worlditsme
New Member
I'm sure this has been asked millions of times since the birth of the Internet, but what do all you think about this one?
-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
What is the meaning of life?
- Thread starter worlditsme
- Start date
The meaning of life is to get a job, pay your taxes, and support your country no matter what.
Or at least that's what the meaning of life in a capitalist world is.
In reality, there is no point. You simply exist and then you die, with the intention of reproducing before you die. The world goes on. The universe goes on. At least until the sun swells into a red giant, and then every aspect of life on Earth will end. So whats the point of it all? The earth was created a few billion years ago in the ashes of an even older supernova (it's how we have things like naturally occurring uranium). After a while, when enough asteroids had deposited amino acids by smashing into this rock, ---- started gettin' real. And eventually, it's all going to be gone. Even if we manage to find a way to get to another planet by the time the earth dies (assuming we haven't killed ourselves off by then), you still need to worry about the end of the universe. It's obvious the universe had a beginning. So where does it end? The big crunch? The big freeze? The big rip? One day nothing will exist beyond simple matter.
The point ... there is no ----ing meaning. Any other answer is delusional bull ----. In essence, you're dead before you had a chance.
I hope you're depressed, now.
Or at least that's what the meaning of life in a capitalist world is.
In reality, there is no point. You simply exist and then you die, with the intention of reproducing before you die. The world goes on. The universe goes on. At least until the sun swells into a red giant, and then every aspect of life on Earth will end. So whats the point of it all? The earth was created a few billion years ago in the ashes of an even older supernova (it's how we have things like naturally occurring uranium). After a while, when enough asteroids had deposited amino acids by smashing into this rock, ---- started gettin' real. And eventually, it's all going to be gone. Even if we manage to find a way to get to another planet by the time the earth dies (assuming we haven't killed ourselves off by then), you still need to worry about the end of the universe. It's obvious the universe had a beginning. So where does it end? The big crunch? The big freeze? The big rip? One day nothing will exist beyond simple matter.
The point ... there is no ----ing meaning. Any other answer is delusional bull ----. In essence, you're dead before you had a chance.
I hope you're depressed, now.
I want to go out, rob an armored car and succeed without getting injured or killed. Oh, and I want no negative repercussions of an kind. You can't always do what you feel like.
MikeBrolly
New Member
life
life is a name of struggle and then joy.
life is a name of struggle and then joy.
AboutWeb
New Member
You know, in the future the medicine could advance so far that we won't have to die, or at least live longer. But wait, this brings another problem, a major increase of population, lack of food, jobs, homes and so on.
Some say life is a gift: take it and it's your problem what you do with it.
Some say life is a gift: take it and it's your problem what you do with it.
What's the best solution to this? Mandated sterilization. After a female gives birth to one or two children, sterilize her. That way, it's now impossible for the population to grow exponentially.
Why the female and not the male? Isn't that a little sexist?
This.
Life is what you make it. But whatever it is you make of it, it won't have a meaning. You'll mean something to the people who you've met along the way; some more than others. But eventually those people will die. And everything you've ever written or created will be lost or perish away.
So stop looking for the meaning of life and start finding the reason for life.
For simplicity purposes, it would be easier to focus on just the females. The surgery could be performed immedietly following the birth of the child. That way they can recover from the surgery and the childbirth at the same time. You're essentially killing two birds with one stone. It wouldn't make sense to have the woman AND the man both laid up somewhere recovering. Too counterproductive.
But education is, guaranteed, the quickest and least painful way of reducing fertility rates across the board without reducing ourselves to a fascist-inspired eugenics program or a sexist approach to forced sterilization (vocalized sexism or not, it is, no matter the rationale).
Consider it passive manipulation. You wish for the fertility rate to be reduced, so you, assuming you have dictatorial powers, increase funding for education dramatically to enable free schooling and make associate's degrees mandatory while providing a serious standard for school curricula. Then you create programs to vastly reduce unemployment by nationalizing some industries and funneling them with money for more positions to be opened up. The result, women and men are both nearly fully integrated into the workforce with higher education. Fertility rates drop as people choose to have less children in order to pursue other goals in life, such as promotions, independent research, etc.
Sure, they choose to not have kids. But do they really choose? Or is it your choice?
If you don't believe me, there's tons of documented research regarding the inverse relationship between education levels and fertility rates.
Last edited:
I believe that the "one family, one child" situation in China is a little over the top, and there really isn't any evidence that shows that it's been effective over the last 3 decades. I also believe that any attempt to create a negative population growth will ultimately fail. I think we need to focus on why populations in developing countries grow rapidly in comparison to developed counties. Even here in the US, the folks who are giving birth to 3+ children are generally those who shouldn't be having kids in the first place because they aren't financially stable or just completely irresponsible. More often than not, families with 3+ children are in lower income brackets. I agree with you with most of what you said. More funding and mandated higher education would be ideal, but it would be too costly to force people to go to school, especially those who really don't want to be there in the first place. I agree that mandated sterilization is probably a little extreme and would basically infringe on people's God given rights to procreate. However, taking away the benefits for having 30 kids isn't. How about taking away the tax breaks? Take away the assistance programs and force people to be accountable for their actions? Force them to pay for all of their children's necessities. Come to think of it, that would just worsen the problem and keep poverly level folks in poverty. I guess it's really a catch-22 isn't it? I'll stick with my mandated sterilization theory. It seems to be the most logical and economical. Too much critical thinking too early in the morning.
Would you like to try freebasing cocaine instead of coffee?
You need to go to Memphis Ten-a-Ki
