For the Love of the Apocalypse

I would like to discuss a couple of different concepts that seem all to be related with apocalyptic thinking, in which many of us would be in agreement that these times we live in sure feel like the end times. I do not necessarily want to define what "end times" really mean per se, but rather examine why we feel the way we do about these times in comparison to what we know about history and how it has shaped our thinking about apocalyptic fantasies.

The first thing I would like to discuss is Fear of a One World government; exactly how and under what circumstances could such a concept even be feasible? Do folks who ascribe to this belief have confusion about governments having alliances, or are they simply fearing governments being taken over as mega-corporations do to their competition by absorbing them? Do we really fear governments, or do we fear mega-corporations, or do we fear governments turning into mega-corporations?

But most importantly, I would like to know why they fear this concept of a one world government. I suspect it has something to do with Christian Apocalyptic thinking and its strange duality of fear and hope because according to those myths, a one world government is a sign of Jesus' return, which I don’t see as a very convincing argument when one looks at the history of Christian predictions of Jesus’ return.

However, even those who don’t subscribe to Christian mythology also share in fantasies of apocalyptic futures. We see it in books, movies, culture (preppers), and even the news makes reference to it. Zombie futures seem to have really taken hold of the collective imagination.

What is our fascination with End Times?

 

Interesting thread. Thanks for posting.

A one world government is incompatible with human nature. Human diversity makes universal cohesion impossible. The subjectivity of morals and ethics only add to the problem along with our resistance to acknowledge our own hypocrisy which we tend to be blind to anyway. Perhaps fear does play into the resistance of a one world government, the fear of losing one’s freedom.

As for the theological narrative, I have to leave that up to theists to fill us in on their thinking as I don’t know.

 

It seems to me that a one world government would have to be restrictive, authoritarian and perhaps totalitarian to have any hope of enforcing a governmental homogeny. Human diversity would have to be reigned in by strict control like in the book 1984 or seen in todays North Korea.

 

You're getting my point. It's not a realistic scenario because fundamentally, humans tend to disagree quite a bit for all the reasons you mentioned. A one world government isn't really possible, as opposed to definitive alliances for a specific purpose.

 

I could not disagree more.
Human intelligence makes universal cohesion possible.

 

I think that kind of thing is really just a symptom of our creative intelligence. Other animals aren't able to imagine such abstract and distant ideas about the future and so only worry about what they can immediately perceive. While our intelligence and ability to imagine what could obviously has lots of benefits and has allowed our species and societies to develop, we also have these side effects to deal with. I actually suspect the origins of religious beliefs are in this as well, come from people imagining explanations for the unknown (and thus scary) aspects of the world and thus being able to come up with actions we could take to deal with them (be they entirely religious or in some way practical). I think many apocalypse beliefs would fit in to this too.

As it happens, I think the whole "World Government" thing is an entirely different issue, more an example of inventing an abstract enemy to unify a people. The idea is so indistinct and abstract so it can be used as a reason to condemn pretty much anyone or anything.

 

I agree, we have the intelligence, but we don't have the will -- at least not these days.

 

Yes, it does seem to be more of a boogeyman than anything else.

 

How is it any different than now?

 

Are you familiar with the 2030 agenda?

https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

 

I suppose people who have studied history are a bit concerned about large or even global government. Empires have been pretty near global or “known” global control a few times. It’s pretty obvious some humans wish to exert control globally.

History also shows when some person or entity desires large scale control, a lot of people suffer and die to prevent it. Unfortunately, the people who desire large scale control aren’t particularly pleasant people. And even more unfortunate is the fact there always seems to be a demographic of followers that want to be part of a monolithic government and are willing to kill and destroy in the name of the folks desiring widespread or global control.

Apocalyptic ideation seems to be hardwired into humans. Religious folks just choose a different scenario on average than non religious. Religious trend toward deity involvement and non religious trend towards human or alien involvement.

 

We know that one party rule in the United States would be a terrible idea so what on Earth makes anyone think that one party rule over the entire globe would be a good idea?

You know one party rule where if you don't like it.... You have zero alternatives

 

We don't have a one party govt so why would a one world govt HAVE to have one?

 

Human nature makes hyniversal cohesion impossible.

 

'HYNIVERSAL COHESION"??? i JUST LOVE SUCH RABBLEDEDOP LINGO AND HEKLAMERSIVE LOGIC!!!

 

But human emotion, says otherwise.

 

Yes, people have time and again, seen their own times as pummelling towards some cataclysmic, complete destruction of all that they know. And while we perceive from history, that humans have come through worse than we're currently experiencing, we continue to see, or sense, an existential threat, in our present.

Without contradicting @HonestJoe 's point about our ability to project our consciousness further into the future, than we know of any other life as doing, I will point to the greater degree of reality, that the present has to a person, than to any contemplation of past, or future times. It is simply more tangible, omnipresent, and so saturating of our consciousness. The principal importance of the current moment, is an understandable emphasis, of our organic programming-- those future plans will come to nought, if we do nothing about the mortal threat, stalking us, as its dinner. Hence, our own times always seem more substantial and significant, than any others. While one is living through an experience, the thoroughness of our minds' involvement is usually much greater, than when we are thinking about some future moment, or even recalling some time in our past. Naturally, then, the increased immediacy causes us to judge everything as being weightier, more urgently pressing, than it truly is, in a relative sense; or one could view that difference in the reverse way: that the primacy of the present, dims our appreciation of past realities.

This leads to the supreme irony, of the educated: we are taught that to be aware of the past, will allow us to avoid the repetition if its mistakes; but we always think of our own times, as being intrinsically different, unique from the more remote ones, we never even knew.

 

Someone once said smile, things could be worse.

So I smiled and they were right.

Things did become worse, much worse.

If we don't stop smiling the end is nigh!

We would have nothing to worry about if we all just looked miserable instead.

No apocalypse needed.

 

Wow-- you must be deadly serious about this, to have not LOLed, at all.

 

Theoretically that is correct however practically it would never work. Who hasn't encountered someone that is so toxic you want nothing to do with them?

 

Evidence suggests otherwise. If you have good psychological research on the subject please share. All the science I have seen on the topic proves we are tribal at an innate level. For example I can post something derogatory about the left or right and it will stimulate more responses than if I present a well thought out case, backed by impeccable sources that show the pros and cons of complex social and political systems. We are hardwired to be emotional rather than logical when it comes to that which matters most to us. We are also incredibly blind to our biases. Human nature is Machiavellian and I see examples of that on these forms every time I visit.

 

You make an excellent point.

We have the ever present example of those who have legitimate concerns regarding the safety of children in schools being STYMIED by those who are so emotionally attached to their firearms that will object to ALL reasonable and sane measures to regulate them. While 88% agree and only 4% disagree it is that emotional element that ensures that there will never be "universal cohesion".

Xtianity has waged endless wars WITHIN their OWN ranks. That something as ephemeral as the INTERPRETATION of their scriptures has resulted in countless millions dying establishes that emotional belief systems will NEVER accept the logic and reason of human intelligence.

This FORUM is another testament to this REALITY as you observed above.

 

While your thread obviously has a political component, it is at least as much a question of human psychology. So, for this part of your OP, I will offer a very simple explanation: it is natural to have a greater fear, of bigger things. Naturally, this general tendency, is far from an always accurate gauge of danger, as there are small, even microscopic, things, which can be very deadly. Yet, a small, low-flying drone, for example, will not typically engage the same visceral fear, alarm, apprehension, concern, notice as will a helicopter or jet fighter, streaking just overhead. The bigger, the louder, the more powerful something seems, the more dangerous we instinctually regard it. Again, it doesn't mean that, of those previous three, it won't be the drone which fires a missile at you.

So, maybe a better aeronautics example would have been to picture yourself on a plane runway. Most will have no qualms standing near, if the planes that are taking off and landing around them, are the small, single engine, propeller variety, but will feel far more vulnerable, if the aircraft are jumbo jets. From adequate distance, these give us a pleasurable thrill; but when that raw force gets too close, instinct drives us toward panic.

Are you up, for more analogies? Most will be far less worried by the raccoon, sniffing outside their camping tent, than by the Grizzly Bear. One will be more inclined to feel comfortable, sharing space in the ocean, swimming beside a dolphin, than beside it's cousin, the blue whale. Even though the whale will not likely intend you any harm, it could easily kill a person, by accidental contact.

That points me, once again, to an interesting irony. Something that evolution has taught us, is to be wary of strangers, since other humans can be very dangerous, and cannot, automatically, be trusted. At the same time, we are a communal being, for whom bonds to other humans, are our greatest source of security. A human government, represents greater power, than an individual human (even if it only takes one of us, to kill any other)-- that makes it more threatening. But, beyond a certain size, an institution begins to lose its sense of humanity; that is, rather than being seen as a group of people, inhabiting some power structure, it tends to morph into a faceless thing, in its own right: a kind of machine, in which people only serve as cogs, pulleys, gears. Its image retains all the threat, posed by men, but without any of the conscience or compassion, one might at least hope exists, to which to be appealed, beneath the masks of position, donned by a smaller, less impersonal, council of rulers.

 

I believe the biggest fear that most humans have in general is the fear of the unknown.

 

We have nothing to fear but fear itself... well, and the tyrannical Democrats.