try to convince others of this by speaking ONLY of the worst-case scenario and forgetting that any other scenarios even exist.

Then it's only a matter of time before you get people who know little about global warming (other than that it's Bush's Fault™) wailing about how global warming IS the end of the world and that the horribly painful extinction of mankind (who is a cancer upon poor defenseless Mother Earth anyway) is imminent.

2006-08-07 03:41:27 · answer #4 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 0 0

At the moment the global warming is not as serious as an armageddon. Sure, it takes many lives and makes life much harder, but we won't extinct, unless it speeds up somehow and creates a Venus out of Earth.

2006-08-07 02:29:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Maybe, but it could also be that when our lousy American gov't is finally proven to be guilty of orchestrating the 911 attacks to wage a war and get away with tons of atrocities in the name of profit, that our gov't will fall and ensue mass chaos and there are already tons of wars right now, so maybe we could have another civil war, or maybe it will take other nations attacking us to overthrow our dictatorship. Maybe it will happen by nuclear annihilation. If not, then probably the global warming thing, because god knows people aren't taking it seriously or even believe it is happening. But thats just me being all cheery today. good luck

2006-08-07 03:06:56 · answer #6 · answered by Theavatar 2 · 0 0

Sometimes if you think something is going to happen it will. That's probably the only connection between biblical armageddon and what's happening now.

The biblical armageddon is a superstition. Global warming may be real.

2006-08-07 02:15:11 · answer #7 · answered by artquoteseeker 2 · 0 0

No, only in Al Gore's head.

2006-08-07 04:29:42 · answer #8 · answered by Leesa 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers