308 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Probably meaningless (/sarc), but the U.S. military has just granted itself authority to arbitrarily intervene in civil (internal) disturbances, which is counter to over 200 years of law enforcement tradition in the U.S., and exactly the same as the former Third Reich constitution.

[NeuroGuy]

Probably meaningless (/sarc), but the U.S. military has just granted itself authority to arbitrarily intervene in civil (internal) disturbances, which is counter to over 200 years of law enforcement tradition in the U.S., and exactly the same as the former Third Reich constitution.

Not meaningless at all, that was a significant red flag for me when I first discovered it. Add that fact to the growing political focus on gun control, as well as the history of totalitarian regimes being preceded by the implementation of such laws, and you have yourself an unfavorable situation.

[McGTak]

Probably meaningless (/sarc), but the U.S. military has just granted itself authority to arbitrarily intervene in civil (internal) disturbances, which is counter to over 200 years of law enforcement tradition in the U.S., and exactly the same as the former Third Reich constitution.

Not meaningless at all, that was a significant red flag for me when I first discovered it. Add that fact to the growing political focus on gun control, as well as the history of totalitarian regimes being preceded by the implementation of such laws, and you have yourself an unfavorable situation.

You make it sound like gun control would be a bad thing. I think it's needed over there, too many crazy people doing crazy things. That's (imo) from too much trust and power granted to average people.

[Mind]

There is a whole thread dedicated to control here: http://www.longecity...-gun-ownership/

Counter-intuitively, violent crime (gun-related) has decreased even though gun ownership has gone up in the U.S. (over the last decade or so).

[Logic]

Its difficult to know how true this is with media being so very selective about what is considered newsworthy.

Russia warns Obama: Global war over bee apocalypse:
http://boards.dailym...apocalypse.html

[goobicii]

I vote no.

World War 3 had it's opportunity, and it was called the Cold War. While some people will suggest that we may be shifting towards Cold War v2, I doubt it will happen. History has shown us, that as civilizations move forward in advancement, war and violence decline. In that sense, it's the basis for my decision.

I won't admit that I know for certain WW3 isn't coming but if I were forced to bet, I'd say it's about 25/75 at this moment. One other thing to add, just because WW3 might not be coming anytime soon, it does not mean that wars will not happen. War will likely happen for a while longer since there is still such a massive cultural conflict amongst humans in the present.

I'm no expert, just my 2 cents

decline? a little part of planet called arab world doesnt agree and if you think cold war ended and the usa and russia are all friends and cool.... theres too much people and they are too stupid and the world elite is too crazy and evil,its just matter of time

now your best bet to live long is t 65,soon your favorite supplement for life extension will be ar 15

[Raptor87]

The war in the middle east is a global- war. It's just that different countries and governments don't get their hand dirty, instead they meddle with different groups.

[Mind]

Sadly, more trade wars. It is often said that currency wars (see US Federal Reserve for prime example), lead to trade wars, lead to shooting wars. I hope we can avoid the shooting part this time around.

[acrosstheveil]

we are in the midst of world war 3

[Layberinthius]

I have to go with no, for sanity's sake, will deal if some major threats to society do occur, till then I support Lifeboat, True Majority, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Interfaith Outreach... and others who are trying to avert anything that will set back humanity in a serious way.

Isn't that sticking your head in the sand though? If you are going to become an immortal I find that a rather puzzling stance to take. Being dependent upon one or two programs is unreliable, what if the program falters and loses funding? A far more reliable method would be to train yourself to survive, at your own pace, you can still remain humane and kind while gaining the ability to kick someones ass.

This is my thought process:
If all of the available evidence supports a trend towards there being a WW3/WW4/WW5/WW6/InterplanetaryWar1 and the result is that you are anxious or nervous about it, then why ignore that anxiety? Why not tackle it head on and prepare or gain knowledge on the subject of survival in the event of a world war.

I don't have anxiety anymore about WW3, WHEN it does arrive, because I know that I am taking it head on. I'll give you an example:
Sooner or later we as a species are going to meet up with aliens (if you believe that they exist at all), and some of them may not be so friendly, but I don't believe that that will occur before we have FTL space travel.

So even if everyone on earth will be peaceful and civil for the rest of eternity (slim chance there), we still have aliens to deal with, viruses to deal with, polluted water, poisoned food, flying bees.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we as a species and as individuals are going to live forever, sooner or later we will end up bumping into almost every possible scenario that we could ever hope to be challenged with.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why I am a constantly changing individual, this is why every time I see a disaster or problem, my mind goes through the process of trying to survive that event and coming up with a plan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a long enough timeline, every single person on this forum will ultimatley be challenged with certian difficulties that must be overcome which vary from very lethal to potentially lethal, even cancer causing, later on down the track, and we may not have anything or anyone to support us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example the buildup of poisonous metals like lead or mercury are both very valid concerns if they aren't going to be periodically purged from the body, on a long enough timeline those metals could be doing serious damage to your body, this would be a long-term challenge.

Especially if at some point we will have to farm, I guarantee you that if I were to become immortal I will have to outlive this generation, the next generation, the one after that, until everyone becomes immortal.

We do not live on a peaceful planet, the people of earth will become violent at times, wage holy wars, as a result I will not be able to be totally reliant upon our current society's food supply, ie the food that you can get from any store, let alone fresh running tap water.

A short term immediate challenge would be in a fight for your life, for example if you are stuck inside a collapsed building. If you live in a major city then on a long enough timeline the risk of this occuring is not a manageable risk but a definite one, I work on the premise that I will eventually be faced with the problem of trying to escape from a collapsed building.

I would expect to be challenged with any of these issues, I certianly wouldn't discredit them just because they would make me go insane.

Thats another thing too that I expect to undergo, being sent insane by imprisonment, who knows what the future will bring, the challenge, the fun of it, is being able to escape from these things and say, yes dammit, I did it, I survived with my sanity intact.

At the finish line of the universe, I expect to say "I had fun" but I certianly do not discredit the fact that I have had to suffer at times.

Just look at all of the trouble Dr Who gets into and he only spends 30 minutes at a time on earth.

Edited by Layberinthius, 17 August 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[Lemon.]

hint; future "wars" would be more "money" related, less war and battle related in one opinion..

[PWAIN]

Russias expansionist actions hint at future trouble....

[Saffron]

I dont think world war 3 is a good idea because it would only be partial destruction, VS if a giant asteroid at least 500 miles or greater in size struck the earth. Partial destruction is a very bad thing, it does not end suffering for all life, it increases suffering for those that survive and then the earth will just recover again with more life on it that suffers.

[The Immortalist]

If it does happen(which I don't want it to) I just want to sit back and watch the fireworks from afar in solemn sadness. Please don't hit me with them though.

[Layberinthius]

http://www.abc.net.a...orth-it/5408346

 

 

Until it's eclipsed by the construction phase of an even more complex challenge - replacing the Collins Class - yesterday's announcement represents our single largest spend on armaments in a single project since federation.

*Further down*

 

While talk is cheap - and fighter jets aren't - my takeaway from this is that a government of no surprises and no excuses surprised no observers by breaking a promise to sharply increase spending here, and didn't really offer an excuse. Seen through the prism of mooted pension and Medicare cuts, this might seem odd - but the Coalition relies on a quaint presumption that it's stronger on defence for little other reason than they say so.

 

Australia's current purchase of top of the line jets hints at needing them for a defence against Russia/China.

 

Seriously, this is becoming scary shit. Especially when we are in a huge economic turmoil here in Australia:

https://www.greenlef...g.au/node/55697

 

Its time to join the killing fields again methinks, ironic that these weapons of death were bought by a Religious man.

 

=(

 

 

Edited by Layberinthius, 27 April 2014 - 04:58 PM.

[Layberinthius]

 

I vote no.

World War 3 had it's opportunity, and it was called the Cold War. While some people will suggest that we may be shifting towards Cold War v2, I doubt it will happen. History has shown us, that as civilizations move forward in advancement, war and violence decline. In that sense, it's the basis for my decision.

I won't admit that I know for certain WW3 isn't coming but if I were forced to bet, I'd say it's about 25/75 at this moment. One other thing to add, just because WW3 might not be coming anytime soon, it does not mean that wars will not happen. War will likely happen for a while longer since there is still such a massive cultural conflict amongst humans in the present.

I'm no expert, just my 2 cents

decline? a little part of planet called arab world doesnt agree and if you think cold war ended and the usa and russia are all friends and cool.... theres too much people and they are too stupid and the world elite is too crazy and evil,its just matter of time

now your best bet to live long is t 65,soon your favorite supplement for life extension will be ar 15

 

 

Exactly my words said in your typewriting.

 

I believe the cold war never ended too.

 

Its a rare belief.
 

[BlueCloud]

There is a whole thread dedicated to control here: http://www.longecity...-gun-ownership/

Counter-intuitively, violent crime (gun-related) has decreased even though gun ownership has gone up in the U.S. (over the last decade or so).

 

Or violent crime decreased because the police has been enforcing the law more and has been more efficient than in the past... 

[Layberinthius]

 

There is a whole thread dedicated to control here: http://www.longecity...-gun-ownership/

Counter-intuitively, violent crime (gun-related) has decreased even though gun ownership has gone up in the U.S. (over the last decade or so).

 

Or violent crime decreased because the police has been enforcing the law more and has been more efficient than in the past... 

 

 

Or VC decreased because the economy got better. You know, less incentive to break into somebody's house just to get money for food. And because more people have guns so.. yeah not going to be breaking into that guys house tonight.

 

Think of the Nuclear arms race and how that deterred Russia from invading, same thing just on a smaller scale.

Edited by Layberinthius, 28 April 2014 - 02:40 AM.

[BlueCloud]

 

 

There is a whole thread dedicated to control here: http://www.longecity...-gun-ownership/

Counter-intuitively, violent crime (gun-related) has decreased even though gun ownership has gone up in the U.S. (over the last decade or so).

 

Or violent crime decreased because the police has been enforcing the law more and has been more efficient than in the past... 

 

 

Or VC decreased because the economy got better. You know, less incentive to break into somebody's house just to get money for food. And because more people have guns so.. yeah not going to be breaking into that guys house tonight.

 

Think of the Nuclear arms race and how that deterred Russia from invading, same thing just on a smaller scale.

 

 

In that case, countries that have strict gun control like Japan, Sweden, or Canada should be the most dangerous places on earth in terms of violent crimes....

[Layberinthius]

 

 

 

There is a whole thread dedicated to control here: http://www.longecity...-gun-ownership/

Counter-intuitively, violent crime (gun-related) has decreased even though gun ownership has gone up in the U.S. (over the last decade or so).

 

Or violent crime decreased because the police has been enforcing the law more and has been more efficient than in the past... 

 

 

Or VC decreased because the economy got better. You know, less incentive to break into somebody's house just to get money for food. And because more people have guns so.. yeah not going to be breaking into that guys house tonight.

 

Think of the Nuclear arms race and how that deterred Russia from invading, same thing just on a smaller scale.

 

 

In that case, countries that have strict gun control like Japan, Sweden, or Canada should be the most dangerous places on earth in terms of violent crimes....

 

 

Indeed it is confusing.

I would be more likely to agree that in that case its the result of better police force. But if you ask anyone around in Australia what the police are like when it comes to crime they will say that they do a shit job and don't do anything when a crime has been comitted.

 

But I think that community peace plays a big part too, when the community fails to defend against crime is when there is a crimewave occuring through the region, I've seen it happen first hand, one day its all quiet and then the next every single persons car or home is being broken into.

 

Remember that the police can only get there after the worst has happened, there is typically a 20 minute delay between the time of the call and the arrival of the cops, and it can take up to 2-3 minutes just to explain it to emergency services.

 

To summarize, there are two modes of defence, one where police action is taken and one where civil action is taken (home defence falls under civil action). The civil action is immediate and sometimes results in GBH or death.

 

There still is crime being comitted in regions where there is strict gun control. Infact without gun ownership I would say that most people are terrified of others, at least that has been the experience that I've had. Everybody is so scared of one another that they immediatley freak out and over react at the littlest tinyest things.

 

So there is therefore a huge incentive for the public to properly defend their region against criminals or potential criminals or people with severe psychological issues. Because everybody knows that the likelyhood that they have a gun is slim.

 

The balance in regions where gun control is strong is where civil policing is strongest.

The balance in regions where gun control is weak is where civil policing is weakest.

 

Take that as you will.
 

Edited by Layberinthius, 28 April 2014 - 12:17 PM.

[A941]

I dont think that we will have a WW3 between the USA, Russia or China, this would wreck each of their economies, and no one really wants that to happen. If anything happens it will be some sort of a local conventional War, or a War between groups aided by the great powers (like during the cold war).

I dont think that a sane politician would risk a global, nuclear war for a few square miles of land, Iam more concerned about religious zealotes who want to reach paradise, like those insane murderers of ISIS.

As i mentioned in another thread, someone who doesnt believe in an afterlife will hestitate to turn the world to ashes, but someone who believes that he will get 72 Virgins*, he will press the button without thinking twice (or once).

 

 

btw.:Putin is not someone who likes democraty, or freedom too much(just in small doses), he is a product of the KGB and the cold war, BUT i see no problem with him taking crimea if it is the will of those who live there and if crimea allready was part of russia before it was "given away" during the time of the USSR, and only through the decision of the central commite. Also a part of the russian fleet is still there, and even if it was a partialy dirty game, we have to admit that if that many american interessts were at stake,the place would have been clusterbombed and invaded two weeks earlier.  

 

 

*What Sort of paradise is that, sounds more like hell ;-)

[xEva]

Back in 2007, when this thread was started, I'd certainly vote 'no'. Not today. It looks like we're heading into the WW3 -- and no one seem to care -? A pertinent for this forum question was posed by Paul Roberts today: Does Russia (And Humanity) Have A Future?

I think open hostilities between the US and Russia will be in full swing by the end of this year, will continue to escalate throughout the 2015, and by 2016 Europe will be.. ..well, fucked^©

New Zealand anyone?

[Maecenas]

Russia is a very weak economical power. Almost 80% of its export comprises oil and gas. It has a GDP of 2 trillion us dollars, which is comparable to that of Italy. The military budget is 80 billion dollars. The army is not professional, consists of ill-trained draftees, whose whole training was shooting 3 bullets and peeling potatoes during two years of service. All nuclear weapons are old and can be shot down by american anti-missile systems. 

Nowadays Russia, which is ruled by Putin's oligarchs' mafia has adopted national-socialistic ideology of hitlerian type and it means total isolation for it.

Given all of the above I predict the end of Russia as a country in the next 5 years.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Do not underestimate Russia. So far in the history of the mankind, there is only one country, that managed do destroy all of the empires and conqurers, who wanted to destroy it, or who tried to conqure it, and this is Russia.

[Maecenas]

Do not underestimate Russia. So far in the history of the mankind, there is only one country, that managed do destroy all of the empires and conqurers, who wanted to destroy it, or who tried to conqure it, and this is Russia.

But Russia was  under mongolian rule for 2 centuries. Nevertheless it doesn't matter what it was. What it is - does matter. The times when a sheer physical power was decicive in politics have gone. Nowadays a brain power matters and Russia has none.

Edited by Maecenas, 29 July 2014 - 01:33 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

No matter if you thik Russia is your enemy or not, underestimating is always a serious mistae.

[Danail Bulgaria]

No matter if you believe, that Russia is your enemy or not, underestimating always has been a very serious mistake, and this is another historical fact.

[Maecenas]

No matter if you believe, that Russia is your enemy or not, underestimating always has been a very serious mistake, and this is another historical fact.

I don't underestimate I look at the facts. Everything what can help russians currently is their mystical russian soul and vodka.

[Danail Bulgaria]

http://historyrusedu...-rusi-ot-tataro-mongolskogo-iga.html

 

Translated citing:

 

"In the year of 1480 the mongolo - tatarian rule was definately defeated. This happened after fights of the moscow and the mongolo - tatarian armies at the river of Urga. "

 

How and why the historical fact of the 200 years mongol rule menas, that Russia did not manage to destroy all the powers, who tried to invade or conquer it, including the mongols?

 

Shall I understand, that you base your vision for the harmless Russia only by what you see among the russian people and not taking into consideration everything, that you don't see, because, for example is in secret military bases?

[Maecenas]

http://historyrusedu...-rusi-ot-tataro-mongolskogo-iga.html

 

Translated citing:

 

"In the year of 1480 the mongolo - tatarian rule was definately defeated. This happened after fights of the moscow and the mongolo - tatarian armies at the river of Urga. "

 

How and why the historical fact of the 200 years mongol rule menas, that Russia did not manage to destroy all the powers, who tried to invade or conquer it, including the mongols?

 

Shall I understand, that you base your vision for the harmless Russia only by what you see among the russian people and not taking into consideration everything, that you don't see, because, for example is in secret military bases?

I don't say it's harmless. Modern Russia as governed by Putin's mafia has devastating effect on its own people. It's a backwards country in all respects. The only reason it shouldn't be neglected is the posession of nuclear weapons and totalitarian political regimen. I think it's in the interest of humanity that Russia should be divided into many independent states (there are many peoples in Russia who want to be independent, but are opressed by Putin's mafia).

I think the biggest global political problems presently are Russia, islamic world and China. They pose a great danger for the future of humanity.