How to make the most perfect world

So then you're saying that we humans are the only imperfect speices on the planet?

I gotta say that sounds pretty anthropocentric. "Oh look at all these little animals! They are all so primitive and they live in harmony with nature, much better than poor technologically advanced and sapient us."

Specieism, gentlemen. This is a clear case of it. Other animals are just as big assholes as we are.


Which brings me to my next suggestion: Earth without life would make a pretty perfect world.
 
I gotta say that sounds pretty anthropocentric. "Oh look at all these little animals! They are all so primitive and they live in harmony with nature, much better than poor technologically advanced and sapient us."

And a lot of them are delicious! Even before ketchup comes into the equation!

Sorry, I had no time for lunch or breakfast or coffee today and I'm already feeling a bit peckish.

Specieism, gentlemen. This is a clear case of it. Other animals are just as big assholes as we are.

I'm sure elephants are.

And have.

Never liked them for some reason(1)(2) and although I'm ready to make exceptions if I meet a nice one I'm not holding my breath until it happens.

Then again, no elephant has tried to spam my inbox, insult my country, ideology or intelligence. I'm sure no elephant would be in a position to be banned from this site.

It is the ability to use language and communicate that ruins boards... so if we take that away this board would be PERFECT!

I can see it now...

Which brings me to my next suggestion: Earth without life would make a pretty perfect world.

No Earth in the Solar System then.

No Milky Way Galaxy. And neighbouring galaxies, just in case.

No Universe. Period.

...and now there's nowhere else to play. Just move along. This is why :D

Just a suggestion, people, and one which I know will probably be ignored:

If we're indeed trying to make a better world, instead of cutting the parts of the world that we don't like, which ends up a bit like the above, why don't we try to be positive and add new things that would contribute to make the situation better for everyone?

Or as an old Arab proverb says:

If you have nothing more beautiful than silence to contribute, shut up.

A happy New Year to you all, and I will now shut up.



---------------------
(1) Which has nothing to do with how they taste. Mind you, elephants don't come easily into lists of strange delicacies from around the world that you just have to try, do they? I wonder why that is...
(2) Though with my sugar levels as they are I wouldn't say no to elephant steak.
 
Although its a great exercise in discussion, the original question is too subjective. For one man's heaven is another man's hell. I am sure that is why the ancients never tried to describe what they believed heaven to be. Too many people would read it and think,...well if that's heaven, what's behind door number 2.
 

Glen

Moderator
OTL. We live in the best of all possible worlds.

This is an absurdist statement, that we live in the best of all possible worlds. For example, let's posit a world just like ours, except one less traffic fatality of the nicest person to ever die in a traffic fatality. That world is demonstrably better than ours.

How about a world where birth rate (specifically, for having more than two children per family, so we don't have any issue about childless families) and infant mortality are both lessened in a population neutral manner (so that we don't get into an argument over what the population number should be)? Not having to bury as many children is a better world, period.

How about a world where we have already found a way to prevent Alzheimer's disease? That's a better world than ours, believe you me!

None of the things I stated are impossible, therefore those are possible worlds. Therefore we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.
 

Glen

Moderator
This is an absurdist statement, that we live in the best of all possible worlds. For example, let's posit a world just like ours, except one less traffic fatality of the nicest person to ever die in a traffic fatality. That world is demonstrably better than ours.

How about a world where birth rate (specifically, for having more than two children per family, so we don't have any issue about childless families) and infant mortality are both lessened in a population neutral manner (so that we don't get into an argument over what the population number should be)? Not having to bury as many children is a better world, period.

How about a world where we have already found a way to prevent Alzheimer's disease? That's a better world than ours, believe you me!

None of the things I stated are impossible, therefore those are possible worlds. Therefore we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.

I should have added that neither do we live in the worst of all possible worlds. I can imagine possible worlds far, far worse than our own....
 
OTL. We live in the best of all possible worlds.

Have you read Candide recently? If not it's probably best if you'd brush up your Voltaire--start learning him now--brush up your Voltaire, and the women you will wow--then they'll all cowtow.:D:p

~Salamon2
 
My favorite change is if democracy had continued back when it was invented in classical Greece instead being conquered first by Al the Great's daddy and then Rome.

Get rid of Plato or keep him from writing the Republic.

~Salamon2
 
This is an absurdist statement, that we live in the best of all possible worlds. For example, let's posit a world just like ours, except one less traffic fatality of the nicest person to ever die in a traffic fatality. That world is demonstrably better than ours.

How do you know that nice person won't make the world a worse place. And since this is the only world we know of it is the best one by default.
 
A world with one religion or none at all. That would remove a large chunk of the wars ever fought in the history of the world.
 

Glen

Moderator
How do you know that nice person won't make the world a worse place.

Previous performance is a strong predictor of future impact, which is why I picked the nicest person for purposes of illustration. It certainly would be a better world for those who loved that person, and highly doubtful to be any worse by their survival.

Here, I'll take it one step further, and say the nicest person who wouldn't have been able to be an organ donor, since you could always throw that one out there.

Bottom line...world can be better and it can be worse. We're somewhere in the vast middle.

And since this is the only world we know of it is the best one by default.

You didn't say we live in the best of all existing worlds (and if we go with the Many Worlds explanation of Copenhagan, it's not even that), you said the best of all possible worlds.
 
Top