dpjdm said: I don't act experienced in general, just in certain things, and in those certain things I am relatively experienced in.
I think of myself as being very different from you.
To give you a taste of my mind set I will pose a simple scenario: A child in Africa is born into poverty, and due to a mystic belief is raped at the early age of 8 by a man trying to rid himself of aids. Soon after the child contracts the HIV infection and it quickly progresses to aids. The child then becomes susceptible to opportunistic infections like pneumonia and TB. As the child contracts a disease and is wasting away a soldier comes in and slaughters the family right in front of the child, in a stupor the child barely takes note of the fact and passes away within the day.
Now I ask you what is your first reaction to this scenario? Is it a call to action, is it a cynical thought, what is it? Whatever it is I'm interested in hearing it.
No matter how we act in our lives, a child will die every 30 seconds. your scenario is nothing but a reality..the threat of danger... a child born into poverty in an unstable country, living beside a pool of malaria infected mosquitoes doesn't really have a chance, that is the reality. A kid not wearing a helmet is hit by a car and his head ends up smashed like a water melon all over the pavement... A multiple car accident, with the screams of terror, the flesh, blood and vital organs splattered and sprayed amongst the twisted metal while burning in a pool of gasoline.. what is a real difference between these scenarios? which life is more valuable then the other...? People die, it's a sad fact of life. Enjoy it, take a fucking chance, put a little fun in your life.
Why does everything have to be safe? It's like there's a neurotic population of people obsessed with security, safety, crime, drugs, hygiene... to the point that before they give a death row convict the lethal injection, they rub his arm with a swab of alcohol. What ever happened to the child who swallows the most marbles does not grow up to have kids of his own. Natural selection, survival of the fittest. Nature knows best, the world is overpopulated and all though not all can be saved, millions are kept alive to survive another day.. Nature should be allowed to do it's job and kill off the weak, the sickly and ignorant people.. think of it as passive eugenics.
The world does not revolve around people, humans are nothing but a bunch of fleas on planet earth that are only relevant for the short time they exist. From the span of years, months or days a single person lives, to the 200,000 or so years the species has been on this planet.. compared to the 4.5 billion years the earth has been floating around the sun while surviving earthquakes, volcanoes, shifting tectonic plates global floods, reoccurring ice ages, solar flares, magnetic storms, the shifting of the magnetic poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment from asteroids and comets, etc, etc .. The earth will continue to live, and the earth will heal itself.. If the earth were to "defend" itself, what would be the most effective way to diminish the numbers from an exponentially expanding population that are vulnerable to viruses.. viruses keep on changing, evolving, creating new strains whenever a vaccine is developed.. what if that virus evolved to a point where it attack the immune system to increase the probability of survival.. an autoimmune virus that will make them weak to other diseases and infections... and what if this virus was transmitted sexually... to make the population reluctant to engage in reproduction....?
i don't know whats really going on.. not sure if anyone does really know... it just is. Can't that be good enough for the short time we exist..?
edit: fell so far down the pipeline...... |