- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 10,532
Y2K actually had some foundation, however crappy it was.
Nah, more like the Krogan homeworld.We need to find ourselves some Prothean technology or else we'll end up like the Drell: Hanar's buttslaves!
(tag: Mass Effect)
99% of all the different species that have lived are EXTINCT. Not the sign of a good planet to live on imho.
Uh, weren't most of these causes either climate change or influence from space?
I'd say humans are quite adaptable to these situations.
If a large meteor crashes into Earth, I think we'd have a hard time adapting. We can't handle natural disasters well, why should we be better off versus space? Oh and as for whether or not we easily adapt to climate change - I've got one title for you, Global Warming.
This shit is just another stuff to keep the media alive with, just like the bird/swine flu or the global warming hype.
It'll be more and more enhanced and actual as 2012 approaches, then suddenly the calendar switches to 2013 and people will find some other bullshit to drama about.
Humans not adaptable? There are humans all across the world that live in extremely different climates.
We're wearing clothes. Without them most of us would freeze to death. We also need medications for all kinds of crap, and whenever we take a flight to another continent we need vaccines so we don't die from foreign diseases (but many still die). We can survive increase in heat, but the world can't, so we'll die anyway, and volcanoes, earthquakes, diseases, lightning, etc, will kill us too.
We're wearing clothes. Without them most of us would freeze to death. We also need medications for all kinds of crap, and whenever we take a flight to another continent we need vaccines so we don't die from foreign diseases (but many still die). We can survive increase in heat, but the world can't, so we'll die anyway, and volcanoes, earthquakes, diseases, lightning, etc, will kill us too.
We are meant to adapt, its what is unique about human beings. I mean sure we may have to rely on clothes and medicine and stuff to function but theres nothing wrong with that. It simply means we are at a level where we could adapt to most circumstances, sudden or in the future. THat is not to say a large amount of people wouldn't die but I doubt we could not find a way to survive. As this relates to 2012 I am not sure because I don't think the WORLD will end. If anything, a natural disaster or otherwise we as a species will survive maybe not a lot but we could/can do it.
Well your kinda missing something with the whole without cloths we'd die. How many other species wear cloths (other then small dogs with spoiled girls)? How many other species develop medication specifically made to alleviate the specific illness you have?
Sure, Humans as animals running on nothing more then instinct wouldn't do too well with adapting - on the other hand, when humans start finding other ways to adapt other then natural selection (we limit this on ourselves as much as we can possibly can) they do pretty well.
What I mean is that we rely on clothes and medicine to survive. Humans as a species isn't really adaptable. We need vaccines before we can fly away to somewhere else. Dogs and cats are waaayy more adaptable. Humans are one of the least adaptable species and we got a really bad immune system. Monkeys are physically more advanced than us. The only thing we have is a slightly more advanced brain. The only places we actually could survive (without houses and clothes) is in Africa, some parts of Asia and some parts of USA, and even there we would be killed, not all, but many.
People are just waiting for the world to end
When people see that the world doesn't end in 2012, they'll just push the year back something like 10 or 12 years and declare a new doomsday.
I'm sure the media will make it their effort to show how foolish these people are when its all said and done, a hype this large definitely deserves some ridicule.
true. but I think people would become paranoid when the date 21.12.2012 is coming near.
But still - your missing a huge point. If Humans just suddenly said "screw all this progress we made with cloths, medicine and technology" that would be valid. Humans are incredibly adaptable because they make up for physical ineptitude with other things like technology.
The human body is not adaptable. We wouldn't survive without clothes. We're cheating on nature in a way. Normally we wouldn't survive everywhere on the Earth.
The human body is not adaptable. We wouldn't survive without clothes. We're cheating on nature in a way. Normally we wouldn't survive everywhere on the Earth.
Now lately everyone's been hearing more and more about 2012 being the year that the world ends via cataclysmic disasters worldwide, alignment of the planets causing some razzmatazz on Earth, or some other event of equal impact.
This thread is now about conspiracies/apocalypses/mass hysteria in general.
Go.
Statistic is highly misleading. Maybe we're the lucky one because that statistic isn't 100%. Forgetting the past, how many species are alive today?It could happen that the Earth kills us before we can kill it though. 99% of all the different species that have lived are EXTINCT. Not the sign of a good planet to live on imho.
Yeah, I don't see it. Did the cyclic climate changes of the past also carry mass extinctions with them?We can survive increase in heat, but the world can't, so we'll die anyway, and volcanoes, earthquakes, diseases, lightning, etc, will kill us too.
Not at all. We rely on clothes and medicine to stay in our comfort zone. Yes, there are millions that need medication, but there are billions more that do not.What I mean is that we rely on clothes and medicine to survive.
Speak for yourself. If you'd been drinking raw milk all your life instead of the "safe" stuff you buy in plastic, you wouldn't have had a problem with the e-coli in the latest batch. The people that have been drinking it all their lives didn't get sick. WHAT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE?Humans are one of the least adaptable species and we got a really bad immune system.
If it doesn't kill us all, we have survived. You can go ahead and kill 99.99999% of all species that ever lived on Earth. All we need is that "insignificant" fraction that lives.We would be killed, not all, but many.
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
am I doing it right
I really hate to break this to you guys, but you are going to die regardless.
Fairly many, but still 99% are gone. It's just a matter of time before another natural disaster wipes us out.Statistic is highly misleading. Maybe we're the lucky one because that statistic isn't 100%. Forgetting the past, how many species are alive today?
Surely will isn't enough. You must be good to adapt to changes in climate, you must be able to survive even the harshest environments and above all, be able to hide from predators which try to kill you. This is all part of the natural "survival of the fittest", which we humans, have neatly escaped by building houses and using clothes which "removes" a few of our too many flaws.Life returns to heavily radiated areas faster than we predict. Where there is a will, there is a way, and with an entire ecosystem with a will to survive... It does.
Yes, climate changes triggered several volcanic eruptions which filled the atmosphere with dust, smoke and gases and rapidly caused an ice age which lasted a long time. It went so fast that many animals and plants were "saved", meaning their bodies remained perfectly intact and they were frozen alive. It didn't go from warm to cold over many years, but over a matter of minutes (Source: National Geographic Channel). This is only one of the many disasters that have killed many animals.Yeah, I don't see it. Did the cyclic climate changes of the past also carry mass extinctions with them?
It has happened before, but not this fast. Because of our huge emissions of methane, CO2, and other gases have set in motion something that shouldn't happen yet. The volcanic eruption on Iceland was caused by increase in heat (Sources: National Geographic Channel and NRK (A Norwegian channel)).Sure, I accept that we might be causing a record heat surge, that has never happened before. If it has never happened before, then we cannot possibly know what will happen. "Everything is gonna die," doesn't sound all that plausible a hypothesis.
Many don't need medication, but most people get vaccinated. I didn't get it though. It's our clothes and houses that really make the difference. Trust me, you wouldn't survive in Norway at winter time without clothes or a house, probably not even summer because it rains a lot and it's not warm all the time during summer. The only places we can survive without clothes and houses are in Africa and other places which are very warm.Not at all. We rely on clothes and medicine to stay in our comfort zone. Yes, there are millions that need medication, but there are billions more that do not.
We do have a really bad immune system. Sure, we can make it better by being exposed to diseases, but many animals have an immune system which already is good. Cats, for example, can stick their noses in all kind of shit and don't get sick, if we try the same we'll be stuck in bed for a week, maybe longer. And even if we do get exposed to diseases and drink milk straight from the cow for many years, we are still more prone to becoming sick.Speak for yourself. If you'd been drinking raw milk all your life instead of the "safe" stuff you buy in plastic, you wouldn't have had a problem with the e-coli in the latest batch. The people that have been drinking it all their lives didn't get sick. WHAT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE?
And how does government react? NO MORE RAW MILK. Yeah, let's make everyone have a sissy immune system.
People need to realize that getting sick is what keeps you alive.
My point is we wouldn't be nearly as many, and we wouldn't be spread out all over the world. We would be in certain areas only. We would also be a part of "natural selection", we are somewhat part of it, but not in the same way (some people are immune to aids. Again my sources are National Geographic Channel and NRK).If it doesn't kill us all, we have survived. You can go ahead and kill 99.99999% of all species that ever lived on Earth. All we need is that "insignificant" fraction that lives.
How old are crocodiles as a species? Rats? Roaches?Fairly many, but still 99% are gone. It's just a matter of time before another natural disaster wipes us out.
Not in the tropics. Even so, we have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. It's nothing new.You must be good to adapt to changes in climate.
Not really true of any species. Many many species would die in the harshest of environments. That life exists at all at the poles or at the bottom of the ocean is a testament to just how much will life has to live.You must be able to survive even the harshest environments.
We are the most dangerous game. Sure, the average person might have trouble taking down an elephant for the first time, but most of us could get a bear if we really tried.Be able to hide from predators which try to kill you.
I don't think that is physically possible. It's usually the exact opposite: Massive volcanic eruptions such as yellowstone release such a great amount of material into the upper atmosphere that it circles the globe and changes climate:Yes, climate changes triggered several volcanic eruptions.
There exists the hypothesis that the global cycles of hot and cold climates are actually an effect of the sun being more or less hot.Which filled the atmosphere with dust, smoke and gases and rapidly caused an ice age.
That can only be a localized phenomenon. It's possible that extremely severe weather might invoke feezing rain for long enough to have this effect, but it would take extreme order to cause this to happen to a hemisphere all at once.It went so fast that many animals and plants were "saved", meaning their bodies remained perfectly intact and they were frozen alive.
You can't just source the entire channel. What program specifically?Source: National Geographic Channel.
In the mantle, sure. Isn't Iceland right on top of a divergent fault line? It's basically a constant eruption. Saying that anything else is a definitive cause is kinda stretching the ability of researchers.The volcanic eruption on Iceland was caused by increase in heat.
That is the only way to make it better. So why don't we do this?We can make it better by being exposed to diseases.
As far as I know, babies receive antibodies from their mother via her milk. Though I have not investigated early immunobiology extensively, this does seem to provide valuable insight.Many animals have an immune system which already is good.
Kittens may be able to because they acquire the antibodies from their mother, and then they build them themselves from doing so. If we wanted to stick our noses in all kinds of shit we would likely have the same immunities.Cats, for example, can stick their noses in all kind of shit and don't get sick, if we try the same we'll be stuck in bed for a week, maybe longer.
Than a cat? Maybe. Keep in mind that there are ailments that affect cats and dogs and other animals that do not affect humans. You'd really have to ask a vetrinarian if you want a less biased picture of immunity. Humans arguably care/know more about human diseases than for any other organism.And even if we do get exposed to diseases and drink milk straight from the cow for many years, we are still more prone to becoming sick.
Of course.My point is we wouldn't be nearly as many.
I wouldn't go that far. You really can't underestimate life.We wouldn't be spread out all over the world. We would be in certain areas only.
Then who should we be breeding?Some people are immune to aids.
I would love to abandon house, clothes and everything my life is about for a completely natural life. Hell, I'd do it right now, except civilization tends to get in the way.
I'd probably be dead within a month, but at least I'd die happy.
you guys sit around and research things like this?
pretty emo
Some animals survive, sure, but that doesn't disprove that 99% of all animals are extinct.How old are crocodiles as a species? Rats? Roaches?
There are lots of species that survive an apocalypse. Some even survive multiple ones.
By using clothes and houses and ovens and fireplaces etc. The human body could only survive on hot areas. Normally (that would be if we have lived like animals) we wouldn't be spread out all over the world.Not in the tropics. Even so, we have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. It's nothing new.
Some animals have learned to live there through evolution and "survival of the fittest", we can only live in such places by using something to protect us, f.ex u-boats.Not really true of any species. Many many species would die in the harshest of environments. That life exists at all at the poles or at the bottom of the ocean is a testament to just how much will life has to live.
We would need weapons to take down elephants and last time I checked we don't have any kinds of naturally occurring weapons like claws or sharp teeth. We're not predators. There are many animals who could easily kill us if we had encountered them without guns or other weapons. Not too many years ago a dog called "Odin" killed several people and they had to put it down (with guns). He was, btw, over 2 meters tall when he stood on his feet.We are the most dangerous game. Sure, the average person might have trouble taking down an elephant for the first time, but most of us could get a bear if we really tried.
I don't think that is physically possible. It's usually the exact opposite: Massive volcanic eruptions such as yellowstone release such a great amount of material into the upper atmosphere that it circles the globe and changes climate:
That ice age I talked about was caused by all the dust and gases in the atmosphere.There exists the hypothesis that the global cycles of hot and cold climates are actually an effect of the sun being more or less hot.
It happened over the whole Earth and there wasn't any freezing rain involved.That can only be a localized phenomenon. It's possible that extremely severe weather might invoke feezing rain for long enough to have this effect, but it would take extreme order to cause this to happen to a hemisphere all at once.
Ash didn't cause it. They found ash in a few layers (this is in the ice) above the frozen animals and plants (ash that had fallen down from the atmosphere after the ice age had occured). Oh, I almost forgot, the reason it seemed like it had frozen rapidly was that one of the animals they found there was eating of a bush. If it had frozen slowly that animal surely would have escaped and not just stood still thinking "my frozen body would look really awesome when someone finds me".Pyroclastic flows on the other hand can "freeze" the entire countryside under a massive layer ash.
It was one of those special programs which only show up for a few days and then they're gone. It was actually a 2012 documentary. They also talked to real Mayans about the Mayan calendar and shit. And since this is "The End of the World" thread I guess I could just say a few things about this. According to these Mayans (and tons of drawings and figures they found on some pyramids) the whole calendar ending thing is because it's the end of "cycle 6". Yes, we are in "cycle 6" now, and according to the Mayans each cycle ends with a huge natural disaster which wipes out most of the animals. That ice age I talked about was the end of "cycle 5"You can't just source the entire channel. What program specifically?
In the mantle, sure. Isn't Iceland right on top of a divergent fault line? It's basically a constant eruption. Saying that anything else is a definitive cause is kinda stretching the ability of researchers.
The_Reborn_Devil said:Well, according to experts the volcanic eruption on Iceland was a result of increase in global temperatures.
Because people are stupid and there is a risk of dying?That is the only way to make it better. So why don't we do this?
I'm not an immunologist, but it doesn't seem like babies get much antibodies from their moms when it comes to us humans. Babies still get (many) diseases their mothers are immune against.As far as I know, babies receive antibodies from their mother via her milk. Though I have not investigated early immunobiology extensively, this does seem to provide valuable insight.
Kittens may be able to because they acquire the antibodies from their mother, and then they build them themselves from doing so. If we wanted to stick our noses in all kinds of shit we would likely have the same immunities.
If we want to be immune to something, there is only one way.
The_Reborn_Devil said:I'm not an immunologist, but it doesn't seem like babies get antibodies from their mom when it comes to us humans. Babies still get (many) diseases their mother is immune against.
And we also care enough about our cats/dogs to notice when they're sick. Also, cats rarely get any lethal diseases, but for us humans there are more lethal diseases than we could fathom. If we just step outside we have a high risk of getting skin cancer, and if we don't go outside we get other diseases as a result of not being out in the sun (xD).Than a cat? Maybe. Keep in mind that there are ailments that affect cats and dogs and other animals that do not affect humans. You'd really have to ask a vetrinarian if you want a less biased picture of immunity. Humans arguably care/know more about human diseases than for any other organism.![]()
In a few thousands (or hundreds of thousands) years we will probably have different kinds of humans, some with hair over their body who can survive in the North, and some without who can survive where it's hot. As of right now we need clothes and houses.I wouldn't go that far. You really can't underestimate life.
Obviously those who get those immunities, or else the whole "survival of the fittest" thing failsThen who should we be breeding?![]()