Thursday, January 26, 2012

the end of the world - apparently not 25 January 2012

Okay, I'll admit it, my last post about the end times was motivated entirely by self-interest, namely, my self-interest in having the Spring semester somehow not happen. I didn't have any good backing for that assertion. Sorry. (Say it like a Canadian! "Sore-ry!")

(Ooooh, I smell a meme! "Say it like a Canadian!")

Now that I think about it, my selfish desire to have the world end in order to avoid having to go to school today was incredibly short-sighted. Follow me here: if the world had ended, and I didn't have to go to school today, it would also have been the case that I, too, would have ended, since my existence more or less depends on the world's existence. What was I thinking?!

Clearly, no one should want the world to end, unless that person was more or less assured of some avenue of escape from personal demise concomitant with the world's. Plus, if you think about it, wanting the world to end entails wanting lots of people to stop existing, as well, and there's something slightly rude about that. In fact, this whole "end of the world" business is a lot trickier, ethically speaking, than I thought. Some people are really attached to the world, and their friends and pets. Holy crap! I'm really attached to my friends and my pets! Sorry, guys! ("Sore-ry, guys!")

On the other hand, if the world were to actually, really, officially end - like really end, not just kind of turn crappier - not only would my friends and pets end, but so would I. So I wouldn't continue to exist, only in a world where my friends and pets would not exist. No. I would stop existing, too. That should make the notion more bearable, right? The end of the world wouldn't be just the end of my friends and pets ("Sore-ry!"), but my own end as well, and so I wouldn't have to deal with the pain and loss.

That's nice, eh? ("Eh?")