slobake
resident ... something
On the most basic level, I found it a clever way of getting people to question systems.
Never needed help with that one. Maybe that is why I haven't read the book.
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
On the most basic level, I found it a clever way of getting people to question systems.
Douglas Adams was a humorist. Saying he was truly "on to something" would be the same as saying "monty pythons flying circus" was the key to the universe, which of course it is! (No it isnt! Yes it is!
Albatross!
Why can't mankind live within nature. Why does he harm the environment unlike any other creature on the planet? I know some will correctly say it's our intelligence but then why has nature spawned a being that can do what we do in the first place?
Was this an accident of nature? Is it just un natural? Is there a larger plan by mother nature? What are your feelings and insights into this topic?
Douglas Adams was a humorist. Saying he was truly "on to something" would be the same as saying "monty pythons flying circus" was the key to the universe, which of course it is! (No it isnt! Yes it is!
Albatross!
Im not sure all of mankinds accomplishments (war, money, politics, television, porn, nuclear weapons/energy) are indicative of any so called intelligence. However we do seem quite creative. I would speculate that all other animals are more intelligent than humans for the fact that they can get along and live happily without such artificial distractions from life.
I think because man is creative by nature he tends to assume that he himself must have been created. [sentence removed]. However, I choose to believe along those creationist lines because I cant think of any good reason not to. After all, our so called intelligence has done little to improve our lives. And a bit of silliness will at least make our time here a bit more bearable.
Sometimes I think people say stuff like this because it's en vogue amongst pseudo-intellectual crowds (read: hippies) to have opinions like this.
I for one don't want to live in the wilderness and die young due to gruesome injuries or diseases because "I'm living with nature". Technology isn't all internet porn and war. A very great deal of it is simply taken for granted. And as is usual, the good gets ignored while the bad makes the front page.
Douglas Adams was a humorist. Saying he was truly "on to something" would be the same as saying "monty pythons flying circus" was the key to the universe, which of course it is! (No it isnt! Yes it is!
Albatross!
I think my point just missed you slightly. I don't want to live like a caveman any more than you do. I was born into our world of modern conveniences, robotics, segways, antibiotics and frankly I doubt i'd last 20 minutes without it all.
And you are right. Theres been good invented with the bad. But is the good really good when it has made us dependant on it? We are evolving as a species, no doubt. But our society protects regressive genes that do us no good. In fact it exalts them so that in many cases we elect stupid people to lead us.
But our ancestors for the most part never knew they were living in hard times. To them, technology was always state-of-the art.
The meaning of life is not a competition to be the first on mars, or develop clean energy or solve world peace. Those are just things we impose upon ourselves. Life is not a goal.
Life is simply existing, reproducing, surviving and if we are truly smart enjoying the ups and downs of the ride while we live it.
Of course, thats just my opinion, man.
So tempted to make this sordid...
Sam Kinison was a humorist, he was on something, therefore humorists must "get it".
Never needed help with that one. Maybe that is why I haven't read the book.
I don't want to live forever in the post human world unless:
My post human erection lasts longer![]()
Yeah, well, I'm not interested in reading a book to try to decipher your posts and it strikes me as quite arrogant to reply to mine with dribs and drabs from some author, and then refer to someone who is ignorant of the work as needing "slack."
Listen, either you all have the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and EVERYTHING, or you DON'T, and if you don't just let the guy who claims to answer me.
And I accused no person of lacking intelligence, I questioned the intelligence only of this elusive "answer" and of the non-responsive "responses" to my request for clarification of this "answer," which so far have no support and cannot be viewed as intelligent or meaningful without some explanation.
I often explain to others that the HHGTTG series of books (and the BBC adaptations) are so much more than the zany humor they appear to be at first. They truly contain some very profound insight into, not just human nature, but also into the nature of the universe itself. I believe that he was one of the rare individuals who "gets" what it all really means. He understood the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. -- hbarcat
Even if someone has never had a problem questioning authority, I'd still suggest they read Orwell.
HHGTTG is a fun read either way and I couldn't recommend it enough.