14 signs the collapse of the modern world has begun
Tags: strokin it to collapse porn, NaturalNews, Mike Adams the Health Ranger [ Add Tags ]
[ Return to General Conspiracy Stuff | Reply to Topic ] |
Wolf Bird | Posted: Aug 20, 2011 - 10:54 |
| ||||
I shoot you dead. Level: 9 CS Original | http://www.naturalnews.com/032258_economic_collapse_2012.html So much crazy! I think my favorite is #9, that 'real food' (wut) is being targeted. Last I checked there weren't cops arresting farmers at my local farmers' market, and they sell what Mike defines as 'real food'. | |||||
#1 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] |
Pathfinder | Posted: Aug 20, 2011 - 14:08 |
| ||||
This apple is your CT. Princess Luna represents logic. Level: 1 CS Original | Collapse porn indeed. Surprised they never mentioned Nostradamus. *Le Gasp!* And if I may mention, a MUCH better book: http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Revised/dp/0143117009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313867243&sr=8-1 | |||||
#2 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] |
Wolf Bird | Posted: Aug 20, 2011 - 18:00 |
| ||||
I shoot you dead. Level: 9 CS Original | ^A damn fine book. | |||||
#3 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] |
Muertos | Posted: Aug 20, 2011 - 20:10 |
| ||||
Paid Disinformation Blogger Level: 14 CS Original | Actually, I recently read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" and I didn't like it very much. His research is very shoddy and his reasoning is pretty flimsy at times. Basically the argument he's making is "environmental determinism" which, as a historical doctrine, was discredited in the early 80s. Very few environmental historians regard Diamond as a good representative of their doctrine. Example: in the chapter on the Norse Greenland colony, Diamond makes much of the fact that the Norse evidently didn't eat fish in Greenland. He speculates as to why this is and comes up with an utterly ludicrous theory that the first guy who established the colony got some bad fish, threw up and his subsequent aversion to fish somehow got passed down into the entire society as a societal taboo. There's not a single shred of evidence for this theory, and it strikes me (and most historians I know who have read the book) as utterly laughable. He also doesn't use primary sources very much which is a hallmark of a lazy historian. All he's doing is synthesizing secondary sources. This book had a lot of popular appeal, but it has very little credibility in academia. [/snobby rant] | |||||
#4 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] |
Wolf Bird | Posted: Aug 20, 2011 - 20:53 |
| ||||
I shoot you dead. Level: 9 CS Original | Hmm...you know, I did read the book before becoming a skeptic. with that in mind, Muertos, I may have to re-read it. | |||||
#5 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] |