In my opinion, our current talks about the apocalypse are only marginally less naive than similar discussions during ancient times.
We understand so much more about the universe and yet our ability to predict the future is almost nil.
We understand so much more about the universe and yet our ability to predict the future is almost nil.
We are very bad at predicting the implications of an event that has not happened yet.
We can predict global warming because it is already occuring and what we're doing is not much more advanced than a glorified linear extrapolation.
What is important is the consequences, on ecosystems, on agriculture, on all the interconnected systems.
We can only predict reliably that global warming might be a perturbation.
But we can't predict the reliable consequences of far simpler events.
What do we know about the next mega volcanic eruption or large solar flare?
As I understand naive, it's a relative term - comparing to something which is considered more mature, reasonable etc. which - and that's important - can be presented as an antitheses. If something different, which is "better", can't be presented, then "naive" becomes "best", which definitely changes the meaning to the degree of non-applicability.