ThePumpkins.net

Well, I think the apocalypse coming in this year between halloween and the holidays is going to be a human one.
No cracks in the earth, no CG-explosions, no pathetic speeches...just the society getting colder and colder until degeneration takes the place...just my two cents...but I'm the darkside of the gothness anyway and cool as ice cream!!!

DON wrote:
Human society can't get that much worse, to be honest.

Personally, I'm not at all concerned how long the species lasts.

epitome wrote:
I'm sure that's what people have been thinking since the dawn of time...

epitome wrote:
Temporary state in the universe? I don't know if you are referring to the heat death or actualy escaping this universe

Dorovo wrote:
But it's never been true until now.

Sikamikanico999 wrote:


I meant when all the stars are dead and there's no life left in the universe whatsoever. But as I said, I think the species will be long gone before they leave this planet never mind any of the rest of it. But we'll never know.

Why do you think so?

Why do I think all stars will die? Well, that's just obvious.

Why do I think the species will be dead before it leaves the planet? The planet isn't in great shape now and we haven't been around all that long. We aren't going to be colonising another planet in another solar system for a loooooong time, so I wouldn't be surprised if the species died off before that ever happens.

Why do I think we'll never know? Because we'll all be dead long before any of this happens - even KJ, who, fuelled on caffeine, will probably live for another 200 years.

epitome wrote:
How is the planet not in great shape now? Same old shape it's bn in for the last 4 billion years. (Well, you know, minus the whole "moon" thing) And how much longer do you think it will take, regarding the exponential rise in technological advancement?

epitome wrote:
Doing air-guitar to AC/DC for another 200 years? yes please!!

Sikamikanico999 wrote:
That's a tricky question, which I can't answer. But it's not even going to be close to being within our lifetimes. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to us anyway, surely.

epitome wrote: Well, true that the earth's been around for 4 billion years, but it's only been hospitable enough to harbor life for about half that. And then there's all the major periodic geological changes and extinction events that alter the biosphere, limiting the ecological niches available for species to develop.

But yeah, I think the major question is whether humans' technological advancement will outpace the environmental pressures put on us as a population, whether they arise from man-made or natural phenomena. I think that no matter what happens, nuclear war, asteroid apocalypse, disease outbreaks, etc., there will be at least a few humans who survive, either a lucky few who lived in remote areas, or maybe even the self-important elite (aka world leaders) who already had specially made bunkers and young hot women selected to repopulate the earth with. But I'm a bit skeptical about the viability of space colonization as a more or less "permanent" haven for human species continuity. I think it's even more likely that we'll mess around with our genetic code and turn ourselves into cyborgs. yuck

venison wrote:
Exactly. Currently the world is way over-populated and I imagine the biggest problem is going to be a lack of resources.

In terms of space exploration, we'll probably see a man on Mars in our lifetime (but that's not very interesting). Maybe robots landing on the moons of Jupiter too.
The next step would be sending people to those moons, I suppose, but obviously that is a long way off. As for sending people into another solar system, that's a huge way off. I would be quite interested to see if we ever manage that, so it does bug me a bit that I'll never get to know, but such is life, I suppose.

DON wrote:
When's Oceania being released again?

PersianBellyDancer wrote:
I hope never sir/mylady!

DON wrote:
Seriously? You're that sure it will be shit? I know they won't ever reach 90s standards again, if only because Billy can't sing anymore (at least in the studio), but... well... Zeitgeist was good...

If you do end up changing your picture to the pope though, make sure it's John Paul II. Ratzinger is too scary looking

I think a shot of the pope's genitals would be the way to go. To make sure he's really a man.

epitome wrote: I'm sure that it won't be a SP album no matter how good it will turn out.
venison wrote: Of course John Paul II.
Ratzinger is a pedophiles-protecting homophobe sexist and neo-nazi no one ever should use as his avatar.

Fuck all of it, if Oceania is good it'll be good with or without Jimmy, James, and Darcy. And Zeitgeist and American Gothic are awesome. And as for Billy's voice not sounding good in studio, aren't there some people who said he could never sing Through The Eyes Of Ruby, Pissant, and Obscured. If Mr. Corgan has taught one thing it's to expect the unexpected.