Monday, October 09, 2006

And the answer is?



"Decisions" by Pavel Aubrecht

Nuclear testing, schools being invaded by deranged child molesters, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, hurricanes and Ebola in our spinach and lettuce the world is becoming a very scary place.

It seems that things have progressively worsened in the past 10 years. The big question what is the answer to fixing the problems?

I will start with nuclear testing as that is the most recent example. I occasionally get a complex miscalculation in my brain. Why should some people have the right to nuclear weapons and others not? Is this based on the regime of who is more likely to actually use the weapons than those who are not? If that is the case, then the US should not have nuclear weapons as we are the only nation that has used them not once, but twice. Then in the complexity of thought, if the US did not have nuclear weapons and had not shown that they are not afraid to use them would some other nation have already blown up the world? Is the fact that we can bomb anyone faster and more times than they can bomb us a correct deterrent? It would seem the logical thing would be for everyone to disarm. But then how can you trust that everyone will do that? No answer to this big question.

Deranged child molesters coming into school and killing children, seemingly should be preventable. However if you are on a large spread out school campus would you really want to place an armed guard at every entrance? Should schools become little mini day prisons with no open campus rights? Once again it would be nice to think that a deterrent could be found that would not infringe on student’s freedom yet unfortunately I can not think of an answer to this big question either.

Natural disasters are definitely not something that is preventable, but you would like to think that the loss of life could be reduced by proper planning. Is the deterrent in the case of Natural disaster simply not to build in susceptible areas? It would seem that any area that you build in is susceptible to having something atmospheric or geological destroy it. Is the problem that we have too many people in the world so the populating of areas that previously would not have be ideal for habitation is now acceptable making more people vulnerable to the effects of the Earth? Telling people to leave their homes and stop having babies seems a rather high deterrent to enact trying to keep the population safe. So once again no answers to this big question either.

The recent Ebola in spinach and now the scare with the lettuce is another indicator that the world is becoming increasingly scary. I would like to think that there are FDA deterrents already in place to stop people getting sick. Evidently this is not the case or the outbreak would have been caught before it started. Is the deterrent in a case such as this to impose such stringent requirements on fresh produce that it puts farmers out of business or at the very least raises the cost of spinach and lettuce so only the rich can afford to eat it? No answer to this big question.



Hypothetically speaking, how about infusing spinach and lettuce with the Ebola virus, shipping it to all the countries insist on dabbling in nuclear technology that we do not want dabbling and making the school child molesters deliver it? Then anyone who does not do as we say, we will banish them to the most susceptible areas in the world for Hurricanes, Earthquakes and Tsunamis. Do you suppose that this would be a deterrent to the scary world we live in, or would it act as a confirmation of said scariness? That is the big question…

10 comments:

The Reverend Jon Boles said...

I've voiced a similar opinion on Woozie's page, but I'm to the point I embrace the possibility of humanity destroying itself. I don't see any solution outside of global catastrophe to the problems of genocide, racism, nationalism, militarism, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. Maybe that's just jaded hopeless negativism speaking, but it seems more plausible than a peaceful conclusion.

Raspootin said...

I do not think that there can possibly be another conclusion that is more plausible.

I do not consider myself negative or an alarmist.

This is where we are in the world, and unfortunately this is the world there in.

Kønig Hasemörder said...

Why should some people have the right to nuclear weapons and others not?

There is no reason. Unlike gun control were each person that has the gun and is in effect a dictator capable of pulling the button. Collectives (States) shouldn't have one individual that has the power to push the button. If every State had a true voice in the UN and States had to use democracy to act internationally, that's how it would be. The fact that in the US's georgy boy has the power to start them blazin' without a vote means the individuals decision making is one step removed from the collective. That's why collateral damage, such as 10Million citizens, was expectable to the two beasts fueling the cold war. The United States has given George the power of God, no wonder he is delusional.

Deranged child molesters, Ebola in spinach.

I wouldn't be surprised if Big Brother has been behind these tragedies. It sounds to me like fuel created by Nazi's to get God fearing individuals in a position to give up there liberties. Every person is capable of madness, (the reason democracy is nessasary) all it would take is the SS pumping a fragile person up with psychological poison to push them over the edge. Flash some subliminal kill your teacher on there NRA sponcered FOX news and bam, one pumped up killer. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's crew somehow got a nuke into the hands of Nkorea. It's just more justification to sheep, for world US dictatorship.

Natural disasters

You hit the nail on the head with population. The rate of natural disasters has not increased at all. The human population however is out of control. Therefore were a disaster in the past would have killed 100 people, it now kills 100 thousand people. You folks in New Orleans however were just asking for it. Homes shouldn't be built beside volcanoes, on mud slides or below sea level.

bwcubed said...

1. my gun is bigger than your gun makes me feel good.
2. anyone hurting a child should be shot. period.
3. you can run but you can't hide. mother nature wins all the time. just have to deal with it.
4. something is gonna get you no matter what. a nice salad and a glass of wine, sounds like a good last meal to me.

Raspootin said...

Ah The answers to all the big ones.

Thanks bwcubed!

Woozie said...

We actually watched a video on the capabilites of humans today in psychology, something about a 50's experiment regarding some guy having to memorize a certain phrase or he'd be shocked. The people shocking the man could not see him, but they could hear him. The experimenter was in the room with the shockers, and told them that if the man got the phrase wrong, they were to give him a jolt of electricity. He didn't specify the voltage, although the choices were between something like 5 volts to 450 volts.

66% of the people gave the man a 450 volt shock. None of the people got up to help the man being shocked.

The conclusion the experimenter rerached was that all humans have the capability for great good as well as great evil, and it depends on the situation at hand as well as the orders given as to which side comes out.

Raspootin said...

The experiment confirms what my instinct have always told me.

Not a nice commentary on humans, but none the less true.

I can confirm that in the most pleasant surroundings i.e. not those of a torture chamber that you can still have your supposed friends turn on you at the last moment. I would like to think that a person should trust, but to do so is very risky in the times we live in.

Woozie said...

But we found out today the electric shocks weren't real, the man was an actor.

Raspootin said...

An actor - I guess that is a good thing!

Butchieboy said...

E.Coli, not Ebola. Totally different