> DDB said: > > >It's going strong *here*, and in a lot of third-world places, but it's > >remarkably dead throughout the rest of the developed world. We're > >kind of an outlier. > > Yeah, but the rest of the developed world (Europe, yes?) only represents > a few percent of humankind. You apparently believe that they indicate > the direction that the rest of us are going in; given enough time and > resources. > > Maybe. > > You've made me curious, though. What is *their* answer to "why, why, why?" > > Mia 'In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness. And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely. "Everything must have a purpose?" asked God. "Certainly," said man. "Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God. And He went away.' (also from vonnegut's _cat's cradle_) i suppose that's why religion in some form or another will be with us for a long time, the need to ask "why?" and the expectation that such a question must have an answer. don't know about *their answer*, but mine is that i don't worry about the (religious) "why's", as i find the (scientific) "how's" much more interesting. also, the two get mixed up sometimes, like "why is the sky blue?" i mean, i can tell you *how/by what process* it is that the sky is blue, but i don't see any *why/wherefore/for what reason/towards what goal* involved with the sky's coloration. any multilingual types out there know if there are languages where "why" and "how" don't get easily mixed up? i know some arabic, and it seems just as confusable, therein. chris cunningham