a reply to: Zanti Misfit
We actually had worse situations with those 75-100 years ago, though. Western powers used chemical and biological weapons extensively in WW1. And
after that, Churchill bragged about using chemical weapons on "savage" tribes. And don't forget that WW1 alone had more than 18 million deaths not
counting the flu pandemic that I already talked about. Things have gotten better with those, not worse.
We had worse situations with those 50-70 years ago, though. Or are you forgetting that we actually used them twice (on record) against Japan back in
the 1940s? There were also incidences like the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is far worse than anything we have right now.
And then there was the Cold War's nuclear arms race that saw nuclear powers constantly detonating nukes in the oceans, in the atmosphere, and on
various territories around the world. The US & New Zealand even had plans for a "tsunami bomb" what consisted of multiple underwater nuclear
explosions off a coast in hopes that it would create a tsunami. So once again, things have gotten better with that, not worse.
Meteor or Comet Impact
Come on, now. How is the potential threat of a comet or meteor impact any worse now than at any other time in human history? We've never had a weapon
or system to deflect or stop them before and we still don't. In other words, that situation is no worse than it ever was.
If anything, humankind's chances of surviving a devastating impact have increased
because we actually have the technology to leave the planet
now (as well as technology to spot the impending doom coming from far away). So in the worst case scenario of a guaranteed Earth shattering impact,
humankind could still survive by sending some people into space. How many we could send and how long they'd survive is up for debate, but it's still
an improvement over what humans have previously been able to accomplish.
LOL This is no different than the "meteor or comet" impact scenario. Assuming that a "pole shift" was going to cause some kind of massive human
extinction, it's still the same situation we've always been in. Humans have never had the power to control the Earth's poles or magnetic field, so
nothing's gotten worse there, either. And once again, assuming that one were actually going to happen and assuming that it would lead to human
extinction, we now have the technology to measure it and prepare for it
. So that would mean that things are getting better in that regard, not
you get the Idea Now ?
Nope. All you did is name a bunch of things that scare you. I thought you would've mentioned something like increased global water needs,
deforestation, the man-made loss of many varieties of vegetation due to factory farms, etc. I still would've countered those, though lol.