As December 21, 2012 approaches....

This isn't about whether or not the world will end on 12/21/12, it's about the approach of that date.

Let's go 4 1/2 years into the future: December 21st is only a couple months away. Will people mostly be shrugging it off like they did Y2K? Or will there be a mass of people quitting their jobs and preparing for the end? Will a lot of people sell and spend everything they have, believing that armageddon is around the corner? Will there be a lot of end-of-the-world parties arty: and orgies thrown by people who want to live it up while they can? At the same time will there be a huge religious awakening? :Angel:

Finally I assume there will be a dramatic increase in astronomers scanning the skies for any sign of an approaching asteroid and geologists monitoring the Earth for a major cataclysm.

What do you think it might be like?

 

Worse, the changes start happening before 2012.

 

So you think all the scenarios I mentioned will begin years before? About when?

 

I believe those scenarios are exaggerated, I am speaking of environmental changes (climate shift, pole shift, shift in energy, physical changes of the earth), and financial and political changes and an expansion of awarness and the unraveling of knowledge.

I do not foresee massive death and chaos, this path has already been altered. Remember, the future is constantly changing, humans now have almost absolute control.

 

That doesn't really answer my question, but thanks.

I think most people won't pay much attention to it and will just go about their everyday lives, but there will be some people who will drop out and live like there's no tomorrow, seeing how there might not be. Hmmm, maybe I should schedule my vacation so that it ends on December 21st just so I can get in on the fun! Then if the sun rises on December 22nd I'll still have a job.

 

Yes, OF COURSE!

Very religious people will shrug it off because all religions implore followers to understand that we never know when the end will come, we are not meant to know.

Like Y2K I'm sure many dolts will quit their jobs and do what you said.

I still have 3 years left of University so I'll be a year or so into my job, but I plan to go to Law School after my BA I'm just not sure.

I do plan to marry before 2012 and yes, it does have a little bit to do with the " doomsday " theory, the other thing is I'll be 25 and I vowed back when I was around 16 that I would get married before 25, so, regardless.

Maybe the day before I'll go a little crazy and buy some guns, some big guns, just so that if doomsday actually starts coming, I mean if an asteroid is not seen then it's something else so I'll just buy a load of guns to kill a lot of people if something happens.

 

Well the whole reason 2012 seems to be such a big deal is because of the scary events leading up to it. In 2012 we're likely to be in the middle of WWIII, according to numerous prophecies. It's possible life will be different and there won't be a chance for things like parties. Then again, there is a chance nothing will happen.
The best view of have read is that things will gradually begain to shift as the vibrations here speed up or rise.
Im not too worried. Yet.

 

I do not foresee a World War 3, we have grown past that.

Now to say their won't be a world wide conflict is another thing, but it will be over a good cause. The U.S. will redeem itself.

 

How are we past World Wars? The definition of World War is total war (Vietnam wasn't technically total war)+ all the superpowers= a World War.

 

The past precedes your drawn conclusion. Confusion. If only you were able and willing to see beyond the fragments of the present at hand, then, and only then, perhaps a wider spectrum of light shall cast a shadow without doubts. Oxy. Moron. Oxymoron. Sounds moronic to buy-in to such a distasteful appetite of curiosity. Within the depths of the shadow cast, lies the true darkness. Lucky for the eyes the shadow is surrounded by light. So why are we still blind? Blind to the past, the present, and the future. And the future? Sure. But how is it possible to be incoherent to the consequences of actions? Reactions. One leads to the next… so what’s next?

 

Well, it's very interesting, the defition of a world war.

Many very prominent figures have said the Napoleonic Wars was a world war and in many ways it as a whole was.

In clear definition I've heard many times the use that if 3 continent are involved then it's technically a world war.

World War II had intesne combat fighting in Europe, Asia and Africa, the Napoleonic Wars only took place in Europe and Africa.

World War II has also several times been described as several wars starting out at around the same time, and that's also very true as the Sino-Japanese War started in 1937 and the Greek Civil War was going on, starting in 44 ( but really 1942 ).

Churchill stated the Seven Years War was the first world war in his book " A History of English SPeaking Peoples ".

The name World War I and World War II are just generally accepted, hell, after WOrld War II ended the Allies met to decide what it should be called, a history lesson kids, Russians still call it The Great Patriotic War, but so is the 1812 War against Napoleon's Army.

If you want to look at post world war II instances, you could very well say the Korean War was the Third World War, I mean it included basically a Korean Civil War coupled with China and the U.N. ( excusing Japan and the Warsaw States ).

Vietnam wasn't a world war because only two armies fought in it, U.S. and Vietnam, even though the VietCong got a lot of help from China and the Soviets.

Lotta people say the Cold War was as a whole World War III, and I very much agree with that term, think about it, there were numerous wars that were fought basically between two idelogies, capitalism/liberalism and communism right?

The Wars were fought in 3 continents, Africa, Asia and South America.

All the wars had aid from both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, plus wherever they were taking place and its neighbours.

Then the term World War IV is used by some, perhaps overtly patriotic americans as the War on Terrorism.

So really, if there's a global military conflict it should probably be titled World War V.

 

the 27th of may of this year is approaching too. suposedly after that date i'll be able to ride the bus at the senior discounted rate. if this information is indeed accurate.

which i got from my wife. who seemed to think they'd give me this when i turned 55 too.

so i'm taking it with a bit of a grain of salt. but looking forward to it. i probably COULD get senior discounts at atleast some restaurants now, if i ever remembered to ask for them.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Here's my definition of a world war:

1) It has to take place on one of the superpowers soil. It can't be like Vietnam or Korea where it didn't take place on their soil.
2) Civilians are fair game for both sides.
3) Spreads over 2 or more continents.
4) All superpowers are directly involved.
5) There has to be a war, not a "war" like the Cold War was.
6) It has to be total war. (Cold War didn't come close to total war)

And I'd agree that the 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars were "World Wars". We have not hit WWIII and you are a complete idiot if you think so. Trust me, we'll know when WWIII strikes and there will be absolutely no argument about it.

And no overly patriotic americans are claiming the War on Terror is WWIV (or even III), its just the very, very libral ones, since they believe any majot conflict is a world war.

 

I'm thinking the usual shower of douchebags with nothing better to do will be watching the skies or holing up in their bunkers. The rest of us will be totally indifferent or maybe have some kind of End Of World Party. Not because we think the world'll end, just because hey, any excuse, right?

Realistically, I doubt many people will actually change their whole lives around it. I don't think most people who harp on about it actually believe in it; they're mostly just looking for the attention. Another forum I use has someone whittering about how Nibiru is going to "make its presence known!" by 2012. He's currently citing every world occur as proof of Nibiru, from earthquakes to terrorist acts... I mean, it's harmless enough, and that's kinda my point: the guy just wants stuff to talk about.

No sane person would quit their job the day the world ends anyway. What would be the point, you'd have to give two weeks notice anyway so you wouldn't really have left!

 

Am I the only one who has heard this might not be doomsday, but a GOOD shift like mass spiritual evolution??

'course things have to get worse before they get better, so vote McCain 2008!

 

you're definately NOT the ONLY one.

although i don't see voting for mccain, other then as something to say as a joke, which i seriously hope no one, or almost no one, does.

i think it is only the sour grapes of fanatacism, and those who want an excuse to not responsibly dicipline their own actions, who want to be able to say its all going to end, or get worse, as an excuse for their own lack of conscounse.

i just don't think its all going to happen in one calendar day, any one calender day. but i do see convergences and chainges happening, and always the possibility of their being for the much much better after all, even if making better will be some of the things a lot of people have been conned into imagining "oh now, that would/will be awful", like peak oil, and or the colapse of monetary economics.

about the only thing that ever actually happens on any one single particular date, is someone makes a speach taking credit for what everyone has already done and been doing, or someone gets arrested or otherwise abused for a cause they believe in.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I have certainly seen no basis for December 21st 2012 being the end of the world, only the end of a cycle of time (according to the Mayan calendar).
I think it'll be when we think differently about the concept of time, in some way.

My own daft theory is that it'll be when time travel gets invented.
(and here comes my theory, please feel free to skip this part)
One of the main arguments against the possibility of time travelling is the "if time travellers ever exist, why haven't we seen them throughout history?" argument. That's fair enough, but what if a time machine doesn't travel through time, but instead it can send people & objects through time during the machine's operational existence? Suppose a time machine is built and it works for 200 years before becoming inactive. Anyone during that 200 years could enter the machine and travel to any other time during that 200 year period. Those who travel forward in time to the end of the 200 years could then step out and there'd be a newer time machine ready right beside the old one, and they could use that to travel even further into the future.
This of course also works the other way, time travellers from the distant future could use a series of time machines to travel back in time, using earlier models to travel as far back into their history as they could. This of course would ultimately lead back to the very first working time machine, which I believe will be switched on a few days before Christmas 2008, the 21st to be exact.

I'm looking forward to it

 

my own answer to that question is that we have. and that there never would have been a roman empire without their meddling.

=^^=
.../\...

 

You are all going to die. It might be on that day, it might be the day after.

No matter the cause, you are going sometime.

Live it up.

 

or the day before.

yes, by all means live it, not just up, but in such a way as to create the kind of world you would prefer to live in, for however long each of us INDIVIDUALLY have, to do so.

=^^=
.../\...