Re: National Geographic and the Meaning of Life

On Mar 12, 12:41=A0pm, Damien Valentine <valen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:54=A0pm, il...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > I suppose I am not the intended audience :) but my biggest impresison
> > from "Life After People" (I never saw "Aftermath") is how POINTLESS
> > nature without humans is.
>
> I see your sophomoric existential angst, and raise you an equally
> sophomoric absurdist answer: The meaning of life is 42.
>
> ...Seriously, though, why should nature have a "point", with or
> without humans?

The life, existance, has no point is all the more reason why humans
should find their own point and cherish and protect the all too
fragile existance of civilization, rather than throwing it away
because of delusions.