Are we or have we always been teetering on the edge?

[Pattonias]

As I'm reading my morning news stories, I can't help but feel like everything is slowly building up to some sort of great climax. That everything is getting so bad or so good as the days progress eventually everything has to maximize or peter off, before everything becomes incredibly boring or collapses.

Has it always been like this? Can some of our older (more experienced) PF members tell me whether or not it was always like this?

Should we be looking out for some major catastrophe or life altering event?

Aliens?
Anti-Christ?
Nuclear War?
World War?
Total Economic Collapse?
Mars Colonization?
People evolve a third arm?

I mean does it ever really peak or should I just buckle down and expect to always be told that everything is about to be the worst it has ever been?

I know that this is kind of light-hearted for the political forum, but it is also a little heavy for the GD forum. Even though I am asking in a little off-color way, I am asking a serious question.

 

[BobG]

Yes, it always like this. The news always carries the best news and the worst news and the news had better be significant and interesting or people won't care about it.

Actually, it's a little worse than it's ever been, since you can have national coverage about purely local events. Wacko in a small, backwater Arkansas town slaughters half the town (which had a population of 32 prior to the slaughter), and the entire nation will feel a little less safe that night as they realize the same thing could happen in their very own neighborhood. Two weeks later, drunk in Spokane, Washington kills his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend (that used to be the drunk's best friend) and the nation has proof that that some wacko will definitely come around and slaughter them, personally, that night.

Why are more people afraid of flying than are afraid of driving? Because plane crashes make the front page news and most car crashes don't.


Best bet:

Blow up your TV throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try an find Jesus on your own

 

[Astronuc]

As I'm reading my morning news stories, I can't help but feel like everything is slowly building up to some sort of great climax. That everything is getting so bad or so good as the days progress eventually everything has to maximize or peter off, before everything becomes incredibly boring or collapses.

Has it always been like this? Can some of our older (more experienced) PF members tell me whether or not it was always like this?

Should we be looking out for some major catastrophe or life altering event?

Aliens?
Anti-Christ?
Nuclear War?
World War?
Total Economic Collapse?
Mars Colonization?
People evolve a third arm?

I mean does it ever really peak or should I just buckle down and expect to always be told that everything is about to be the worst it has ever been?

I know that this is kind of light-hearted for the political forum, but it is also a little heavy for the GD forum. Even though I am asking in a little off-color way, I am asking a serious question.

News? Of course, one forgot Paris, Britney, Nicole, Lindsey, . . . .

 

[Pattonias]

I always thought of celebrity news as the sock-puppet of mass media.

"Ohhhh, your a crazy person. Well let me pull out Mr. Sprinkles to explain everything in a way you might understand."

*respond with laughing and clapping of hands.

 

[Nebula815]

As I'm reading my morning news stories, I can't help but feel like everything is slowly building up to some sort of great climax. That everything is getting so bad or so good as the days progress eventually everything has to maximize or peter off, before everything becomes incredibly boring or collapses.

Has it always been like this? Can some of our older (more experienced) PF members tell me whether or not it was always like this?

Should we be looking out for some major catastrophe or life altering event?

Aliens?
Anti-Christ?
Nuclear War?
World War?
Total Economic Collapse?
Mars Colonization?
People evolve a third arm?

I mean does it ever really peak or should I just buckle down and expect to always be told that everything is about to be the worst it has ever been?

I know that this is kind of light-hearted for the political forum, but it is also a little heavy for the GD forum. Even though I am asking in a little off-color way, I am asking a serious question.

You forgot catostrophic global climate change that kills us all in your list too

The media always seek to scare and sensationalize. Imagine if for example they only reported on all the good things happening in society? But they find the bad things as well.

Things go up and go down. During the 1970s, the crime and murder rate I believe were a lot higher for example, now it's lower, just the media report the murders a lot more.

From what I have seen, whenever people think there's a catastrophe on the horizon, there usually isn't one. The REAL catastrophes take everyone by surprise (for example, 9/11 or the financial crises). Yes, a few people saw these coming, and in hinsight, they should have been obvious, but leading up to them, most were oblivious.

 

[turbo]

Fear sells. Don't buy into the fear, and things will be fine.

When someone is using fear as a motivator, it's best to parse the message very well and put it through the Truth-o-Meter. Here in Maine, there is an anti-health-care ad in heavy rotation during the local and national news, featuring an old woman who is claiming that health-care reform will cripple our economy AND ruin Medicare. She says that she was chairman of the CBO, but apparently, she disagrees with the assessments of the current CBO, despite having been out of the saddle for a long time.

Who watches the news religiously? Who is probably least equipped to get on-line and investigate the wild claims? Who would be most impacted by reductions in Medicare coverage? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the insurance lobby is trying to stampede elderly people with unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Dadface]

News? Of course, one forgot Paris, Britney, Nicole, Lindsey, . . . .

Britney's going to sing at us.We're doomed...doomed.

 

[Al68]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the insurance lobby is trying to stampede elderly people with unsubstantiated claims.

You mean the same insurance lobby (http://www.ahip.org that represents 1300 companies that insure 200 million Americans) that is pushing for:

"Guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, fixing the health care safety net, giving tax credits to working families and enacting an individual coverage requirement", among other things that the Democratic Party is trying to enact?

The same insurance lobby that is on the verge of having their tools in Washington force people to buy the type of policy they won't buy voluntarily because most people don't want it?

Are we really going to let the insurance industry succeed in having their Washington cronies actually pass a law forcing citizens to buy their product? And the version of their product so ridiculous that they can't currently sell it to hardly anyone?

What does your "Truth-o-Meter" say about the claims by these same politicians that they are "fighting against insurance companies" for "the people"? Mine says .

 

[drankin]

You mean the same insurance lobby (http://www.ahip.org that represents 1300 companies that insure 200 million Americans) that is pushing for:

"Guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions, fixing the health care safety net, giving tax credits to working families and enacting an individual coverage requirement", among other things that the Democratic Party is trying to enact?

The same insurance lobby that is on the verge of having their tools in Washington force people to buy the type of policy they won't buy voluntarily because most people don't want it?

Are we really going to let the insurance industry succeed in having their Washington cronies actually pass a law forcing citizens to buy their product? And the version of their product so ridiculous that they can't currently sell it to hardly anyone?

What does your "Truth-o-Meter" say about the claims by these same politicians that they are "fighting against insurance companies" for "the people"? Mine says .

Looking into my crystal ball (Made in China), is see this health care deal pushing through. Then soon down the road, smoking will be severely penalized (I don't entirely object), drinking will be severly penalized (some objection there), hazardous recreational activities will be penalized, etc. Basically, anything that makes one high risk for insurance companies now will simply be penalized by the government later in order to control costs.

Liberty? What's that? We are just sheep for Uncle Sam to herd and shear.

 

[Alfi]

Ah - no need to panic, it's all over in 2012 anyway

:)

 

[D H]

Best bet:

Blow up your TV throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try an find Jesus on your own

That you know this song dates you, BobG.

(That I recognized this right off the bat dates me, too. )

Back on topic, back when that song was written (1971) things seemed to be going down the toilet. Maybe not so bad as when I was a kid and we had to practice inane drills in case the Commies nuked us. Even worse, 1963, when, within a month, Kennedy was assassinated and my parents went to the country, bought an old home. They planted a big garden, and expected us to find Jesus. The. World. Was. Over.

The world has been over many, many times over, and yet the world still survives.

 

[Phrak]

Back on topic, back when that song was written (1971) things seemed to be going down the toilet. Maybe not so bad as when I was a kid and we had to practice inane drills in case the Commies nuked us. Even worse, 1963, when, within a month, Kennedy was assassinated and my parents went to the country, bought an old home. They planted a big garden, and expected us to find Jesus. The. World. Was. Over.

The world has been over many, many times over, and yet the world still survives.

You ain't seen nothin yet, DH. It's not about being over, it's about change. The world of people is in exponential evolution. In three and five years you will have concerns that, today, you would find unfathomable.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There was an interesting article I read quite some time ago, doubt I could find it, that discussed several of the more popular end of the world stories through out history. The paper concluded speculating that since the end of the world has been averted over and over again for thousands of years there really seems to be some sort of mentality inherent to humans that they want to "live in interesting times". The idea that this ol world will keep spinning around long after they are gone hints too strongly at their own mortality and finite existence.

 

[Phrak]

Like it or not, some times are more interesting than others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times"

 

[rootX]

All the world changes on the days when I don't read the world news. It has always been the same place but you would see it in different colors depending on what you see IMO

 

[Nebula815]

There was an interesting article I read quite some time ago, doubt I could find it, that discussed several of the more popular end of the world stories through out history. The paper concluded speculating that since the end of the world has been averted over and over again for thousands of years there really seems to be some sort of mentality inherent to humans that they want to "live in interesting times". The idea that this ol world will keep spinning around long after they are gone hints too strongly at their own mortality and finite existence.

Yes, many people simply cannot imagine the world continuing to exist once they themselves cease to exist in this world.

 

[D H]

You ain't seen nothin yet, DH. It's not about being over, it's about change. The world of people is in exponential evolution. In three and five years you will have concerns that, today, you would find unfathomable.

I doubt that. I don't put much stock in the singularity.

I think the winners of the interesting times award goes to those who were born in the last part of the 19^th century. Most of them were born on a farm, just like their parents, their grandparents, their great grandparents, and so on. The world was changing back then, but that change was slow. They entered this world in a horse-drawn era and a few left it at the dawn of the space age. In between, they lived through two world wars and some nasty pandemics. They were teetering on the edge. We are not.

 

[russ_watters]

The world of people is in exponential evolution. In three and five years you will have concerns that, today, you would find unfathomable.

What does any of that even mean? What is "exponential evolution"? and of what? What concerns are you talking about? What is going to be different about the next 3-5 years than the last 3-5 years?

Heck, I remember the 1ghz race between AMD and Intel, just 10 years ago. People were excited by their 1ghz chips but even more excited at the prospect of what we could do with our 100ghz chips that we'd have in 10 years! Oops.

IMO, the pace of technological advancement (if that is what you are talking about) is slowing.

 

[mheslep]

...
IMO, the pace of technological advancement (if that is what you are talking about) is slowing.

That would be a very interesting pace to measure, and very difficult to measure I expect.

 

[DaveC426913]

Has it always been like this? Can some of our older (more experienced) PF members tell me whether or not it was always like this?

Well, let's ask someone who's a little older.

"Today's youth are in rebellion, society is crumbling, it appears to be the fall of mankind"


Who said this?

Plato. 2500 years ago.

.
.

 

[Al68]

Looking into my crystal ball (Made in China), is see this health care deal pushing through. Then soon down the road, smoking will be severely penalized (I don't entirely object), drinking will be severly penalized (some objection there), hazardous recreational activities will be penalized, etc. Basically, anything that makes one high risk for insurance companies now will simply be penalized by the government later in order to control costs.

Liberty? What's that? We are just sheep for Uncle Sam to herd and shear.

The most absurd thing in all of this is to hear the word "extremist" thrown around to describe those of us who oppose such government power.

But those in favor of government exercising the kind of power over people that Caesar (and King George) could only have contemplated in their wildest dreams are called "moderates".

 

[mheslep]

Well, let's ask someone who's a little older.

"Today's youth are in rebellion, society is crumbling, it appears to be the fall of mankind"


Who said this?

Plato. 2500 years ago.

.
.

One could argue that he was right. The golden age of Athens ended catastrophically. Society eventually reconstitutes itself, but it might take 500 or a 1000 years of darkness.

 

[russ_watters]

That would be a very interesting pace to measure, and very difficult to measure I expect.

Not as difficult as you might think. You could pick a handful of benchmark technologies and compare them almost quantatively. Game changers like the airplane, steam engine, car, computer, etc. Or you could look at a particular aspect of the human condition such as life expectancy, which covers an awful lot of technological progress.

The other thing is with science, advancement is mostly a matter of tightening your error margins. And over the past 100 years, they've been tightened so much, there isn't much distance left between our theories and The Laws of the Universe.

 

[russ_watters]

You could pick a handful of benchmark technologies and compare them almost quantatively. Game changers like the airplane, steam engine, car, computer, etc.

Lets actually try this one. Here's a few:

-Computers: Invented in 1946, started to affect the masses in ~1980, fully mature around 2000.
-Airplanes: Invented, 1903, started to affect the masses in around 1935, fully mature by 1958.
-Cars: This one's a little tougher to pin down. I'm going to pick 1880 as the start, fully mature by the 1950s. While they have continued to evolve, since then, they haven't in a "game changing" way. Perhaps there is a game changer still to come for them, though...

Probably the biggest difficulty I see in this, though, is that the last "game changer" only matured in the last 10 years and since there are only a handful of these a century, it probably can't be measured that the pace is slowing. We have to look around and see if there are any "game changer" technologies that have been invented but might take another 20-30 years to mature. I don't see any.

 

[mheslep]

Not as difficult as you might think. You could pick a handful of benchmark technologies and compare them almost quantatively. Game changers like the airplane, steam engine, car, computer, etc. Or you could look at a particular aspect of the human condition such as life expectancy, which covers an awful lot of technological progress.

There's a difference between tech progress and impact. I'd argue that most of the impact occurs in the early game of tech progress. Thus raising the life expectancy from 45 to 75 by progress in the understanding of infectious desease was relatively easy compared to the progress in genectics required to go from 75 to 105. Big advances in, e.g. genetics are occurring, but that next 30 years of LE is much harder than the earlier 30.

Second, aside from increasing difficulty in making 2nd and 3rd generation advancements in planes, cars, and computers, there's the question of 'is it good enough?'. That is, now that we have 500 mph commercial air travel, how much effort need go into 3000 mph exo-atmospheric hyper planes? Do we really need them? Perhaps today's equivalent of the Wright brothers decided 'not interested' and turned their attention instead to Mars lander probes.

Third, as soon as one decides to take the measuring stick to existing tech like cars, planes and computers, then we admit to a blind eye in other brand new, developing technologies - some of which is bound to be hype and useless - and some of it very much the opposite.

 

[mheslep]

Lets actually try this one. Here's a few:

-Computers: Invented in 1946, started to affect the masses in ~1980, fully mature around 2000.
-Airplanes: Invented, 1903, started to affect the masses in around 1935, fully mature by 1958.
-Cars: This one's a little tougher to pin down. I'm going to pick 1880 as the start, fully mature by the 1950s. While they have continued to evolve, since then, they haven't in a "game changing" way. Perhaps there is a game changer still to come for them, though...

In a limited sense I agree, but I don't think it supports your hypothesis that the "pace of technological advancement" is slowing, only that the pace of these categories are slowing. I'd argue that in many ways these aspects of modern life are 'good enough' in historical context, so now there are huge efforts instead in biotech to improve the quality of life.

I saw the other day where a professional soccer player had received a heart transplant, and was able to continue playing rather than hobble around, which I found simply amazing, and I chaulk up to some of these new biotech anti-rejection drugs. I doubt that soccer player would be equally thrilled by 3x faster planes or 2x faster cars or 10x faster computers.

 

[Sorry!]

In a limited sense I agree, but I don't think it supports your hypothesis that the "pace of technological advancement" is slowing, only that the pace of these categories are slowing. I'd argue that in many ways these aspects of modern life are 'good enough' in historical context, so now there are huge efforts instead in biotech to improve the quality of life.

Agreed, I think that another main reason that it appears to be slowing is our lives our immersedd in technology on day-to-day basis. So it's not as new and 'exciting' when they release that new computer chip, or develop a new robot to land on Mars. (to some people it may be but the population as a whole not as much...) So the media hype dies around it and we don't hear about the vast strides in technology that you would have been hearing constantly during what the 80s/90s? (I'm too young to say anything else I am only really able to recall the 90s and technological advancement was huge back then.) Or am I off point?

So the fact that our day-to-day life technology is already "good enough" and they have moved to try and make vast advancements in new areas of technology coupled with the fact that this has caused less hype about technology in day-to-day life would make it appear the pace has slowed down. I wonder if there have already been reports done recently about the 'pace' of technological advancment actually... would be really interesting to see, especially by break down of 'area' of technology. I think at least.

Back to the OP though, I'm not going to lie what I remember about living in the 90s things were a lot more hectic than they are now.

 

[Astronuc]

That is, now that we have 500 mph commercial air travel, how much effort need go into 3000 mph exo-atmospheric hyper planes? Do we really need them?

Does anyone 'need' to get from NY City to Sydney in 3 hrs? About 20 or so years ago, I heard arguments regarding benefits of hypersonic air travel - benefits for business people flying between Europe/N. America/S. America/Asia. I doubt anyone needs to do so, but folks with lots of bucks like to get to places quickly - e.g., Concorde.

Some folks with lots of bucks get to go to the International Space Station. It's not necessary, but simply a frivolous thing to do.


Is it possible that we are on the edge of some significant event - but it won't be obvious until after the fact? And then folks may ask - why didn't we (or the alleged experts) see it coming. And perhaps analysts and historians will find clues or warnings by some individuals, but those clues or warnings were either ignored or dismissed.

 

[Phrak]

What does any of that even mean?

I really have no more to add. Do I look like a profit?

 

[Phrak]

Does anyone 'need' to get from NY City to Sydney in 3 hrs?

Some seem to want a lot of milage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4g930pm8Ms"

Is this real or a hack?

 

[BobG]

Some seem to want a lot of milage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4g930pm8Ms"

Is this real or a hack?

It's a real simulation, if that's what you mean.

It was made by ZHAW School of Engineering, but they don't mention what software they used to create the simulation or where the data came from. I guess the software name is next to the ZHAW logo, but it's hard to read.

That you know this song dates you, BobG.

When my daughter went off to school, she lived in my ex-wife's home town with relatives. One of their agreements was that she could call them for a ride any time of night if she was stranded without a sober driver to drive her home. First time she took them up on the offer, her aunt was less than enthusiastic about a drive at 2 in the morning, but also glad she'd get home safely, so she chose a passive-aggressive punishment: she played John Prine on the car stereo all the way home.

What her aunt didn't know was that my daughter knows all the words to those songs, so she sang along all the way home.

 

[Jasongreat]

As I'm reading my morning news stories, .

Remember that the reason it is news is because its rare, if it wasnt rare it would just be everyday life. You might try Thomas Jeffersons advice when he said that he had given up reading the morning paper and he was far happier because of it. Imo, most news is sensationalized to the extreme to get a bigger reaction(effect).

 

[Proton Soup]

What does any of that even mean? What is "exponential evolution"? and of what? What concerns are you talking about? What is going to be different about the next 3-5 years than the last 3-5 years?

Heck, I remember the 1ghz race between AMD and Intel, just 10 years ago. People were excited by their 1ghz chips but even more excited at the prospect of what we could do with our 100ghz chips that we'd have in 10 years! Oops.

IMO, the pace of technological advancement (if that is what you are talking about) is slowing.

they're just hitting the wall on processor speed. the move now is to have multiple processors. and this is already leading to security concerns, but the genie is out of the bottle and can't be contained, just like before. if you want your own desktop supercomputer, you only need look as far as an nVidia CUDA system for a few grand.

 

[Pattonias]

they're just hitting the wall on processor speed. the move now is to have multiple processors. and this is already leading to security concerns, but the genie is out of the bottle and can't be contained, just like before. if you want your own desktop supercomputer, you only need look as far as an nVidia CUDA system for a few grand.

Wow, that really has nothing to do with my topic of this thread. Bravo!

I might take Thomas Jefferson up on his advice. Not reading the news on a daily basis could be a stress reliever. Of course, it has been a while sense I was actually stressed about the news. I find that I am more thrown aback by the news than actually worried about what is going on.

Do you ever feel like the next days news is akin to the next installment in a TV drama, or the next strip in a comic series?

 

[Proton Soup]

Wow, that really has nothing to do with my topic of this thread. Bravo!

I might take Thomas Jefferson up on his advice. Not reading the news on a daily basis could be a stress reliever. Of course, it has been a while sense I was actually stressed about the news. I find that I am more thrown aback by the news than actually worried about what is going on.

Do you ever feel like the next days news is akin to the next installment in a TV drama, or the next strip in a comic series?

well, excuse the tangents, but the thread topic is boring, anyway. the talking heads on the BoobTubes are always trying to make the smallest minutiae sound like the end of the world because ratings pay the bills. and being the emotional apes we are, we can't get enough of the constant barrage of drama llamas and manbearpigs.

if you want stress relief, maybe start thinking about the statistical probabilities and occurrences of these things. 'bout nil, usually. global warming tipping points for catastrophe keep getting nudged forward. anorexia is really rare compared to obesity and juvenile diabetes but you can't tell kids not to eat because anorexia is a lot more horrific to see and drama llama-ish. my DOG man, think of the CHILDREN, won't you?! what are you, some kind of MONSTER!