A sense of forboding...

[Ennui]

This is a little weird, but I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do about it, so I'll venture to post:

I have a very real, unshakeable feeling that a major world event (major as in paradigm shift) will happen relatively soon, in the next 5-25 years. I don't know what it will be - anything from an apocalyptic superplague or meteor hitting the Earth to just some big war or some sort of non-damning cataclysmic event - but I do feel strongly that I am right in asserting that it will happen.

I personally plan on surviving it if at all possible.

Does anyone else feel this way?

 

[SimonomiS]

2012...

 

[Ennui]

lol I don't think it'll be 2012 but I'd be amused in a way if it was... and I plan on being in my house on Dec 21st 2012 just in case.

 

[repiV]

With the amount of insane lunatics with relatively easy access to nuclear weapons posing a threat or potential threat to us, and the potential for unstoppable mass destruction by setting off a bioweapon in a major population centre, it's only a matter of time.

 

[Irksome]

I don't get that feeling at all. I know I /facepalm a lot when I read the news, but I never get the feeling that the end is near or that something big is coming down the pike.

PS: If you do plan on surviving, start learning some fundamental skills now like:
Hunting, Growing/Preparing food, starting a fire, cleaning water, CPR, building a shelter, basics of disease prevention, and so on. Also being a level 70 Druid helps too.

 

[Eejit]

Famine.

 

[Ennui]

I don't get that feeling at all. I know I /facepalm a lot when I read the news, but I never get the feeling that the end is near or that something big is coming down the pike.

PS: If you do plan on surviving, start learning some fundamental skills now like hunting, preparing and growing food, cleaning water, CPR, etc.

edit: Starting a fire, building a shelter, basic disease control and prevention (burning corpses, quarentining people and animals), that sort of thing.

I'm not sure it's really something apocalyptic, just... massive. Although some of my friends disagree and predict impending doom.

I have plenty of camping gear, knowledge of how to use it, loads of experience in the backcountry and whatnot.

If it's a plague honestly I'm not going to even try that hard to get away from it, some things you can't run from and a supervirus is one of them.

 

[Asknoone]

I don't feel that way in the least. Pretty sure nothing so massive will happen.

 

[CptStern]

there will be a mass exodus after religion is banned on pain of death and the faithful are sent off to Monster Island for a final battle for religious supremacy, the victors will be subsequently machine gunned to prevent future outbreaks of religiousity

 

[repiV]

I don't feel that way in the least. Pretty sure nothing so massive will happen.

Hopefully not, but noone seems to appreciate the dangers that modern and upcoming technology presents. We're in a position where a handful of people could theoretically bring the entire Western world to its knees. It will only get worse as portable WMD become more accessible and then when nanotechnology allows a single person to create a virus that wipes out the population of a whole country. Imagine if wasn't standard bombs they set off on the London Underground, but nuclear devices.

Military force as we generally understand it can not possibly protect against these threats. Strong as we are, we're completely vulnerable to this kind of attack.
And while it's rather unlikely to happen, it's a bit like a motorcycle accident - it only has to happen once to result in total disaster, and it's all too easy to let it happen. A single nuclear bomb detonated in London would bring the entire world economy to the brink of collapse.

 

[CptStern]

yes but time and again it's proven to be low tech solutions ..I mean who knew a handful of guys armed with box cutters would bring the US to it's knees? labs/money/technology/the minds neccessary to develop these things arent so easy to come by, ESPECIALY if you spend most of your time ferreted away because the authorities areare looking for you

 

[MiccyNarc]

This is a little weird, but I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do about it, so I'll venture to post:

I have a very real, unshakeable feeling that a major world event (major as in paradigm shift) will happen relatively soon, in the next 5-25 years. I don't know what it will be - anything from an apocalyptic superplague or meteor hitting the Earth to just some big war or some sort of non-damning cataclysmic event - but I do feel strongly that I am right in asserting that it will happen.

I personally plan on surviving it if at all possible.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Well we have:
Peak Oil
Global Warming
Superpowers getting ready to kill each other (Russia, China, US)
Terrorists with access to Nuclear weapons
And the possibility of an attack on Iran which would set off number 3 on this list

 

[repiV]

yes but time and again it's proven to be low tech solutions ..I mean who knew a handful of guys armed with box cutters would bring the US to it's knees? labs/money/technology/the minds neccessary to develop these things arent so easy to come by, ESPECIALY if you spend most of your time ferreted away because the authorities areare looking for you

Yeah, but like I said, it only has to happen once. ONCE. Considering that even a single oversight could be fatal to the world as we know it, why are we so lax about the situation?
The sheer destructive power of a modern military force is terrifying to behold, but it isn't available to just anyone. It's kept in check by the sheer infrastructure required to field such a force (a nation), and the true mass destruction is forbidden both by law and mutually assured destruction. And regardless of how you feel about our politicians, it is moderated significantly by ethics and responsibility.
These days, incredible destructive power is becoming available to more and more people - people who have nothing to lose and don't give a shit if they die. In Iraq, poor disorganised factions are defeating the strongest (US) and the best (UK) military powers in the entire world - granted, that's because we're stupid and we're letting them do so, but it's besides the point.
It's not so hard to imagine that Al-Qaeda would get hold of a suitcase nuke and detonate it in London or NYC, and as technology develops the ease of access to doomsday devices is only going to increase.

I think we're heading for a make or break situation here. Nanotechnology in particular - it has the power to absolutely revolutionise the world, and throw the world's quality of living through the roof by eliminating the finite nature of resources and making pretty much anything possible - but it also has the capacity to wipe out life as we know it across the entire planet. And it would only take one person to set that in motion.
I think the human race will either enter a golden age or a new dark age, based on how we handle nanotech. Grim as it may be, is there any way possible for us to usher in this new era of technological wonder without resorting to totalitarianism? How can the current levels of freedom be allowed to continue when one man could destroy the world? The prospect disturbs me.

What I'm saying is that the checks and balances, the oversight, the bureaucracy applied to the power we have to destroy the world is being rapidly eroded. That's a horrific prospect.

 

[NeptuneUK]

I think it is plausable that some terrorists will try some major shit on 2012 just for irony.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah, but like I said, it only has to happen once. ONCE. Considering that even a single oversight could be fatal to the world as we know it, why are we so lax about the situation?

lax? I think we're anything but lax ..in any event blame the powers that be for mass proliferation

he sheer destructive power of a modern military force is terrifying to behold, but it isn't available to just anyone. It's kept in check by the sheer infrastructure required to field such a force (a nation), and the true mass destruction is forbidden both by law and mutually assured destruction. And regardless of how you feel about our politicians, it is moderated significantly by ethics and responsibility.

a nuke is much harder to get than an army

These days, incredible destructive power is becoming available to more and more people. In Iraq, poor disorganised factions are defeating the strongest (US) and the best (UK) military powers in the entire world

simply because they are fighting a guerrila war, where convential tactics are useless for the most part ...also hearts and minds, they have nothing to lose, the coalition everything, especially credibility when it comes to the humanitarian angle

- granted, that's because we're stupid and we're letting them do so, but it's besides the point.

right by throwing more weapons/men at the situation only guarenteeing more body bags being shipped home, and more civilians choking the iraqis morgues ..more men is completely ineffective, just as the latest surge proved

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

It's not so hard to imagine that Al-Qaeda would get hold of a suitcase nuke and detonate it in London or NYC, and as technology develops the ease of access to doomsday devices is only going to increase.

and who would provide him with such a weapon, who makes nukes that size? it's not like I can whip up the materials in my kitchen sink

I think we're heading for a make or break situation here. Nanotechnology in particular - it has the power to absolutely revolutionise the world, and throw the world's quality of living through the roof by eliminating the finite nature of resources and making pretty much anything possible - but it also has the capacity to wipe out life as we know it across the entire planet. And it would only take one person to set that in motion.

who could afford such technology? who but the world's superpowers could invest in creating weapons using nanotechnology? this "what if" scenario absolutely hinges on the fact that terrorists would be able to get their hands on leading edge tech when history shows is utterly false. Low tech, not high tech, in almost every single circumstance ..I mean it's a well known fact that terrorists often kill themselves while cooking up explosives ..how the hell would they slap together a nuke if often they cant even make a simple bomb?

What I'm saying is that the checks and balances, the oversight, the bureaucracy applied to the power we have to destroy the world is being rapidly eroded. That's a horrific prospect.

wouldnt it be bettter to just get rid of the dangers in the first place? why do we need nukes if terrorism is the biggest concern?

 

[repiV]

lax? I think we're anything but lax ..in any event blame the powers that be for mass proliferation

The population at large is pretty lax - people seem to think global terrorism is some kind of joke, but it really isn't.

a nuke is much harder to get than an army

Maybe so, but that won't always be the case. A few hundred years ago, the most destruction you could cause with a personal weapon was to slice someone open. Nowadays, small arms can kill hundreds of people in rapid succession and destroy armoured juggernauts, buildings and aircraft. A small commando fire-team has more destructive power than an entire Roman legion did. They'd probably beat an entire Roman legion in battle too, if they fought smart enough.
Private military forces also have access to a certain level of airpower now, too. Attack helicopters and the like.
Eventually, whether that's in the near future or or otherwise, an individual will be able to level an entire city with a device they carry in their inside pocket.

simply because they are fighting a guerrila war, where convential tactics are useless for the most part ...also hearts and minds, they have nothing to lose, the coalition everything, especially credibility when it comes to the humanitarian angle

Those kind of tactics never worked in the past. The point is that having a strong military no longer ensures your nation's safety. You don't need to overpower the other country anymore, you can just bypass their defences and annihilate the civilian population.
What if a country like Iran had access to F-117s and nuclear missiles?

right by throwing more weapons/men at the situation only guarenteeing more body bags being shipped home, and more civilians choking the iraqis morgues ..more men is completely ineffective, just as the latest surge proved

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

It's ineffective now. It wouldn't have been ineffective if we'd fought the war properly from the outset. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

and who would provide him with such a weapon, who makes nukes that size? it's not like I can whip up the materials in my kitchen sink

The US and Soviet Russia

The concept of suitcase nukes lost in the collapse of the USSR is a disturbing one, no?

who could afford such technology? who but the world's superpowers could invest in creating weapons using nanotechnology? this "what if" scenario absolutely hinges on the fact that terrorists would be able to get their hands on leading edge tech which history shows is utterly false, low tech, not high tech, in almost every single circumstance ..I mean it's a well known fact that terrorists often kill themselves while cooking up bombs ..how the hell would they slap together a nuke if often they cant even make a simple bomb?

Nanotechnology will initially be leading-edge and confined to superpowers, yes, but eventually it will become an everyday technology. Just like computers, the internet and every other piece of modern technology we now take for granted.
The thing with nanotech is that it allows you to create anything out of anything else. You wouldn't need access to materials, just knowledge. Anyone with a good enough understanding of the technology could synthetise a virus that would spread more viciously than anything we've ever experienced and kill everyone with a certain combination of genes. One man could bring about the end of the world.

wouldnt it be bettter to just get rid of the dangers in the first place? why do we need nukes if terrorism is the biggest concern?

How could you possibly just get rid of them?

 

[NeptuneUK]

Shit has hit the fan people.

It begins..




The fued between Stern and Repiv, the war to end all wars.

 

[Krynn72]

Shit has hit the fan people.

It begins..




The fued between Stern and Repiv, the war to end all wars.

Let it be known that Ennui saw this coming all along!

 

[Ennui]

lol I was about to post something to that effect Krynn

 

[Solaris]

I just hope the population of the USA wise the **** up.

If the US people were rational with a strong sense of non-religious morals the world could be such a better place.

 

[CptStern]

The population at large is pretty lax - people seem to think global terrorism is some kind of joke, but it really isn't.

....but it is a joke ..the chances of dying are extremely slim, and is relative to where you live:

chances of dying in terrorist attack in comparison to every day dangers

1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack

1 in 1,500,00 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week

1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month

in comparison:

1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.
1 in 197 of dying in a homicide
1 in 299 of dying in an assault from a firearm (although I'm sure the number is much much higher anywhere outside of the US)
1 in 5,330 of dying in an assault by hanging or strangulation
1 in 207,261 in operations of war.

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc530.html

Maybe so, but that won't always be the case. A few hundred years ago, the most destruction you could cause with a personal weapon was to slice someone open. Nowadays, small arms can kill hundreds of people in rapid succession and destroy armoured juggernauts, buildings and aircraft. A small commando fire-team has more destructive power than an entire Roman legion did. They'd probably beat an entire Roman legion in battle too, if they fought smart enough.
Private military forces also have access to a certain level of airpower now, too. Attack helicopters and the like.

how many terrorists fly attack helicoptors? or drive tanks, or have access to satellite relay battlefield information at their disposal?

Eventually, whether that's in the near future or or otherwise, an individual will be able to level an entire city with a device they carry in their inside pocket.

that's alarmist, why would any nation create such a powerful device that could be carried in your pocket? (no spy agency would ever use those tactics, why would there be a need for subterfuge?) who else but a superpower would be able to afford such a program?

Those kind of tactics never worked in the past. The point is that having a strong military no longer ensures your nation's safety. You don't need to overpower the other country anymore, you can just bypass their defences and annihilate the civilian population.
What if a country like Iran had access to F-117s and nuclear missiles?

they would have to develop nukes over several generations in order to be any threat to any of the nuclear powers

It's ineffective now. It wouldn't have been ineffective if we'd fought the war properly from the outset. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

curious, what would you deem to be "proper"? there was no resistance during the initial invasion, the insurgency didnt start until after the invasion, how would having twice, tree times the intial invasion force prvented this?

The US and Soviet Russia

ok then, [/quote]

from your article:

Thus far, only the United States and the Soviet Union are known to have possessed nuclear weapons programs developed and funded well enough to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons.

The concept of suitcase nukes lost in the collapse of the USSR is a disturbing one, no?

mass proliferation, who's fault is that? had they not had those weapons it wouldnt be a problem

Nanotechnology will initially be leading-edge and confined to superpowers, yes, but eventually it will become an everyday technology. Just like computers, the internet and every other piece of modern technology we now take for granted.

that's what they said about nukes

The thing with nanotech is that it allows you to create anything out of anything else. You wouldn't need access to materials, just knowledge. Anyone with a good enough understanding of the technology could synthetise a virus

in their bathroom tub? you still need money/resources/know-how to develop these things

that would spread more viciously than anything we've ever experienced and kill everyone with a certain combination of genes. One man could bring about the end of the world.

you're being alarmist ..one could just as easily contaminate drinking supplies, or kill off livestock ..the chances of a high tech acttack has historically proven to be negligible

How could you possibly just get rid of them?

dismantling of weapons has in the past proven to be effective, I mean according to US intelligence Iran did as much, so if Iran can do it so can the US or whomever ..the problem lies in convincing them to dismantle the weapons progrmas, not doing away with the actual weapons

 

[Druckles]

Zombie outbreak...?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

This is a little weird, but I know a lot of people who feel the same way I do about it, so I'll venture to post:

I have a very real, unshakeable feeling that a major world event (major as in paradigm shift) will happen relatively soon, in the next 5-25 years. I don't know what it will be - anything from an apocalyptic superplague or meteor hitting the Earth to just some big war or some sort of non-damning cataclysmic event - but I do feel strongly that I am right in asserting that it will happen.

I personally plan on surviving it if at all possible.

Does anyone else feel this way?

The only one I can think of is the technological singularity but I take up a neutral position on that. Transhumanism seems like a religion for atheists to me, at least currently.

 

[repiV]

....but it is a joke ..the chances of dying are extremely slim, and is relative to where you live:

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc530.html

To a conventional terrorist bomb, yes. But that's irrelevant to the concept of nuclear attack.
Besides which, it isn't just about lives. 9/11 had far-reaching effects on the world economy, and indeed the world - and that was just one building.

how many terrorists fly attack helicoptors? or drive tanks, or have access to satellite relay battlefield information at their disposal?

That's not the point. The point is that this kind of technology is slowly becoming more available to less well-supported forces.

that's alarmist, why would any nation create such a powerful device that could be carried in your pocket? (no spy agency would ever use those tactics, why would there be a need for subterfuge?) who else but a superpower would be able to afford such a program?

How can you possibly dimiss the possibilities of technology in the year 2107? There's no reason that wouldn't be a reality.

they would have to develop nukes over several generations in order to be any threat to any of the nuclear powers

curious, what would you deem to be "proper"? there was no resistance during the initial invasion, the insurgency didnt start until after the invasion, how would having twice, tree times the intial invasion force prvented this?

The insurgency would never have gotten off the ground if we had a proper army there in the first place, and had sought it out and crushed it instead of letting it come to us.

ok then,

from your article:


mass proliferation, who's fault is that? had they not had those weapons it wouldnt be a problem

That's not the point, is it?
They're out there, and that's what matters.

that's what they said about nukes

Irrelevant. Nukes have a solely destructive purpose. Nanotechnology is much more ambiguous - a discipline of science that allows you to deconstruct objects into their basic molecular forms and reconstruct them back into something completely different.
All sorts of people will be experts in nanotech, most of them to develop it for benign uses. But those people will still have the knowledge needed to use nanotechnology for destructive ends - and that's all they need. McDonald's head of synthesising fake beef could just decide he hates the world and cook up a supervirus instead.
It's a COMPLETELY different scenario to anything we've seen before. Ultimate power will rest in the hands of ordinary engineers and scientists around the world, and very possibly, eventually, anyone who studies nanotechnology at university and makes friends in the right places.
It's a bit like an all-powerful dictatorship - it can be used for good or bad, but one man has all the power in the world. That's never a good situation to be in.

in their bathroom tub? you still need money/resources/know-how to develop these things

Yet it will be a wide-reaching technology that will have more impact on our lives than the industrial revolution. The worldwide infrastructure will be based on nanotech. Imagine if all the world's factories were capable of producing doomsday devices, that's the kind of situation we're potentially looking at here.

you're being alarmist ..one could just as easily contaminate drinking supplies, or kill off livestock ..the chances of a high tech acttack has historically proven to be negligible

You miss the point.

dismantling of weapons has in the past proven to be effective, I mean according to US intelligence Iran did as much, so if Iran can do it so can the US or whomever ..the problem lies in convincing them to dismantle the weapons progrmas, not doing away with the actual weapons

There are still stray nukes out there, somewhere - and there will always be people who know how to create them.

 

[The Monkey]

No, I don't have that feeling at all.

 

[repiV]

I just hope the population of the USA wise the **** up.

If the US people were rational with a strong sense of non-religious morals the world could be such a better place.

Right, because our closest ally and the nation that defined the free world as it exists today is the biggest threat to our security. Get a grip.

Ironically, your statement above is far more racist than anything I've ever said, and you just love to play the racist card. Talk about ignorant sweeping ****ing generalisations.

 

[CptStern]

To a conventional terrorist bomb, yes. But that's irrelevant to the concept of nuclear attack.

which has only ever been initiated by a single government in the entire history of wmd ..and that was delivered by plane at the expense of billions of dollars ..how do you expect a terrorist group to have such a program?

Besides which, it isn't just about lives. 9/11 had far-reaching effects on the world economy, and indeed the world - and that was just one building.

indeed, bu a low-tech solution ..you're agreeing with my point

That's not the point. The point is that this kind of technology is slowly becoming more available to less well-supported forces.

who? who besides governments have the means neccesary to produce such weapons? it's not like all they need is a box of dynomite and a few feet of fuse, if it was as easy as you suggest someone would already be in possesion of such a device ..and even then they need to be able to deliver and detonate it, the North koreans couldnt do it and they've been working at it for years

How can you possibly dimiss the possibilities of technology in the year 2107?

because it's 110 years into the future> how could I possibly predict what will happen in 10 years much less 110 years

There's no reason that wouldn't be a reality.

you dont know that, I could easily say they could develop an anti-wmd pen that is sold in convience stores and Photo-mat huts across the free world and it would be just as valid as your point ..we cannot with any degree of accuracy predict what is to come

The insurgency would never have gotten off the ground if we had a proper army there in the first place, and had sought it out and crushed it instead of letting it come to us.

poppy cocks, the initial invasion involved 263,000 coalition troop, double of that wouldnt have secured all of iraq when 263,000 couldnt even secure baghdad ..iraq is huge, they would need several million troops to have any measure of success and even then it's completely unsustainable

That's not the point, is it?
They're out there, and that's what matters.

you have yet to prove your contention ..and yes it is the point; it's evidence that they dont have access to modern day instruments of death as you would suggest, they're still at the stage of hurling stones at tanks

Irrelevant. Nukes have a solely destructive purpose.

nope, nuclear power is much more prevelant than nuclear weapons ..there's far more peaceful applications than military

Nanotechnology is much more ambiguous - a discipline of science that allows you to deconstruct objects into their basic molecular forms and reconstruct them back into something completely different.

and who so far has been successful at creating such things? surely not individuals or even corporations without government backing ..again history shows us it's always low tech devices ..invbesting in such technology is just unrealistic for individuals who spend most of their time holed up continually watching over their shoulders

All sorts of people will be experts in nanotech, most of them to develop it for benign uses.

you dont know this to be fact

But those people will still have the knowledge needed to use nanotechnology for destructive ends - and that's all they need.

McDonald's head of synthesising fake beef could just decide he hates the world and cook up a supervirus instead.

without anyone knowing? he'd have to have the resources ands knowledge of deadly virii in order to creat a virus, it's not exactly a learned vocation like carpentry or basket weaving

It's a COMPLETELY different scenario to anything we've seen before. Ultimate power will rest in the hands of ordinary engineers and scientists around the world, and very possibly, eventually, anyone who studies nanotechnology at university and makes friends in the right places.
It's a bit like an all-powerful dictatorship - it can be used for good or bad, but one man has all the power in the world. That's never a good situation to be in.

you're just guessing widly you have no clue what safegurds would be in place ..if it's as dangerous as you say it is, why would they let just anyone handle it? I mean even with mass proliferation of nukes in the 60's and 70's with thousands of people working on these programs why hasnt there been nuclear attacks by small groups?

Yet it will be a wide-reaching technology that will have more impact on our lives than the industrial revolution. The worldwide infrastructure will be based on nanotech. Imagine if all the world's factories were capable of producing doomsday devices, that's the kind of situation we're potentially looking at here.

you're being alarmist, why would governments allow this tech into just anybody's hands?

You miss the point.

no I get your point, and I'm countering it by saying that history disagrees with you

There are still stray nukes out there, somewhere - and there will always be people who know how to create them.

and they're most likely in the employee of governemtns and even then a single individual couldnt provide all the needs resources or know how ..or else someone else would already be in possession of it

 

[Baserape>]

Scientists world wide will disclose the possibility of life after death throwing the non believers into a stinking pit of confusion and sin. The believers will revel and judge the non believers as the various scriptures instructed. No one will be safe. All will be judged.

You will all die on Armageddon day. Apart from Me and Paris Hilton, we will re populate the World!

 

[evil^milk]

I just hope religious factions don't take over the government, effectively making the US a police state and declaring war on other super potencies.

Besides that I don't see a huge major threat.

 

[repiV]

which has only ever been initiated by a single government in the entire history of wmd ..and that was delivered by plane at the expense of billions of dollars ..how do you expect a terrorist group to have such a program?

They don't need a program - just a powerful sponsor. Many of the conflicts played out in the late 20th century were just proxy wars between the US and Russia, after all.

indeed, bu a low-tech solution ..you're agreeing with my point

who? who besides governments have the means neccesary to produce such weapons? it's not like all they need is a box of dynomite and a few feet of fuse, if it was as easy as you suggest someone would already be in possesion of such a device ..and even then they need to be able to deliver and detonate it, the North koreans couldnt do it and they've been working at it for years

Noone, at the moment. But I'm not just talking about the present day.

It's not just about any specific event that may or may not occur, the point is that I don't think we as a civilisation are responsible or wise enough to be able to handle the technologies that we can expect to see over the next century.
It's bad enough as it is that certain organisations have the ability to render the world uninhabitable thousands of times over, but those powers are very well controlled. The oversight pretty much ensures that nuclear weapons will never be used again, certainly not by any nuclear power existing today.
But now we face the very real possibility of godlike powers far more destructive than nuclear weaponry being in the hands of individual people, all over the world. Individual people who only have to justify their actions to themselves.
Whether they may be good people or not, NOONE should have that kind of power.
As history also shows us, we tend to get a new technology or advance in civilisation and then society makes sense of them after they've caused the ripples. For example, we leapt hell for leather into the industrial revolution without really considering the wider consequences, which is a problem that we must face now. It took years for societies and governments to make sense of the internet and incorporate it into existing social and legal frameworks, and that's still a controversial and ongoing process.
Are you really confident that we can introduce and regulate and control nanotechnology responsibly, before it changes our world, and not just run damage control now that people all over the world have the ability to create and deploy doomsday devices at will?
Because I'm not so sure. We evidently are unable to handle the technology we create responsibly, and unless we sort it out, one day it will be the end of us.

 

[JNightshade]

I get that feeling sometimes, but hey- what can you do? Here's what I'll do: keep having fun, and if anything DOES happen, meet up with Onwee and establish a republic of HL2.net on the east coast.

 

[Reginald]

LHC

'nuff said D:

 

[Minister]

Nah, it's already happened. Hence all the damn Liberals infesting the world.

 

[Raziaar]

there will be a mass exodus after religion is banned on pain of death and the faithful are sent off to Monster Island for a final battle for religious supremacy, the victors will be subsequently machine gunned to prevent future outbreaks of religiousity

You know, that's just the thing they preach in many Christian circles, that the day comes when people force them to abandon their faith or face death, and accept the mark of the beast.

Such an act would only invite needless death.



As for the original topic, I don't feel that way in the slightest.

 

[CptStern]

You know, that's just the thing they preach in many Christian circles, that the day comes when people force them to abandon their faith or face death, and accept the mark of the beast.

Such an act would only invite needless death.

"needless" = relative to pov

and no one is forcing anyone ..it's off to monster island even if you have a glimmer of faith ..why? are you confessing to having a glimmer of faith? /sharpens pointy stick

 

[Raziaar]

"needless" = relative to pov

and no one is forcing anyone ..it's off to monster island even if you have a glimmer of faith ..why? are you confessing to having a glimmer of faith? /sharpens pointy stick

I always knew you were an extremist.

 

[CptStern]

yes, death to believers for the betterment of man!

 

[Sheepo]

Fingers crossed for zombies!

 

[Icarusintel]

I'm still waiting for the supervolcano to erupt.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm still waiting for the supervolcano to erupt.

Which one? Yellowstone Caldera?