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…