Jason (guest) 16 Jan 2010 06:54
Sorry if this is already somewhere. I've read most if not all of the articles about why the various cataclysmic events won't occur; however, for me personally, that's never been what's bothered me in the first place.
I saw the movie "The Road" some time ago, and even though it does not explicitly have anything to do with 2012, I saw it at a bad time (e.g. had just hopped on the terrified-of-2012 bandwagon several weeks previously) and it stuck in my mind. In this book/movie adaptation, a man and his son are virutally the only people left on the planet after an unspecified global disaster. All animals have died including fish. Most plants are dead, and the only thing to eat is — other people. They spend most of the movie running from cannibals. It is evident that the world has been in this state for many, many years. The History Channel has also aired an episode about all the fish dying, etc.
It would be helpful if someone could post a few articles, or even one, regarding why this type of scenario wouldn't happen, even IF one of the events occurred. I think all of the current theories on WHY it's the apocalypse are crap; but what keeps me up at night is the idea of having to survive in an environment a la nuclear holocaust. Would any of the theories REALLY cause such massive death of not only humans, but also plants, animals and living organisms in general — yet without obliterating the Earth entirely? If so, given our technological expertise and, theoretically, our government's level of preparation if this did actually happen, how long would we have to wait for the world to be rebuilt, and stop having to worry about being eaten?