Unintelligent Design

[Skip]

We've heard a lot - way too much - about what God did, what He meant and why He did it this way, and we're generally dissatisfied with those explanations. Bad things happening to good people; nasty people getting away with their crimes; kiddies dying before they've had a chance to sin; waste and corruption and bad karma all over the place.

So...
What's the basic design flaw?
If you could change one factor, what would it be?

[marjoramblues]

What 'basic design', and whatever would its purpose be? An ideal world? For whom? How would it be achieved,and at what cost?

Some see design; others don't.
Even if we all had the same vision, wouldn't that bore us to death?

Thanks for the change of lens, but same sorta speculation; idle and neverending...



...OK, I'd want everyone to have an in-built Holodeck, and for me to be Mistress of Controls

Just call me M.C.

You know, as in 'Mistress Can'

[duszek]

It´s a miracle that our planet has survived so long, I would say.

Inspite of irresponsible individuals having too much power over other people and the planet.

My hope lies with the spirits in the Beyond.

[Skip]

I wasn't very clear.
I meant, suppose the world (maybe not the whole universe, just the familiar bits) really had been designed by an intelligence.
Suppose you were that intelligence.
What aspect(s) of it would you have changed?
(Back in the blueprint or construction phase, not retrofitting - that's a different kind of challenge.)

For me, the fatal flaw is predation. A very bad idea, forcing animals to maul and chomp on each other. It's messy and cruel and culminates with the most ruthless killer animal ruling, and that's a terrible idea. Pandas or sloths would make way better dominant species.

[thedoc]

I wasn't very clear.
I meant, suppose the world (maybe not the whole universe, just the familiar bits) really had been designed by an intelligence.
Suppose you were that intelligence.
What aspect(s) of it would you have changed?
(Back in the blueprint or construction phase, not retrofitting - that's a different kind of challenge.)

For me, the fatal flaw is predation. A very bad idea, forcing animals to maul and chomp on each other. It's messy and cruel and culminates with the most ruthless killer animal ruling, and that's a terrible idea. Pandas or sloths would make way better dominant species.

Without predation everything would starve, natural populations do not self regulate, but will over populate and strip the environment of resources. Humans are just the most recent example.

[thedoc]

I wasn't very clear.
I meant, suppose the world (maybe not the whole universe, just the familiar bits) really had been designed by an intelligence.
Suppose you were that intelligence.
What aspect(s) of it would you have changed?
(Back in the blueprint or construction phase, not retrofitting - that's a different kind of challenge.)

For me, the fatal flaw is predation. A very bad idea, forcing animals to maul and chomp on each other. It's messy and cruel and culminates with the most ruthless killer animal ruling, and that's a terrible idea. Pandas or sloths would make way better dominant species.

With Pandas or Sloths as the dominate species the environment would be stagnant and eventually die out.

[Skip]

Without predation everything would starve, natural populations do not self regulate, but will over populate and strip the environment of resources.

They can't very well overpopulate if they're starving. I would have designed a system without predation, rather than simply yanking predation out of the present system: it all has to fit together. All the animal species would be herbivores - or maybe stop at plants and make them all photosynthesizers. And, of course, just as Nature does in the world we know, it would adjust population, reproduction and life cycle to the prevailing environment.

Humans are just the most recent example.

Of course. The next one will probably be cockroaches. Wonder whether they'll evolve into warring nations.

[marjoramblues]

I wasn't very clear.

M: Perhaps clarity would be a desirable element in any design
A clear vision of any Ideal World which might include transparency of thought, a deeper connectivity, understanding and tolerance.

I meant, suppose the world (maybe not the whole universe, just the familiar bits) really had been designed by an intelligence. Suppose you were that intelligence.
What aspect(s) of it would you have changed?
(Back in the blueprint or construction phase, not retrofitting - that's a different kind of challenge.)

M: A blueprint, to me, suggests a foundation for something static - like a house - which has a function - shelter for inhabitants. Is an 'Ideal Home' as in glossy magazine , really the place in which you would want to live, is it 'real' homely or a facade ? It is captured still life.

Life, if it is real, changes; evolution, adaptability. If there are to be sentient beings in this Ideal World, then you know what follows...given tribal and territorial behaviour...scarce resources.

So, I guess - would a 'static world of plenty for all' be enough...to prevent 'messiness'? No 'tribes'?
How sterile would that be?

For me, the fatal flaw is predation. A very bad idea, forcing animals to maul and chomp on each other. It's messy and cruel and culminates with the most ruthless killer animal ruling, and that's a terrible idea. Pandas or sloths would make way better dominant species.

[Skip]

I like to move into a house that's been designed for optimum efficiency and built to last. Only then do I decorate it and live in it and adapt the superficial details of it to my changing need - I don't want it to shift about on its foundation while I'm going up- or downstairs. The basic mechanics of the universe do appear to work predictably and reliably, for which I'm grateful.

I like to imagine alternatives to the given; not everyone does. Maybe I've just read too much science fiction.

[marjoramblues]

I like to move into a house that's been designed for optimum efficiency and built to last. Only then do I decorate it and live in it and adapt the superficial details of it to my changing need - I don't want it to shift about on its foundation while I'm going up- or downstairs. The basic mechanics of the universe do appear to work predictably and reliably, for which I'm grateful.

I like to imagine alternatives to the given; not everyone does. Maybe I've just read too much science fiction.

I agree, 'Not everyone does'...like to...'imagine alternatives'; explore Intelligent/Unintelligent Design, or go round in circles. Dizzy stuff.

Some might call such, or even philosophy itself, 'idle/ idol speculation'.
Some don't see why they need bother; others are just too darn busy or tired actually dealing with life and its problems.
Some times, there are moments of wonder and wondering.

What is important, I think, is to keep imagination active. As far as I can tell, science fiction creates ideas about possilble alternative worlds and - explores consequences. Of identity, desires, social structures...

What is a house without people?
Does it matter whether they are designed or not?
What difference would the existence of the absent house designer make to their lives?

Where has your imagination led you...
...to The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?