I recently watched the History Channel video Armageddon Exploring the Doomsday Myth. It is two DVD's containing four programs that originally aired on the History Channel; Doomsday 2012: The End of Days, Mayan Doomsday Prophecy, Doomsday Tech, and More Doomsday Tech. I do not frequently watch History Channel programs because I do not have cable/satellite. If the programs contained in this collection were the only programs that I have watched on that channel, I would not want to.
The first program is not very informative and is extremely repetitive, there is maybe 15 minutes of actual discussion were you to remove all the repetition. It's also the worst of the four programs by far, the information given is one sided and not all that accurate. For example the internet-based prophetic software program is a type of search engine and the more people mention 2012 and doomsday on the internet the more the program is going to spit that out.
The second program was better than the first, it actually did tell somethings about the Mayans. Really the Mayan calendar is pretty interesting and it is very accurate. The program though mentions a lot of things that really don't make all that much sense. It claims that the Mayan calendar (one of them since the Mayans used three interlocking calendars) predicted specific events such as the American Civil War, the assassination of Lincoln, the social upheaval of the 60's, World War 2, etc. which the first thing that I wonder is why would it predict things that really have no link to the Mayan's or even the area in which the Mayan's lived. Sure most of those were big events in US history but there are many events as big or bigger happening elsewhere in the world.
Look at the wikipedia article on the 2012 phenomenon or type 2012 Doomsday on google and you'll get more information then you'd get from either of those programs (and much quicker).
The third and fourth programs are part of a series called Modern Marvels and were much better than the first two programs. They make mention of Nuclear war, cyber terror, genetic engineering, nanobots, etc. Talks about how technology is a double edged sword that can be used both for good and for ill. How the advances of technology has made it so that an individual can have the destructive power of a nation one hundred years ago. Makes mention of global warming and dwindling supplies (the amount of oil is limited). Does have some interesting bits of information but plays up some things more dangerous than they are. For example, the gray goo scenario in which nanotechnology goes amuck and consumes everything. I just can't see that happening. Where would the nanotech acquire the energy to do so and how would it fair against microbes and such that have been evolving for ages. Though many of the threats listed do have merit. Pandemic's very real threats. Genetic engineering of food, while I don't really see this as large of a threat as portrayed in the video, I do think it needs to be studied more. I don't like that everybody is basically the guinea pig for this. There has been problems for example allergies to the modified foods.
3 comments:
Just to cut the tip off of your iceberg ...
Genetically modified food plants are changing the very genetics of nature. These patented plants are engineered for the sheer interest in controlling the right for any human to grow their own food.
Do you like the flavor of home grown tomatoes and corn? If so, you will soon not be allowed to grow them from seed collected from your garden. To do so will be in a direct violation of the patent laws.
In light of the global economic meltdown, this spells starvation for not just you and your family, but the entire global population. Do you understand just this particular participle of the implications of what GMO foods wants to accomplish?
Not to mention what it will do to wreak havoc on the ecosphere of nature. Genetically modified food crops are already known to have killed billions of butterflies. Are you aware that honeybees are collapsing by the hundreds of thousands of colonies on a global scale? Think that is twisted? Perhaps you don't know what Einstein had to say about the bees.
When the honeybees disappear, the world will end in about 5 years. The bees necessary for pollination of food plants globally started disappearing in 2006.
Now what about the real end of the world information do you want to argue about now? Continuing on as we are is synonymous with death anyway.
I never stated that there are not real concerns, just that the program is not very good and does not disseminate entirely accurate information (particularly the first two).
I am aware of patenting plants which is something I do not like, similarly I hate that more than 20 percent of the human genome is patented. While I do not mind patents on some things, there are things like base food products and the human genome that I do not believe should have patents or even should be patentable.
Plants being patented though would not result in starvation for the majority of people. The massive farms will still produce foods, just the price of seeds and plants would go up (it also effects small farms and poorer nations more so it would increase it some). Far more dangerous is desertification, water shortages, the massive erosion of the top soil, and many of the unsustainable farming practices in use.
The butterfly issue is just one reason as to why I advocate more study of genetically modified food before it is used in the wild.
The bee problem is not because of genetically modified foods. It is a fault of virus's (this was found by looking at the genome of sick bees and comparing it with healthy bee's) and the parasite Nosema ceranae (in Spain they found the use of antibiotic flumagillin leads to the hives becoming healthy again). That is not to say there is not other things killing bee's, those are just the things causing the largest problems now.
While the loss of bees (plant pollinators, there are other creatures that do so besides bee's that are also dying off for various reasons) is a major problem. There is no evidence or proof anywhere that Einstein ever said that; searches of Einsteins writings, speeches, public statements, and scholarly compilations of quotes has not found that mentioned.
While the death of bees would have devastating affects it would not result in the end of the world (a statement I dislike for various reasons because even if we killed all lifeforms on Earth, which we could not do, the world would continue to be there). It would not even result in the end of humanity, bees are not the only source of food stuff (there are other pollinators like birds, bats, other insects and of course many plants like corn and wheat use wind to pollinate and there are self pollinating plants such as soy which pollinates before the flowers open).
The Mayans do not even believe in or have anything really to do with the 2012 being thought as the end of the world. 2012 isn't the end of the world, Mayans insist.
Post a Comment