by Ethan Johnson
June 8, 2006

For those of you keeping score, we have survived two imminent disaster prophecies in as many months. The world did not end (or the reign of the Anti-Christ did not palpably begin) on June 6, and the world did not cease to be on May 25. In terms of infinite possibilities, on some plane of existence the world is ending all the time. But that possibility thankfully has not aligned itself with immediate probability. What this means to you is that you'll have to pay down that credit card after all, and if you made any regrettable comments on your way "out", you might be in for a plate of crow. My advice: Don't mouth off or go on a mad shopping spree until you see the white of the approaching comet.

(Parenthetically, I love "end of the world" dramas where people go on a looting rampage before the [disaster]. Not sure what all of that "loot" is going to accomplish when the Earth splits in half and all of that. Or for that matter, what good it will do during the reign of [the Pro or Anti-Christ]. Either way, material goods would seem pretty futile at that point. Maybe it's driven by the "whoever dies with the most toys wins" thing?)

Nope, it looks like we're all going to have to get on with this business of living. Some random yet connected thoughts:

One: I wonder if the root of thinking such as "end timers" or "doomsday enthusiasts" is the idea that real, lasting change is hard, whereas wiping the slate clean is easy. In some ways, the mythical "easy button" popularized by Staples does exist, and it is connected to our nuclear arsenal. Doom is easy. Diplomacy is hard. Fortunately we collectively agree to take the "hard" path, even in wartime, with one notable exception.

As I was preparing to go to press with this, Phil Plait delivered the bacon:

It is very, very tiresome fighting crap like this. It’s like digging a hole in water. And honestly, I will always expect there will be people either unstable enough or willing enough to prevaricate to promote this kind of doomsday nonsense. Mental illness exists, just as much as the sociopathic need to lie on a massive scale. If there’s a third option, I’d like to hear it. I can’t think of one.

Interesting angle. I'll have to write more about the above (and what inspired it) in a future article, but something very interesting struck me as I read Phil's post. Sorry to be a tease, but watch this space.

Two: I read a blog entry the other day about Christian Science, and the aversion to all things medical. The idea being that God decides who lives and dies, and God will either cure you miraculously, or it is God's Will that you die. I was discussing this with Mar over dinner the other night and I noted that this strikes me as a perversion of the idea of God as "all-powerful". I contend that we are empowered to do all sorts of things, including commit crimes or give love. This view holds regardless of ideas such as Creationism or Evolution (or plain "stuff that happens"). We have legs, therefore we walk. We have arms, therefore we reach. If we are truly slaves to "God's Will", we should lie perfectly still and wait for God to animate us. After all, if healing ourselves using "external" means is an abomination, can the same not be said for undirected movement?

Three: I was wondering how realistic the concept of Neutron Bomb were, and if they really destroyed "organic" material (insofar as energy is created or destroyed) and left "infrastructure" alone. The answer is yes and no. Mostly no, in that neutron bombs are not presently in wide circulation (how's that for hedging?) and they don't favor the destruction of one type of matter over another. Interesting side note for the morbid: With many types of radioactive warfare, the effects of the radiation, while lethal, may not register any noticeable effects for hours, if not days. That means an army full of people who literally have nothing to live for. That's armageddon, mister.

My lazy research into neutron bombs led me to an interesting article called The Profits of Fear:

To anyone who wondered how horror stories about an elevated communist threat could possibly be popular, the answer was that they served the needs of hundreds of thousands of people who worked for the Federal Government or enjoyed its largesse. Bad news justified bigger military budgets, which enriched defense contractors, boosted employment in key congressional districts, and increased the influence of cold warriors in the Pentagon. Bad news united the nation and weakened opposition to legislation which rode in on the coat tails of anticommunist hysteria. Most of all, bad news enhanced nuclear drama, which inflated the importance of government in general and the Executive Branch in particular.

How we got here, illustrated.

Four: Since this is not a blog, I have found the perfect opening to make mention of the commencement speech given by Steven Colbert last weekend at Knox College. Tattoo this on your forehead:

Now will saying “yes” get you in trouble at times? Will saying “yes” lead you to doing some foolish things? Yes it will. But don’t be afraid to be a fool. Remember, you cannot be both young and wise. Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying “yes” begins things. Saying “yes” is how things grow. Saying “yes” leads to knowledge. “Yes” is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say “yes.”

At root, I think a focus on "doomsday" scenarios is all about saying "no." No to living. No to happiness. No to humanity. No to the Earth. No to unity. No to love. No to progress.

In the course of saying "no" to these things (or preparing to do so), such people beat a deeper and deeper retreat, and effectively say "no" to having a rich, full life. Instead they're literally hunkered down in the bunker, cleaning their guns and stockpiling water and canned goods. Of course a disaster plan is a good thing. The problems happen when it becomes the only thing. I read an account with amusement of someone who was blogging about their "worst case" scenario for how they plan to respond to an all-out attack by the US government against its own people. Hint: The gummint has nukes. You lose, survival nuts! On the up side, this person explained how solar power works and how it doesn't. What if this person got into the "power" business and out of the "kook" business? It seems more win-win to me.

It was sad to read the account of someone who is preparing for a day that by rights should never come. Tornadoes and hurricanes are a more immediate threat. After all, the rights we surrender to the government are akin to the "frog in a pan of water" metaphor as opposed to a "Tienanmen Square" approach. Once again, there was the pervading sense of "other" that in this case was driving extreme behavior.

Five: Finally, there are those who opt to bow out early, for diverse reasons. Various legal, ethical, and religious points of view may be explored on the topic of suicide. Some say that it's a sin to kill yourself. I personally don't recommend it as a rule, though I am cognizant of rational exceptions.

But did you hear about the man who decided not to commit suicide? He spent the next 50 years of his life watching television. <EM>