"This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper."

[s2a]

Lending Elliott the credit he is due in authoring that now clichéd sentiment, it is not especially profound to observe that many "end of the world" books/movies have played upon a similar projected fate for humanity. No big "boom". No divine retribution (or return). No mutually-assured destruction by means of nuclear weaponry.

No...something more insidiously ripe, and rotten. A slow death of humanity--by means of impious injustice, despair, cruelty, indifference, ignorance, and ennui.

The sci-fi "speculation" of a forlorn and lingering demise of everything human from this planet, is presented in a "matter-of-fact"--"that's the way it is" fashion--in the movie "Children of Men".

In summary, the film establishes a "given" scenario (c. 2027) without especial lent detail or assignation of fault/blame as to cause/explanation of mankind's imminent doom. Some allusions are idly put forward as causal agents...from pollution, to overpopulation, to some unidentified virus , to...whatever.

The premise of the cinematic story as presented:
1) All females on the planet have become sterile (or infertile, if you like), and are biologically incapable of producing viable offspring by ordinary means of human sexual reproduction. As a result, no human children have been birthed for nearly eighteen years. None. Current worldwide birth rate...zero.

2) Most of the world has self-destructed in the wake of this ominous realization, yet England remains both viable and self-sustaining as an isolated society and a nation. To preserve this tenuous grasp upon daily ritual and survival, the "government" (by means of a "Homeland Security" branch of lawful enforcement, empowered "ethnic cleansing", and paranoid police state) deports any and all "Non-citizens" from it's lands and borders. Refugees, illegal immigrants, and ethic minorities are herded and shuttled off the one remaining island of "decent" human culture and civil society.

3) [A] "Hope" for all of humanity is presented in the secreted revelation of a an 8-month pregnant young woman, who just happens to be both an "illegal" and a person of "color".
The hero of the story (a former social idealist himself, having lost his own youthful faith and hope), is called upon to safely transport this singular miracle and prospective savior for all of mankind, to some virtually mythical/folklorist entity of "science" (or magic) known simply enough as "The Human Project". What this "Project" does, or of whom it is comprised, or of what extended hopes for mankind it may offer, remains utterly unclear...

I enjoyed the movie, not because it was bleak and dark, but because it supposed human hope as a testable commodity in and of itself, and examined the prospective motivations/actions of a remaining population that obliquely observed both past, present, and future as socially acceptable/inescapable fate.

The film presents some very powerful questions, worthy of circumspect self-evaluations and deliberations.

If you were certain that the entirety of the human species would end within 100 years (or less), how would you act?
Think about it.
No "new minds"; no "fresh ideas"; no grand or compelling philosophical insights to propose or ponder regarding the favorable disposition/outcomes of succeeding generations?
Waste? Greed? "Progress"?
Who cares?
No one will survive to either reflectively question/admire your past/present/future motives or actions, in serving your most immediate needs today.

Would religious adherence explode as provisional rationale/answer to a hopeless humanistic future?

[Note: A "place" that the film does not venture into,..is the scientifically-derived option/prospect of human cloning--in order to preserve/perpetuate our infertile species. Who knows? Maybe that's what the rumored "Human Project" hopes to produce--in light of/answer to--any "cure" for worldwide female infertility.

I wonder...would people that presently oppose the future inevitability human cloning...seek tomorrow to oppose/prevent any/all scientific research/evaluations in this (as yet) unrefined and unproven scientificly theoretical possibility?

Would a supernatural deity allow/endorse such a course? Would the attendant moral/ethical/legal questions regarding embryonic-stem cell research (or cloning of stem cells), or reproductive choice amongst fertile, child-bearing women be suspended for "the good of society"? If it were determined that natural birth only spread resultant infertility amongst the population as a whole, how then would the prospects of human cloning then be received?

Which brings about the more controversial aspect of "science vs. morality" arguments presented today...

...which prospective outcome presents the greater moral/ethical dilemma?

Does inhibition of scientific research and discovery today either promote hope, or serve to eliminate/eradicate hope...for the future prospects of the humanistic condition/experience/existence? Does any legal imposition of moral objections to scientific study/research/discovery hope to avert/prevent untoward circumstantial results, or serve to insure their inevitable outcomes?


Chime in, and share whatever opinion you may care to offer...

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

The world ends when humans die off! Ugh. That's such anthropocentric insanity. Mass extinction, widespread destruction, spread of pollution – all barely make an impact on our sense of identity because we consider ourselves so special & important in our mythical "progress". Where are we going that's so wonderful? Heaven? Some technological utopia? Some ecological paradise? Our dreams become nightmares yet we don't wake up.

Give it up. Let it go. Return home. The world doesn't need us.

 

[James the Persian]

Children of Men is a great film (though it doesn't quite live up to the P.D. James novel it's based on). In case anyone's interested, the 'gypsy' woman who helps them in Bexhill refugee camp is actually quite a famous Romanian actress and speaks Romanian throughout. I ended up wondering whether it makes a difference that I could understand every word she said even though there were no subtitles.

James

 

[Kungfuzed]

If the entire human race suddenly became infertile I think we should use any means necessary to find other ways to reproduce. It seems very unlikely that it would happen so universally. Even the worst diseases on the planet don't kill every single person they come in contact with, so there must be some people immune to whatever is causing the problem.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

In fact, except the the eventual expansion of the sun billions of years from now, the whole "end of the world" thing is founded on a misconception!

In the original Greek of the New Testament, the word used is "eras," which means "world" or "age."

But the translators creating the King James Version back when picked the wrong meaning: the passage commonly termed the "end of the world" in fact refers to the end of the Age!

Which IOV is reinforced by the fact that it already happened about a century and a half ago!

But the huge "end of the world" debate, with all its hot air, presses on! . . .

Peace,

Bruce

 

[s2a]

The world ends when humans die off! Ugh. That's such anthropocentric insanity. Mass extinction, widespread destruction, spread of pollution – all barely make an impact on our sense of identity because we consider ourselves so special & important in our mythical "progress". Where are we going that's so wonderful? Heaven? Some technological utopia? Some ecological paradise? Our dreams become nightmares yet we don't wake up.

Give it up. Let it go. Return home. The world doesn't need us.

Ah, thank goodness. An optimist!

Allow me a couple of assertive defenses as answer...for those that might be misled by your quizzical mischaracterizations/malapropos.

1) "anthropocentric" - adj.
"regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, esp. as opposed to God or animals."

I wouldn't qualify/impugn such a held perspective as "insane"; selfish perhaps, and a tad vain to be sure...but crazy? I don't think so.

2) "TEOTWAWKI" (or, "The End Of The World As We Know It") typically references concepts of human extinction (or nearly/approximately so). True that some examples involve utter obliteration of the planet and every known existent life form...but those are kinda rare, and besides, moot to both the cited movie, and the ruminations I put forward for apt ponderings.

Humans may not be the "be-all, end-all" life-forms on the planet today, and I dare say that the planet will continue to rotate upon it's variable axis, within in it's happy orbit about our favored local star for at least a few more hundred millions years or so...but those finite concepts avoid the philosophical premises suggested in the hypothetical (ie, "What if...?") scenario presented for reasonable and circumspect review and adjudication within "Children of Men"...

...so let's give our species some credit when/where credit is due. Humans are the first species evolved sufficiently to (not only) modify their surrounding environment (for comfort or survival), but become a primary causal agent in directly altering that environment (for good and ill). Humans may not be "better" (or more "worthy") than any other species (past or present), yet remain the most impacting (of conscious measure and will) species in all of estimable/observable existence. But that's not the bone of interest anywho...

Your proffered rant (for lack of a more delicate term) is not utterly lost within my own (somewhat sympathetic) perspective. I retain no faith-based beliefs in either natural, supernatural, or technological utopian "nirvanas"...but it is foolish to think/believe that your (or other's) existence is utterly inconsequential to the generations of humans that will inevitably follow (and perhaps retrace) your own footsteps and failures for (perhaps) millennia to come.

If your view boils down to "screw humanity", that's fine with me, as your perspective might happily fit within the succumbing characters (or the prevailing fatalism) suggested in the film.

Maybe our species doesn't deserve to survive such a hypothetical endgame, but that view lends no further insight as to your own reactions in confronting/countering doomed prospects of a regenerative future of enduring hope and possibilities--that only the children of today might one day realize for themselves.

3) Your earnest commentary both misses and truncates the larger premise inherent in Children of Men. "The question" is not whether mankind is "important enough" or otherwise "deserves" to survive (as if the cosmos would seek to consciously punish/eradicate a distinctly "anthropocentric" species like ours). The movie but asks, "what if"?

It seems clear (in your reply) that some folks would readily accept such a fate, and maybe even embrace it as an inevitable fatalistic destiny for a self-centered and unworthy species such as ourselves.

I say, *ahem*.

Lead, follow, of stay out of the way.

Ours is the only known species that can both manifest and prevent extinction of other species on this planet. No other species retains that level of infuence/control. NONE. Like Spiderman, mankind must embrace and accept the notion that "With great power, comes great responsibility". Such is the burden borne of a singular conscious mind. Imagine the possibilities when like minds work in concert towards a focused goal. At such a convergent point, it may be fairly (and often uncomfortably) asked..."What have you accomplished lately"?

If you leave no footprint for others to either discover or retrace, then perhaps you make no impact upon this earth--and your journey through a brief existence has neither weight nor measure of substance for others to record or account of in merit or value--which only serves to reinforce the inconsequential and squandered opportunities of any "once-in-a-lifetime" existence. If you think you don't "matter", I can most positively assure you that you won't, ever, to anyone.

C'est la vie?

Greetings!

In fact, except the the eventual expansion of the sun billions of years from now, the whole "end of the world" thing is founded on a misconception!

In the original Greek of the New Testament, the word used is "eras," which means "world" or "age."

But the translators creating the King James Version back when picked the wrong meaning: the passage commonly termed the "end of the world" in fact refers to the end of the Age!

Which IOV is reinforece by the fact that it already happened about a century and a half ago!

But the huge "end of the world" debate, with all its hot air, presses on! . . .

Peace,

Bruce

*prick*

Interesting that both "hot air" and other lighter elemental gasses escape most readily from an "inflated" balloon...once exposed to a finer point (or pinprick).

Whilst your own pricked balloon deflates rapidly, whizzing randomly about the room, I wonder if you might better detail the pressurized gasses (ie, reasons) that serve to evince such a brief, yet entertainingly predictable result?

"IOV".

Que? Quoi? What?

An "In-Orbit Validation"?

Could you explain/elaborate/expound upon which/what--event/circumstance of occurrence--transpired 150 years ago that is relevant (directly) to the OP?

If you have nothing compelling to offer regarding the presented aspects of the OP, that's cool. If you'd care to reread the OP and tender a more illuminating/thoughtful commentary, I'd then be pleased to indulge you further.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

S2a it was certainly a rant; a rant fuelled by exasperation over something quite apart from what you wrote and sparked by a knee-jerk response simply to the title of the thread without acknowledging the content. I haven't even seen the film. Apologies for all that. It was a thought provoking post and it was somewhat abusive of me to use the space to let off steam like that.

Ok, to address sentiments expressed by me that weren't connected to your post (but thanks for responding anyway s2a): Insane is too general a term. I should have said we're anthropocentric narcissists. This is most evident in all the anthropomorphic Gods that have come and gone and the majority of us still worship in some form or another. It is also evident in subtler forms that tend to slip in under the radar, usually remnants of such Gods still carrying on their legacy as unexamined assumptions about the status of humanity and its place in the world. While certainly not inconsequential you have to admit we have the tendency to assume great significance to our existence while also understating, even vehemently denying, the significance of our origins and the dependency & relatedness we have with the natural world.

I'm not a misanthrope s2a but much of my attitudes are rooted in Taoist philosophy. To my mind the notion of humankind coming to an end isn't some terrible failure or tragedy just as the development of civilisation isn't some great success or triumph. Further, if I concerned myself with ensuring others that might follow considered my footprints worthy I might miss what's right in front of me.

If the entirety of the human species were certain to come to an end in 100 years no doubt some would take respite in hopes of supernatural saviours, some would rush about with enormous sense of purpose trying to find a way of ensuring our survival and some would tremble in fear of the meaninglessness & absurdity of it all. There are some others too who would find that all is as it ever was - in a world of certain change one more change is no change. They might be working on human cloning or they might be working the fields. Whatever the case there would be much to be getting on with just as there is now.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

"IOV".

Que? Quoi? What?

IOV = in our view.

(You may notice that my headers say I'm a Baha'i; hence the reference.)

Could you explain/elaborate/expound upon which/what--event/circumstance of occurrence--transpired 150 years ago?

IOV [got that now? ] the Return of the Christ Spirit occurred in the mid-Nineteenth Century when Baha'u'llah (our Founder) established the Baha'i Faith, thus fulfilling the many prophecies about the End of the Age (not world).

So while YMMV as ever, for us all this is clearly a fait accompli, and the continuing speculation about the supposed end--more, end of the world!--qualifies as mildly amusing to those of us who see all this as established historical fact.

If you're interested, you can find much more information about all this at: www.bahai.org and www.bahai.us

Best regards,

Bruce

 

[lilithu]

Humans are the first species evolved sufficiently to (not only) modify their surrounding environment (for comfort or survival), but become a primary causal agent in directly altering that environment (for good and ill).

Not true. Many, many species modify their surrounding environment for better or worse. Have you not seen the ecological devastation that a few busy beavers can cause? We are probably the first and only species that can affect the world on a global scale, if that's what you mean. I don't know how that ties to us having "evolved sufficiently," since the ability to affect the globe is not the "goal" of evolution.

As for SW's "rant" as you called it: If a thread presumes a narrow - in this case anthropocentric - view, I think it perfectly within reason to point that out. It may be the case that in the context of this thread/movie, we only care about what happens to humans; that doesn't mean that SW's post was out of line.

 

[applewuud]

I wish this thread had started sooner after I saw the film...it is so full of ideas and inspirations I'll have to get the DVD.

It interests me that "TEOTWAWKI" films, (or "dystopias" like Blade Runner) are turned out by Hollywood on a regular basis...there's another one coming out this week with Hilary Swank, based on biblical plagues. In contrast, there are not (m)any "utopian" films, presenting the world as it could be. Why doesn't anyone make money with a film that portrays the future in a post-petroleum era, with solar panels on every roof, economic justice and prosperity, increasing capability against disease and illness? Is our society afraid to openly hope for a better future, lest it be disappointed? We regularly pay to see nightmares writ large, out of guilt?

Some films present a dark future in hopes of prodding a change in policy, a turning away from the abyss. "On the Beach" and "The Day After" come to mind about the use of nuclear weapons. To me, "Children of Men" implied that the "culprit" was environmental damage caused by industrial pollution, and that the industrialists had worked to suppress that knowledge. (There were hints of that in the old newspapers people had glued to the walls, etc.) But, it is more about the human spirit in times of extreme trial. Also,Children of Men seems like an attempt to let Brits and Americans know something of what it feels like to live in a society in utter chaos, e.g., Baghdad or Gaza. The premise of infertility didn't seem like the main concept.

But back to your penetrating questions in the OP:

"If you were certain that the entirety of the human species would end within 100 years (or less), how would you act?
Think about it.
No "new minds"; no "fresh ideas"; no grand or compelling philosophical insights to propose or ponder regarding the favorable disposition/outcomes of succeeding generations?
Waste? Greed? "Progress"?
Who cares?
No one will survive to either reflectively question/admire your past/present/future motives or actions, in serving your most immediate needs today.

Would religious adherence explode as provisional rationale/answer to a hopeless humanistic future?


Would religious adherence become prominent in such an environment? Yes, I believe so, though the filmmaker dismisses that idea with a few shots of Christian groups calling people to repent (just as the other films mentioned did). Religion is a search for answers to difficult questions, and that search isn't at the front of peoples' minds as it is in the face of a social crisis. There's always room for new ideas, even if they're coming from "old minds".

Seems to me that in the 1960s and 1970s, we lived in that "there may be no future" world, and thanks to Osama, we've been plunged back into it again. The key is: how could you know that the human species would end in 100 years with a certainty? There would be a lot of denial, a lot of depression. [Although I wonder in the film why the government would be peddling suicide pills ("Quietus") on television? Seems like they'd want to keep people alive as long as possible.] People would become less materialistic...why invest in the stock market? That disinterest in material life might lead to a downward spiral of living conditions, as COM portrays.

I wonder...would people that presently oppose the future inevitability human cloning...seek tomorrow to oppose/prevent any/all scientific research/evaluations in this (as yet) unrefined and unproven scientificly theoretical possibility?

Would a supernatural deity allow/endorse such a course? Would the attendant moral/ethical/legal questions regarding embryonic-stem cell research (or cloning of stem cells), or reproductive choice amongst fertile, child-bearing women be suspended for "the good of society"? If it were determined that natural birth only spread resultant infertility amongst the population as a whole, how then would the prospects of human cloning then be received?

Which brings about the more controversial aspect of "science vs. morality" arguments presented today...

...which prospective outcome presents the greater moral/ethical dilemma?

Does inhibition of scientific research and discovery today either promote hope, or serve to eliminate/eradicate hope...for the future prospects of the humanistic condition/experience/existence? Does any legal imposition of moral objections to scientific study/research/discovery hope to avert/prevent untoward circumstantial results, or serve to insure their inevitable outcomes?


If life is held as valuable in and of itself, in the situation of the film, it would be immoral not to pursue genetic research including cloning. Most people who object to this kind of knowledge do so on the basis that it will ultimately be harmful to life, because they believe that humanity is somehow morally incapable of handling this kind of power. Power can be used for good or ill; as the OP points out humanity alone apparently has the power to wipe out life on the planet (human, plant, and animal). It's scary, but I believe that the advance of knowledge is a value in itself. This is a faith statement...it remains to be seen if the Luddites were right all along.

 

[applewuud]

We just saw another popular dystopian film last night, "V for Vendetta". Once again, religion is discounted as a valid alternative to chaos, in the person of a bishop who's portrayed as a serial pedophile and having consented to human experimentation with deadly viruses. And, it portrays scientists as co-conspirators developing biological weapons for the ruling party. What great visions of possible futures we're putting into peoples' minds!

 

[Anti-World]

"If you were certain that the entirety of the human species would end within 100 years (or less), how would you act?
Think about it.
No "new minds"; no "fresh ideas"; no grand or compelling philosophical insights to propose or ponder regarding the favorable disposition/outcomes of succeeding generations?
Waste? Greed? "Progress"?
Who cares?
No one will survive to either reflectively question/admire your past/present/future motives or actions, in serving your most immediate needs today."

Funny human. Your going to die within the next hundred years anyway. From your perspective the world *does* end in less than a hundred years. The answer, if you trully understood your existence, is that you wouldn't and shouldn't act any differently. No one should pompously presume tomarrow is ever going to come because it might not. Remember your mortality.

"Does inhibition of scientific research and discovery today either promote hope, or serve to eliminate/eradicate hope...for the future prospects of the humanistic condition/experience/existence? Does any legal imposition of moral objections to scientific study/research/discovery hope to avert/prevent untoward circumstantial results, or serve to insure their inevitable outcomes? "

Something is going to happen. That "something" is going to happen due to certain events in science, culture, nature, and, possibly, supernatural events. It's impossible to pinpoint the blame entirely on science if something goes wrong. I can't say, and I don't see how anyone else could, that science promotes a very specific outcome by it's own nature. The pursuit of science will effect our subjective reality only through our objective reality. How science effects the human minds is almost completely dependent on the human mind in question. Therefore, science and hope are very loosely related.
Our moral objections aren't put in place to have one specific event happen. For instance: the moral dilemma of abortion. Many people who are "pro-life" aren't that way because they want the world to get overpopulated and want young woman to destroy their lives trying to raise a child. These variables are not dependent solely on the social mores or taboos in place. Many times these social ideas changes as a percieved need is implemented generally due to propaganda. I, personally, remember having a vote in first grade or so to allow or not allow abortion. There was only *one* girl in the entire class that thought that abortion should be allowed. I remember feeling almost moved to tears thinking that people would kill someone else before ever allowing them to be born. Of course, as we get older, we're taught different ideas like "Where does human *life* begin" and we are pressured into preserving a womans right to choose. We lose sight in the fundemental ideas that we were taught when we were younger. I don't the whole abortion debate here just for fun, the point is that social mores and taboos aren't designed to perpetuate a long-term goal. Many times they aren't thoroughly thought out and they change over time. Sometimes they change for the better sometimes the worse.

 

[s2a]

Hello Scarlett Wampus,

You said:

S2a it was certainly a rant; a rant fuelled by exasperation over something quite apart from what you wrote and sparked by a knee-jerk response simply to the title of the thread without acknowledging the content. I haven't even seen the film. Apologies for all that. It was a thought provoking post and it was somewhat abusive of me to use the space to let off steam like that.

Okie dokie. Apology accepted. ;-)

Ok, to address sentiments expressed by me that weren't connected to your post (but thanks for responding anyway s2a): Insane is too general a term. I should have said we're anthropocentric narcissists. This is most evident in all the anthropomorphic Gods that have come and gone and the majority of us still worship in some form or another. It is also evident in subtler forms that tend to slip in under the radar, usually remnants of such Gods still carrying on their legacy as unexamined assumptions about the status of humanity and its place in the world. While certainly not inconsequential you have to admit we have the tendency to assume great significance to our existence while also understating, even vehemently denying, the significance of our origins and the dependency & relatedness we have with the natural world.

On the whole, I'd buy that for a dollar.

I'm not a misanthrope s2a but much of my attitudes are rooted in Taoist philosophy. To my mind the notion of humankind coming to an end isn't some terrible failure or tragedy just as the development of civilisation isn't some great success or triumph.

I'll need to make some waffles on this one...;-)

Within the cosmos presented as a whole, your notion is fair enough. Then again, "the majority of us" are a brutish and ignorant lot, and not predisposed to see much beyond our most immediate personal interests, or the length of our own noses. Grand circumspection is not one of our species' high notes.

Matters attendant to personal survival (and perhaps even sanity), and the primordial drive to perpetuate ourselves (that whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" stuff)...tend to interfere with loftier and broader perspectives that a virtually infinite cosmos of stars, planets, and lifeforms may suggest for any measured perspective. To know and accept that one's existence is but a winking flicker of imperceptible light and insignificant dust within the entire scope and measure of the cosmos, is to embrace the reality of both a quantitative, and qualitative measure (ie, "What is an amoeba to a mayfly?"; "What is a mayfly to a human?"; "What is a lone human to the cosmos as a whole?").

I might observe that your own self-professed status as an adherent of a "Taoist philosophy" alludes to a more attendant (declared?) awareness of personal "place" within the cosmos on the whole...which others might very well construe as a personal vanity on your part (albeit not from me). "Wu-wei" may very well be the inevitable course for any species that retains no sentient motivations; but humans (as far as we know) remain the lone example of such a "motivated" species to both ponder and plan for the long-term consequences of/for our most immediate needs/deeds. In most blunt terms, humans "don't sh!t where they eat",..and not just because humans are preternaturally tidy, or especially perspicacious in their general awareness of the cosmos on a whole.

Further, if I concerned myself with ensuring others that might follow considered my footprints worthy I might miss what's right in front of me.

Indeed. Your [noble] course might be subsequently altered, questioned, or amended. What vain purposes then, do a teacher or a philosopher serve? Or for that matter...any contributing personal thoughts and opinions lent to an online forum? If there's "no point" in espousing/rendering thoughtful considering/following the concepts/counsel you tender/trod herein (those nagging and niggling "footprints")

If the entirety of the human species were certain to come to an end in 100 years no doubt some would take respite in hopes of supernatural saviours, some would rush about with enormous sense of purpose trying to find a way of ensuring our survival and some would tremble in fear of the meaninglessness & absurdity of it all. There are some others too who would find that all is as it ever was - in a world of certain change one more change is no change. They might be working on human cloning or they might be working the fields. Whatever the case there would be much to be getting on with just as there is now.

I'm no grand proponent of the human species as being the penultimate attainment/expression of evolution (or of any cosmic impact/significance). Other earthly animals are more beautiful, or more swift of wing or foot. Many evince sensory capacities of smell, of sight, or hearing that humiliate, or otherwise supersede our own capacities. Humans are not as swift as the cheetah; nor as fierce as the grizzly; nor as graceful as the swan, nor as industrious as the ant; nor as imposing as the whale: nor as long-lived as the tortoise; nor as docile as the sloth; nor as beautiful as an unfolding flower...but...humans earn no less a place than any other species in it's time to express it's own distinct/unique presence--within the confines of an isolated planet circling a lone star, on the outer rim of but one galaxy...amongst hundreds of billions of other galaxies.

Let's be fair though, if only to ourselves. The entirety of humanity and civilization/society may present itself as immeasurably insignificant--within the broader realm of the unfathomable depths and breadth of the cosmos itself--but hey...this is what we've got...and all that we're ever likely to personally relate to for ourselves. While true that the cosmos does not engage in distributing personalized rewards or administering individualized punishments; or in demonstrating any conscious care or concern for our little mote in the corner of the Milky Way...it should not preclude the possibilities of experiencing this existence to the fullest potential and fulfillment available, within our own capacities. Put another way, I do not allow the realizations/implications inherent to/within an apparently ambivalent cosmos to keep me from having fun, in interacting with others, or fully appreciating my own (or other's) existence as [a] mortal being. You play with the cards you are dealt. In life, just as in poker...you can call, raise, or fold. Tomorrow may reveal a more accomplished player, with a better hand....but my accomplishments today are no less diminished by that prospective inevitability of circumstance tomorrow...

 

[s2a]

Hello BruceDLimber,

You said:

Greetings!

IOV = in our view.

(You may notice that my headers say I'm a Baha'i; hence the reference.)

Ahhh...please forgive an old fart his failings in keeping up with contemporary 'net nomenclature...;-)

When I inquired:

Could you explain/elaborate/expound upon which/what--event/circumstance of occurrence--transpired 150 years ago?

You replied:

IOV [got that now? ] the Return of the Christ Spirit occurred in the mid-Nineteenth Century when Baha'u'llah (our Founder) established the Baha'i Faith, th

us fulfilling the many prophecies about the End of the Age (not world).

Well...I got the IOV reference....

So while YMMV as ever, for us all this is clearly a fait accompli, and the continuing speculation about the supposed end--more, end of the world!--qualifies as mildly amusing to those of us who see all this as established historical fact.

Heh. I had to google "YMMV" ("Your Mileage May Vary"; a phrase I've employed upon occasion myself ;-)).

OK. Consider me then mildly amused that that you might consider such claims as established fact.

If you're interested, you can find much more information about all this at: www.bahai.org and www.bahai.us

Thanks for your thoughtful provision of referenced source materials. While I would readily concede myself little no more than a unmoved layperson of limited insight or delving interests in the beliefs/claims/assertions of Baha'i, I can at least presume to better understand your stated perspective, without lending consent or deference to the legitimacy of it's estimations/insistence of "established historical fact".

Best regards,