How Long Would You Last in an Apocalypse? (w/quiz)

bottleslingguy

DarksideOz
I am NOT going over this again, and any further comments from you in regard to the size of the Apocalypse will be ignored, as the size doesn't matter as much as the human behaviour that will come from ANY sized Apocalypse. Which part about that are you having trouble understanding ?

suit yourself you just sound sillier and sillier.

a·poc·a·lypse
əˈpäkəˌlips/
noun
noun: Apocalypse; noun: the Apocalypse; noun: apocalypse; plural noun: apocalypses

1.
the complete final destruction of the world, esp. as described in the biblical book of Revelation.
(esp. in the Vulgate Bible) the book of Revelation.
2.
an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.

the size of the apocalypse DOES matter because if it is a localized event it is not going to drive the whole world crazy and if it is a #1 type that means it is the "FINAL DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD" from which no one recovers. So in your silly little video game fantasy what has happened to cause you to grab your bug out bag and not wear underwear? You might be overreacting.

Please enlighten me as to why I look sillier and sillier because you miss entire point of what I'm been getting at, and choose to keep focusing on a non issue in regards to the discussion, despite how many times we've already been over this.

"1. The complete FINAL DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD"....................so a Global Apocalypse would be a pretty accurate description. If you have a such a problem with me using the word Global, then I suggest you find a way to deal with it and move on. But for some reason your town will be safe, unaffected and you'll take out anyone that dares to enter, right................yet how can you make any of these claims if an Apocalypse is the FINAL DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD [GLOBE] ?

DO you get it now, or are we going through it again ?

bottleslingguy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

guess it's because I'm a purist and hate to see people sh!tting all over the planet causing armageddons and such.

and let me ask you this- since I'm not talking about killing the "planet" but the "veneer of life" that coats it, why do you feel confident there is no way we could pollute that veneer to the point where it is so altered it can't sustain itself? Has there ever been a precedent like this on Earth with such a toxic soup lying around?

Toxic soup concentrated at small points, no. Toxic soup harmlessly spread out, yes.

Do you realize how much surface area of Earth would have to be contaminated to "kill the veneer of life that coats it"? If you realize that, do you also realize how little we have to work with if that's what we are going to do? If that's the endgame, we need to hurry and develop some space travel so that we can start importing enough stuff to git 'er done.

It's sort of like the CO2 from coal claims - it's gonna kill us all because of the lethal concentrations, yada yada yada. The proponents of that theory seem to never once stop to consider where all that CO2 came from in the first place so that it could get into the plants that made the coal - it was free roaming in the atmosphere causing an awful proliferation of life before getting locked up in the coal. Not ending life as they claim it will do now, but proliferating life.

The whole world was tropical back then... now it's suddenly going to end us.

It's hard to take that sort of "logic" seriously.

Haha...i got 50 years
Only problem is i am 63 years old now.

Now that means i should live to 113 years old. not likely

nenothtu
Do you realize how much surface area of Earth would have to be contaminated to "kill the veneer of life that coats it"? If you realize that, do you also realize how little we have to work with if that's what we are going to do?

do you really? you know this because you've worked in the industry? come on you can't be THAT confident we don't have the ability to either end life altogether or at least cause enough die offs that the food chain is affected causing us to rely on radioactive worms only to have that kill us off? You don't think once all the things anathema to life got out of their cages they wouldn't pose a serious threat to our survival? I hope I'm over reacting.

nenothtu

If that's the endgame, we need to hurry and develop some space travel so that we can start importing enough stuff to git 'er done.

that's what I don't get- instead of pushing this place to an ecological disaster point with plans on moving to another planet (which we will have to rely on an artificial environment to survive) why not just work on cleaning this one up? Don't you think we could get back to being productive again if we looked at that like we did getting to the moon. Except in this situation something tangible would come of it. We'd have a clean environment. I don't consider myself a tree hugger per se but wouldn't you agree a cleaner planet is a better planet?

and I get it that fossil fuels were once roaming around on the surface but I think the problem with it is that we are adding to what is naturally there, give or take a few random volcanoes so why add to it when we should be technologically sophisticated enough by now to create a whole new paradigm in energy. People who disagree with the new energy paradigm idea usually have some kind of bias toward change of that sort. wonder what that could be?

a lot of your logic more than likely comes from the fact you were in the industry and for you to admit it is a filthy business would probably not be something you'd be honest about anyway so I expect you to downplay the significance of toxins in the environment. Logic is easier when your conscience is clear.

I got:

The results are in! You'd survive for forty years after the apocalypse.

And you know what? You'd probably end up as some sort of tribal god. We're sticking with you.

You're basically Kevin Costner in Waterworld.

Yah know who would do well are the current homeless people who have been out on the street for a few years - they have to be somewhat resourceful, intelligent and crazy enough to survive outside for years.
imo

I don't need no quiz to tell me that I'll make the apocalypse my personal playground.

...Or die the first night...

reply to post by ChuckNasty

The results are in! You'd survive for
twenty years
after the apocalypse.
If you go out, it won't be through lack of trying. It'll be bad luck that gets you in the end.
You're basically Mel Gibson in Mad Max.

Whoop Whoop!!!! That's what the quiz says, anyway! I guess being raised in the Louisiana swamps has done me some good!

jennybee35
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

The results are in! You'd survive for
twenty years
after the apocalypse.
If you go out, it won't be through lack of trying. It'll be bad luck that gets you in the end.
You're basically Mel Gibson in Mad Max.

Whoop Whoop!!!! That's what the quiz says, anyway! I guess being raised in the Louisiana swamps has done me some good!

Do you know how to play the banjo?

Signed Curious.

reply to post by Mianeye






So did I- 50 years and I didn't say anything outstanding - I was middle of the road for most answers. So the quiz might be a joke.

It said I would survive for 5 years which was also very unexpected, especially considering some elements of the quiz were more than a little inaccurate. Nonetheless I attribute my success to the fact that I can run for a while, can read a map, want to and will avoid trouble and that I have motivation to survive. Also if you answer optimally on all the questions it says you'll survive for 50 years.

bottleslingguy

a lot of your logic more than likely comes from the fact you were in the industry and for you to admit it is a filthy business would probably not be something you'd be honest about anyway so I expect you to downplay the significance of toxins in the environment. Logic is easier when your conscience is clear.

I contracted to do security at a chemical plant - not quite the same as "being in the industry" - I had no dog in the chemical fight, was not an employee of the chemical folks. My livelihood didn't depend on better living through chemicals. I could (and did) just as easily contract out elsewhere, in non-chemical venues. The reason I know what I know is because working around that crap in concentration scared the bejesus out of me, much like it does you, and so I thought it best to educate myself so as not to get dead from it. I did educate myself, and that's how I know what I know.

I started with the MSDS's, and worked outward from there. Did not use the chemical folks as a source of info, since they can be biased as you say... but I DID sit up and pay attention when they said things like "if this goes up, it will leave you and your office as so much rubble at the bottom of a 60 foot deep crater that's 600 feet across". Most of my sources, therefore, were not the chemical folks, but likewise neither were they the anti-whatever fearmongering folk, since they TOO are biased and will lie to you in a heartbeat, just like the chemical people will.

SimonPeter
All I have heard is ( I ) will survive so many years . How selfish ! How many of you calculated you parents who may not have prepared or brothers or sisters into the equation . How about your starving kin folk or your significant other .

Oops ! Back to the drawing board . Certainly you all aren't single .

Food for thought

All my relatives died years ago .. as to my ex-wives they can fend for themselves not my concern what happens to them..

reply to post by nenothtu


I'm sure there is no chapter in the MSDS for The Apocalypse.