Having children: the most egoistic act in the world

[RANT_ON]

Many people believe, for whatever misguided reasons, that having children is one of the more selfless and ennobling acts a human being can undertake; that it is the deposition of the self for the sake of another. The way I see it, having children is the single most egoistic, self-centered thing a person can do.

You may ask parents why they had children: reasons will vary from “I wanted to bring a child into the world so he or she could grow up to be a good person,” to “I wanted to have a piece of me and my husband/wife to give to the world.”

While these may sound altruistic at first glance, they are innately egoistic reasons: the truth is, having children makes the parents happy, it satisfies their desires to be good parents, to “give to society,” to have a part of them live on in the world.

In fact, bringing innocent life into this shitty world is probably the cruelest act a human being can inflict on someone else; this world is teeming with misery, full to the rafters of unloved, uncared-for children that will never know a happy existence, and yet people, in their self-centered ignorance, deem it necessary to bring forth more life into this hapless planet. Why? What is the use?

In my opinion, adopting children is the more noble act; while you may argue that people’s motivations for becoming parents are still pretty much due to self-satisfaction, it is inarguable that Man is a hedonistic animal and in its roots, even the most seemingly altruistic act is done to bring some degree of pleasure to the doer. However, in the realm of self-serving acts, adopting a child means removing him or her from an environment where he or she is probably unloved, or not taken care of as he or she should be; it means introducing a child into a home of full of love, of people who are willingly take on the responsibilities of parenthood and who will probably improve that child’s life tenfold, and thus help in reducing some of the crappiness that prevails in the world.

If the world were even half-way decent, there would be a moratorium on having children until after all abandoned and orphaned children had found themselves a loving home… but, alas, the world is yet far, far away from being even half-way decent.

[RANT_OFF]

Sorry I didn’t bring the funny today; I just had to vent. 🙂

Advertisement

On the dangers of a director considering himself an “artiste“

There comes a certain time in every director’s or actor’s life when, in their minds, they metamorphose from an “artist” to an “artiste” [read with hoity-toity French accent]. They suddenly believe their view on all things artistic is somehow superior than everyone else’s, and that they have some God-given right to show the world how their aesthetics surpass everyone else’s.

I don’t know exactly WHEN this happened to George Lucas, but it’s safe to say that “Star Wars” had something to do with it.

As you may or may not know (if you’re residence of late has been “Under-A-Rock Street”), this week the long-awaited DVD release of the original “Star Wars” trilogy came out. I was one of the many fans that on Tuesday flocked to their nearest computer superstore (read “Fry’s”) to buy my copy (on widescreen format, of course: I accidentally touched one of the full-screen versions and had to ritualistically wash my hands for hours, à la Lady MacBeth: can you believe they actually put out a full-screen version at all?? Anyhoo… that’s another rant for another day).

The thing is that Lucas, ever the “artiste,” has decided to make even more post-Special Edition changes to the movies, from digitally changing scenes to including Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor on “Empire Strikes Back,” to, more offensively, adding Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker in ghost form at the end of “Return of the Jedi.” And, to add insult to injury, there are no deleted scenes (as is the staple of most DVDs nowadays): Lucas insists that these movies are “his realized vision,” so obviously, including deleted scenes to the immense delight of all fans would be unthinkable, because if he removed them in the first place, then they obviously are unworthy of watching and would thus tarnish his “vision.”

You might wonder, if you’re still reading my diatribe and are of the curious sort, why the hell did I buy the DVD set when I so obviously have issues with Lucas’ modifications to the original trilogy (and, more accurately, his general mental health)? Well, I am a realist: I know that they are his movies, and we’re gonna get only the version he foists on us. I realize he has more money than I could ever imagine, to the point where the number starts becoming ridiculous in terms of how much any single human being could ever possibly spend, so me not buying the DVDs is not so much me “depriving him” of my $36 (yes, they’re on sale at Fry’s this week: hurry!), but rather depriving myself of a high-quality version of the movies I love so much (even if they are in a somewhat adulterated, violated form).

So, what is your take on the matter? Anger, apathy, hunger, sleepiness…? Share with the class. 😀