Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Reference: Hollywood does the apocalypse, Bangkok Post, November 17, 2009

Jesus Christ and other prophets that came before him, in his time, and after him, were called prophets because the crux of their message was a prophecy of the end of the world. The large supply and demand for these prophecies serve as evidence that we crave or need apocalypse to loom up ahead as part of our existence. In modern times alleged apocalyptic ends of the world have included annihilation by nuclear war, death by overpopulation or by UV radiation through the ozone hole, and the destruction of the world by geological mayhem in 2012, by global warming in 2100, or by plagues or space aliens in at some unspecified time in the future. The continued popularity of Hollywood movies that portray these horrors and the current obsession with the end of the world by climate change serve as further evidence that, for reasons not well understood, we need Armageddon in our life. It is as if we have an Apocalypse gene in our DNA.

Cha-am Jamal


bruce7654 said...

For once I fully agree with you.

However; in your long list of "alleged apocalyptic ends of the world" (of course none of the things you mention could ever end the world, just man's brief reign upon it); I'd say nuclear war and climate change should concern rational humans. It would be wise to do what we can to stop nuclear war ever happening and to limit the effects of climate change.

I know which part you disagree with.

Why is it that you refuse to contemplate that over 90% of the planet's leading scientists actually know what they're talking about and are not part of a weird conspiracy.

By the way, who benefits from what you consider the warmists' agenda? I know full well who benefits from the denialistic challenge. Are you in the pay of any of them?

Or is it just conspiracy theory and ideology gone wrong?

Jamal said...

thank you bruce. i don't have a conspiracy theory on global warming but i do take time to evaluate their claims and often find that their arguments are flawed or that they have taken liberties with the data or have played games with the statistics.