Is a perfect world possible?

[mkotova]

Imagine you are in the year 1798 and you are Thomas Robert Malthus. The Industrial Revolution in England has only begun a couple of years ago in 1785. Malthus argued in his essay, "On Population" that a perfect world isn’t possible due to the Earth being a set size and the population increasing constantly. The power of population is greater than the power of Earth to produce subsistence of man.
Now, imagine you are Malthus and you have somehow been transported to today, the year 2013. How would Malthus react? Would he see that, due to advances in agriculture and farming methods providing more food than we could possibly consume, a perfect world is possible in this day and age? More importantly, do you think his argument would change at all? Can an imperfect world become perfect?

[PeterL]

Exactly what do you mean by "perfect"? It hinges on that. The way that I define "perfect" this world is perfect.

[vivas.will]

1) One of his points was that there's not sufficient resources to sustain population growth forever (or am I wrong?). Anyways, this is logical: the earth is finite, so it can only hold so many resources, which can only support a certain population. It's common sense.
2) If he were transported into this age, and saw that 21,000 people die every day of hunger every day, that North America and Europe hold a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to other nations (just think of the sweatshops, the inhumane way products are produced for western consumption, children picking through mountains of garbage to make a living), saw all the wars and massacres occurring everyday (in the name of freedom and democracy!), he'd probably think himself justified. The world's the same as it's always been, if not worse.
3) Perfection, in my personal opinion, isn't possible due to one reason: human nature. There is much good in us i.e. compassion, sympathy, love, caring. There is also terrible things about us, like hatred, lust, jealousy, anger. These have been part of the human experience since time immemorial, and will continue to be with us until the end. So no, personally, I don't think a perfect world (in the way I conceive of it) will ever be possible.

[PeterL]

1) One of his points was that there's not sufficient resources to sustain population growth forever (or am I wrong?). Anyways, this is logical: the earth is finite, so it can only hold so many resources, which can only support a certain population. It's common sense.
2) If he were transported into this age, and saw that 21,000 people die every day of hunger every day, that North America and Europe hold a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to other nations (just think of the sweatshops, the inhumane way products are produced for western consumption, children picking through mountains of garbage to make a living), saw all the wars and massacres occurring everyday (in the name of freedom and democracy!), he'd probably think himself justified. The world's the same as it's always been, if not worse.
3) Perfection, in my personal opinion, isn't possible due to one reason: human nature. There is much good in us i.e. compassion, sympathy, love, caring. There is also terrible things about us, like hatred, lust, jealousy, anger. These have been part of the human experience since time immemorial, and will continue to be with us until the end. So no, personally, I don't think a perfect world (in the way I conceive of it) will ever be possible.

And someone thinks that this world is something other than perfect. Come on. What is perfection? If one has an absolute ideal, then that is perfection. If one regards perfection as a state from which improvement is impossible, then this is perfection.

If there are people who want the human experience to be love and happiness, then maybe we can lobotomize those people; they won't be able to tell the difference anymore.

[cafolini]

It is impossible to create a perfect world. And it is not because of this or that. God already did it.

[vivas.will]

I don't disagree. I think we're approaching perfection from different angles. From a pragmatic point, the atrocities occurring in the world (not just today, but throughout history), can hardly classify this world as perfect. I'm talking from a practical point of view, as someone who's lived in a place where children actually sift through mountains of garbage to make a living. I don't understand how you could sit down with them, face to face, and explain that the world in perfect the way it is, when we sleep in warm houses and have food everyday while they must suffer cold, disease and starvation.

Also, how I don't see the connection between scraping away someone's frontal lobes and happiness/love?

[cafolini]

Trying to explain God requires an arrogant position. Nobody can do it.
Explain to children how to fare better? That's another story.
It is impossible to create a perfect world. And it is not because of this or that. God already did it.

[Vota]

It's impossible for "man" to create a perfect world because despite our beautiful design, we are mentally FAR from perfect. The best I think we can accomplish is trying to conceive of a perfect world and then striving to achieve it. Sort of an aim for the stars, but hit the moon in reality paradigm.

[PeterL]

It's impossible for "man" to create a perfect world because despite our beautiful design, we are mentally FAR from perfect. The best I think we can accomplish is trying to conceive of a perfect world and then striving to achieve it. Sort of an aim for the stars, but hit the moon in reality paradigm.

Speak for yourself; you may be "mentally FAR from perfect," but that doesn't mean that everyone else is.

[cafolini]

Speak for yourself; you may be "mentally FAR from perfect," but that doesn't mean that everyone else is.

True. Neither does the reality paradigm is identified as a world because it is impossible as such; an empty set.

[WICKES]

Of course not. For a start one person's utopia is another person's hell.

[Vota]

"Speak for yourself; you may be "mentally FAR from perfect," but that doesn't mean that everyone else is."

You aren't mentally perfect. If you were, you'd be spending your time on far more important activities than posting on this forum. I just proved my statement.

[PeterL]

"Speak for yourself; you may be "mentally FAR from perfect," but that doesn't mean that everyone else is."

You aren't mentally perfect. If you were, you'd be spending your time on far more important activities than posting on this forum. I just proved my statement.

Do you know what it means when someone uses an ad hominem argument? And that is an ad homimem.

[stlukesguild]

Do you know what it means when someone uses an ad hominem argument? And that is an ad homimem.

Ad hominem or not... he or she is right.:nod:

[MorpheusSandman]

you may be "mentally FAR from perfect," but that doesn't mean that everyone else is.Actually, according to modern cognitive sciences, all human minds are, indeed, far from perfect. We come hardwired with hundreds of reality distorting biases from which we construct useful illusions to help us survive and procreate. Besides preventing us from (easily) discovering truths about reality, they also prevent us from recognizing/correcting flaws in ourselves, or recognizing the flaws within the structures (social, moral, etc.) we're either knowingly or ignorantly a part of. Reprogramming/deprogramming these biases is a difficult endeavor for even highly intelligent individuals that are aware they exist; most don't even know they exist. Here's a good academic introduction, (http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Illusions-Handbook-Fallacies-Judgement/dp/0415646758/) or this website (http://lesswrong.com/) if you want something for free.

[PeterL]

Actually, according to modern cognitive sciences, all human minds are, indeed, far from perfect. We come hardwired with hundreds of reality distorting biases from which we construct useful illusions to help us survive and procreate. Besides preventing us from (easily) discovering truths about reality, they also prevent us from recognizing/correcting flaws in ourselves, or recognizing the flaws within the structures (social, moral, etc.) we're either knowingly or ignorantly a part of. Reprogramming/deprogramming these biases is a difficult endeavor for even highly intelligent individuals that are aware they exist; most don't even know they exist. Here's a good academic introduction, (http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Illusions-Handbook-Fallacies-Judgement/dp/0415646758/) or this website (http://lesswrong.com/) if you want something for free.


And what would make you think that those biases and whatever are not enhancements?

Just because you feel that you are other than perfect doen't change the matter.

[MorpheusSandman]

And what would make you think that those biases and whatever are not enhancements? :smilielol5: This has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum!

A serious (and simple answer): a bias is similar to a logical fallacy in that both are products of reasoning that demonstrably lead to inaccurate perceptions and judgments about reality. Here's one simple example. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ji/conjunction_fallacy/)

Now, in all fairness, one COULD view biases as "enhancements" only in the sense that they developed to aid in survival and reproduction. A good example might be early hunter-gatherers who were biased to assume that there were predators in every shadow, in every rustle of leaves, etc. They may be wrong 99% of the time, but if they always took actions to avoid being eaten, then their "wrongness" was less important than their survival. These days, we don't have to worry much about being eaten by predators, but those biases still persist, and now the wrong answers they're producing demonstrably, almost always negatively, affect our daily lives.

[PeterL]

:smilielol5: This has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum!

A serious (and simple answer): a bias is similar to a logical fallacy in that both are products of reasoning that demonstrably lead to inaccurate perceptions and judgments about reality. Here's one simple example. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ji/conjunction_fallacy/)

Now, in all fairness, one COULD view biases as "enhancements" only in the sense that they developed to aid in survival and reproduction. A good example might be early hunter-gatherers who were biased to assume that there were predators in every shadow, in every rustle of leaves, etc. They may be wrong 99% of the time, but if they always took actions to avoid being eaten, then their "wrongness" was less important than their survival. These days, we don't have to worry much about being eaten by predators, but those biases still persist, and now the wrong answers they're producing demonstrably, almost always negatively, affect our daily lives.

So you know the reasons for all of what you think of as biases and whatevers existing, or so you think, doyou not? And you still think that human minds are "far from perfect". do you not? Do you also know the purpose(s) for the design of the human mind? And how do you define perfection?

[MorpheusSandman]

So you know the reasons for all of what you think of as biases and whatevers existing, or so you think, doyou not? And you still think that human minds are "far from perfect". do you not? Do you also know the purpose(s) for the design of the human mind? And how do you define perfection?The reason (singular) every bias develops is because it aided in our survival and reproduction while cutting down on our brain's processing time. The fact (not opinion) that these biases lead to inaccurate conclusions/perceptions about reality is proof that the human mind is "far from perfect." The human mind was not designed, it's the product of millions of years of evolution. If it was designed, the designer was completely incompetent, much like many things on a "designed" Earth (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm). Perfection is anything that is lacking in flaws. A perfect mind would be one which completely and accurately processes sensory input, rather than incorrectly interpreting that data through biases that only exist to help early man survive in the wilderness and procreate.

[PeterL]

The reason (singular) every bias develops is because it aided in our survival and reproduction while cutting down on our brain's processing time. The fact (not opinion) that these biases lead to inaccurate conclusions/perceptions about reality is proof that the human mind is "far from perfect." The human mind was not designed, it's the product of millions of years of evolution. If it was designed, the designer was completely incompetent, much like many things on a "designed" Earth (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm). Perfection is anything that is lacking in flaws. A perfect mind would be one which completely and accurately processes sensory input, rather than incorrectly interpreting that data through biases that only exist to help early man survive in the wilderness and procreate.

Well, think what you like. I don't thin that your backup for your opinion is very good, but its your opinion, not mine.

[MorpheusSandman]

There's nothing about my post that is opinion. You may like to tell yourself that to avoid the fact that the human mind is not perfect, but that's just you being a victim of your own cognitive biases and ignoring a reality you find unpleasant to accept. I don't know what you think is lacking in my "backup," considering I have the whole of the cognitive scientific community on my side. You just have your wishful thinking (another cognitive bias, btw).

[Delta40]

I don't think colour even exists. It's all in the mind and light and shadows fool us into thinking what we're seeing is real. Forgive my layman brain btw.

[ladderandbucket]

I think a perfect apprehension of reality would most likely result in despair. I'm not sure that's the kind of perfection the original poster was talking about. Perhaps the perfect world would be one in which we believed this was the best of all possible worlds despite evidence to the contrary.

I guess the original poster was really asking if we can ever have a political utopia. You don't have to read a lot of history to realise that big political ideas never turn out the way they were intended. It seems the more utopian or radical the ideology the more disastrous the consequences. Life is built for conflict, it is not in our nature to be content.

From a less human perspective natural selection seems like a perfect mechanism for producing perfectly adjusted lifeforms. For someone who had no concept of suffering the ultimate perfection of life might seem inevitable. I don't expect the perfection of life will be descended from humans - complex systems are naturally unstable. I guess the perfect world will be covered in some kind of moss or mould, or perhaps it will just be a big lump of rock.

My understanding of natural selection is that it necessitates unimaginable amounts of suffering. I don't see that any compassionate person can predicate a perfect world on natural selection. Makes me think of Ivan Karamazov: "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last. Imagine that you are doing this but that it is essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature...in order to found that edifice on its unavenged tears. Would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?"

So, no. I do not believe a perfect world is possible for us, but we have to make the best of a bad job.

[Eiseabhal]

Ah me I used to be big-headed but I'm perfect now.

[PeterL]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.pngOTE=Eiseabhal;1242933]Ah me I used to be big-headed but I'm perfect now.

I know the feeling.

[WICKES]

I do not believe a perfect world is possible for us, but we have to make the best of a bad job.

Wise words. If people spent more time trying to be kind, polite and civilized and less time thinking up grand schemes for transforming 'the system' life would be a hell of a lot better. Truth is it's much easier to join a socialist or Green party and go on marches against nuclear proliferation etc than it is to be sympathetic and kind to the people you meet day to day, particularly when they are ugly and stupid and boring. It's how you conduct yourself here and now with real flesh and blood people that makes the difference. I've always liked that saying "if you want to change the world, begin by changing yourself".

[PeterL]

There's nothing about my post that is opinion. You may like to tell yourself that to avoid the fact that the human mind is not perfect, but that's just you being a victim of your own cognitive biases and ignoring a reality you find unpleasant to accept. I don't know what you think is lacking in my "backup," considering I have the whole of the cognitive scientific community on my side. You just have your wishful thinking (another cognitive bias, btw).

Did you read what you posted? What part of it is not opinion?

[MorpheusSandman]

Did you read what you posted? What part of it is not opinion?Yes, I read what I posted and none of it is opinion. These are facts known by anyone that knows the first thing about neurobiology and cognitive science. Feel free to argue that it's just opinion, but you need to do something more than simply stating that it is.

[PeterL]

Yes, I read what I posted and none of it is opinion. These are facts known by anyone that knows the first thing about neurobiology and cognitive science. Feel free to argue that it's just opinion, but you need to do something more than simply stating that it is.

I hope that you enjoy you alternate reality.

[ennison]

Malthus was wrong. As for a perfect world being possible (other than in our imaginations) I (Sure as Hell) hope not.

[luhsun]

A perfect world is not possible,because it keep on changing. Our mere presence, interaction or even awareness of the world and others around us will introduce changes to the world.
Humanity is not perfect- my opinion, and this is obviously an opinion as science is about "so far we are not able to prove our hypothesis is wrong-therefore it is our opinion that this is the current paradigm we should currently believe in-- vs our hypothesis has many proofs it is correct) is that the correct word for human is mot perfect but adaptive. The cognitive theories believe many thoughts and actions became habitual and automatic because they worked well in the past. If now or in the future, these habits became maladaptive, we get distressed and hopefully change to a new equilibrium.

[Aceda]

Man is imperfect and for man to create a perfect world is impossible. But then again all our human make up is all very different therefore what we all see as 'perfect' maybe be seen in a different light to another. I don't think many people from any era would see the world as perfect unless they were looking through a bag of icing sugar. We still have problems to worry about like pollution, solving murders, dying species and new privacy issues.

[PeterL]

Man is imperfect

Speak for yourself. If you have a poor selfimage, that doesn't mean that eeryone does.


and for man to create a perfect world is impossible.

This is irrelevant, because the Gods create worlds, and the Gods can create perfect things. In fact, everything that the Gods create is perfect, because the Gods don't do anything less.

[jcabello1]

God wanted a perfect earth, but Adam and Eve sinned because they gave into temptation when tried by the devil/evil force. That sin is something that we inherit by nurture and nature. We know that we are limited, and that resources will eventually run out. God made enough resources for the earth to be eternal, we have just hurried to use them up and get to them before others, instead of evenly distributing. In this imperfect world our lives are threatened and as people we have a strong desire to live eternally. Our earth will not just over time get better; rather it is God's way of showing us and every witness, that the world cannot have another ruler and still be eternal and perfect. Eventually we will use up all of the resources and the earth will be destroyed due to our shortcomings. Luckily, if we looked to God for guidance, asked for our sins to be forgiven, and were willing to put in the same amount in effort, as we took out of the earth; or believing that we have to do good to get the good, then we will be able to live in the perfect world with God, because he will be able to trust that we will not do what Adam, Eve, and Hades did all those years ago.

[PeterL]

The Gods made a perfet world. It must be perfect, because They made it, and that defines perfection.

[Pompey Bum]

The Gods made a perfet world. It must be perfect, because They made it, and that defines perfection.

I'm afraid that's a non-sequitur. It does not follow that a perfect creator could only create a perfect world. On the contrary, if a creator were unable to create an imperfect world, that would be a limitation and so a bar to perfection. Also, what makes you think that these gods you mention are perfect? If you mean the Greek gods, they are neither morally perfect (Zeus, for example, is a rapist and the others aren't much better), nor are they free from limitations. They are, for example, unable to change their course once they have sworn to one, even if they want to. And if you mean the Mesopotamian gods, they're even worse. And don't even get me started on Chinese pantheon.

And what makes you think that these gods even exist? I don't wish to put words into your mouth, so tell me: is your argument really that the world is perfect because perfect gods created it, and see, here's the perfect world as evidence, which perfect gods must have created because it is perfect like them? If so, I'm afraid it's a tautology.

You have done little to advance your case for a perfect world.

[ennison]

I sure as Hell hope not but dream-on pal!

[Pompey Bum]

God wanted a perfect earth, but Adam and Eve sinned because they gave into temptation when tried by the devil/evil force.

Then why did He create the nasty part east of Eden (where Adam and Eve ended up)? Did He already know that He was going to send them there? If God is omniscient (all knowing), then how could He not have known? Or are you implying that God is not omnipotent (all powerful)--because how could an omnipotent God not be omniscient, too? Furthermore, if God is both omniscient and uncreated (as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all attest), then he must always have known how things were going to work out with humankind. He must have created them knowing full well that they were going to fall into suffering and death is a grim and harsh world?

So how can you claim that it was God who wanted a perfect world? He seems to have wanted a perfect garden (and hey, who doesn't?), but if we take the story of Eden as historical rather than mythopoetic (as you are doing), then he intentionally created a harsh world in which to keep humankind before he even created us. Adam and Eve didn't have anything to do with that (assuming that they even existed).

And while we are on the subject, where did you get the idea that the talking snake in the Eden story was the devil? Even if we take the Book of Genesis as infallibly true (as you seem to be doing), doesn't the text explicitly state that the snake was one of the wild animals that God created (albeit the sneakiness)? I know everyone says that the snake was the devil, but trust me, it's not in the Bible. The Medieval Church took the idea from Augustine, who in turn had taken it from Origen. Both lived more than a thousand years after that part of Genesis was written.


That sin is something that we inherit by nurture and nature.

I actually have no problem with the idea that human nature is basically corrupt (even, as Luther thought, fundamentally depraved). But for the record we do not know that it is inherited from the sin of Adam. Personally I suspect that original sin is a consequence of natural selection and the animal nature of human life on earth. But at least we share the common ground of acknowledging its existence.


We know that we are limited, and that resources will eventually run out. God made enough resources for the earth to be eternal, we have just hurried to use them up and get to them before others, instead of evenly distributing.

Huh? They're earth's resources were not always finite? And humans did something to make them finite? Or are you still talking about Eden? We don't live in Eden, right? At least according to the Bible we don't. Instead we live difficult lives in an imperfect world beyond Eden. But as shown above, if we accept The Adam and Eve story as historical, then that world was God's idea before there even was an Adam.


In this imperfect world our lives are threatened and as people we have a strong desire to live eternally.

Couldn't that desire merely be an aspect of the biological imperative of survival? As such, couldn't it be a product of Original Sin (or natural selection) in itself? Out of curiosity, what is your view of selfish desires in the general ethical scheme of things?


Our earth will not just over time get better; rather it is God's way of showing us and every witness, that the world cannot have another ruler and still be eternal and perfect.

You're losing me here. You mean another divine ruler (as opposed, say, to another president or prime minister)? You are a monotheist, right?


Eventually we will use up all of the resources and the earth will be destroyed due to our shortcomings.

Now hold on there! Honestly, I've read the Bible and that's not how it ends. The Son of Man returns in glory (disguised for a time as a seven-eyed sheep), and there is a lot of trouble, but the good guys eventually win. I swear it's not that we run out of fossil fuels.


Luckily, if we looked to God for guidance, asked for our sins to be forgiven, and were willing to put in the same amount in effort, as we took out of the earth; or believing that we have to do good to get the good, then we will be able to live in the perfect world with God, because he will be able to trust that we will not do what Adam, Eve, and Hades did all those years ago.

Hades? Now the snake is Hades? I thought the gods of the nations didn't really exist. I'm sure the Bible says that a bunch of times. Isaiah something-or-other. I know it's there.

Anyway, your works theology--putting in the effort we took out, doing good to get good, etc.--runs contrary to your position on human nature. What makes you think that a fallen humanity is capable of action good enough to merit it's own redemption? Wasn't that the point of the Crucifixion? That we couldn't do it by ourselves? That it look God's infinite Grace and sacrifice on a Cross--not a few environmental projects that may only serve to make us feel pleased with ourselves?

Look, you seem like a really sweet person. And believe it or not, I'm not trying to upset your faith. If you are a young person (but even if you aren't), I want to suggest that you consider the studying ancient texts in their original languages, and if you they interest you, maybe theology itself (with a healthy dose of historical and textual criticism). Some of the objections that I raised above are very old and a variety of theological solutions have been proposed for them. But do you think that just coming in here and preaching (for now, at least) is going to accomplish much more than exciting the Internet atheists to beat their chests at you? Then you can post some Biblical verses back at them, they can snicker at you, and you can all feel really good about yourselves (in a selfish or at least self-satisfied sort of way). Instead, I propose that you learn more before you try to convert others. It's just a suggestion.

I know that this was your first post here, and I don't want to scare you away. I find theology fun (I have a very offbeat take on it) and I'd love to talk with you more about it if we can find a way to respect differences. I'm on the road a bit these days, but I hope to talk with you again at some point. :)