Apocalypse Soon?

The Ehrliches have released a paper, and I have only gotten about half way done reading it so far. I'll post the link now, though. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's going on?

I didn't bump it for the sake of bumping it. I bumped it to test a hypothesis.

If 26,707 members of the general public look at this topic in 13 days time, then, logically speaking, this is an interesting topic. The fact that so many valued members of this forum don't seem to agree, seems more than a little strange.

You care more about trying to create the impression that a thread about apocalypse has "run it's course", than about apocalypse itself!

Also, after 13 days, no one is willing to discuss the grave implications of the David Price paper. In fact, almost all of the references in my original post have been ignored. The conversation has been extremely silly, so far. We have not even begun the kind of serious discussion one would expect to find on a science discussion forum.

What's going on?

Here is the correct link to the David Price paper:

http://dieoff.org/page137.htm

The link is incorrect in my original post. I have already asked Trippy to fix it for me.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Been busy. And I have not been keeping up because I have been so darn busy ...sorry:shrug:
Life likes to bite you in the ass especially when you are not looking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, it is a pretty silly claim. So that makes sense.

Well, either there's a vast conspiracy to suppress you and your brave, paradigm-shattering ideas - or no one is too interested in discussing YADP (yet another doomsday prediction.)

It is entertaining, though.

 

Silly entertainment for the doomed...

So you cherry picked my quote just to mirror the "silly" part, and you completely ignored the grave implications of the David Price paper. Nice dodge!

The David Price paper still has not been addressed. I think the explanation for that is that no one can come up with a good reason why eventual collapse is not absolutely inevitable. If you had to acknowledge that an apocalypse is just a matter of time, we could then rationally look at the other references I posted concerning the timing. That would make a very compelling case for an apocalypse soon. You are afraid to lose the argument. That is understandable.

I am leaning toward the conspiracy idea, though I wouldn't necessarily call it vast. No one is too interested in discussing it here, that's for sure.

I'm glad you find it entertaining, though. So do I. And so do 26,907 viewers, so far!

I think it would be even more entertaining if people weren't so afraid to take a look at the David Price paper. I must be right about apocalypse soon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, you bumped it because you're not getting enough attention. And for people such as yourself, attention is what this whole thing is about, so...

No, logically-speaking, it just means that the topic title is interesting. The lack of responses implies, again, logically-speaking (since in a thread such as this, logical statements require such a preface to stand out against all the bullshit) the topic itself isn't very interesting.

1) I created no such impression. Zero replies in three days creates that impression.
2) There is no "apocalypse itself," so in that regard there's nothing to care about.

As bilvon mentioned, the premise of the topic (as well as Price's paper) is quite silly, so it's only natural that the conversation is silly also.

Let me guess: The Illuminati is silencing us all?

You realize that your name and avatar are just to the left of your post, correct? A signature is redundant.

 

Creating impressions

You have no way of knowing that. Maybe I have a different reason.

Billvon just said the topic was entertaining.

1. Then why bother to say this:

Seems like you are trying to create an impression.

2. So says you. You don't support that statement in any way. You are trying to create another impression.

Bilvon tried to create that impression by cherry picking my comment. You are doing the exactly the same thing a little more explicitly. Just to be clear, the discussion happening on this thread is silly. The David Price paper is not silly. You are just afraid to discuss it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you some kind of conspiracy nut?

I like to sign my posts, since a lot of thought goes into each one. I notice that you don't sign yours.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is a great analogy for apocalypse!

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Chances are, you don't. For your motive to be different, you'd have to be something other than just another in a long line of loons propagating some asinine theory in spite of any evidence for it, or all evidence against it. And since that seems to describe you to a T, I'd have to say I'm probably right about this.

Entertaining is not the same as interesting. Silly topics such as this can be entertaining, but are rarely--if ever--interesting.

I said that because I was annoyed at a cook bumping his own dead thread without adding anything of substance. Your post was essentially, "Nobody's looking at me anymore! Whyyyyyyyy???" And that's bogus, so I called you on it.

And I say again, I created no impression. The deadness of your thread creates an impression of its own, because "It has run its course" is the most likely reason any thread goes silent. You, on the other hand, clearly are trying to create the impression that nefarious forces are responsible.

I need to support the claim that there is no immanent apocalypse? Might as well ask me to support the claim that there is no Easter Bunny.

You said the conversation was silly, he said (and I echoed) the whole premise is silly. What about that is cherry-picking?

The David Price paper is a joke. It's beyond silly. I have no fear in discussing silly things, I simply have no interest in discussing this one. Nor does anyone else, given how bloody dead your thread went.

I'm just waiting to hear what kind of lunatic theory you'll come up with for why your thread went silent. I figured it would be along the lines of some massive cover-up.

Do you not know what redundant means?

See the box to the left? Each post is already signed. Automatically.

 

I'm glad that you think this.

OK

We have already covered this.

Easter Bunny=Apocalypse? I don't think so.

If this was an Easter Bunny thread I would ask you to support the claim that there is no Easter Bunny. Since this is a thread on immanent apocalypse, however, you need to support the claim that there is no immanent apocalypse. That makes a lot of sense. Bringing the Easter Bunny into this is just stupid.

Are you afraid of the impression you are creating that you may, in fact, be afraid of discussing the David Price paper? That is what it looks like to me, and it is likely to be what it looks like to 27,342 viewers. Calling the David Price paper "beyond silly" isn't working. And saying you have no interest in discussing it seems like yet another dodge. It is just making it look like you are afraid. You may be forced to address the David Price paper after all.

Your hyperbolic claim of unity, against the idea of apocalypse, is unfounded. And this thread seems pretty active to me.

If you want to discuss conspiracy theories, please start your own thread on the topic.

Of course I do. But I still like to sign my posts.

Why does signing my posts trouble you so much? Anyway, I would much rather discuss the topic of the thread.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

More like "did not take very seriously."

I agree. Neither you nor Price have.

Whatever you say! In 2016 when our economy doesn't collapse from $24/gallon gasoline I am sure you'll have another paper proving that while Price was wrong, this new guy is certainly right, and the Apocalypse will come in 2020 instead.

 

Oh but it does. They're both fictional, and neither have any evidence to support their existence (or immanent arrival).

Did that really go over your head?

No, I don't, because you haven't presented us with any reason to believe that an apocalypse is immanent.

I'll take "Poor Sentence Structure" for $1000, Alex.

Wanna try that again, chief?

And you calling me a scaredy-cat for not deconstructing an idiotic paper by some nobody looks like you're so desperate for attention you'll resort to childish baiting to get your fix.

If this isn't clear enough for you, I don't give a shit what you think about me.

It's founded by four days now of no one talking about your apocalypse.

Yeah, with a meta-discussion entirely unrelated to the topic. We're just talking about you and why your thread is dead.

I'm not starting one, I'm waiting for yours.

And it's still pointless. Signing it because you're proud of it is pointless, because the system already does that for you.

It doesn't. I just wanted to point out how stupid it is to sign a post that signs itself.

 

You take it seriously enough to leave another comment.

Thanks for catching my typo. I fixed it in my post.

Perhaps. We will just have to wait and see. But Price doesn't try to time the apocalypse, which you would know if you had read it. He just shows why it is inevitable.

While we just are waiting around to see if an immanent apocalypse happens, let's discuss why is David Price wrong about inevitable apocalypse, shall we?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

More meta-discussion

Wrong.

Nothing you say could possibly go over my head.

I want to get through the inevitable part first. Then we can talk about the immanent part.

Nope.

More dodging and weaving on the David Price paper. Wanna try that again, chief?

An idiotic paper by some nobody?

David Price

Ph.D. in anthropology, University of Chicago.

Dr. Price, 1940 - April 21, 1999, anthropologist, linguist and research associate with Cornell's Population & Development Program. Formerly an instructor of anthropology at Hamilton College and the University of Brasilia.

Conducted field work with the Huichol Indians of Mexico and the Nambiquara of western Brazil.

Editor, Cornell College of Engineering.
Author, "Before the Bulldozer: the Nambiquara Indians and the World Bank", 1980.

It looks like you are the desperate one. No one is baiting you.

OK.

Which happened to coincide with my post in which I quoted the David Price paper along with his shocking graphs of die off examples from nature.

And that is because that is what you choose to do. I would rather discuss the David Price paper as I have repeatedly said.

You first.

It is not pointless. I am more proud than you.

Noted.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Price on Malthus

And that concludes the latest irrelevant side track track meta-discussion. I thought I would take this opportunity to get this thread back on topic by going back to basics. Way back.

Here is a section of another essay by David Price, this time on the father of apocalyptic thinking, Thomas Robert Malthus.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/price_d_malthus_false_hopes.htm

Of Population and False Hopes:

Malthus and His Legacy

David Price
March 1998

Hopefully this will provide some historical context on the topic of apocalypse, and help generate some good discussion.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you so much for such a reasoned, logical, and rational comment. I did not see your comment until today due to your post being in moderation or I would have responded immediately.

So, I am not alone in thinking that an apocalypse is immanent. Yippee! You made my day. Please come back to the discussion.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ironically, I am not alone

Thank you so much for such a reasoned, logical, and rational comment. I did not see your comment until today due to your post being in moderation, or I would have responded to it immediately. It appears on page one of the thread. Ironically, this post went into moderation as well! I used my workaround to post it anyway.

So, I am not alone in thinking that an apocalypse is immanent. Yippee! You made my day. Please come back to the discussion.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On second thought...

Here is a thread I just found in Site Feedback:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133101-Moderator-approval-denied

It appears I may have lost one of my only allies on this thread. If Jeeves' post had appeared when it was supposed to, this thread would be vastly different (better). I would have responded favorably to him and it seems likely he would have made more posts here. Instead, he may have resigned his membership in frustration, and the level of discourse on this thread has suffered greatly as a result. What a terrible coincidence.

On a positive note, however, "Apocalypse Soon?" has now attracted 30,026 views!

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On second thought...

Here is a thread I just found in Site Feedback:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133101-Moderator-approval-denied

It appears I may have lost one of my only allies on this thread. If Jeeves' post had appeared when it was supposed to, this thread would be vastly different (better). I would have responded favorably to him and it seems likely he would have made more posts here. Instead, he may have resigned his membership in frustration, and the level of discourse on this thread has suffered greatly as a result. What a terrible coincidence.

On a positive note, however, "Apocalypse Soon?" has now attracted 30,026 views!

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS---This post also was a victim of the moderation "bug", but I used my clever workaround once again.

 

You are still no match for Robittybob1!

Ha ha, this is you: :fright: All frightened like n'stuff. More ha ha at you: :fart:

~Beer w/Straw

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!