: Status: Unconfirmed.

The last few days have been a bit weird. There's something in the back of my brain, gnawing at me, but I can't seem to focus on what it is and deal with it. Hopefully I can pry it out soon and exterminate it, as it's taking away my ability to concentrate. It's even difficult to write without getting distracted. But I'll try. 

Confirmation Yay 

I don't know if "confirmation" is the actual work used for this type of ceremony in English, and I don't feel like looking it up right now. But whatever the case, I was visiting my mom this weekend because of my sister, Silje's, confirmation. A civil confirmation, not a christian one, which I was very happy and relieved about. It was a very nice event in many ways. The actual ceremony was not boring, which surprised me. I don't think I've ever been to any confirmation ceremony before, neither civil, christian nor other, at least not that I can remember, but I've always imagined it to be dreadfully boring. And I guess that if it had been christian, it probably would have been.

My sister Therese, me, my half-sister Silje, my brother Stian, and Silje's half-sister Marie.

The best part about the whole deal, though, was after the ceremony, at the party. No, not because of the food or cakes (although both were delicious), but because we got to meet people from my sister's father's family (yeah, she's actually my half-sister), that I barely get to meet anymore. Now, I, being my usual halfway introverted and socially awkward self, didn't actually talk to too many of them. But it was still nice. I sort of wish more of the people from their family had been there, though, but the place was already rather full. 

Confirmation Boo 

I must admit, though, that part of me is feeling... Slightly pissed off at the whole confirmation thing. Or rather, slightly pissed off at my ex-step-father's (my sister's father) influence back when I was supposed to have been confirmed. You see, back then, he was so strongly against a civil confirmation that he convinced my mom that I couldn't have that. And I absolutely refused to do it in church, as I am as far from a religious person as you can get, even back then. My other sister didn't get confirmed either, for the same reason. My brother was fortunate enough to live with our father when it was his time, so he got to choose what he wanted, and got his civil confirmation. 

And yes, I'll also admit that the main reason I'm slightly pissed off about this, is because of the money I didn't get. There wasn't really much else I cared about. I didn't, and still really don't, know what a civil confirmation actually involves. I didn't really feel any peer pressure or social stigma from being one of the few, if not the only, person not to get confirmed, as at that time I was already more or less an outcast. It's really mostly the money, and the party, that I didn't get that really annoys me about it. As well as the fact that my ex-step-father really shouldn't have had any say in the matter. The fact that he now let his own daughter get the confirmation she wanted, while also making me (as mentioned) happy and relieved, makes me even more pissed off about it.

Oh well.


I guess I should add some questions to the end if I ever want some response on these blog posts.

What's your opinion on confirmations, both civil and christian (or other)?
Should step-parents have much influence on children's lives if both real parents are still involved?

: The irrationality of traditions.

I'm not much for traditions personally. I mean, they're neat, and might be fun to follow when possible, but I don't have any traditions that I try to cling on to, and follow no matter what. The reason simply being that most traditions either are, or more likely have become, completely irrational.

Many traditions might have a source with a cause. They started with a reason, and have kept on going for years and years, until no one remembers any more exactly why they do what they do, they just keep on doing it because it's how it's always been. This is very nicely illustrated in the 5 Monkey Eperiment. The problem often is that over the years, the reason for doing it have disappeared. And instead, there are an increasing number of reasons for not doing it. And still, people keep on doing what they've been doing, even though they most likely don't know why they were doing it in the first place.

Now, I'm not saying that all traditions are bad. There are a lot of very innocent traditions that are just for fun, or useful traditions that still have a purpose. And if you want to stick with those, while they're still innocent or useful, then by all means do so. There's also the option of adjusting outdated or harmful traditions so they fit in with how the world have evolved and no longer cause the problems they otherwise would in today's society. That's also perfectly fine. But you have to stop once in a while and think about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how it affects the people around you.

The biggest problem is family traditions. Things that most, maybe even all, of the older generations within a family believes define their specific family, what they believe makes them special. And when I say older generations, I really mean anyone old enough to have the ability to form their own opinions about things. In these families, traditions tend to survive far longer than they should, because it's taught as a way of life to every new generation, the opinion that this is the way to do it has been imprinted in their minds long before they're able to form their own opinions about it. It's just how they live, it's what they are...

But at some point, someone has to look closely at what they're doing, and if there really is something wrong with it, they have to stand up and say "I'm sorry, but I no longer see the point of doing this. We're no longer preserving our family's identity by doing this, we're actually hurting our own by doing what we're doing". I really wish this happened more often, that people dared to stand up to their family authorities and question or change things that don't make sense, or are outright harmful. 

It's very sad, in oh so many ways, that people are willing to sacrifice the life-quality of others, even their own family, to preserve outdated and pointless family identities. And it's frustating to stand on the outside and watch it happen, and not be able to do anything about it...

This is a response to a family situation, which is why it ends the way it does...

: Poly-amory.

I consider myself to be what is called poly-amorous. I feel like talking about what that is, or at least my understanding of it, and how I feel about it. I fear that this post might get a lot of negative attention from people who "know better", but whatever. I'll deal with that if/when it happens.

What does it mean to be poly-amorous?

Being poly-amorous means that you find yourself falling in love with, or at least develop strong feelings for, more than one person at a time. Being poly-amorous does not mean that you're necessarily a polygamist, although in my view there's nothing wrong with that either, as long as all parties agree to it. That's really the easiest way to explain what it is. I, personally, am convinced that everyone is poly-amorous to a certain degree, but that it "affects" some people more than others; That some people can fall deeply in love with several people at a time, and does so rather consistently, and others are essentially mono-amorous, very rarely feeling any attraction towards anyone other than their partner... And everything in between. Most people live mono-amorously, though, so one can't really call them poly-amorous. 

Poly-amory symbol.

This seems wrong...

Well, that's mainly because most people nowadays have been taught that mono-amory and monogamy is the only right way to live, and that there is a "one" for everyone. But, being attracted to, and developing feelings for, several people at a time is natural. We're built to be attracted to others, without any specified limit to how many others we can be attracted to. It doesn't matter to our brain that we already have a partner when we see someone else that we find attractive. So you can't really blame anyone for developing feelings for someone other than their partner, as it isn't really their fault. And it doesn't mean they feel any less for either of them than they would if they were mono-amorous.

And yes, I know there are certain species of animals that actually are monogamous, that pick and stay with one partner for their entire life. For some reason this is something that a lot of people bring up when this topic is discussed. But those species aren't the norm, there's actually very few of them. And for those that are monogamous, there is probably some sort of evolutionary and/or environmental reason for it, like that it's too difficult for one single individual of the species to care for, and ensure the survival of, the offspring... Which is not really the case for humans.

But... Isn't it cheating?

Well, that really depends on your definition of cheating. And if you define cheating as having feelings for someone other than your partner, then yes it is. But by that definition, I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who's ever been in a relatively long term relationship has "cheated" on their partner. What I would consider cheating is acting on those feelings behind your partner's back. And I'm not talking about innocent flirting, but actually getting into some sort of relationship, emotional or physical. If you feel the need to act upon those feelings, make sure your partner knows and consents. It's as simple as that.

What about jealousy?

Well, jealousy is also natural of course. People don't like the thought of other people using their stuff. But I feel the level of jealousy that we see in some people today isn't just a result of how we're built anymore. Again, most people today have been taught that monogamy is the right way, that it's the only way human relationships are supposed to work. And because of that, even the thought of their "one" being attracted to someone else will make them react very poorly. A lot of relationships could've been saved if people just understood that they don't necessarily mean any less to their partner just because they develop feelings for someone else.

How does one live with it?

The easiest way to live with being highly poly-amorous, is to have an open relationship. That probably doesn't need to be explained, but I will do it anyway; It essentially means that you stick with one person that is your chosen partner, but you've both agreed on that being with others is perfectly fine, as long as you're being honest with each other about it. It's the most traditional way of dealing with poly-amory from what I can find. Historically, apparently up until as recently as about 60 years ago, it was normal, particularly for men, to hook up with other women outside of their marriage. But for some reason, instead of "giving" women the freedom to be with more than one person, this freedom was "taken away" from men.

Another, more difficult, way to handle it, is polygamy or polyfidelity/polyexclusivity. The most common variation of this is one man with many women, but it can be done in so many combinations. This is very tricky to pull off, though, and requires that everyone involved is committed to keeping it afloat, and that everyone is considered equal. If one or more of the people involved either isn't 100% committed, or want to "rise up" and limit the involvement of someone else, the whole group might collapse. It has to be up to every "link" within the group to decide how their specific relationship will work, while at the same time, of course, considering how it will affect other "links". To avoid too many complications, these kind of groups sometimes consider themselves exclusive, meaning that no one within the group will enter into a relationship with someone not accepted into the group.

How has poly-amory affected you?

Well, I am somewhat strongly affected, in that I rather easily develop feelings for someone. Those feelings rarely last too long, at least not if they're not returned, but it varies a lot. Right now, there are five different girls that I have some sort of attraction to; One that has lasted for five years, one that has lasted about three years i think, and another for little over a year. The last two are relatively fresh. All of these five know that I have feelings for them to some degree, and three of them know, and approve, of my poly-amory. The fourth might know, I'm not sure. And the fifth I haven't really talked to a lot.

How do you deal with it?

For me it's quite simple. Or at least it is now. Over the years, I have developed an ability to push back feelings that aren't returned, which has also led me to be able to push back feelings for anyone else when it actually is returned. At least that's what I experienced when I got together with Wenche. Up until then there was one girl, Andrea, that was almost always on my mind. But during my relationship with Wenche I barely ever thought about Andrea in that way. It did of course happen from time to time, but for the most part, my feelings were completely focused on Wenche. I don't expect that to last forever, though, but that is part of why I've decided to be open about this, so that whoever I end up with knows who I am and how I work, and thus what to expect.

: Why I'm an atheist.

I occasionally get questions from people on why I'm an atheist. So, I thought I'd write a bit about it.

Type of atheist

As I see it, there are two main types of atheist. There's the absolute atheist, that flat out denies that there is a god or gods. And then there's the agnostic atheist, that simply doesn't believe in any god or gods, without denying their possible existence. I see myself as an agnostic atheist, as, the way I see it, there is no way I or anyone else can prove the non-existence of any kind of deity. It's highly improbable that one (or more) exist, but that's as close as we can get. So, the way I see it, it's just as foolish to deny the existence of deities as it is to believe in them.

Upbringing

As far as I can remember, religion was never a part of our life when I grew up. Neither of my parents are, as far as I know, religious in any way. The biggest proof I have of this, is that neither me nor my siblings were, uh, baptized? Not sure if that's the correct term, but you probably understand what I mean. Either way... I can't remember really hearing much about religion, or even really knowing what religion or christianity was, until I started school. It was a non-issue for us, and I'm thankful for that.

School and the bible

I don't think I learned about the bible, or the stories within it, until we started having christianity classes in school. I may have heard some of the stories before that, like the one about Noah's Ark, but most likely thought of them as fantasy. I can't really remember. But what I do remember is that once we started learning about it in school, I couldn't really understand how some people believed those stories to be true. It seemed so ridiculous to me. They were nice stories, at least the ones we read back then, but nothing more.

My dad eventually pulled me out of the christianity class and got me over on an alternative class that focused on all religions and other non-religious life-views. Unfortunately, when we moved to my mom, I had to go back to regular christianity classes. I don't know why, but I suspect it had something to do with the fact that my then step-father was a christian. Whatever the case, it didn't take long before the christianity classes were replaced by something more similar to the alternative classes country-wide.

Observing the world

As I grew older, and payed more attention to the world around me, the concept of a god or gods seemed even more ridiculous. Particularly a benevolent and all-powerful god. There are so much evil and misfortune in the world, it's impossible for me to understand how anyone can believe that such a thing exist. 

If a potential god truly was benevolent, why would he turn his back on all the people around the world that live in pain, fear and stress 24/7, only because they were accidentally born in a region of the world that teaches them to believe in another god? There's no logic in that. On the other hand, if a potential god is either not benevolent or not all-powerful, what is the point in believing in it? 

So, yeah. Based on the state of the world today, there is either no god to believe in, or no point in believing in whatever god there is.

Evolution and biology

Learning about evolution, and subsequently a bit about biology through Richard Dawkins, it became even clearer to me that there's no point in believing in a god. As you know, the bible teaches that all creatures were created and have always been the same. Looking at evolution, there's no doubt that this is false. Particularly when you look at vestigial structures or organs, which is parts of a species that used to be important but no longer have a function. 

In humans, the most "famous" examples of vestigial structures are the appendix, which were once used to digest grass, leaves, etc, and the tailbone, which were once an actual tail.

In animals, some of the most famous examples of vestigial structures are; 

- Leg-bones in whales, a remnant from when the whales ancestors still had actual legs and walked on land.

- Wings on ostriches, emus, penguins, and other birds that can no longer fly.

- Eyes that can no longer actually see in cave-dwelling fish and salamanders.

Neither of these things serve any purpose anymore in these creatures, so if humans and animals were created perfectly, why are they there?

Absence of proof

Other than holy books and texts, which is only good for self-referencing proof, there is no proof of any sort that there is any kind of god or gods. To this day I haven't heard or read about a single proposed proof that can't be explained by other causes or pure chance. Particularly the argument that the Earth have "perfect" conditions for life and therefore must have been designed. 

There's an uncountable amount of planets in the universe; It's purely accidental that our planet was able to sustain what we know as life. And to say that our planet have perfect conditions for life, is just plain wrong. It has good, but far from perfect, conditions for, again, what we know as life. On the best days we have good conditions for life. But most of the time there are some kind of extreme condition for someone, somewhere, who are barely able to hang on, and often can not.

Also, there is nothing to suggest that there aren't other kinds of life on one or more of the uncountable other planets in the universe, life that we might not be able to recognize as life. In which case, there's nothing perfect or special about our planet or our version of life. And if we are the only life in the universe? What would then be the point for a creator to create everything else? Why is it there?

If anything, the universe is proof of the non-existence of gods.

Multiple and geographic religions

Then, finally, there's the problem of multiple religions. If there actually is one religion that is true, and one god or pantheon of gods that actually exist, why are there so many different religions around the world? Why is there doubt about what religion is the true religion? Why do so many millions of people believe that one religion is true, and so many other millions of people believe that another religion is true? It makes absolutely no sense.

And, of course, the problem of geographic religion. In most cases, what religion you belong to is decided by what part of the world you were born in, or what part of the world your family originally came from. If you had been born in another family, in another part of the world, you would've had an entirely different view of the world, and an entirely different religious view. The fact that no religious people is able to see that, baffles me.

So, yeah. That's much of the reason why I'm an atheist.

: Suicide.

A friend of mine considered suicide a while ago. I'm not gonna mention his name here, I'll leave that up to him if he wants to share it. Some of you might know who I'm talking about, though, as he has written his own blog post about it.

I wouldn't call this post a response to him exactly, particularly as it's been such a long time now, but it's an explanation of sorts on my views and thoughts about suicide.

Some of you might know, particularly if you read one of my recent posts, that the thought of committing suicide has crossed my mind more than once during the last ten years. When your life seems to be an eternal uphill struggle on a giant hill of ice, it doesn't take much to fall from time to time, and the climb back up can be hell. But there is one thing that has kept those thoughts from evolving, one thing that has kept me from falling all the way down to the bottom.

In January of '94, 18 years ago now, my uncle Gustav committed suicide. I don't really know why he did it, I'm not sure if anyone really knows, and I'm not gonna speculate. That's not why I'm talking about him. What I do want to talk about is his amazing talent with computers. He was a computer wizard, plain and simple. He was completely self-taught, having started out with nothing more than a command line on his first computer, and had programmed a lot of stuff all by himself over the years. He was the kind of guy that took computer classes, where he basically took over the entire class and taught the teachers. I've also heard that some of the courses he took he only showed up on test-days, and still aced the tests. Don't know if that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

I was still too young to really be affected by what happened at the time. We didn't have too much contact with him either, as far as I remember. But I've thought a lot about him in recent years, and particularly after I got really interested in computers myself. And one of the things that bothers me the most about it all is all the possibilities a guy like him would have if he was still alive today. Back in '94 I don't think there really was too much use for someone with his skills yet, there wasn't really a computer culture in Norway yet, as far as I know. And as I said, I'm not writing this to speculate about why he did what he did, but I'm pretty sure that the lack of opportunities for him to really utilize his talent at the time played a significant role in his decision.

And that is the one thing that have kept me from ending my life; Thinking about all the possibilities my uncle missed out on by ending his life, and therefore also thinking about all the possibilities that I might miss out on by ending mine. Even though I don't have any real talent, at least not in the same way he had, as far as I know. But you never know what might happen.


There's nothing certain about the future. Even if your life seems bad right now, something might happen at some point that changes it for the better.

: The great LAN-divide.

Haven't had a lot to write about lately, at least not when it comes to stuff that have happened in my life. I mean, sure, there has been stuff going on, but nothing I really feel like its interesting to write about. I do have two different posts in progress, though, with some rather serious themes, but I'm not quite satisfied with either of them yet.

There's one thing I want to write about right now, though, one thing that I feel have sort of separated the group of friends I belong to. I visited a friend this week who is on the same side of things as I am, we started talking a bit about it, and we both would really see that it would change somehow.

I am, of course, talking about LANs, and LANers. For years I have considered myself a part of rather close group of LANers, that used to meet almost every weekend to play computer games and just have a good time. Unfortunately, as time goes by and people get older, start having relationships, have other more important things happening in their lives, and friends drift apart for one reason or other, it gets harder to find the time and opportunities to do this.

All of this is understandable, and can't really be helped. What I think is very sad, however, is how what's left of the LAN-community that I consider myself to be a part of seems to have been divided during the last couple of years. We used to get together everyone of us, as often as possible, but now it seems a few of us have been more or less left out.

On one side we have the social LANers, which I consider myself to be. We are the kind of LANers that go to LANs not only to play games, but to get together with friends and just have a good time, whether in a game or not. We're a rather small group, I can only think of three, maybe four, of us in the area at the moment, that I also consider part of the "good old" group of LANers.

On the other side we have the gamer-LANers. The ones that want to do more or less nothing but play games when on a LAN, and that seems to only want other gamer-LANers on a LAN. While I can understand that in a way, it ruins it for the rest of us who consistently gets left out.

If only someone had a place for everyone to gather this wouldn't have been a problem, but as the situation is at the moment, none of us social LANers have a place where we can arrange LANs. I would have loved to arrange LANs at my place again, it is certainly big enough, but... I lack proper furniture, plain and simple. And the other social LANers don't have places where it is possible to arrange anything either. The only ones who have places to arrange LANs atm are the gamer-LANers, which means that those of us who wants more out of a LAN than just playing games 24/7 have been left out for quite a while now.

I'm not out to force anyone to invite people they don't want to invite. People are free to do with their own LANs as they please, and if they really don't want to invite me, that's their choice. But being left out time after time after time, that really doesn't feel good...

I miss the old LAN-days... I really do.

: Dealing with death.

I'm writing this because of a thread in the Atheists group over at Nerdfighters.

How does an atheist deal with the subject of death? I can, of course, only tell it from my own perspective, and not for atheists in general. But in my opinion, the best way to deal with death is to accept it for what it is; The end of a life. It is all we can know it is, and if you ask me, thinking about it as anything else is nothing but a waste of time. 

No one will gain anything from pondering what might be after someone dies; If they are in some kind of heaven or hell, if they live on as spirits, if they have been reincarnated as someone or something else... And particularly not from thinking about the possibilities of contacting the dead and stuff like that. If you really care about someone that have died, focus on what they were in life instead. Don't throw away their memory, and your life, desperately seeking what is impossible.

I, personally, find more comfort in the thought that there is nothing after death, than anything else. I don't see any upsides to any of the after-death theories. I don't want to think of this life as anything less than what it is, just because of some peoples unconfirmable claims of some kind of life after death. I mean, what is the point of this life if it's just some kind "test" for what comes after? And if it is just a test, why don't we know, without a doubt, the conditions of the test, and what it is that comes after? How can there be so many different variants of this test recorded throughout human history? It doesn't make sense.

It makes more sense to me that when you die there's nothing, that everything that defines me as a person simply ceases to exist. I don't believe there's anything even remotely related to a "soul", but that our personality is stored within our brain, as a result of genetics, social interaction and experience, and that when our brains shut down our personalities go with it.

This is also the reason why I feel no real relationship to whats left after someone has died, why I don't see the point of treating a persons body in any particular way, and why I don't fell any reason to visit someones grave. I don't even visit my fathers grave, which annoys my grandmother. But I just don't feel there is anything there for me to visit. Whatever is left there is not my father. It's just a shell. And not even that, as he was cremated.

So yeah, that's my opinions on, and sort of how I deal with, death.

: Tattoos.

This is sort of a response to this blog-post, but it goes a bit beyond responding to the post itself. It's more of an extension to my comment on that post.

I am not a person who is particularly fond of tattoos. Or other forms of permanent body modifications for that matter, but I'll stick with tattoos for now. I have no interest in them myself, and I'm mostly neutral to other people's tattoos. I do, however, feel I need to talk a bit about why some peoples tattoos make me react negatively.

A tattoo, to me, is something that should have meaning. After all, it's something you'll most likely have on your body for the rest of your life. And when I say meaning, I mean real meaning, something that you will have a relationship to for the rest of your life, not just something that have meaning to you right now. I have a good example of what I mean;

My sister and her husband both have tattoos of their children's names. That is more than okay, as they will always have some kind of bond to their children, no matter what happens. Even if they have some kind of falling out with one or more of them at some point, they will still have a certain bond with them. So the tattoo will never lose it's meaning or relevance.

They also have tattoos of each others names. While I can sort of understand that, as they clearly love each other and are obviously determined to stay together the rest of their lives, I don't approve of those type of tattoos, as you can never know what will happen. They will always be connected in one way or the other, because of the children, but there's no guarantee that they will stay married the rest of their lives. There might come a time when they no longer feel there's a reason to stay together, and then find someone else. I know I wouldn't want to have an ex's name permanently attached to my body.

The same arguments apply to tattoos based on bands, organizations, etc. Even though you might care very passionately about it right now, there might come a time when your opinions about it, or the thing you care about itself, might change at some point. A band you absolutely love right now, you might hate in a few years. An organization you support now might disband or change their cause to something you strongly disagree with at some point.

People are, of course, free to do with their bodies as they will. I'm not gonna try to deny someone to get whatever tattoo they want. I just want people to think about what tattoo they get before they get it. Is this something you'd still want to have etched into your body 5 years from now? 10 years? 20? 40? 60? And yes, there is the possibility of laser-removal. But that's expensive, it can be very painful, and it might not even work.

I do not have any tattoos, and I highly doubt I will ever get one. But if I ever decide to get one, it will be carefully chosen and represent something that has a real meaning to me.

What is your opinion of tattoos?

If you have any tattoos; Do they have a real meaning?

If you don't have any; Would you get one, and how would you choose what to have tattooed?

Am I just being ridiculous?

: Pulled over.

So... We got pulled over today. They had set up some sort of traffic control point just south of Gran, we were going to Grua, I think it was, with Wenche's mom, and apparently they saw that Wenche wasn't using her seat belt... I say "apparently", because they never said that they actually saw it. And that's what annoys me about this...

Why can't they just be honest about it when they pull you over? Why can't they just tell you why they stopped you? Why do they have to play the "authority/intimidation-game" and have you tell them why you got pulled over? Because they want you to admit to things they might -not- have seen, of course. They might have been looking for something completely different than what was most obvious, and will leave it up to you to tell them the obvious things. 'Cause who's gonna risk lying to the authorities?

For all we know, none of them noticed that Wenche wasn't using her seat belt. For all we know, we originally got pulled over because they were checking the bumper thingy on the front of the car that Wenche's mom got a "warning" about. That might have been the real reason they stopped us. Not very likely, but we don't know. They never told us.

What can you say in a situation like this to avoid telling them stuff they don't know?

And should people be fined for not wearing seat belts?

: Boredmageddon?

Ten days left until armageddon, apparently, according to Harold Camping. Or rather, it's been going on for about 5 months. It started May 21st, the day he said would be judgement day earlier this year, when absolutely nothing happened, and will end in ten days, on October 21. I never imagined armageddon would be this... Boring? I mean, sure, bad stuff have happened around the world. But other than a slightly rainier summer than usual, none of which consisted of fire or brimstone, I can't say I've noticed much.

It's amazing to me that this Harold Camping guy keeps coming out with these stories. I didn't know this until I read the Wikipedia-page about him, I only knew him from his doomsday-predictions earlier this year, but it seems he has predicted the end of the world two times before, once in 1988 and once in 1994. One would think that after two failed attempts at predicting the end of the world, he would take a good look at himself and shut the fuck up, but no. He's too addicted to the attention he gets to do that.

It's also amazing to me that people keeps listening to these kinds of claims. The end of the world have been predicted lots of times, and we're still here. And even if one of them were right, what does it matter? If the world ends, there's nothing we can do about it. At least not about the kind of end of the world scenarios that these people tell us about, anyway. So I say we just go about our lives as if there wont be an end of the world. 'Cause there most likely wont be.