atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#6082: The theme of my books

If you look at the SF universe that I'm writing Apocalyptic Visions in, you find that its overarching theme--something I did not intend, at least not originally--is that eternal life here would be a mistake.

There's a race of beings who embarked on becoming immortal, succeeded in doing so...and immediately realized they'd made a tragic, monumental error. Their existence informs much of the "large questions of existence" in that world.

The first comment here sums it up nicely. It's something I've touched on here, before; and actually there are two comments.

The first:
Living forever in this plane seems like as good a description of hell as any.


The second:
Living forever as we are would be a form of infernal arrested development; like caterpillar grubs never to fly as beautiful butterflies, the only way of ever fullfiling their true destiny!
There's a bit of writing I did which sums up the events which precede those of AV by about 60 or 70 years or so, in which one of these now-eternal beings sums it up:
We live in the universe of the dead.

All things in this universe--save ourselves--die eventually. This is how the universe is made. A lifeform is born; it lives a life, however long or short, and eventually it dies and is consumed. For animals the process is complete. But for sentients, there is another step. Any creature which is aware, aware that it is aware, and can conceive of its own ending, does not have one. This is the fundamental irony of existence. When each of you dies--and you know as well as we do that this is inevitable--your body will cease to function and become food for lower life forms, its job complete. Your soul, however, will journey to a place we cannot go. Death is not the end; it is merely the end of the beginning. One of your artists observed that death was the chrysalis of the soul.

Thinking death was a journey to blackness, we rejected it. And now we must forever pay the price. Forever.
Living forever keeps you apart from God. Who would want that? Only someone who has already rejected Him.

* * *

I will eat nearly anything, but not this. No. No no no no no.

Three alleged foods I won't eat:

1) Balut
2) Raw oysters
3) Uni Shooter

...the rest of the universe is fair game.

* * *

Well, he identifies as a 9-year-old, so we can't put him in jail for molesting little girls. I'm sorry, but that's the long and the short of it. If you must acknowledge that Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner is a woman, if you must acknowledge that Brad "Chelsea" Manning is a woman, if we must accept and agree with anyone who claims that he identifies as something he is clearly not--if "misgendering" is a heinous act of bigotry--then I'm afraid to say we cannot tell this man that he's not a 9-year-old, because we are mis-aging him.

If it's legal for a man to walk into a womens' bathroom because he identifies as female, why is it illegal for this man to have sex with underage girls? He is just as much a 9-year-old as Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, after all.

* * *

You have to love how shills for leftism claim that the failure of socialized education somehow proves that capitalism doesn't work.

* * *

Or, here's an idea: let New York pay for its own damned train station. This idea that the federal government needs to pay for state and municipal costs is stupid. Why should someone living in California or Texas or Wyoming or Hawaii have to pay to fix a train station in New York City? Why should someone in Utica or Buffalo even have to pay for it? It's a train station in NYC; it's NYC's problem.

Penn Station is falling apart because New York City isn't paying to maintain it. Why is it our problem? It's NYC's problem. Let the voters and taxpayers in NYC pay for it, the same ones who elected the shitheads who aren't keeping up the current infrastructure.

The article goes on to complain about how Amtrak is "perennialy underfunded". Amtrak is a waste of money. There's no economic need for intercity rail, which is why it would have disappeared had the government not created Amtrak. And Amtrak has never--not once, not ever, not even a little bit--made a profit. It can't, because the price of an airline ticket puts an upper limit on what Amtrak can charge, and planes are much faster to boot.

Funny, isn't it, how the answer is always "Let the taxpayers pay for it"?

Fuck that noise.

* * *

Well, Mrs. Fungus is home. I'm going to heat up some dinner and help her with Algebra now.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments