When we entered the 1990s, we entered in fact, in our perception,
the year 1999. We did so in the first one-tenth of what would, by the way of
counting till then, last for ten years. To put it differently, there could
only be the year 1999 after 1989. And what comes next is the year 2000.

_______________

        Circumspectly speaking, the twentieth century lasts until the year
2000 and the twenty-first century begins in the year 2001. But the year 2000
is also the beginning of the 2000s. In our perception, this century, which
has the figure 19 for its first two digits, ends in 1999. The year 1999 is
the dead end, the edge of a cliff for this century. And its dead end began
as soon as the year 1989 came to an end.

_______________

        The dead end, the edge of a cliff for a century occurred a hundred
years ago as well: 1899. Did the year 1899, as in the case of 1999, come
after 1889 and last for the duration of ten years? The answer is No.
Following 1889 came 1890, then 1891, which was followed consecutively by
1892 . . . and next to 1898 came 1899. And 1900.

_______________

        It is said that the notion of a <1>century appeared first around the
twelfth century in Europe and the notion of the end of the century was
invented in the nineteenth century. Here, too, we might speculate that
people were shocked by the thought that the numeral 19 topping the word 
century was to change to 20, from the teens to the twenties. This shock
spawned the notion of the end of the century, we might say, which hadn't
existed before then.

_______________

        However, the end of the previous century is essentially different
from that of this century. To be sure, at the end of the previous century,
too, there were a number of prophecies full of anxieties about the end of
the world. But it in the end stayed within the boundaries of atmosphere. In
contrast, the prophecy for the end of the world at the end of this century
is one clearly underpinned with scientific calculations. Prophecy . . .
perhaps I should correct it to say forecast.

_______________

        One example of such calculations is population. The global
population for some time has been doubling every thirty years. It is said
that if such doubling continues, before another 2,000 years pass, the weight
of mankind on earth will be equal to the weight of the earth itself. The
figure 2,000 is important. It is about 2,000 years from the legendary birth
of Jesus Christ, which is the starting point of the notion of a century
and therefore of the end of the century, until today. Even before the
extension of the same length of time of 2,000 years is reached in the
future, the weight of mankind reaches that of the earth. . . . Imagine an
apocalyptic image of the earth, unable to sustain that weight, falling in
acceleration through the darkness of the universe along with the human
beings who, piling up in tens and hundreds of layers, have rendered its
surface invisible.

_______________

        Of course, even if the population continues to double, human beings
can't possibly live until that happens. Just thinking about food, which is
the minimum condition for human survival, mankind will find it difficult to
survive another hundred years, no, even fifty years. The end of the century
we live today may well be the last end of a century mankind experiences.

_______________

        Despite this forecast, human beings are continuing to give birth to
their own duplicates, children. In addition, they are continuing to increase
the embodiments of their desires such as cars, airplanes, and computers.
From another angle, this is to say they are continuing to destroy nature.
That is, they are bringing the end of mankind closer. And to finish it up,
there are nuclear bombs. The hypothesis that this might be the last end of
the century is becoming infinitely close to the assertion that it must be.


_______________

        There should naturally be rebuttals to the forecast so described.
The most optimistic say that before the decisive crisis arrives, much of
mankind will move to colonize other stars. Even the most pessimistic say
that large-scale wars and slaughters will occur, killing most of mankind,
allowing small portions to survive, thereby enabling the age of man to
continue. Either way, it is a new theory of the Ark.

_______________

        There is another optimistic view. It is the theory that points
to the increases in the number of both men and women who remain 
unmarried and do not procreate, and says that this is a natural brake on rapid
population increases. There is also a different kind of report. It says that
the number of spermatozoa in men's sperm in industrialized countries has
decreased by half in the past fifty years. If this condition accelerates, as
it is expected to, the result will be an impossibility, not far into the
future, of procreation through normal intercourse between man and woman.
This is precisely nature's response to rapid population increases, and this
phenomenon will gradually spread, it says, from industrialized to developing
countries. If this is the case, we'll have to add to this the emergence of
AIDS and other viruses.

_______________

        In any case, in the sense that the end of mankind has become a
distinct possibility underpinned by scientific calculations, not as an
atmosphere, the end of this century is essentially different from the end of
the previous century. It is in this sense that I said earlier that when we
entered the 1990s, we had in fact entered the year 1999. Well then, in the
year which is the dead end, the edge of a cliff where we can see the end of
mankind, what meaning does poetry have?

_______________

        Etymologically, "poetry" (=poesie) means "to make" (=poesis<poieo). 
At this edge of a cliff for mankind, what does this making mean? If "to make" in 
this sense is no different from "to make" cars, airplanes, and computers, not to 
mention nuclear bombs, doing so will contribute to the destruction of nature, 
bringing the end of mankind closer. Even if we are to limit ourselves to simple 
phenomena, to make a thousand copies of a book of poems means to destroy trees 
and other parts of nature that a thousand copies of a book of poems require and 
to deprive nature of the space to be occupied by those thousand copies.

_______________

        There may be an opinion that making poetry is essentially
different from making cars and computers. Some will say that it is similar
to growing rice and breeding cattle. But agriculture and cattle-breeding
were originally natural and were, if anything, of a secondary nature; to be
more exact, they were the first attempts at nature destruction. Who can say
making cars and computers is not modern-day agriculture and cattle-breeding?

_______________

        Needless to say, there may be an opinion that making poetry is
essentially different from growing rice and breeding cattle. Rice and cattle
have shape and bulk just as cars and computers do; in contrast, poetry doesn't. 
Poetry is above all spiritual, and a book of poems is no more than a
temporary material manifestation. But one can also argue that cars and
computers are equally spiritual at the stage of ideas and what we see are no
more than temporary material forms.

_______________

        It does not seem that there is a spiritual and material
distinction in making. Making is originally spiritual, and the result of
that spirit wanting shape and making use of material may be rice as an
agricultural product, a cow as a cattle-breeding product; or else, it may be
a car, a computer. The same can be said of poetry making. Making poetry is
originally spiritual, and the result of that spirit wanting shape and making
use of material is a poem (=poesie). A poem is material even when it does 
not take the form of a book of poems but is simply written on a white sheet of
paper because white paper and ink are material; it is material even when it
is not written down but is only uttered in a voice because a voice is
material; it is material even when it is simply memorized because memory is
material.

_______________

        However, what we have to be concerned about is not material so much
as the spirit. For the spirit is a human invention and it is the ultimate
culprit for changing nature in its natural state and destroying it. What is
nature in its natural state? It is -- though this, too, is according to our
spirit's analysis --the universe that was born out of nothingness as a result
of the Big Bang, has, in the process of its growth, spawned the solar
system, the earth, and life, separated mankind from that life, and will in
due time decline either through expansion or contraction, in the end
returning to nothingness. Nature, even when left to its own devices,
declines and heads toward nothingness. In this process mankind or the spirit
merely destroys it and hastens its own annihilation by attempting to revise
in order to make its own circumstances as comfortable as possible. If the
act of making is at the center of the spirit's work, a poem is no exception.

_______________

        I have just said that the spirit is a human invention; more
precisely, though, I should say that it branched out of mankind which 
branched out of life. Just as mankind that branched out of life sacrifices
life for its own comfort, so does the spirit that branched out of mankind
sacrifice mankind for its own comfort. Viewed this way, we can more easily
understand the present circumstances in which we can foresee the end of
mankind. Is not the spirit trying to survive at the expense of mankind? --
Even though the consequence will in fact lead to the annihilation of the
spirit itself.

_______________

        What will directly annihilate the spirit? In logical order, it has
to be poetry (=making) which branched out of the spirit. Poetry annihilates
the spirit, then mankind . . . then life itself, or will it? Life, even left
alone, will grow, then decline, and ultimately return to nothingness. As I
have already pointed out, mankind will sacrifice life out of its egoism, but
life's return to nothingness as a result of that sacrificing will be partial
for the time being. For before then mankind will perish.

_______________

        If after mankind has perished, the spirit that branched out of
mankind stays, and after the spirit has perished, the poetry that branched
out of the spirit stays, that which will destroy poetry will have to be
something that branches out of poetry. What will branch out of poetry? It
will ultimately be nothingness -- nothingness that will branch out of poetry
before the end of life, of the earth, and probably of the universe.

_______________

        My thinking has come thus far, but I in fact stay put. My
initial expectation was a vague one that at the present point in time where
there is only despair for the future, I might still be able to find hope in
poetry. As a result of deduction, however, I have reached the opposite
place. So now, what can I do? Let's try to go back to the starting point.

_______________

        Yet, the starting point must always be nothingness. Besides, here
there may be some unexpected hope. We talk of nothingness, but the fact is
that we don't know nothingness. Nothingness, on the contrary, might take
poetry, the spirit, mankind, life, the earth, the universe to the non-material 
other shore where multiplication does not interfere with the others. 
If from the edge of a cliff of the year 1999, beyond the spectacle of the end 
of mankind we can see the spectacle of nothingness branching out of poetry 
(which a brain scientist might explain from the viewpoint of material change 
-- or, shall we say, transformation --that goes beyond the brain's imagination), 
we will be witnessing a picture more moving than that of the infant Jesus 
Christ branching out of the legendary Virgin Mary.