A while back in another thread I commented on the 'Super Volcano' that is Yellowstone. I just exchanged a forum note with mmiller, who lives 'real close' to Yellowstone. That made me remember that...
Yesterday on Fox News they made the remark that 'Yellowstone Park Officials have had to close off parts of the park due to the unexpected ground temperatures.. some hitting two hundred degrees f. for the first time in recorded history.'
To repeat... Yellowstone is a super volcano. One of four on earth. It has gone off every 800 thousand years, like a clock. It has been 850 thousand years since it erupted. We are due. When it blows, it kills most life on earth. No argument. Ten to about four feet of ash over the entire planet. Provable from history. Freezing for a hundred K. years or so, because the suns heat is reflected from the dust and earth freezes. Happened many times already. Will happen again. Just 'When?'.
My dream is to go out to the astroid belt and build a life. Why don't most people care? Do you care? If you don't care... Is it Fear of change? Or Indifference? Or Disbelief? This world is only a birth nest, you know? Why are we not making a living out of survival of our species? And dispersing like rational beings?
Saw a documentary on that actually quite recently. Very troubling to hear of the temperature rise, if that really is true. About those timescales though, I remember that it was every 600 thousand years, and that now we are about 40 thousand years "overdue".
The fact that Yellowstone is a supervolcano was discovered partly as a result of investigations into significant rise of ground under one side of a lake there, so in recent history, there have certainly been signs of the upcoming eruption - when it occurs is impossible to say for sure though, as we have no experience of eruptions of that magnitude, and can only speculate what the last warning signs would be. Perhaps the rising of ground and heating up occur a thousand years before the eruption, perhaps a month before, hard to tell with no precedent.
However, I'd be very careful about checking the sources whenever looking into possible natural disasters of apocalyptic scale - whenever there is a hint of apocalypse, there are people swarming around like flies exaggerating every bit to make it even more apocalyptic. It is very likely that most of the sources on events/places like this have their information distorted out of shape to satisfy the curious human desire to live in apocalyptic times. "Ten to four feet of ash over the entire planet", that part I found hard to believe, so I searched the net; I found one site that seems pretty respectable ( http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqs.html) and their figures on the ash are quite different, quote:
" During the three giant caldera-forming eruptions that occurred between 2.1 million and 640,000 years ago, tiny particles of volcanic debris (volcanic ash) covered much of the western half of North America, likely a third of a meter deep several hundred kilometers from Yellowstone and several centimeters thick farther away. Wind carried sulfur aerosol and the lightest ash particles around the planet and likely caused a notable decrease in temperatures around the globe."
If I remember correctly, the documentary I saw stated that the global temperature decrease would be about 5 degrees celsius, and would last several years.
In any case, even the more moderate figures are quite disasterous, and would have a devastating global effect.
There's one hope though - perhaps the recent warning signs are precursors to a large, yet not a "super" eruption. According to the site I refer to, there have been at least 30 smaller eruptions at Yellowstone since the most recent giant caldera-forming eruption. Of course, these kinds of "spoilers" often get forgotten in the frenzy of a promissing apocalypse... 🙂
-Jarno
Originally posted by PyrrhoYeah. All I know is what i saw on tv. The documentary was on the "Discovery Channel" and started out with an excavation of "four feet of ash, more than 1000 km from the super eruption in SE Idaho more than 40,000 years ago."
Saw a documentary on that actually quite recently. Very troubling to hear of the temperature rise, if that really is true. About those timescales though, I remember that it was every 600 thousand years, and that now we are about 40 thousand years "overdue".
The fact that Yellowstone is a supervolcano was discovered partly as a result of investigations i ...[text shortened]... nds of "spoilers" often get forgotten in the frenzy of a promissing apocalypse... 🙂
-Jarno
They then went on to tell of the "Truly great eruptions" like Yellowstone. They pointed out the time frame and the "4 to 10 feet' ash scale. I am just going from that.
You are right about scaring the bejesus out of some people. Please, read and study folks.
My real question is "Why are we so 'indifferent' go the death of our species?'" For the first time in our million year history, we can affect our outcome. Why are we so indifferent to nature?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell I'd say that theres a few reasons why people are so indifferent to the end of the mankind. Some just can't comprehend it, some feel that aslong as they get their innings in before it all happens then it doesn't matter and others just think "what can I do to stop it". Of course others are just more interested in the little, more imediate things, money, sex/love, work...
My real question is "Why are we so 'indifferent' go the death of our species?'" For the first time in our million year history, we can affect our outcome. Why are we so indifferent to nature?
But, on the bright side the fact that your questioning this means that atleast one persons not indifferent so maybe. Now all we need is a few volunteers, a working greenhouse thing (much like the Eden project in cornwall, but one that works 😛) and a very big space ship.
Originally posted by jimmi tThis is what we need. A material that is twice as strong as carbon fiber as currently known. A combustion chamber and fuel pressure pump made of the stuff. Then it's "Good By Earth. Send me a Card! I'm off to see the Solar System!" Even if i'm ninety years old. Laughing all the way!😵
and a very big space ship. [/b]
The reason I posed this post was to see if anyone besides me sees a link between the "possible" horrors that threaten us from natural causes and the "certain" horrors that threaten us from totallitarian insanity.
In an effort to better understand why so many don't view totallitarianism as a 'cause for war', I am studying France of the 1930's. Specifically, the Socialist party of that times. They had achieved considerable success... Leon Blum was a prime minister in fact. The main stream Socialists viewed Hitler as a "great threat", but the anti-war socialists, led by Paul Faure were so horrified by "verdun" that they were willing to cede to Germany virtually anything to avoid war. They found it impossible to believe that totalitarianism could not be rational. "There is Good In All Men." The idea that this is not true could not even be considered.
In studying the pacifists of 1930's France... I have identified the American pacifists of our current time. The belief that "War is the fault of warmongerer's and arms manufactures" was actually used first in defending Germanys right to ignore the Treaty Of Versailles. After all, any rational person could see that the treaty "Was punitive and instigated by rich and powerful nations".
The worst failure of the 30's pacifists was their total refusal to acknowledge that good and evil exist. That was too pedestrian. All men are reasonable. They refused to believe differently. The idea that ALL TOTALLITARIANISM, be it right ( or Nationalistic ) or left ( Marxist ) is driven only by massive death cults was poo-pood and scorned openly. Just as today.
That totallitarianism is always driven by death cults is because it sets about to change human nature by decree. This is of course impossible. So what can they show for their effort? Only millions of dead bodies. But that is better than absolutely nothing. Right? To have a mighty "cause" and national insanity and have nothing to show would not set well. So bodies it is. And as per this thread... THE MASSES SEE IT AND DON'T BELIEVE IT. OR JUST GRUNT AND SAY, 'IT IS THE WAY THINGS ARE'.
As I have shown with this thread... The human race has an infinite ability to ignore the obvious. It is what we did with Sayyid Qutb and his "In The Shade Of The Q'uran", for example. Thirty volumes that have been read and studied by all of Islam since the 1940's and 50's. We thought so little of the problem that WE STILL CAN'T BUY A TRANSLATION OF IT IN ENGLISH BECAUSE NOBODY HAS MADE ONE.
We are now paying the price. It is a totally PROVEN fact that millions of people can become insane as a unit. It has happened many times before and has again happened... right while we watched. Islam no longer has the ability to do anything except die for God. The triple ideas of "jahili", (barbarism of all non-Musims and 'Fake' Muslims) "jihad", (war against jahili's) and "shariah" (the establishment of a non-secular religious state) are at the root of the next hundred year war. There can be nothing but war because the greatest evil is the United States which is based on secularism, ie, separation of church and state. God's one state must be built. It will be completed on the day of Armageddon.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by StarValleyWyHumans have been on earth for about 9000 years. We've accomplished mostly all of our current technology in the last 200 yrs. Give us another 1000 years and we'll either have wiped ourselves out or got to the stars. That's a blink of an eye in geological terms, and chances are we've got at least that amount of time before yellowstone goes kaboom.
My real question is "Why are we so 'indifferent' go the death of our species?'" For the first time in our million year history, we can affect our outcome. Why are we so indifferent to nature?
Originally posted by iamatigerI am "pretty optomistic" when taking the view that you point out. We have done rather well with the advancement of science. But there is also much cause for concern. Much of the world views that very advance as being cause for war. Our own "green" movement people would as soon blow you up as look at you for 'exploiting' good old mama earth. Weird. Just how you can 'exploit' a four billion year old living super-duper survival kit is beyond me. Earth has been "totally destroyed" of all life several times and look at the old gal! Pretty amazing.
Humans have been on earth for about 9000 years. We've accomplished mostly all of our current technology in the last 200 yrs. Give us another 1000 years and we'll either have wiped ourselves out or got to the stars. That's a blink of an eye in geological terms, and chances are we've got at least that amount of time before yellowstone goes kaboom.
It's going to get really messy before it gets better, i think. Too bad that "deep thinkers" can't be checked for logic before their works are adopted by the world and perverted. See the writings of Mr. Qutb above. By the way... wouldn't it be great just to know how to pronounce his name?😛 I have resorted to "Q-Tub" as the best I can come up with. Oh well.
Back to the French Socialists of the 30's. The Nazi's invaded. France fell. Petain formed a government based on the idea of a "New And Vital Europe"... a europe not bothered by liberalisms pesky notions of democracy.
Blum and a few of the socialists fought against Petain. Blum was arrested and sent to Auschwitz. He was jewish afterall. His fellow "Pro-War" socialists formed the minor leftist core of the french resistance. But... the majority of the socialists... the Anti-War movement... joined Petain in Vichey.
Quoting Paul Berman...
"They had begun as defenders of liberal values and human rights, and they evolved into defenders of bigotry, tyranny, superstition, and mass murder. They were democratic leftists who through the miraculous workings of the slippery slope and a naive faith in the rationalism of all things, ended as facists. Long ago, you say? Not that long ago."
Unquote.
I am hoping that the "Anti-War" movement will re-evaluate the dangers of "totallitarianism". The current world is too dangerous to repeat the mistakes of the past. And the war against Totallitariansim is not finished. It has barely begun.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI don't think the question is whether totalitarian regimes are bad, but whether it is worth going to war with them.
The reason I posed this post was to see if anyone besides me sees a link between the "possible" horrors that threaten us from natural causes and the "certain" horrors that threaten us from totallitarian insanity.
In an effort to better understand why so many don't view totallitarianism as a 'cause for war', I am studying France of the 1930's. ...[text shortened]... hurch and state. God's one state must be built. It will be completed on the day of Armageddon.
If the regime in question poses a serious threat to national security, then war is sometimes the best solution: if there's going to be a war anyway, you want to strike when your enemy is at its weakest. With hindsight we can say that Britian and France were foolish not to go to war with Germany earlier, because there is no way that peace could be maintained with a man who had said repeatedly that he wanted to conquer Eastern Europe.
However, what about tyrants who lack the will or the means to threaten your country? You could say that 'regime change' is the right thing to do to alleviate the suffering of the people of that country, but consider this: we're only prepared to spend so much money on helping others. In the long run, deposing a despicable regime may save lives, but the cost is enormous: just look at the amount the US and UK governments have spent on Iraq already, and consider how long it would have taken Saddam to execute as many people as have died as a result of the war. In addition, efforts to rebuild the country have been severely hampered by Iraqi resentment of the occupying powers.
On the other hand, think what could have been accomplished if all that money had been spent on development aid, treatments for diseases common in poor countries (I suspect that nowadays more is spent on cures for impotence than for malaria!) and peacekeeping forces to prevent civil war. The US and EU usually send out a few hundred million dollars here and there for this kind of thing, but for the price of just one more war, an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars, if properly managed, could in the long term save millions of lives and turn dozens of countries around. As a bonus it would probably make the rest of the world more likely to cooperate with the donor countries in the hope of getting money if nothing else, whereas wars usually provoke far more resentment than gratitude (look at French attitudes towards the US and UK in the last 60 years, for example). In fact, it is often easier and cheaper to bribe a country's government into changing for the better than to force it; hopefully we will see the effects of this in Turkey as it tries to join the EU, for example.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the war in Iraq was necessarily unjustifiable, but that Saddam's 'domestic policies' were insufficient justification for it. Weapons of mass destruction and sponsorship of terrorism may well have been, but it will be many years before we begin to appreciate the full costs and benefits of the war.
... and who did not support the Free French, led by General de Gaulle ?
... Franklin D. Roosevelt !
... and who persuaded him to do so at last ?
... Winston Churchill !
This is one of the reasons why general de Gaulle often was anti American and anti Nato and it still plays a role in the minds of many Frenchmen as President Bush jr. has experienced in his recent Iraq policy.
Originally posted by ivanhoeNevertheless the US played the biggest role in liberating France. Also the French don't seem to like us very much, either, but that might be because of the 20 or so wars in which England/Britain has fought France through the ages 🙄
... and who did not support the Free French, led by General de Gaulle ?
... Franklin D. Roosevelt !
... and who persuaded him to do so at last ?
... Winston Churchill !
This is one of the reasons why general de Gaulle often was anti American and anti Nato and it still plays a role in the minds of many Frenchmen as President Bush jr. has experienced in his recent Iraq policy.
Originally posted by AcolyteThank you for your post. I will refer to "Paragraphs One Through Five" of yours.
I don't think the question is whether totalitarian regimes are bad, but whether it is worth going to war with them.
If the regime in question poses a serious threat to national security, then war is sometimes the best solution: if there ...[text shortened]... ore we begin to appreciate the full costs and benefits of the war.
In paragraph one I can only assume that you have not yet arrived at the conclusion that I have come to, ie, Islam has become the latest "totallitarian" movement. It has declared war. Whether you have noticed this is irrelevent. They have noticed and the war is on. So whether we "think it is worth going to war with them" is not even relevant. War is here. It is delared. We have to deal with it whether we want to or not. You have to see the "socialist Bathists" vs. "Brotherhood of Islam" of the 50's to understand the connection to Saddaam. It is there. He is trying to be a better "brother" than the brothers.
Paragraph Two: The lesson is not against Germany "Back Then". It is that "totallitarianism" must be defeated "Always". The real challenge is then to learn to recognize it when it appears. This is the real failure of the Anti-War movement of today... just as it was in France in the 1930's.
Your paragraph three seems to suggest that the Anti-Socialist element of France was right... There are a million reasons why war is bad and should be avoided. Don't tell the attacked party. Tell the attackers, in this case the Islamist State nuts. As to all the hypothetical ethical balance questions... When war is declared on you by totallitarianism, who gets what piece of the pie is rather beside the point. And you equate the 'wanton' killing of a cult of death dictator to those incurred in a war against totallitarianism. I just don't get that one. Except to point out that the left wing guys in france eventually came to believe that "war plants seem to be owned by Jews", and therefore "Hitler is dispicable... but he has a point, doesn't he?" Are you sure you want to go that route in defending totallitarianism?
As to your last paragraph. Again you fail to notice.... AS PER THIS THREAD... that war has ALREADY been declared. By Islam against all else. They don't really expect or want to win. But their Death Cult totallitarianism has left them nothing but a body count to show progress and success. The fight has begun. Costs don't matter at this point. Either in money or lives. Survival is at stake... again. Just as it has always been the case when fighting Totallitarianism for your very survival.
Originally posted by AcolyteThe relation between England and France always has been a bit peculiar.The legendary Richard the Lionheart did not speak English but French and he spent no more than six months in England ... England used to be an outer part of France in the early Middle Ages.
Nevertheless the US played the biggest role in liberating France. Also the French don't seem to like us very much, either, but that might be because of the 20 or so wars in which England/Britain has fought France through the ages 🙄
And what about that frail relationship England Germany ?
Very interesting! The House of Hannover as the "cradle" of many European kings and other Royalty. At one point in history three grandchildren of Queen Victoria ruled three important European countries. The United Kingdom, Germany (der Kaiser) and Russia (the last Russian Tsar).
How many know that the name of Windsor exists only 80 years.
Before that the name of the English Royal family was "von Saxen Coburgh Gotha", the same family name as the Belgium royal family ...
England and the continent ... very interesting
Originally posted by Acolyte
Nevertheless the US played the biggest role in liberating France. Also the French don't seem to like us very much, either, but that might be because of the 20 or so wars in which England/Britain has fought France through the ages 🙄
Yes, the US played a major role in the liberation of Europe. No doubt about that. The notion that the U.S did not support the Free French, but rather the other French faction is not known in the States. The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had a tough job convincing Roosevelt that the future did not lie in the hands of the Vichy French but in the hands of the Free French. Another proof of the US not supporting the "Freedomfighters" is the situation during the Spanish civil war. Generalissimo Franco ruled the country until the present King Juan took over. A lot of Americans frefer the "Hollywood" image of their country rather than the real image ... It is often too painfull for them ...