Comments | bb_writes: Sophie's Choice

bb_writes

Sophie's Choice

Jun 14, 2009 17:08

Hey again.

By the way, wow. The House season-finale was beyond great.
But, anyway, that's not what I want to talk about right now. Neither is the fact that I re-watched the last episode of The OC's 2nd season and, even though I had already seen it like 2 times before, it still blew my mind.

I'm going to stop rambling now. Anyway, what I came here ( Read more... )

reflections

Comments 8

starry_veil June 15 2009, 00:57:17 UTC

Which would be worse, North Korea bombing us or a full-out apocalypse? I have to say it'd be the bombing. At least the apocalypse would be happening for a good reason. But if there's an apocalypse, would we all die right away without a chance to think "Oh crap, we really screwed up"?

bb_writes June 18 2009, 17:48:52 UTC

I have to agree with you on the bombing choice. And, as for the whole would we get a chance to think about our actions, I don't really know, but I think that probably, yes. But that's just the thing: why do we keep making these mistakes if we know that the day will come that we're all going to regret having made them? When the time comes and we have to face the consequences of our actions, we're all just going to be begging for mercy and we're well aware of that, only we don't seem to care enough to actually do something about it before it's too late. And this doesn't just apply to the apocalypse theory, either. It's the same with Global Warming. We've all been warned in advance that, if we don't change the error in our ways, we'll suffer the consequences not too long from now. But still, I don't see that much of a change happening.
It's just sad to see that we only start to act when it's way too late for it to make any difference.

Well, anyway, thank you so much for your comment. I really appreciate it.
- Bruna

starry_veil June 19 2009, 20:45:05 UTC

People have a tendency, even when they know something's almost inevitable, to disregard it till things are too late. Even if we know better, we still think, "It can't happen to me." It seems egotistical for us to think this way, but we have a hard time imagining we could actually experience terrible times. It's this trait that keeps people from trying to make a change, that and a contentment with the status quo. "Let's live in the present because it's good. Not to worry about future consequences!"

bb_writes June 21 2009, 00:55:55 UTC

I know... but that's just sad. And stupid. Things would just be so much better if everyone did their best to make a change. A person can't change the world alone, but if we just divided the weight, it'd be almost simple. Oh well, one can only hope...

ferchrissakes June 15 2009, 15:00:31 UTC

This 2012 apocalypse theory is wholly unfounded and people that truly believe that it is going to happen need to think more skeptically and rationally. There is absolutely no evidence to support the belief that this is true. Look at all the apocalypse theories in history... and you'll see that every date passed with nothing really notable happening.

Nuclear armament has been a problem since Oppenheimer and crew completed the Manhattan Project. This North Korea thing is just another would-be tyrant throwing his weight around and trying to whip people up into a tizzy. N. Korea would likely attack many other countries before they made an effort to go after the US or EU... and frankly, they don't have the funding or technological know-how to build a missile that can travel as far as the US or EU, anyhow. So mark my words, one year from now we will have all forgotten about this and we'll have some other tyrant throwing his weight around in some other region of the world.

bb_writes June 18 2009, 18:08:31 UTC

I agree that there is no proof to support this theory scientifically or whatever, but I've come to learn that not all things in life are exactly what they're cracked up to be. I'm well aware of the fact that this apocalypse thing is a long shot, but I think it's always better to keep an open mind. After all, a little caution never hurt anyone. Better safe than sorry, right? But it's not really just about that. My point here is this: in general, I think we're all pretty discontent with the way things are going, right? I mean, who wants to live in a world where you have to think twice before traveling somewhere because your plane might get blown-up by a bunch of fanatic freaks? And who wants to live in a world where countries kill each other's natives just to make an unfounded statement? No one, I think. There are a lot of things that are wrong in this world that we could prevent from happening only by having our heads on our shoulders. If North Korea's leader was just slightly more human than he seems to be, we wouldn't have to deal ( ... )

ferchrissakes June 18 2009, 19:07:18 UTC

Respectfully, I whole heartedly disagree with your notion that the advancement of technology will make things worse. In fact, I find it wholly naive to state that things are worse now than they ever were. If you were take to a long and serious look at history, conflicts are resolved much more quickly with far fewer casualties (proportionally speaking) than in times past. Historically, the victors of wars would rape, pillage, and slaughter ENTIRE populations of peoples... which is something that is generally prevented by things like the Geneva Convention and the UN in today's age. In addition, we see much more equality for minorities, women, and people of alternative lifestyles now than throughout the whole of human history. Would you make the argument that somehow this reality is a bad thing ( ... )

bb_writes June 21 2009, 00:54:02 UTC

I agree with you that the advancement of technology can be a good thing at times and that, yes, there is a third option on the table. I do truly believe - and hope - that things can turn around ( ... )