[Today, dear readers we have a very special treat for you.  The following extremely angry installment of *30* was composed in the year 2000 but, much like Brian himself, always seemed out of place and unwanted no matter where it found itself.  Now, of course, we have found a happy home for it here, in this hideously fragmented miscellany that, currently, is attempting to pass for an Epilogue.

Or, if not a happy home, we can at least just chuck it here and forget about it because we don't actually know what the hell else to do with it.

So, without further ado, let's go back to the early days, the good old days, back to the coffee shop before it burned, back when we were all a little younger and a little more naive, back we all feared for the coming of the Sparkling New Century, back, back, back I say, back one more time for one more stab at glory as we now proudly present: "We're NOT Guppies, People!!!!, or: Some Files Are Better Left Zipped (The Lost *30*)!"  -- The Editors.]

        I looked at Bob.
        "What?" he said.
        "Kids," I said.  I leaned back on my chair.
        "What about kids?"
        "There are too many of them."
        "Oh, so we're going down that road, now are we?"
        "Actually," I said, "there aren't too many kids.  There are too many parents.  There's a difference.  It's not the kids' faults that they're here.  They didn't ask to be born.  It's the parents.  There are too many parents."
        "Well, there are too many people, in general.  After all the global population has just hit 6 billion."
        "Yeah.  6 billion.  And lots of kids that didn't even ask to be born, and who are either unwanted or viewed by their parents as a way to help themselves out of whatever mess they're in."
        "What do you mean?  I don't follow."
        I sipped my coffee.
        "Well," I said, "most parents have kids for totally selfish reasons.  They don't actually consider the kids they're creating.  They just do it because they (the parents) want children because the children will make them feel good on some level, either that or the kids will take care of them in their old age.  Totally selfish, and not considering the actual weight, or burden of responsibility that having children is."
        "Hmm."
        "Yeah."
        "But," Bob said, "the species does have to keep going."
        "Oh, sure, it does.  That's what all life does-- it survives, it keeps going and going and replicates itself until it absolutely can't replicate itself any more.  Sure.  But, I mean, we're not ducks, we're human beings.  We're not brine shrimp-- we have a sense of self, and with that sense of self comes consciousness and an identity-- self-awareness-- and these other life forms don't seem to have that.  Or, if they do possess a sense of self-awareness, it's very slight, almost nonexistent.  I mean, we are biological entities, sure-- but we're also a little bit more than that.  Ducks do not give birth to new self-aware consciousness when they reproduce.  They create reflex mechanisms.  But we are much more than just reflex mechanisms, and yet the way we reproduce like fleas seems to suggest that we still view the act of reproduction in totally mindless, reflex mechanism terms, or also in selfish terms.  Which is sort of the same thing."
        "So, what you're saying is that..."
        "That when parents generate new life they don't actually think about what they're doing.  They don't do it for the sake of the new life.  They don't consider that they are creating a new self, a new self-aware entity that is more than just an automation, and that maybe they (the parents) can't give this new life what it needs-- because creating new self-aware life, while it's extremely easy, is also a huge responsibility.  You're not just making life, you're making a being that, for lack of a better word, has a 'soul.'  By that I mean it's self-monitoring, and has a concrete identity (and this may result from the possession of language-- but I don't want to get into that right now)-- a self that is more than just a mindless animal.  And when you do that, when you create a new self, you have to take responsibility for it.  And this is expressly because it is self-aware, it is a consciousness.  And so, because you are creating a self you have a responsibility to it-- you have to be able to expose it to knowledge and learning so that it can be the best it can be, and not just leave it to its own devices-- which is what 99.999999% of all parents do, I'm afraid."
        "Mine didn't."
        "Neither did mine.  Exactly.  Sort of.  But the majority, they don't consider that the life they're creating is an entity unto itself.  It's not just an object to be used, or a toy."
        "Hmm."
        "And so because they view this new life as an object of a toy, they treat it like an object or a toy-- they do not make new life for the sake of the new life.  They make new life so they (the parents) can feel good about themselves-- and right then and there is where the whole thing falls apart because this new life becomes a tool for the parents to actualize their own potentials or desires."
        "Well, shouldn't there be something in it for the parents?"
        "No," I said.  "There should be nothing in it for the parents.  When you make new life, this new life takes precedence until said life can look after itself.  So, when parents have children, their lives then become focused on that new life-- providing for it and giving it access to information so it can shape its own mind.  The idea that the parents think there should be something in it for them is what makes the whole deal rotten.  What should be 'in it for them' is the act of creating the new life for itself-- and that's it."
        "So, basically the parents have to give up their own lives for this new life?"
        "It that's what has to happen, yes.  The life they create becomes more important than their own lives-- at least until the child is old enough to look after itself.  And if they can't do that-- too bad.  They should've thought a little more about their actions before they sexed each other up like a pair of greasy, rutting see lions."
        "So," Bob chuckled, "no more movies?"
        "No more movies, no more partying, no more nothing-- unless the parents can afford or arrange something where their children are looked after.  Or whatever.  And I mean, it's all time-determinate, and sort of contextual, too.  There is no circumstance in which, for example, a new-born should be taken into a movie theater-- because of both the disruption the child causes, and the weirdness of the environment.  I remember going to some horror movie and there was a girl with a baby, and what d'you know the baby got scared by some sounds and started bawling about 2/3 of the way into the movie.  That's bad for both the baby and the audience-- the audience gets pissed off the baby gets upset.
        "So, if the parents can't afford a baby sitter or can't bear to be away from their child then don't go out.  It's that simple.  And if they have the attitude of 'Hey, we need to have a life, too--' well, no, actually they don't.  They gave up their lives when they created a new life.  But, you can take older children to movies.  Ditto with things like restaurants and suchlike.  But it's all sort of contextual, too.  A newborn shouldn't go to a bar-- or a rave-- for example, but you can take it to McDonald's.  Or even a restaurant."
        "I guess that's sort of reasonable," Bob said.
        "I mean, again, at the risk of sounding repetitious here, it seems that people don't make new life for the sake of that new life.  They do it for their own selfish reasons-- they picture themselves with their babies and that makes them happy.  They use the new life as a tool to get pleasure.  And the problem is that new life is a consciousness with an identity and free will.  And when you make something with free will, you are making a self, and that self is not a tool for you to use to make yourself feel good.
        "I know someone," I said, "who wants to have babies because she thinks they'll make her happy.  She has an image of herself living on a beach surrounded by her babies, and that'll be cute.  And when I took her to task about it, she just got all indignant and said she was having the babies for her.  They were her babies and she was having them for herself."
        Bob thought for a minute and then he said:
        "Yeah, I can think of a few people like that, too.  They usually end up on welfare and unhappy."
        "Exactly, and that's the core of the problem.  You have the babies for the sake of the babies, not for your sake.  You don't create new life because you want that life to make you feel good or give you a new identify.  You create this new life because you love the life you are going to create for its own sake."
        "But in old, and primitive societies you need children to take care of you," Bob said.  "You need kids for your sake, and not the sake of the kids."
        "And that's why those societies are primitive.  They view new life first and foremost as a tool-- because their lives are harsh and unpleasant and they have to take a semi-disposable view towards life.  And we have the power and the knowledge and the wealth, and therefore we should be evolving away from that kind of primitive 'use-value' attitude towards life.  But we're not."
        "Hmm."
        "You notice how the more wealthy people become, the fewer children they have?"
        "Yeah.  But you can't say that the wealthy have more respect for life, or something like that."
        "No, I'm not going to say that because with wealth does not come more respect for anything-- not at all, but with wealth comes the ability to explore and learn.  And so people with money tend to go to school more, and to travel more, and to see more things and do more things and-- while they don't always do this in practice-- they have more potential to learn more.  This isn't to say they all do this.  Lots of very rich people waste their money simply indulging themselves.."
        "Okay...."
        "But this doesn't change the fact that you need to have money to get access to lots of information. There's a reason why the very poor are often very under-educated."
        "Okay...."
        "And with that money comes the potential to break away from this whole primitive 'use-value' attitude towards new life.  When you're rich you don't need to have kids to look after you when you're old.  You can afford to do it yourself.  And so you can-- in theory spend your life learning, and the kids you have tend to have a better quality of life-- and so they, in theory anyway, can spend their lives learning-- and being comfortable.  Whether or not this happens is debatable-- but the potential is there at least."
        "I guess, yeah.  But rich people still have kids for selfish reasons.  They have children for status."
        "Sure," I said.  "There's no denying that.  And that's also ugly.  But, even these kids they have for status have a better quality of life.  And that does count for something."
        "I suppose.  But I still can't get the image of snotty rich kids outta my head."
        "Yeah, there's lots of those.  No doubt about it.  But there are also lots of snotty poor people-- and at least rich people don't have more and more babies because that way they'll get bigger and bigger welfare cheques."
        "True enough."
        "And, again, people with money don't need families of 10 children to take care of them when they get old.  Instead they begin to-- maybe, just maybe a little bit-- view having children as more of a pure thing-- and this is to say they begin maybe doing that, maybe just a little bit more.  And, again, this isn't to say, again, that people with money respect life more.  And in fact the kids of families in wealthy nations tend to end up sometimes even more screwed up than those of poor-- but this is because the parents, again, didn't really understand their responsibilities when they had these kids."
        "And these responsibilities are?"
        "Feed them well.  Clothe them and shelter them.  Keep them clean.
        "Pay attention to them.
        "Give them things to have fun with so they can play when they're young.
        "Give them as much information as they can stand, as many perspectives, and guide them through the noise.  But teach them to be independent thinkers.  Don't brainwash them into being Capitalists or Socialists or Christians or Hippies or Buddhists or whatever.  And don't be shocked if they encounter stuff you don't agree with.  Parents should never be shocked-- parents should also, always, know what's out there-- they should not live in an information vacuum.  This is also very important."
        "Okay."
        "And they should let the kids see the world, in order to be exposed to other perspectives and cultures, if they (the parents) can arrange it-- although this isn't required.  There are other ways kids can be exposed to other perspectives and cultures.  I guess this is kind of a rider to the above statement.  Oh yeah, and also the parents should not cloud the children with their own perspectives.  Which can be hard to do, but if the parents are worthy of being parents they will try."
        "Okay."
        "And there's one very important thing that parents do not consider-- ever."
        "What's that?"
        "And this is one of the main reasons why children should be made as comfortable as possible-- why it's the parents' responsibilities to make the child's world the best of all possible worlds."
        "And that is?"
        "They did not ask to be born.  And, just maybe, if their life is crap because you cannot provide for them, maybe, just maybe they will not be happy you made them."
        "Hmm."
        "Parents always assume that their children will be glad they (the children) exist.  They always assume their children will be grateful and thankful.  Parents think that their children will respect them and love them because they, the parents, gave them 'the precious gift of life' or some such shit.  Well, that is not necessarily the case.  I know lots of people who wish they weren't born, and feel trapped in lives they have no control over partially, if not totally, because their parents were incompetent, or otherwise lacking.  And why should people be glad to be alive anyway?  Especially if they see all these other people who are more successful or loved or happy than they are?"
        "I guess, but without their parents making them in the first place, these people wouldn't exist at all."
        "True.  But why is that a bad thing?  People tend to view life as being a gift.  But if it's a gift there's so much of it around its retail value is pretty crappy."
        "I don't know about that," Bob said.
        "And this isn't to debate whether life has worth or not.  It's just that people, because they are brought up in lousy circumstances by people who can't provide those basic necessities I mentioned above, just maybe sometimes kinda sorta develop that negative attitude and try to destroy themselves and everything around them, and end up trapped in a black hole of poverty and misery, and hate themselves and their lives.  And, frankly, why shouldn't they?
        "And, also, on a more existential level-- everyone knows they are going to die-- and quite frankly that's a huge rip off!  Civilizations create myths and pray for afterlives and tippie-toe around nothingness because people everywhere-- because they are self-aware-- are terrified they are going to die.  The idea of Heaven was created because people are scared shitless of death.  They can't cope with the fact that one day their consciousness is going to blink out.  Civilization and technology and art were all created because of this fear, this terror that one day we'll all cease to exist and we have to do anything to stave it off.  That's the real legacy of self-awareness-- the awareness that life won't last forever and that makes it a fucking gyp.  All parents do is create more life that knows it's impermanent, that just when it starts to fall in love with being alive it's going to get old, break down, and die.  And this knowledge of death informs everything that life does, on a subconscious (if not directly conscious) level, and motivates it through terror.  And tortures it.  Being human is a form of torture.  And so parents, who create more humans-- mortal, self-aware life-- because of the fact that they are bringing beings into this world who know they're going to die and are haunted and crucified by this every waking hour-- parents have a responsibility to make that life's life as good and comfortable as possible.  Case closed."
        "I'm not tortured by a fear of death," Bob said.
        "Yeah, but you're a fictional character.  You don't count.  In a way, you're always already immortal because you don't even exist."
        "Hmm," Bob said.
        "And so," I said, "that's basically it.  And frankly if parents are unable to provide those few things I mentioned above, and don't want to make new self-conscious life simply for its own sake, and are unable to make it happy, they have no right being parents."
        "So, but, what you're saying really, what it all boils down to, is basically, poor people shouldn't have kids."
        "Well, no.  If poor people can somehow make all these things happen-- even poor people on welfare-- they can have kids.  They'll be good parents.  And if rich people neglect these things too, they have no right to reproduce either."
        "Awfully fascistic of you.  And elitist."
        "Well, maybe it is elitist, and I don't see why it shouldn't be.  Because making new human beings is the most serious and important thing that other human beings can do-- and it should never be taken lightly.  Never.  I guess this all just boils down to: if you have kids you have to be able to look after them, and by look after them I mean you have to be able to do better than give them the bare minimum it takes to survive-- the bare minimum does not cut it.  And I'm just sick of all these blank-eyed, rutting baby machines walking around ruining the world.  Men and women, because each baby-machine has two parts.  Having kids is easy.  All you need are a couple of cells.  And if it's that easy, maybe people should step back and look at it a little critically.  Maybe if it's that easy it shouldn't be done so much.  Maybe just because anybody with the right interlocking parts can have children doesn't mean they should."
        Bob thought for a minute, and he watched me fuming and steaming.  And then, when he realized my mind was whirring away in anger like a rabid gerbil on an exercise wheel, he looked into the camera and said:
        "30."

Next:  Into the abyss....