salvatori. wrote:

And yest again, my simply questioning something causes others to claim I am eliciting drama.

Done with all of you.

ciao

Kevin Connery wrote:
Perhaps because every suggestion/opinion provided here was implicitly disagreed with by everyone who proposed a different answer, and the difference between implicit and explicit can be very small.

One can certainly choose to take offense at their opinion being disagreed with, but it's kind of senseless unless one enjoys causing drama.

salvatori. wrote:
And yest again, my simply questioning something causes others to claim I am eliciting drama.

Done with all of you.

I don't think he was saying you are eliciting drama. He just left that possibility open. I don't see a problem with that as you're the only one who knows your true intentions.

I always thought the forums were about discussion ... agree on some things, disagree on others and to varying degrees either way. Since we know this is going to happen, it's "senseless" to be offended just because someone disagrees with something we've said.

You're free to be however you so choose, though.

salvatori. wrote:

Well, here's the deal. If I try to push my point of view, it will be too controversial for the thread. However, everyone can talk of man, machine, etc., destroying humanity and it's just fine.

My thoughts are these: Humanity certainly has the technical ability to kill en masse, however, I don't think the destruction would get far enough to wipe out the entire species (too many rich people out there - they would stop it right after all us poor folks were gone). Which of course, starts the social stratification all over again, but that's another thread...

And I know nuclear, biological, or another type of war won't discriminate, but, IMHO, there will be a time when the leaders yell 'enough!' and the bombs will stop. The lucky survivors will be in underground bunkers, so humanity will live on in a compromised, bumble-fucked way.

*I understand that my argument can certainly be nit-picked apart, but I'm just trying to make the simple point that I don't think we have the ability to completely destroy ourselves, the same way no one has the ability to completely destroy the planet - just the fragile outer skin, which will regenerate afterwards.

What you're missing, even for those few folks that might survive a nuclear bombardment, the nuclear winter that will follow will stop photosynthesis for a LONG time. It will drastically alter the climate for a long time. No plant life equals no animal life, which in turn equals no humans. Everything will freeze or starve to death in short order.

DEP E510 wrote:
Nuclear war.

Not to get on soapbox, but it seems nuclear war is more likely now than any time since the 60's.

I agree.

To quote a phrase: 'That long black cloud is a comin' down." ~ Bob Dylan

Cherrystone wrote:
What you're missing, even for those few folks that might survive a nuclear bombardment, the nuclear winter that will follow will stop photosynthesis for a LONG time. It will drastically alter the climate for a long time. No plant life equals no animal life, which in turn equals no humans. Everything will freeze or starve to death in short order.

Don't think so. Hiroshima is lived in today. So is Nagasaki. Bikini flourishes. A huge number of nuclear devices have been detonated on Earth to date (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY ) and yet they haven't been claimed to be responsible for massive climate change (or any climate change).

There are lots of theories, but the reality is that they are just that. Theories. The actual evidence doesn't support the idea that a long-term change that is unsustainable of human life will happen. Short-term change that makes survival very difficult? A year? Two? Ten? Very possible. But there is no reason to believe that such change will exterminate a race as hardy as Homo Sapiens are.

The claim that photosynthesis will stop is just fear-mongering.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Scientist recreates insanely dangerous flu virus for reasons that remain kind of unclear
http://news360.com/article/243527562/#/web/

"The new strain is "only 3 percent different" from the 1918 Spanish flu, which killed 50 million people"

WTF???

Click Hamilton wrote:
Scientist recreates insanely dangerous flu virus for reasons that remain kind of unclear
http://news360.com/article/243527562/#/web/

"The new strain is "only 3 percent different" from the 1918 Spanish flu, which killed 50 million people"



Can I get a "WTF"?

Why The Hell would you do that?

On the other hand studying these viruses is a good thing. That's how we learn more about them.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

Why The Hell would you do that?

On the other hand studying these viruses is a good thing. That's how we learn more about them.

A Brief, Terrifying History of Viruses Escaping From Labs
http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog … ories.html

"Opponents, however, warn in a variety of recent research papers that the risk of laboratory escape of these high-consequence pathogens far outweighs any potential advance."

Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
Please remember that the Soapbox Forum is closed when responding to this post.

Are we still allowed to say fuck you to the forum censor? If we are
then fuck you.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
Why The Hell would you do that?

It wasn't me!

Eugenya wrote:
I think it will be when the Earth is swallowed up by the Sun, billions of years from now.


Or, it will be caused somehow by Assholes.  Assholes always ruin everything.  Maybe the Earth will be swallowed up by a giant Asshole...

The way that human civilization is going at this point, I think that your Giant Asshole Theory has a lot of merit.