Entry 1385, on 2012-05-04 at 20:57:02 (Rating 4, Skepticism)
The end of the world is a great topic of discussion. In this blog alone I have mentioned it in "Epic Fail" on 2011-05-22, "The End of What?" on 2011-03-18, "The End of the World" on 2009-08-19, and "Doomsday" on 2008-09-11. But predictions of the end go back thousands of years. So what's the latest?
Reuters just published the results of a poll which found that nearly 15 percent of people worldwide think the world will end during their lifetime. The poll covered over 16,000 people in more than 20 countries but I can't find the exact questions or other methodology. However this result seems to fit in with the ridiculous beliefs many people have so I see no good reason to question it.
One of the researchers said "Whether they think it will come to an end through the hands of God, or a natural disaster or a political event, whatever the reason, one in seven thinks the end of the world is coming." so it sounds like there is a variety of different "reasoning" involved.
One question I often have in this situation is exactly what "the end of the world" means. Does it mean the physical destruction of the planet? Or maybe it just means the extinction of the human species or of all life on Earth. Or maybe something as simple as some sort of apocalyptic destruction of society with the planet and life surviving in a somehow diminished form.
If a supernatural process is invoked then all bets are off. One attribute of the supernatural is that there are no rules. A god or other supernatural entity can do anything at all so the whole universe could be just "switched off" at any time the god feels like it. But any speculation of that sort is barely even worth acknowledging, at least in some ways.
Predictions of the end of the world have been continuous since people first considered the possibility. And (obviously) every one has been wrong so far, or maybe it's not obvious, because at least one religious group has claimed that the apocalypse has already happened: we just didn't notice! And that is a real claim - could I make up something so ridiculous?
The latest mindless fad leading to end of world predictions is the Mayan Calendar which cycles every 5125 years. The fact that it cycles rather than ending hasn't stopped people claiming this could mark the destruction of Earth by some (mostly unspecified) mechanism. Up to 10% of people worldwide think this is a possibility according to the poll.
Of course Christian eschatology has been a great source of end of world predictions. According to the most sensible interpretation of Jesus' own words (standard disclaimer here: if Jesus even existed and if the gospels bear any resemblance to what he said if he did exist) he would return in an event marking the end of the world before the life of the people with him ended (see Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32, for example). It seems to me that he's a bit overdue!
The world will end eventually I guess, but it will probably survive in some form even when the Sun reaches its much discussed giant phase where it will expand to many times its current size and "consume" the Earth. And that event is still 5 billion years away so it's of no immediate concern!
But who cares about all of this stuff anyway? What difference does it make if people believe crazy stuff? I think it does have some relevance because I think the biggest problem we have today is short-term thinking. The two major sources of this are the political system which concentrates on a single (3 or 4 year) political cycle and the economic system which concentrates on producing good results for the current reporting period (generally one year or a few years in the future).
Many problems don't respond to thinking of that sort and they are the problems which are increasingly threatening to end our current way of life (note that I'm not talking about the destruction of the Earth, or the end of human life, just a major change in how we live). These problems are well known: overpopulation, peak oil, global climate change, decimation of food sources such as fisheries, and others.
If people think the world is going to end soon anyway what's the point of long term thinking? If you don't think this is a genuine problem then look at this quote from James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan era: "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand." He's a total moron, right? Unfortunately that moron was in charge of American environmental policy! So nutty beliefs are obviously dangerous.
But it goes beyond people with crazy beliefs getting into positions of power. If a sufficient number of voters have crazy beliefs then they get that power effectively too. They can vote for extremists and other people with no handle on reality. And that is dangerous.
Comment 1 (3024) by Rob on 2012-05-06 at 09:24:42:
I kept, and may still have, the newspaper with the headline "Watt Resigns". Amazing what the Regan era started in American politics and how so many people still revere a third-rate actor that was a bit of a moron slipping into Alzheimer's.
It seems we, as humans, are not really programmed to act on obvious changes we see in the (perceived) distant future. As a species we are driven by more immediate gratification and if cheap petrochemicals allow me to not think about jumping into my petrochemical burning, internal-combustion driven motor vehicle and thereby hastening the end of a life style we now enjoy, so be it. We reap what we sow, eh?
Comment 2 (3025) by OJB on 2012-05-06 at 11:30:15:
I just can't understand America. There is so much good stuff happening there - in science and technology for example - yet there is a large part of the population seem to be barely better than morons. They can't think for themselves at all and rely on their church or some idiot conservative politicians to tell them what to think.
People who know I'm fairly liberal ask me what I think of Obama. I say I think he's a pretty useless president, but still the best one they have had for a long time! Honestly politics in the US is a shambles.
I agree that humans aren't good at looking into the distant future. We aren't good at lots of things, like establishing the truth amongst noise. But we invented something (science) to solve that problem. Now we need to invent better political and economic systems to solve the problem of short term thinking too.
Comment 3 (3026) by Rob on 2012-05-06 at 15:55:36:
Barely better than morons? I think you are being overly generous here. I would estimate a third of the population votes for politicians, hence policies, that are directly in conflict with their best interests. Example: people on the lower end of the economic spectrum who have no health care voting against being "forced" to have a form of government supported health care. Another example: people who vote against social benefits that are on some form of government assistance. The conservatives have done a brilliant job of putting out the message that if only taxes are lowered everyone's life will be wonderful and they can all buy that new car and a bigger screen television to put in their new 250 sq m house in a gated community. This despite the fact that very person is working at Walmart for minimum wage and there tax "relief" will amount to peanuts. The reason American politics are in a shambles is because few people want to hear the truth from their politicians.
Comment 4 (3027) by OJB on 2012-05-08 at 12:05:36:
You are right, of course, because this is exactly what I have been saying for years! People do not do what's best for themselves, either economically or politically. That's where the whole theory of democracy and neo-liberal economics fails.
I have suggested two possible solutions: 1, people have to answer some random questions on the voting form and if they are wrong their vote doesn't count; and 2, people vote for broad policies instead of parties and the government implements this policies.
The first system eradicates ignorant idiots from voting and the second forces people to vote for ideas rather than a societal group they identify with.
Comment 5 (3049) by SBFL on 2012-05-16 at 12:13:35:
So, we assume the "end of days" is a physical event do we? Hmmmm....
Comment 6 (3053) by OJB on 2012-05-16 at 12:22:44:
Well if it isn't a physical event then what is it? Is there anything apart from a physical event? I suppose it could be a "spiritual event" or something equally inane!
Comment 7 (3078) by SBFL on 2012-05-18 at 10:52:11:
As a Christian, I don't believe any physical "end of days" will occur in my life time, nor at all. Not as portrayed in the movies, any way.
But we agree that Obama is a pretty useless president. And we also agree that the US system of politics is a shambles. Honestly, I give up on that shit, it so chaotic with the split terms. No one can get anything done. I actually feel sorry for Obama not being able to get his healthcare reforms through smoothly. Where is the incentive to achieve anything?
Comment 8 (3084) by OJB on 2012-05-18 at 13:14:23:
So if it isn't going to be a "physical" end of world, will there be some other type, and if so what type will it be? Also, any idea when it will happen, and how does it fit in with Biblical eschatology?
Obama is the worst president in recent times, apart form all the rest! (I just love that quote and use it whenever I can)
Comment 9 (3088) by SBFL on 2012-05-19 at 08:34:30:
As I said, I don't expect it to occur in my lifetime. And I don't know what "Biblical eschatology" means.
So you agree the political system in the US is a shambles?
Comment 10 (3093) by OJB on 2012-05-19 at 13:38:34:
Biblical eschatology refers to the predictions of end of world events in the Bible. There are plenty of references to this including from Jesus himself.
Yes, I think politics in the US is a mess. They have a crazy right wing party (the Democrats) and then another which is so mental it can barely even be described in conventional political terms.
Comment 11 (3098) by SBFL on 2012-05-22 at 12:57:19:
Thanks for that. I'll try to remember the term.
Heh, okay I'll have a laugh at your summary of the main US parties. But my concern is more at the system, rather then the parties. Three (federal) levels, unaligned terms, two-party system...how to get anything done?
Comment 12 (3103) by OJB on 2012-05-22 at 18:39:18:
Yes, in the end all problems are caused by "the system" rather than the participants in that system. People will only make use of whatever rules are available to them. Clearly big corporations have taken control of the political system in the US and there is no real choice. Even if a president genuinely wants change he won't be able to achieve it (as both Clinton and Obama have found).
Comment 13 (3109) by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 12:15:01:
While I will agree that the system of governance is far from ideal in the US I wouldn't be a "Michael Moore" and exclaim that "big corporations" have taken control. That would be a bit nutty, no?
Are you one of those nutters OJB? Surely not.
Comment 14 (3123) by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 14:02:43:
I think few people would deny that corporations have a lot of control in the US. Whether they have fully "taken control" (as I said) is debatable of course, but that is an imprecise term anyway. Regarding Moore, I think he makes some good points although his treatment of these issues is unbalanced and he does sometimes use weak arguments to support his cause. But I certainly don't think that is an excuse to ignore him entirely.
Comment 15 (3129) by SBFL on 2012-06-08 at 14:31:49:
Blah, blah, blah..."corporations have a lot of control"...cannon fodder for the left. Heard it all before.
Generally accept your view of Michael Moore. A point probably to be considered, but his strong views don't help his cause.
Comment 16 (3134) by OJB on 2012-06-08 at 15:30:54:
Yes, but you must agree that it's true, surely. Corporations spend hundreds of millions to influence politicians. Do you deny this? The history of influence goes back years and it isn't getting any better. Whether it's good or bad is debatable but few people would deny it's a fact.
Comment 17 (3144) by sea on 2012-06-14 at 10:31:45:
Lobbyists come in all forms: private companies, labour unions, Anti Defamation League, media, specific industry...the list goes on. This is the price of giving everyone a say. Accept it and swallow it up, you asked for it. Now is not the time to bitch.
Comment 18 (3151) by OJB on 2012-06-14 at 23:41:23:
Do you really believe that this is a level playing field? That big corporations who can hand out millions to political parties and individuals with nothing have the same influence? Surely you don't think this is true. I asked for it? I don't remember that. And now is exactly the time to bitch!
Comment 19 (3175) by SBFL on 2012-06-30 at 07:44:56:
Many lobbyists hand out lot of money to various political parties. Unions are just as prevalent as private companies. In fact, based on the official register, many companies contribute to both main parties. For unions, seems not the same pattern. Hmmm...what was that about a level playing field?
Comment 20 (3181) by OJB on 2012-06-30 at 14:21:24:
The level playing field in this case refers to how much cash each group has to "invest" for political purposes. I agree that business makes "contributions" to both parties. Does that make it better? I can't see how. I would like to see all contributions to political parties banned but that would be difficult to enforce, of course.
Comment 21 (3185) by SBFL on 2012-07-03 at 09:31:43:
I disagree. Banning "all contributions to political parties" is an assault on democracy. It's much better to just publicise what contributions were made and from whom at what time. Winston won't like this much, but at least it'll keep David Shearer busy.
Comment 22 (3194) by OJB on 2012-07-03 at 15:05:55:
I don't think it's an assault on democracy at all. I think you agree with me that there is no real democracy in the US. Why? Because all the politicians "belong" to big corporations thanks to out of control "donations".
Comment 23 (3221) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 09:54:31:
If "big corporations" also includes "big unions" then we can agree here that US politics is at least influenced by money. Of course votes are still existing.
Comment 24 (3241) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 11:31:06:
Do you really think unions have much control in the US? Really? When did a US politician last take any sort of action which would be friendly to unions? But yes, in principle I would like to see no political contributions being made by anyone.
Comment 25 (3246) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 11:46:12:
Well in the US there was the recent action that forced Boeing to look at alternative states for their plants. Quite a bit of news there.
And maybe you should look closer to home. The unions and NZ Labour seem one and the same almost. the donations connection is well documented. I think about 25% (at least) of the Labour caucus have unions connections. How's Andrew Little's leadership aspirations coming along, by the way?
Comment 26 (3248) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 11:55:44:
Moving a Boeing plant to a different state. Sounds fairly unimpressive to me. Is that it?
You specifically mentioned the US but yes, I agree Labour does have moderately strong links to unions. Is there a problem with that? As far as Andrew Little is concerned, who knows. I would like to see him have a stronger role in the party. Labour are moving left, where they should be.
Comment 27 (3253) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 12:10:13:
You asked for an example. I gave you a big one. In case you hadn't noticed, there aren't too many airplane makers in the world.
And you now acknowledge and support more union support in Labour. Enough said. Your campaign against big influence in politics is now completely shot. You clearly support it when it suits your agenda.
Comment 28 (3261) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 12:42:11:
Still not sure what the relevance is or what the alleged influence was. Did a union force the US government to force Boeing to move a factory to a new state? Do you have a link for this news?
Many Labour MPs have a background in unions. What has that got to do with unions giving Labour excessive campaign donations in return for political favours? Isn't that what we were talking about? I repeat my preference that no one would donate to any political party.
Comment 29 (3265) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 12:58:47:
NZ Union donations to Labour are well known. Unionist involvement in Labour is well known. If you don't think that equates to favourable policy you are naive and also with your head in the sand. Keep voting Green.
Comment 30 (3271) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 13:27:49:
The NLRB filed a complaint against Boeing because they didn't follow the law. Apart from the whining form the right-wing nutters in that article I see no problem.
OK, please listen carefully: I do not support *any* donations to *any* party by *any* group. They are all too open to corruption as a result. I thought I have made this very clear!
Comment 31 (3273) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 13:40:10:
Well it wasn't clear that this also applied to the left and to unions from your point of view. Now we know, thank-you. So it's not just all about "big corporations" and their money to the left and right. But we agree then, other undue influences in politics exist and all should be cleansed.
Comment 32 (3277) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 13:49:09:
Yes, we agree that all outside influences should be stopped from offering what are effectively bribes to political parties. I do have to repeat though that big business offers far more bribes and gets far more results than any other group, especially in the US.
Comment 33 (3282) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 14:01:35:
But you agree it's not only "big business" and you agree that "big business" contributes to both the left and right?
Comment 34 (3283) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 14:03:16:
Yes and yes, although there is no real "left" in the US. And even if there was, bribing the left as well as the right makes things worse, not better!
Comment 35 (3284) by SBFL on 2012-07-10 at 14:12:06:
And you have said this before (no real left in the US), so I'll say you are consistent at least.
Comment 36 (3286) by OJB on 2012-07-10 at 14:56:46:
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE