A "perfect" world. Can it exist?

[Hitetlen]

One of Liberian’s remarks started an interesting process in my mind. I was only talking about the fact that disallowing wars, murders and rapes would significantly decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world. (Neither he nor I think that somehow preventing such atrocities would diminish our free will. So please don’t bring this up.)

He said, that there would be other causes for pain and suffering. I wonder if this is really correct. Let’s try to put together a “perfect” world, where the “free will” of humans is intact, but some natural laws would prevent such acts as murders, rapes and generally violent acts. What else can be problematic, which cannot be solved by omnipotence?

First, the “perfect” world could not contain carnivores. If only plants and herbivores would exist, there would be a lot less pain and suffering. Plants do not feel pain when herbivores eat them. Having carnivores immediately introduces pain and suffering. That is no big deal, there are vegetarian humans, and they function just fine. So carnivores are “out”.

The next problem is the microbes which are responsible for diseases. Most microbes are not harmful to ther hosts, they are very beneficial. We could not survive without the symbiotic relationship with millions of microbes in out digestive system. Actually, only a very small percentage (about 2%) of microbes is harmful, and essentially they are the unsuccessful ones - especially if they kill their host. A mutually beneficial relationship is better than a parasitic one. Therefore harmful microbes are also “out”.

What else can be problematic? Weather? No big deal: a uniformly comfortable weather is a piece of cake. Availability of food? No problem for an omnipotent being. Overcrowding and its result: scarcity of food can be easily remedied, by assuring that only a proper amount of births can occur. Most of the worlds problems occur due to scarcity of something, food and other resources.

There is one stumbling block, which is the result of individuality: different desires. As long as different individuals exist with individual desires, there will be conflicts, if no other time then during the selection of a mate. Imagine the Garden of Eden with two males and one female, or one male and two females. Assuming monogamy, it is unavoidable that someone will be “left out”, his or her biological needs will be left unfulfilled. But even with lack of monogamy, someone may be “undesirable” to a prospective partner, and thus unfulfilled desires may happen - which may not result in actual “pain”, but definitely in “discomfort”.

So my final conclusion: even without a desire to kill (although even herbivores sometimes engage in in lethal fights when selecting mates) and abundance of natural resources, as long as there is individuality, there will be conflicts and thus some kind of “suffering”. Therefore a “perfect” world, without any pain and/or suffering cannot exist as long as there are individuals with possibly conflicting desires.

Isn’t that interesting?

(Edited to add: By the way: mate selection is just an example; there could be other conflicts of interest)

 

[Thal59]

The masked Hitetlen rides again!!!

You are taking a jab at the conventional view of heaven, aren’t you?

You are inferring that heaven (perfect world) and “free will” in the guise of “individuality” are logically incompatible, right?

Thal59

 

[DeFide]

Hitetlen:

…

Trying to make a “perfect” world while only partially understanding a small fraction of all the countless issues? Maybe, just maybe, suffering has purposes. Hitetlen, you’re not quite qualified to play God.

Isn’t that the core issue? You want your world to be lacking in nothing good, you don’t want to experience loss of anything good. You want to be the immutable, all-perfect God, even though you may or may not realize it.

But, by the very nature of what we’re discussing, there can only be one true God.

Since the role of God is already taken, what would you prefer?: Non-existence or existence as a mere creature, appreciating and choosing all the good your existence can mean in this life and the next.

God may not offer you the opportunity to take His place, but He does offer a share in the communicable aspects of His goodness… it’s there for the taking, but it won’t be forced down your throat. The jail door is open, but you don’t have to leave.

 

[stella95]

This is a personal take from an immigrant, but the question is asking for a personal answer.

A perfect world is one where I can feel I’m home. A perfect world is one where whatever I long for when I listen to music or watch the ocean is there, at hand. A perfect world is one where we each meet our one true lover and live with Him forever and ever.

Sorry, this was embarrassing.

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

You are taking a jab at the conventional view of heaven, aren’t you?

You are inferring that heaven (perfect world) and “free will” in the guise of “individuality” are logically incompatible, right?

No, I was not thinking about heaven at all. What I said refers strictly to the world as we know it.

The basic tenet is that individuality creates scarcity, which is the source of “lacking” something that the individuals value. Nothing else was on my mind.

 

[Hitetlen]

DeFide:

Trying to make a “perfect” world while only partially understanding a small fraction of all the countless issues? Maybe, just maybe, suffering has purposes. Hitetlen, you’re not quite qualified to play God.

Possibly not, though I would make a decent attempt at it - and quickly abdicate when I would be done. Not like in that stupid movie, where God gave omnipotence to the hero, but not omnisicence, so the poor guy really messed it up.

DeFide:

Isn’t that the core issue? You want your world to be lacking in nothing good, you don’t want to experience loss of anything good. You want to be the immutable, all-perfect God, even though you may or may not realize it.

No, it is not my desire, especially not the “immutable” part. I would be bored to tears and there would be yet another “flood”. But I certainly would like to see less pain and misery, that is for sure.

My little post indicated that I don’t think that “all” the problems could ever be erased, not even with omnipotence (provided there is some kind of individuality, with differing desires). Scarcity, the root of all “evil” (not money) will raise its head. (And please let’s not go into another discussion of evil, I was being playful with the words here.)

 

[Hitetlen]

stella95:

This is a personal take from an immigrant, but the question is asking for a personal answer.

A perfect world is one where I can feel I’m home. A perfect world is one where whatever I long for when I listen to music or watch the ocean is there, at hand. A perfect world is one where we each meet our one true lover and live with Him forever and ever.

Sorry, this was embarrassing.

I don’t think it is embarrassing at all - take it from another immigrant And your point is an excellent example of what I meant. Precisely: oceanfront (or monutain lake view) properties are scarce, someone would be left “behind” if procreation went rampant. It could be solved by assuring that only a limited number of people would be born, so everyone would have their own preferred place to live.

But your second one may be impossible, if both you and someone else would find the same partner as the “true” love to live with. Both of you cannot have it, someone will be left with holding an “empty basket”.

 

[didymus]

The masked Hitetlen rides again!!!

You are taking a jab at the conventional view of heaven, aren’t you?

You are inferring that heaven (perfect world) and “free will” in the guise of “individuality” are logically incompatible, right?

Thal59

Well, what wil we be doing in Heaven, anyway? From what I’ve heard, we’ll all be singing unending hymns of praise. Doesn’t sound like a lot of room for individualism or free will there.

I suppose that in Heaven we will still have free will but we will no longer wish to use it contrary to God’s will.

 

[stella95]

Hitetlan, ahem, the ocean thing is not about the expense or scarcity of ocean front real estate I have lived by the ocean on two separate continents and by a lake in the Midwest, so trust me. And about the true lover–come on you know what I mean, don’t you?

My feeling is that even near-perfect conditions in this world will not satisfy us, because whatever it is we are longing for is only hinted at in this world. Which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help the sick and the needy or improve medicine and food distribution in this world; all of that will make people distinctly happier.

 

[Hitetlen]

stella95:

My feeling is that even near-perfect conditions in this world will not satisfy us, because whatever it is we are longing for is only hinted at in this world.

What I am longing for is here and available to some: peace, health, fun, love, and “minor” stuff like them. Not necessarily possessions and “things”, though they are helpful.

stella95:

Which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help the sick and the needy or improve medicine and food distribution in this world; all of that will make people distinctly happier.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you. But how much nicer it would be if there were no sick, no hunger, no excessive cold and hot. Then we could concentrate on more important “stuff”.

 

[tom.wineman]

Only liberals think they can make this world into a perfect one.

If it were possible Jesus wouldn’t of had to die because there would have been no need for him.

See you at the second coming.

 

[stella95]

Hitetlan, compared to the people who lived in the past people who live in the contemporary Western world are practically immortal, a race of superhumans, magicians… Compare a life expectancy of 35 to a life expectancy of 78. We have greatly reduced infant mortality; we have much, much better medicine; we have immediately available media to entertain us; I can be in Ireland in 7 hours! We can fly! We can have operations without pain. We can phone our relatives and distant friends. We can afford lots and lots of food and material goods.

Look at our divorce rates, abortion rates, suicide rates. How many people are on prozac etc and why? How many people are lonely? Dissatisfied? Distant from friends and family?

I grew up in a Third World country where the life of the people in villages was not much better than the life of people in villages in the 19th century. And I can assure you those people were no more or less miserable than we are today.

imo we can and should improve material conditions for people, but don’t expect an end of misery and cruelty and dissatisfaction as a result of it.

 

[adamlsp]

didymus:

Well, what wil we be doing in Heaven, anyway? From what I’ve heard, we’ll all be singing unending hymns of praise. Doesn’t sound like a lot of room for individualism or free will there.

I suppose that in Heaven we will still have free will but we will no longer wish to use it contrary to God’s will.

Didymus,

That’s right.

Adam

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

One of Liberian’s remarks started an interesting process in my mind. I was only talking about the fact that disallowing wars, murders and rapes would significantly decrease the amount of pain and suffering in the world. (Neither he nor I think that somehow preventing such atrocities would diminish our free will. So please don’t bring this up.)

He said, that there would be other causes for pain and suffering. I wonder if this is really correct. Let’s try to put together a “perfect” world, where the “free will” of humans is intact, but some natural laws would prevent such acts as murders, rapes and generally violent acts. What else can be problematic, which cannot be solved by omnipotence?

First, the “perfect” world could not contain carnivores. If only plants and herbivores would exist, there would be a lot less pain and suffering. Plants do not feel pain when herbivores eat them. Having carnivores immediately introduces pain and suffering. That is no big deal, there are vegetarian humans, and they function just fine. So carnivores are “out”.

The next problem is the microbes which are responsible for diseases. Most microbes are not harmful to ther hosts, they are very beneficial. We could not survive without the symbiotic relationship with millions of microbes in out digestive system. Actually, only a very small percentage (about 2%) of microbes is harmful, and essentially they are the unsuccessful ones - especially if they kill their host. A mutually beneficial relationship is better than a parasitic one. Therefore harmful microbes are also “out”.

What else can be problematic? Weather? No big deal: a uniformly comfortable weather is a piece of cake. Availability of food? No problem for an omnipotent being. Overcrowding and its result: scarcity of food can be easily remedied, by assuring that only a proper amount of births can occur. Most of the worlds problems occur due to scarcity of something, food and other resources.

There is one stumbling block, which is the result of individuality: different desires. As long as different individuals exist with individual desires, there will be conflicts, if no other time then during the selection of a mate. Imagine the Garden of Eden with two males and one female, or one male and two females. Assuming monogamy, it is unavoidable that someone will be “left out”, his or her biological needs will be left unfulfilled. But even with lack of monogamy, someone may be “undesirable” to a prospective partner, and thus unfulfilled desires may happen - which may not result in actual “pain”, but definitely in “discomfort”.

So my final conclusion: even without a desire to kill (although even herbivores sometimes engage in in lethal fights when selecting mates) and abundance of natural resources, as long as there is individuality, there will be conflicts and thus some kind of “suffering”. Therefore a “perfect” world, without any pain and/or suffering cannot exist as long as there are individuals with possibly conflicting desires.

Isn’t that interesting?

(Edited to add: By the way: mate selection is just an example; there could be other conflicts of interest)

Hitetlen,

I apologize for going against your wishes but you are redefining freewill again. You don’t change the facts to fit the theory, you change the theory to fit the facts. If something can be described only inappropriately using your philosophy maybe you shold switch philosophies.

Individuality does not prevent a perfect world. It is the choices individuals make. Emotions are something you choose to feel not something that you cannot control. If you lose the dating game, who is to say you cannot still be perfectly happy. It is rediculous to assume that simply not getting a mate will make one feel bad. Some people choose to be celibate just like some choose to be vegetarians. If it is not by choice that you are celibate then perhaps you should change your choices to fit your situation. Be content with what you have. I just made that up. I should be an author. Only joking. Contentment is not a state of having every desire you could imagine being fulfilled. People choose to be discontent when they desire what they do not have in a bad way. Attachment to things of this world is not valued. This does not mean you cannot enjoy things here. You just shouldn’t be addicted to them.

Adam

 

[Anne_G]

A perfect world can exist. If every person on this earth truly followed God and Jesus, then it would be perfect. No wars, no murder, no stealing, etc, etc. If we were like this, perhaps natural elements such as disease, distasters may not happen as God wouldn’t need to allow them to happen to teach or punish us. What needs to be taken out is Satan. He is responsible for all the terrible things that happen on this earth. He is the one that puts the bad temptation to people. The second coming of Jesus is going to bring a perfect world. Satan is cast off the earth and Jesus will rule.

 

[Liberian]

Hitetlen,

One of the distinguishing marks of a “perfect world” is that people would not be so wedded to their desires (the Church sometimes calls it “enslaved to their passions,” but I will stick with the milder wording) that the denial of them results in serious discomfort. Thus the source of conflict goes away.

I must confess that I found your example of mate selection amusing. Before you marry, there is a sizable class of members of the opposite sex, any of whom would make a suitable spouse for you. It is only after you marry and grow together that you become “tuned” to each other and there is nobody else who can fill the role.

The primary obstacle to a “perfect world” here is the sheer cussedness of people, which the Carholic Church describes as being the result of original sin. Set up a system and somebody will want to abuse it.

• Liberian

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I apologize for going against your wishes but you are redefining freewill again. You don’t change the facts to fit the theory, you change the theory to fit the facts. If something can be described only inappropriately using your philosophy maybe you shold switch philosophies.

Sorry, I have no idea what are you talking about.

adamlsp:

Individuality does not prevent a perfect world. It is the choices individuals make. Emotions are something you choose to feel not something that you cannot control.

Not again. Emotions are not under volitional control. Never were, never will.

adamlsp:

If you lose the dating game, who is to say you cannot still be perfectly happy. It is rediculous to assume that simply not getting a mate will make one feel bad.

That was just an example, and I emphasised it. With scarcity of “goods” someone will always be left out. It may be another imperfect example, but condsider a piece of art, which is unique. There is only one copy of the Mona Lisa, therfore only one person (or none) can own it. If someone wishes to “own” it (and there are dumb people who want exactly that) then they are out of luck.

adamlsp:

Be content with what you have. I just made that up. I should be an author. Only joking.

Actually, it is a good maxim, and I certainly live my life according to this principle. I know that many other people do, but not all. And we should not define what are “reasonable” desires for other people. As long as they do not curtail our freedom to pursue our own happiness, there is no problem.

 

[Hitetlen]

Liberian:

One of the distinguishing marks of a “perfect world” is that people would not be so wedded to their desires (the Church sometimes calls it “enslaved to their passions,” but I will stick with the milder wording) that the denial of them results in serious discomfort. Thus the source of conflict goes away.

Yes, this is a good point, but people are different, and as long as their desires do not conflict with ours, we anre not in the position to “dictate” their desires.

 

[Hitetlen]

stella95:

Hitetlan, compared to the people who lived in the past people who live in the contemporary Western world are practically immortal, a race of superhumans, magicians… Compare a life expectancy of 35 to a life expectancy of 78. We have greatly reduced infant mortality; we have much, much better medicine; we have immediately available media to entertain us; I can be in Ireland in 7 hours! We can fly! We can have operations without pain. We can phone our relatives and distant friends. We can afford lots and lots of food and material goods.

Look at our divorce rates, abortion rates, suicide rates. How many people are on prozac etc and why? How many people are lonely? Dissatisfied? Distant from friends and family?

I grew up in a Third World country where the life of the people in villages was not much better than the life of people in villages in the 19th century. And I can assure you those people were no more or less miserable than we are today.

imo we can and should improve material conditions for people, but don’t expect an end of misery and cruelty and dissatisfaction as a result of it.

End of misery? No. Decrease of it, yes. Money cannot buy you happiness, but the lack of money cannot buy you anything at all.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Sorry, I have no idea what are you talking about.

Not again. Emotions are not under volitional control. Never were, never will.

That was just an example, and I emphasised it. With scarcity of “goods” someone will always be left out. It may be another imperfect example, but condsider a piece of art, which is unique. There is only one copy of the Mona Lisa, therfore only one person (or none) can own it. If someone wishes to “own” it (and there are dumb people who want exactly that) then they are out of luck.

Actually, it is a good maxim, and I certainly live my life according to this principle. I know that many other people do, but not all. And we should not define what are “reasonable” desires for other people. As long as they do not curtail our freedom to pursue our own happiness, there is no problem.

Hitetlen,

As for free will, we have already discussed this. Or, at least, I’ve talked about it and you have responded in some manner or another. If you would really like to start a thread on freewill and what it is, I encourage it. Let me know.

Maybe I am unclear about emotions. Emotions are under the control of the human being. When an event occurs we are presented with a choice. How should we feel about it? How should we respond. Emotions are responses to events. Reason is what humans use to control their emotions. Happiness is an activity not just an emotion. If a feeling is a reflex then through reason we learn to control our reflexes. Various instances show this and I’m sure I need not name them. If you wish to refute choose an instance I would likely deem appropriate. Use your best guess.

The example does not matter. Why in your world is scarcity not eliminated? If you think it impossible I am afraid you are not using your imagination. Scarcity of goods then causes suffering no matter what. Even if people were only worried about the community as a whole a certain part of the community would be suffering even if the whole was OK. Suffering would still exist even if desires were conformed to the prosperity of the group and not the individual. Unless you consider suffering as our perception of events. Then one only need to change perception to eliminate it. You should read Plato and Aristotle. Either way your world has suffering in it because of scarcity which then is not the fault of individuals and their desires because an omnipotent God could resolve it, or suffering because your individuals perceive events as suffering.

But don’t you see? the desires of individuals, in your scenario, cause scarcity because of limited resources given to them. Thus the desires of other individuals do indeed inhibit our hapiness. But you said pursuit. So then it must not be ever acheiving happiness that is important to you but the freedom to pursue it. Then Scarcity is not a problem for individuals because they are free to pursue eveything they want, if to no avail then too bad. Just as choices of others affect supply and demand so too do their choices affect us in other ways. See Mill’s Utilitarianism. Economics is fun.

Adam