Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues

I was watching a show on CNN called Planet In Peril which states, among other things, that by 2050, there will be 50% more people on earth than there now are and that the environmental impacts will be pronounced. They traveled to 13 countries and saw that species are disappearing at 1000 times the average. The show is obvious in its truthful reporting. The issues are complex.In this topic, I want to examine this and other aspects of dealing with the future on Earth for humanity.Our discussion can be quite broad.

what is the impact of religious fundamentalism on human awareness of the future on earth?

​

Is Global warming preventable? How will the relocation of coastal populations be able to be accomplished given the diminishing resources globally? Will humans be able to put aside our selfish and survivalist nature and cooperate, or will there be wars as a result of these massive changes?

​

Can humanity maintain the standards of living that we in the United States now take for granted?

​

What IF? What if there are other natural disasters...such as Yellowstone or a Pacific Coast Tsunami and/or Earthquake? Could we survive? If so, would it be worth it?

Taz....... Your humorous sarcasm quite amply demonstrates the actual way that a religious fundamentalist would think. However......
It appears that the End is not near. All this time, we have been waiting on GOD and as it turns out, He is waiting on us! Perhaps we have not passed our mission on earth yet. Perhaps we as a planet need to find a way to get along.I am no longer an End times believer. The way I see it, everyone dies anyway....so dealing with our individual mortality (or collective) is irrelevant. We need to do the best that we can do on a daily basis. Even IF Jesus is coming back, I think that it is our duty to try and get along with everyone on the planet first.I am what many would call a "typical selfish (and spoiled) American". I am used to a certain standard of living, and I consider it my right to have this standard until the day that I die. In order to do my best with the life I have, however, I need to learn to humble myself and realize that the only alternative to global war is going to involve a lot of compromise.It is harder for those of us who grew up with a lot to have to learn to live with less, but apparently that is the only solution that will work.

I realize that this is a coffee house and not a faith/belief thread per se, but I do feel that I need to address some of these issues. OK....but how do you know that your interpretation of Revelation is the only possible way that Revelation can be interpreted?I say this, Tal...because ironically, the seeming solution needed for the problems that are found globally is cooperation among nations rather than conflict. I say ironically because of your veiled reference to the Antichrist.

Whose fault is it that 1/3 of the water becomes bitter? (Assuming that is foreseeable?

​

Whose fault is it that 1/3 of the vegetation gets trashed?

​

Lets assume, for a moment, that world population does increase and that competition for resources becomes of global concern. You, being a soldier of the United States are forced to choose between national allegiance and surrender to God. Which will you choose?

So what is society to do? There have been extremists all throughout recorded history.I think that these types of issues need to be politically embraced and discussed by candidates. Global Warming is a bigger issue than social security only because if nothing is done to plan for the future, there will be no social security anyway.

I think if something that big hit us, it would pretty much wipe us out!

The issue is whether or not the storm can be prevented by our actions and behavior. The problem with fundamentalists is that they presuppose that their interpretations of the book must be the only possible scenario and thus become part of a Self-fulfilling prophecy.

My intention in this topic is to discuss the future strategy for survival for humanity and the competing philosophical and ideological world views espoused by various categories of people. Actually no...no we don't. What if the Lord tarries for another 200 years or so? After all, He never came back in the seven years after the year 2000! (Many many false prophets (profits) wrote many a book that has been shown to be WRONG.) From what I have read, critics of these belief systems point out that an individual or a group obsessed with the afterlife is going to behave in a manner much less likely to provide for future generations, since they don't plan that far ahead. But again....even assuming Jesus is coming back, what if He tarries for 200 more years? We gotta have a plan! The issue of keeping someone from being in a position of authority by virtue of their beliefs is a bit scary, however, and definitely not something a free country should do. Many folks would use the same "logic" to keep an avowed atheist from being president. Again, there is no reason to keep anyone from being in a position of authority apart from the voting process. Facts speak for themselves. The key is to find accurate facts. I read Dr. Paul Ehrlich's book thirty years ago and chalk him up in the same category as the Biblical doom sayers out to make a buck on a book. Certainly, Nemesis...but would you really want to be crammed into Texas with 100 million other people or would you rather take over Canada first...perhaps have a couple of acres to yourself? Perhaps, but does that mean that we should stop trying to find other solutions? I agree. It does not take a Rocket Scientist to see that we can't live the dream in the manner to which we have become accustomed. I mean...I'm all for optimism, but if global conditions make my lifestyle miserable, I don't know if my spirituality is strong enough for me to suck it up and live in Hi Rise buildings simply to make room for more poor disenfranchised masses. I would vote to take Canada instead. (Sorry, sidelined)

Are you saying that terrorism is insignificant in regards to a nuclear threat? I'm sure that some group somewhere with nothing to lose will get a nuclear weapon or two at some point. If they would run a plane into a building, they would not hesitate to use whatever they can get their hands on...(probably a dirty bomb, more likely)I don't ever foresee a nuclear holocaust, but the detonation of one bomb in one major population center within the next 25 years is a distinct possibility.Besides...once fuel costs get out of hand and the economy tanks, Joe American may approve of greater retaliation against whatever boogie man can be conjured up.

Actually, they have the same one they always had. Its called the dark survivalist side of human nature.A typical end of the world world view maintains that humans are incapable of rising above their petty preprogrammed survivalist mode into an altruistic we can all get along mentality.We like our comforts. We will send your kids to fight so that we may keep them.

And what are you doing? Do me a favor and quit making these long posts simply to prove a point. I want this topic to be about a progressive discussion of ideas rather than long posts that simply win a debate or argument.Since this is my thread, It would be a conflict of interest for me to suspend you...but I want you to get back on topic. Explain to me your views and opinions briefly....the objective here is to stimulate a conversation in a roundtable fashion with other EvC'ers rather than to lock horns with Molbio simply to prove some point regarding Foreign Policy and Nuclear Weapons.
**********************************
My Original Post, Again:
I was watching a show on CNN called Planet In Peril ... They traveled to 13 countries ...Global Warming was the topic.
I want to examine this and other aspects of dealing with the future on Earth for humanity. (But not limited to talking about Nuclear Weapons and Defense Systems...ok? )

what is the impact of religious fundamentalism on human awareness of the future on earth? (Both Christian and Islamic)

​

Is Global warming preventable? How will the relocation of coastal populations be able to be accomplished given the diminishing resources globally? Will humans be able to put aside our selfish and survivalist nature and cooperate, or will there be wars as a result of these massive changes? (Rodney King said it best: Can't we all just get along? ---Or not.

​

Can humanity maintain the standards of living that we in the United States now take for granted? If not, will those of us used to such comforts seek wars as a way out? What does it take to go to war?

​

What IF? What if there are other natural disasters...such as Yellowstone or a Pacific Coast Tsunami and/or Earthquake? Would we survive? If so, would it be worth it? Survival without comfort is no life.

OK.Molbio, I officially ask you and Obvious both to drop the nukes topic. Yes. Jar has a point. No crazies in office. But that is left up to the voters. And the idea of a nuke free world is not realistic. Once the genie is out of the box, it stays out.OK OKMy opinion on the nukes topic (before we end it) is that there is no way to guarantee a nuke free world.If we ban guns, only outlaws will have guns.

That was my thought as well! Perhaps the property a couple hundred miles back from the coast is a good investment right about now!