The End Of The World; As We Know It.

[Meem]

So, to set the mood, please enjoy my selection for one's listening pleasure, before one might choose to partake in this meta-quantum-physical entanglement ... philosophical endeavor.




I know this is more than, perhaps, a misadventure into serious thought amongst a group. For some reason, we don't like to make considerations of such things, which include our "possible" death. We are all born of the Gods, -supermen (and women) as it were- slowly realizing year by year, I'm not superman.

These thoughts are supposed to come from the link I posted in the news thread I started. Well, a few other things of course. I'm not afraid to think about it, my death, and the end of things. Then again, that's not entirely true. When I do think about it, the air tends to get ... heavy. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the scenario I've been running follows along with a theme from some movies and books. What if, government organizations had prior knowledge of a coming catastrophic event?

The first side question for me is, what and when is the source of this knowledge? How many years could they have know in advance? And is there a time period where, if even, it would be acceptable for such knowledge to be kept secret, in fear of anarchy or total breakdown of society as we know it?*

* In my thoughts, there is only a brief window of time before such an event that I could deem remotely acceptable. I would say 1-2 years. If there is such a knowledge of an event exceeding this period, this is bad for chances of survival of the species. Why, one might ask? Because, if we still have difficulty with modeling/simulating the physics of a storm with a higher degree of accuracy, at long range projections of course and strength ... the wild amount of physics or plain old chemistry of a "cataclysmic event" is far too much for us to handle.

Maybe we could speculate there is a chance, accurately, of surviving the initial event. It seems to me, saying exactly where would be safe, would be something like a game of Russian roulette. If, and I think this is an accurate assumption(based on fiction), an event is going to occur we cannot accurately predict effected areas, degrees of, and the aftermath of. So, if we are playing an old Russian favorite, maybe the gun should have a very large capacity with that one hidden bullet in it. Inform the public, maybe "last minute" in a short time scenario.

Again though, if the scenario exceeds this 1-2 year time limit, the moral and ethical issues manifest rapidly.

I will end here for now, but not before the confession of wanting to run a "long-time" scenario. And I will say this, I don't leave much out of this scenario. Yes, it will entertain the possibility of "off world" contact. If that possibility is not possible enough for one to remotely reason, perhaps this is not a thread for you.

I am considering this with 75% of the seriousness throttle engaged. Anyhow, if one has, did, does ... ever consider such things ... on any sort of level of serious, please do.


The main question of this opening post:

is there a time period where, if even, it would be acceptable for such knowledge to be kept secret, in fear of anarchy or total breakdown of society as we know it?*

[SteveA]

Something that might be worth considering is that out of all the possible things that could have gone wrong at any moment in life or in the world etc. despite some problems or challenges, overall things managed to keep going.

I guess if it had been differently we wouldn't have had this conversation, but it seems a bit more than pure chance that things managed to carry on relatively stably (don't misunderstand me - life can suck on occassion, but it typically works out that there was still a silver lining later on and out of everything that could have happened, the fact that none of them were show stoppers would appear to be something that could easily be ascribed to more than mere chance and it could be that some measure of faith that tomorrow things don't fall apart might be deserved - whatever's been pulling the strings hasn't "blown chunks" entirely and in any event, there are many things that were beyond control when one was born and plenty of things that remain beyond ones ability to determine and so there can be little choice other than to trust that something will still be around tomorrow, even if that may never be something provable beyond the shadow of a doubt.

What can you do other than what you think's best with what you have to work with? There's nothing more than that, that could be expected. The rest can take care of itself and if it doesn't ... well, so be it. At least, that's how I see it - ones responsibility is in regard to themself and what that encompasses (which can be a challenge learning) and nothing else. If there's anything "fair" about life (not that many people have said it was fair), that would appear to be high on the "how things should be" list and grief, for both/all parties, can also come from trying to help other people clean up something they may need to learn to clean by themself).

In any event, there appears little reason to worry about what might happen tomorrow unless it's truly something within ones ability to determine.

I see the universe as being a lot of little universes - everyone's got their own piece of it and that's really the only part that anyone needs to worry about - though the disputes where things "overlap" can be a challenge ... oh well, I guess that's the tradeoff for having any of it around in the first place - though the ideal could be where it's all shared, but not because people were forced to share it, but because the "border skirmishes" were resolved and people wanted to share it (and saw the greater value of that).

P.S. I notice that anarchy is oftentimes painted as a combatitive and violent state. That's in many ways the antithesis of it as anarchy arises from dropping a tolerance of using force and coercion as legitimate means of interaction.

The unique attribute of government as opposed to private interactions is that the use of a military, coercion and force is typically tolerated or considered legitimate by whatever ruling entities are considered to be in power at that time, whereas these same actions by private individuals are not tolerated or considered legimate means of interaction.

Notice that if someone pulled you off to the side of the road and was armed and effectively demanded $200, this would be considered a crime and many people would consider it entirely appropriate and justified to deter this, where if the same event occured but instead it was claimed to be due to someone not wearing a seatbelt ... well I personally see little difference. How could not wearing a seatbelt be considered some sort of public menance in need of a violent response? It seems more like a case of armed robbery to me and police should be working to stop, not encourage, that but because it's seen as an action by government people tend to immediate overlook the reality and accept this form of "social interaction" - it's just business as usual.

Sorry, Meem, I drifted off topic some.

[Meem]

I feel fine.

When I consider the fact how many times there appears to be evidence of the earth being "re-made" in the natural record, for various types of "events," over it's history. Be it super volcanoes, toxic-bacterial-gas emissions from the ocean, impacts, pole shifts, perhaps a gamma-blast, I feel fine. When I consider that on average, just about every single types of these ... regularly occurring cosmic/earth-events are past due, I cannot help but to consider it.

It's the kind of thing that "deep" or "heavy" thoughts make themselves of. There is this infamous date looming about. I don't feel threatened by it, but I know, without question other do. I know out of all the other doom's days-dates that have come and gone, this particular one has been going for a while. And I have to consider, just about all religions have a doom's day scenario within them. I don't really think it's because "cave-men" sat around plotting psychological domination of "the masses" for eons to come. I think there is a slightly good random chance, of some form of outside influence being a part of our history. Not in some generic manner, sterile, inanimate matter sort of way. But rather in an animate manner sort of way.

I have to consider the goal of science. To learn, catalog, explore, all that is. I am not limiting this possibility to our (in)abilities, or certainties of being the "apex" of such endeavors in the known universe. If I had the chance to travel to another world and catalog it, I would. If I found intelligent life there, I would find it extremely difficult to not become more than an observer, even if it were "less" than I. Perhaps I should say less intelligible. (in a real scenario) This would be bad news for that life-form, and good for my place on the scale of evolution.

If, I could do this, I must say the "math-guys" that got me to this other world must be phenomenal. Even more so if it doesn't take so long to do it. If, all these things were possible, I would imagine it also possible ... they could forecast many physic(s)al events. Maybe, that happened here once.

But in the case, would it be justified, in our case, regardless how the information was acquired .... in not telling the public out of "due-fear?"

I cannot help but to entertain this date and its stigma. It is a part of our culture. The closer it gets, the more magnified -it will be- unavoidable. People will be (do) talking about it.

As for thoughts on the posed question; Does this possibility of withheld information (over a long-time scenario) pose -one of many- psychological threats for possible survivors? IF not because these people are able to move on from some separation mechanic, are those archetypes the kind that "fight" for survival in more of a "carnal" mode than an elevated "emotional" mode?

I do not think it makes for good chances, strategically, not inform the public. Unless .... there is a perfect model/scenario map of an event .... placement of resources, to include us, is a dice roll. I do not think it would be "good" for the mental-state of the majority of survivors privy to such Intel afterwards. Some, a very small few, I would place in group of being "mentally-healthy-strong" that would deal it just fine. Most though, I would say, would fall in "mental-strong-unhealthy." Not to mention, it's not "just."

If such knowledge became know to me, and there were nothing I could do ... The least I'd expect is to be able to face my end with dignity, and have a nice view of the last thing I ever see. And not be besieged in anarchy when doing so.

Anyhow, I'm babbling too much.

[labelwench]

Hello Meem & Steve, (and others as may be viewing.)

Please correct me if I am mistaken, the question you are offering is 'Is it appropriate to withhold knowledge of a devastating kind from the public?'

There seems to be an implication of :
a.) There exists some 'secret' information.
b.) That is has been known for along time.
c.) It is in the control of a powerful few.
d.) The public has a right to know.

My brief thoughts on each of the above.

a. There exists some secret information.

Historically, knowledge IS power, in the hands of one who understands the implications of what they know and how it may be applied. Yet, what is knowledge but data acquired through observation, experience and sharing? As such, I would suggest that we all have opportunity to acquire knowledge, secret or otherwise, depending on our efforts, diligence and timing. What we do with such information, remains another matter.

b. That it has been known for a long time.

There are some ideas that have stood the test of time better than others, including the constant of the speed of light and various 'Doomsday' scenarios. That such are known does not make them 'secret', yet there seems to be an underlying sense that some persons are privy to more details of such 'scenarios' than others, and periodically, there are individuals who come forward with various theories and attempt to solicit a following, for what purpose?

After every significant event in history, there blossoms a 'conspiracy' theory that the event was set in motion by those in secret power. Some of the theories are quite credible, in that they are difficult to disprove as a possibility.

This then, is the true power of information and dis-information, in that, when well spun, it may be difficult to determine the facts from the fiction, as we are a species that will select from the available options, that which best fits our personal previously established paradigms. However, it has also been said 'Where there is smoke, there is fire,' so it behooves us to examine all theories, impartially, if we are capable.

c.) It is in control of a powerful few.

Once again, there are ever groups of people within societies that elect to form associations for their own purposes. I would name MENSA, FREEMASONS, the MAFIA, the VATICAN, the FREETHINKERS, the ILLUMINATI and WALL STREET among others, as groups which have been suggested as having 'secret knowledge' and perhaps influence with the brokers of power, which may not be our elected officials.

True 'secrets' are notoriously hard to maintain, never mind utilize, in my opinion.

d.) The public has a right to know.

The public has every opportunity to learn whatever is of import or relevance to the individual. That there are going to be matters of proprietary interest, or national security, suggests that there will ever be some 'secrets' out there, which will eventually come to light, as such is the nature of secrets.

If such information relates to an hypothesized event on a scale that humanity cannot possibly intervene, (uncertain as to a good example, perhaps you could supply one?), whether one gets the information made public or not, may well be a moot point.

History has never been kind to those who promote ideas outside of the current 'politically correct'.

With that thought in mind, I would be very careful with whom I shared any of my own 'secret concerns and conjectures.'

Afterthought: After every major event (dropping the Atomic Bomb, as example), it may be said that 'It is the end of the world as we know it.

The Oil spill on-going in the Gulf of Mexico, shall be another such event, IMO.

[MJA]

I don't feel fine Meem, I'm upset with thought that the unnatural effects of nature will be our demise. The incorrectness of our own doing will not only do us in, but most of the rest of life as well. I don't think mankind is any better or any worse than nature itself, equal is, because we are nature ourselves. And I can see myself rising above our self-destructive Ways, but unfortunately am having great difficulty seeing mankind as a whole doing the same. It seems we are close to our own salvation and at the same time or own demise.
I guess its time for a bike ride, it helps me feel fine.
Feel fine too!
=
MJA

Thanks for the thought provoking thread.

[Mikal]

Let us put some higher thought into the words, ‘conspiracy theory.’ Conspiracy comes from the root word to conspire which means, ‘jointly made plans which are kept secret when a group acts together from directed and willful insidious intention to bring about unfortunate results.’

The following is about the best example why those in power decided the words ‘conspiracy theorist’ were the best chosen to tar and feather those with enough potential to critically analyze their movements, their meetings and their agendas.

"The Council on Foreign Relations co-sponsors an assembly Thinking America's Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order which is attended by 65 prestigious members of government, labor, academia, the media, military, and the professions from nine countries. Later, several of the conference participants joined some 100 other world leaders for another closed door meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany. The Bilderbergers also exert considerable clout in determining the foreign policies of their respective governments. While at that meeting, David Rockefeller [co-founder (with Zbigniew Brzezinski) of the Trilateral Commission] said in a speech:
'We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as 'democracy'] practiced in past centuries."—June 5, 1991

Forty years of promised discretion! Sounds insidious and shows one group enabling the success of another to as they say ‘develop our plan for the world.’

The representatives of The Council on Foreign Relations were here in Canada this past weekend. Our PM stated in a press conference after the G-20 in response to a Journalists question, ‘what Canadian economy? It does not exist; we forfeited our national sovereignty to the Globalist world economy.’ He also stated, ‘we as world leaders know violence follows the G-20 summit.’

I would ask you the simple question! How can we say these men are the most brilliant, organizational and strategic thinkers in the world when their actions and decisions end in the result of societies’ need to protest and they seem to willfully allow the very circumstances that ferment and further the occurrence of ‘acts of violence?’ I would also ask, ‘why would they willingly contribute to the possibility of anarchy or the breakdown of a civil society?’ For those doubters I honestly tell you they could have met on Toronto Island and avoided all that followed in their wake! I also ask you to consider that their propensity to wander and meet from city to city is nothing more than the enacting of a process to ‘manipulate the impressions of the masses that they now live in a violent environment and need extreme measures of security and protection.’ Yes the ‘SECURITY BUSINESS’ is an ever-expanding, ever more profitable business most of them own, formulate and organize. They know and understand the old adage, ‘united we stand, divided we fall.’

Canada, this past weekend, without a doubt got the rank odor of our own historical past patterned into the early 1930s and eventually lived out as the Nazi extermination. The words from the past, ‘your identification papers, please’, rushed like a long-lost echo only to smash and impact into the lazy Canadian mind that has ever-so-long been sleeping!!!!!

There is no conspiracy; there is only willful, insidious intention which is as old as man himself and archaic as our recorded history and I suppose in one sense it is the end of the world as we know it!!!!!


Regards Mikal

[Meem]

LW, a nice hearty reply, as you often produce. However, I would say that the specific question remains mostly unanswered. Is or would the withholding be of such be just?

From up high, things look different, and there are values such as truth which float around up there. Event's capable of such a magnitude as to "change/end the world, as we know it" are not so simply verifiable by "the public individual." The dropping of the atomic bomb changed the world as we know it, not really ending anything in the process. Cars, computers, and telephones I would place in that same set.
I'm tired of being afraid to openly think or consider about such things and discerning that certain things must remain of the table, for scrutiny's sake. As to how it might make me appear to another, it's not something I am concerned with either. Fashionably unacceptable or not, "these are my shoes."

I run two possibilities for my long time scenarios which I would deem, "scientifically plausible. Which touch base with things that have been with us for some time in our history. Religious/spiritual beliefs and warnings. For the scenario that my imagination likes best, visitors are the source of most religions as we know them today.
Long ago, they stumble across this world and run all their usual calculations. They are aware of event X which will occur in the distant future. They are somewhat of conservationists of life within the universe. "Intelligent life" is of the most interesting kind, and does not necessarily have to be equal with their capacity of intelligence to be quantified as intelligent. While they were here, they decided, "we should give them a chance against event X."

(I try to imagine them as a more advanced and noble us.)

So, they begin to share information as best they can. They possibly even cultivate the "birth" of civilization as part of giving us a chance. In the process of them being here and amongst us, maybe (this is ... in the deep end) they even share the core idea/ls of their own religions with us. But also, maybe religion is born of our inability to comprehend such possible means of activity that a universe transversing race would have due technology.
I'm sure in a very real sense, it would be magical, and god like to us back then. But something odd happens in this occurrence in the scenario. The visitors do not attempt at all to correct this specific influence of their characteristics. Because, after such a long time, they know their message will be lost by other means. Leaving unattended technology behind as a marker is not acceptable, to record this message (possibly not). It violates their protocols perhaps. But, as our beliefs develop while they are here, they are able to "window or mirror" future probabilities of our society and psyche at large.
In their model, they see the some of the core values (possibly even virtues) they regard to a certain quality of their own, the basic message, and knowledge of an event occurring will remain intact via the vehicle of religion. So they allow the belief, and even possibly cultivate them.

I haven't decided if this idea and a government(s) "secret" knowledge of such an event should both be present in my scenario. Maybe, with the possibility of such knowledge being verified by some sort of technological-historic marker, and our own current ability. In the event of such a global event, eventually the cat will get out of the bag. In some class of event, it will be clear for time periods before "the end." Say a very large object headed this way would more than likely be very visable to many sky watchers at night with the naked eye, and durring certain times of day at certain portions of space closer to the event. If the earth's poles shifted, the consensus seems to be, it would not do so in one day. In the process, the magnetic field will weaken and the earth would be exposed to more of the sun. Maybe it does not blast the atmosphere away with a super-flare. Maybe it just stays relatively cyclically steady as it always has, and tans our ass with the magnetic pants drop.

(I've wonder what would happen if the Sun's poles switched? But I have never bothered to look into that particular thought)

From up High, I must maintain that people, being everyone, would have a right to know. I would also maintain, it is wrong ... severely to withhold such. Fear is never a justifiable means of "care"less man-slaughter.

[Meem]

MJA,

I feel fine. Even if we aren't so great and even if at large our "benevolence" fails us, for certain there are some with which it wont. I try to be forgiving of humanity, as I and those for whom I care the most are a part of it. Despite our nightmares -with and in nature- there are many worth-while pursuits and dreams. Truth, I would consider the most high. And in "the end," if in some "cosmic-truth" all we are is part of a universal "anomally" that occurs for nothing, by nothing ... nothing at all, our truths still are occuring for something, and by something. If nothing else but us, it matters. The beautiful dreams we do produce at some points do have a high value of an intrinsic nature.

And in some cases, the beauty becomes so, as a result of the nightmares. It would be nice, if MLK could have been a beautiful man without the cause of his conditions. I'm fairly certain someone that faces one such of our nightmares with the guile he did, would have been a beautiful man regardless.

Edit*(ok this is the last run on)

Nature destroys and remakes itself all the time. I see no reason for us to become disgusted. I do a a reason for us to become something else, something "better," even as a result of an unsavory catalyst ... like an oil-spill for example.

[labelwench]

There is no conspiracy; there is only willful, insidious intention which is as old as man himself and archaic as our recorded history and I suppose in one sense it is the end of the world as we know it!!!!!


Regards Mikal

An interesting post, Mikal, and the G20 Summit of this weekend was subjected to plenty of criticism from the bits that I caught via CBC radio and TV.

I would only add to your above comment regarding insidious intention, that perhaps far more persons are guilty of calculated inattention to details that pertain to greater orders than themselves, which if all were more observant and engaged would make the conditions of society more difficult for those with insidious intent to operate within.

We all have opportunity to be part of the problem or part of the solution, yet in my observations on an admittedly very tiny scale, I observe that there are too many who wish to have a share of the cream but have no desire to tend to the source of their benefit.

[labelwench]

The main question of this opening post:
is there a time period where, if even, it would be acceptable for such knowledge to be kept secret, in fear of anarchy or total breakdown of society as we know it?*

There is no better way to generate fear or societal unrest or breakdown than by the proliferating of information or misinformation by means of 'a secret' or 'secret society'.

In answer to the question you pose, I would suggest that 'a secret' can only ever be held by one, and what that one may choose to do with any 'sensitive information' will be predicated by the parameters of the individual and whether they choose to share same or not will depend on how deeply ingrained they are with a sense of community and humanity.

Those who may feel disenfranchised may not care to enlighten the establishment that rejects them, or more likely, the message would not be listened to, as would seem the case of others who have brought their message forward.

I do not know if this is of any assistance to your discussion.

As regards the fate of humanity as a whole, there are many avenues wherein we have input, and many more that are beyond even our technology to control.

We should make the best choices that are available, for the greater benefit of humanity, and the rest, we shall just have to contend with, as they arise.

Pretty much the route by which we have arrived to date, near as I can determine.