I could deal with the dog, shotguns and hammer but an ugly woman can scar you down to your very soul.

Especially when you wake up next to mine... err one.

It's no reason to ignore it.

Personally I'm pretty glad that my ancestors were in no position to have that kind of reasoning...

Earth has a disease called "Homo sapiens".
But as Mars recently said: "Don't worry, you'll get over it."

We are meanwhile nearing a CO level that has only existed once in earth's time, at the end of the Permian, to Triassic. The ecosystem took around 30 million years to recover back then. While we argue whether mankind has something to do with the current rise of CO levels or not, and telling those damned tree huggers to bugger off, the inanimate rocky ball of earth itself will not have a problem.

That species become extinct also happens without mankind helping, however the scope of plain killing high numbers of animals of all kinds done by mankind (not yet call it extinction, we might still find one or two bornean rhinoceroses somewhere, just not in numbers able to replicate in the future) has become enormous, which is especially true for insects in civilized countries. It is not only companies like Monsanto, but generally insecticides and defoliage chemicals used e.g. for potato crop has killed so many bees in Germany that we have to import them just to balance the fertilization of agricultural crop.

Regarding global warming and rising CO levels, or all those methanhydrate craters going off recently: whether it is human influence or the sun letting off more energy – you'd suppose maybe at least thinking a bit about it and planning, would be in order? Obviously not.

Earlier this year, the White House proposed slashing funding for the Science Advisory Board by 84 percent. It is not only the US of course, if you look at Russia, or China. Germany is not better, it just isn't big enough to have so much impact. But "we" also have no specialists anymore, all leaving or we just let the technology drop off, like e.g. with seismography. We invented it, made it high tech, and then we just let it being bought off or dropped it altogether.

Putting our heads in the sand and call it all fake news will of course solve the problem. Scientists are all leftist donkeyholes, standing in the way of commerce and financial progress anyway :O: :haha:


Seriously coming back to the op, earth's end as a rocky agglomeration of minerals will come when the sun develops into its red giant phase, most probably earth will then just have its atmosphere blown off, melt, and become a gas to be dispersed in space.

I, for one, am confident the world will not end before 31 January 2026. My belief is based on the date of the expiration of my Senior Citizen transit pass; when I got my first pass a few years ago, it was only valid for a year, which I took as a bad omen of their consideration of my longevity; the second pass was valid for an additional two years and I was grateful for their revised projection; now, the last renewal was for ten years, all the way til 1/31/2026, signifying the transit agency, a governmental entity, has high hopes for my continued existence; I look forward to seeing if they will deign to give me a further 'thumbs up' in 2026...

...then, again, I could be run over by one of their buses or hit by one of their trains...




<O>

LOL :)

LOL!!! I stopped and tried to figure out how you came by such an obscure date, then I read the rest.

As I mentioned, short of a pandemic or impact, the human race will continue on for a very long time. As to how well we do, that's another question. I understand where the science deniers are coming from, and knowing the sources of the misinformation are understandable.

But since I'm on a rant, I have to ask why the impetus is there for the average citizen to not want to protect the planet? It's a known fact, even from the oil companies, that petroleum access as we know it will run out by the end of the century. There will probably always be oil, but just getting to it will make it very very expensive. Making an effort to wean ourselves off oil as much as possible now is the only solution for the long term success of society.

And then, why wouldn't anybody want to leave the planet in better shape than it is now? Why not try to give future generations a better life?

Believers tend to look at the problem like Marx by identifying capitalism as a system of exploitation. Gives them the right to blame 'them' wether they be unbelievers, big oil, big pharma, big government, big toasters, whatever. They say we the wise and informed accuse you of destroying the plant and you must be stopped repent and believe! heheh

But I dont see it that way its not just capitalism, government or big corporations and unbelievers. It is we the consumer which includes even the zealous believer in climate change. Both the pious and unbeliever are prone to excessiveness, materialism, waste and a destructive drive to obtain. We cry over the Amazon but we always have handy someone else to blame. Because oh how we do love our steaks(deforestation for ranching) and of course we must have our technolgy like computers and internet to tell others how much we care, cell phones and precious metals (mining) and where would be without cheap fuels for our cars, boats, planes and heating (drilling).

"Trying to reduce environmental pollution without reducing consumerism is like combatting drug trafficking without reducing the drug addiction." - Dr. Jorge Majfu

and we all know how great the war on drugs is going

Those are just material things. They wouldn't be a problem if there weren't 7+ billion people (and climbing) needing them. No carbon tax scheme, green energy source or recycling program etc will ever overcome runaway population growth.

With the right social logistical efforts (read: Utopian world, see also: impossible), we have the resources available around the planet to overcome population growth for at least a few centuries. Eventually technology will allow us to expand our living spaces to include areas currently unsustainable / inhabitable. It'd just require the dissolution of all the worlds governments and forming of a collective world wide effort.


See also: Population density of Wyoming.

* When you read this, and I read this tomorrow, note I've had a few whiskys and it sounds great now*.

I know the true date and time of the end of the world because jim told me. If you want to know please post minimum of £35,000 and only then will you get the answer from jim. :03:


Send the £35,000 to..

Jim's curry house
Some where up north the land of flat caps
North of the boarder
England
United Kingdom

Flat caps? Is that like a Paddy Hat?

I could easily find a better way, than to throwing £35.000 out of the window.......Instead of giving them to Jim...I would give to Neal and Subsim.


Back to topic.

As mentioned When it comes to destruction of the Earth I don't know what comes first a huge planetoid or the Sun expand.

When it comes to Human, I have "invented" two phrases

Slow kill process
and
Fast kill process

Slow Kill process

The Slow kill process is what we are doing right now. We are slowly but certain on our way to erase Homo Sapiens from the Planet Tellus. Whether we will erase the human kind entirely or if some percentage will survive I can't say.

Fast kill process(killing about 60-70 % of the population in 24 hours)

Here I'm thinking of a global nuclear war

A super volcano erupting(can't find the correct word)

Then there is a mix of these two phrases

In a nuclear war about 70-85% would get killed in the first 12-24 hours and the rest would die slowly due to fallout and other things related to this nuclear Armageddon

Markus

Not sure. :hmmm:

Here's a link to amazon showing a good selection of colours and styles.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb...ords=+flat+cap

Not much point if the world blows up tonight. :03: