War – a nuclear one, now of course. Not as damaging as generally thought. Roughly 2.000 A-s were dropped after WWII, truly in Pacific most of them, yet, besides a slight increase in general levels of radiation, nothing really changed. If bombs were dropped on the key metropoles it would wreck havoc there, however to wreck havoc everywhere the world would need to be carpeted with A-s or H-s. This will not happen, not by far enough of them in the arsenals.
Allergies – the war within. Mostly ignored, but should not be. Allergy is a sign of disharmony of organic beings most probably caused by a chain of soulless dids we do to ourselves. In striving for money, power, status, we forget our origins. So we think everything is manageable, that we’re gods with limitless powers, especialy in our instrumental view of tools to help us fight the stupid cause-effect battles when all in all it’s not about causality at all. It is about love.
See, allergy is our body fighting against itself. Is this love? It is, because this strange force that shapes the universe shows us that this bullshit we’re doing to ourselves cannot continue.
AI – as warned by Elon Musk, artificial intelligence threatens to eradicate us humans from this Earth. He has a point, however, will not happen. Humans are infinitely stronger. Period. There has been a discussion in the scientific community about the role of microtubules, especially their ability to produce resononance, strikingly, a resonance of UV light. If true, than a single fibre of a structure that exists in each and every cell that we have is capable of storing an unlimited amount of data. Wait, data!? What is it anyways? What if data is dependent on our viewpoint just as quantum observation alters reality? What if computers are only strong inasmuch as we let them play in the sandboxed reality we have created for ourselves and as soon as the sandbox breaks, abilities of machines built on this premise fall apart too?
As said, AI is not a threat in my opinion.
Impossible – the world cannot end, nor does it start, nor is our view of life, the universe and everything any more appropriate than an imaginary answer such as 42. It could just as well be “(((%$%%%%”. Or a non-linear narrative structure such as presented by this text. See, I’m sure you’ll realise your reading of this text is no less than a presuposition about how you will perceive the reality. In textual forms reality always has a beginning, it then propagates (through the text) to its end. Not necessary the only view of reality. Reality need not be linear at all. Some human civilisations saw reality as cyclical, yet that may not the the only other option at all.
What if reality were not 3D-spatial? Just imagine, what if our view of reality was different completely in terms of how perspective creates the depth of space? In such cases depth would cease to exist. For all of us. Also, time would be irrelevant. Also, stars as a distant-body-concept would disappear. Literally, stars would be no more.
What if the world were a projection of our own making? Could we change the projection with time (bare with me for using “time” here).
My point in this paragraph is that maybe we just see this world as too real. Maybe it is something completely utterly and unimaginably different. Maybe we’re all just God observing himself in the mirror.