Let's perform a thought experiment: "Create a world of your own"

[lelinator]

How do you define fantasy?

Anything that’s logically inconsistent. So I think that any world that would be logically consistent, would inevitably look a lot like this one.

But I’m making this less of a game, and more of a philosophical discussion, which probably isn’t what the OP intended, sorry.

But I should point out that I’m a solipsist, and so I’ve considered the question of why reality looks the way that it does, a lot.

Reality looks the way that it does because it must be coherent, therefore it must be logically consistent.

 

[lelinator]

The first problem that a logically consistent world would face, is the problem of infinities.

There must be a beginning, because an infinite past would seem to be a logical impossibility.

 

[Thom18]

No carnivores. That will remove thousands of millions of years of agony and terror. Who on earth would design a system where the creatures you created needed to kill and eat each other.

Ask the scientists trying to give us real life Jurassic Park.

 

[midori]

No carnivores.

But when people have removed predators from their place, in an effort to protect their prey, their prey has ended up ballooning out of control, destroying the habitat in the process, and then dying of starvation or illness-through-malnourishment. The term is “trophic cascade.”

Loss of top predators lead to the collapse of an ecosystem.

 

[Cruciferi]

Music for the Journey!!

 

[Cruciferi]

I can’t say too much due to the ongoing litigation against International Genetic Technologies, Inc.

Suffice it to say that mistakes were made…

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

No carnivores

What about death in general? If nothing dies, then how do your creations live? What do they consume? If there is natural death but nothing consumes flesh, what happens to the dead bodies? It’s not really as simple as leaving out one thing, especially if it is a large thing. For example, I would just as soon leave out cockroaches, but if they didn’t exist something else would have to fill that role and could be even more disgusting.

Of course you could just create a static universe with no life, but then what’s the point?

Death is part of the process. I will die. As did my parents. As will my children. But none will have lived in fear of being eaten by other creatures. None will have been torn apart by other animals in order that they may live.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

No carnivores. That will remove thousands of millions of years of agony and terror. Who on earth would design a system where the creatures you created needed to kill and eat each other.

Then all creatures die of disease, accident, starvation or old age? Is that really an improvement?

As opposed to disease, accident, starvation, old age…or being eaten alive by other animals? Well, yeah. Who on earth would actually add the last option?

 

[Economist]

So what happens to the limb lost by accident? There’s always more to the story.

It will rot, and the material gets back into soil… which will feed the next generation.

Then all creatures die of disease, accident, starvation or old age? Is that really an improvement?

Have you ever thought about the Gaia concept? The whole world is one organism, making contribution to the whole.

I think that you’ll find that in order for this scenario to work, you’d have to eliminate all previous memories.

I see no reason for that. Think about the Gaia concept.

But I’m making this less of a game, and more of a philosophical discussion, which probably isn’t what the OP intended, sorry.

No, actually that is exactly what I had in mind.

There must be a beginning, because an infinite past would seem to be a logical impossibility.

Why is that a problem?

Loss of top predators lead to the collapse of an ecosystem.

But when people have removed predators from their place, in an effort to protect their prey, their prey has ended up ballooning out of control, destroying the habitat in the process, and then dying of starvation or illness-through-malnourishment. The term is “trophic cascade.”

Loss of top predators lead to the collapse of an ecosystem.

This has been explained before. Only flora, no fauna.

 

[whatistrue]

A very pretty picture. But that still doesn’t answer the question of what happens to the bodies if nothing consumes flesh…

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

No carnivores.

But when people have removed predators from their place, in an effort to protect their prey, their prey has ended up ballooning out of control, destroying the habitat in the process, and then dying of starvation or illness-through-malnourishment. The term is “trophic cascade.”

Loss of top predators lead to the collapse of an ecosystem.

We can do what we want. Limit the population to what the environment can handle. Which, you may know already, is the way it works already.

Do you think that’s a good design?

 

[whatistrue]

It will rot, and the material gets back into soil

So now you have something that eats the plant parts when they drop (that’s what rotting is at it’s base). What stops that thing from eating live ones?

 

[Bradskii]

A very pretty picture. But that still doesn’t answer the question of what happens to the bodies if nothing consumes flesh…

What do you think happens to animals that die of natural causes?

 

[Bradskii]

Economist:

It will rot, and the material gets back into soil

So now you have something that eats the plant parts when they drop (that’s what rotting is at it’s base). What stops that thing from eating live ones?

They’re not carnivores. What part of the discussion did you miss?

 

[whatistrue]

What do you think happens to animals that die of natural causes?

In our world they are eaten by carnivorous scavengers and bacteria. But your world has no carnivores, hence the question.

 

[snarflemike]

As opposed to disease, accident, starvation, old age…or being eaten alive by other animals? Well, yeah. Who on earth would actually add the last option?

Can you demonstrate that eliminating predation actually reduces the level of suffering of the former prey animal populations? Or are you just assuming it?

 

[Economist]

Approximately 95% of all the microbes are either beneficial or neutral. The remaining 5% we could do without.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

What do you think happens to animals that die of natural causes?

In our world they are eaten by carnivorous scavengers and bacteria. But your world has no carnivores, hence the question.

They become fertilizer for the plants. Which all animals eat. None are carnivores.

 

[whatistrue]

They become fertilizer for the plants

And the process for that to happen requires that something eat them in some way, but you have eliminated the consumption of flesh by decreeing no carnivores.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

As opposed to disease, accident, starvation, old age…or being eaten alive by other animals? Well, yeah. Who on earth would actually add the last option?

Can you demonstrate that eliminating predation actually reduces the level of suffering of the former prey animal populations? Or are you just assuming it?

Is that a serious question? If we have disease, accident, starvation, old age and being eaten alive and we remove ‘being eaten alive’, can you seriously ask if that’s better? Honestly?