Nature is perfect. It is what it's supposed to be. Only humans put values on things in our environment.
JLN, it takes a sentient being to understand the concept of perfection and judge the world in which they live, so of course perfection must have an anthropocentric (or cetacean -centric or avian-centricÂ…) perspective. Any conceivable world which sentient beings judge to be more perfect IS more perfect, by definition.
If it is possible to have a world in which sentient beings in general are happier than they are on this one, then this one is not perfect, and if you asked most people to describe paradise, I expect that virtually all of them would exclude viruses, parasitic worms, mosquitoes, droughts, and destructive tsunamis.
Zebras would probably vote for a world of grasslands and no lions. Lions would prefer a world filled with fat, slow zebras. We would choose a balance of predators and prey. But no animal would volunteer to enable a mindless species of parasites to survive by enduring painful bites, debilitating illness, or even death. I did not say that everyone has to have the same notion of perfection, but that sentient species are the ones whose unhappiness must be considered.
Parasites have no minds and no emotions (some do have rudimentary brains but lack the features necessary for thought and feelings). They cannot feel sympathy for their victims or take pleasure in their existence. They cannot imagine a better world because they have no imaginations. They have no inherent right to exist (not that we do either).
IMO, this world would be more perfect for those who have feelings if there were no parasites and natural disasters to cause needless suffering. For those that have no minds, it really doesn't matter what the world is like.
Terry, I see you are equating perfection with preferrability.
Quote:
" I did not say that everyone has to have the same notion of perfection, but that sentient species are the ones whose unhappiness must be considered."
If there is more than one perfect world, then at least one of them must be imperfect--in the absolutist sense. If there are ten perfect worlds for ten preferring minds, then perfection is relativistic. But that conflicts with the usual absolutist conception of perfection.
the world would be pefect if we exterminated all liberals
Quote:f jesus was made perfect, and man is made in his image, I guess we're all perfect. My biology and environment screams at me that this is all BS.
Wrong, he had free choice too, the difference is that he made all the right choices.
Quote:terrry-a buncha stuff about Jesus
Terry, have you ever actually studied the bible?
Question of the topic:Why isn't the world perfect?
Compared to What?
JLN, a perfect world would indeed suit the preferences of all of its inhabitants. Since the inhabitants of this one have conflicting needs and preferences, it can never be absolutely perfect.
But eliminating the things that cause unnecessary pain and suffering for its sentient inhabitants would get it a lot closer to my ideal of perfection, and most likely theirs as well.
Thunder_runner, yes, I have studied the Bible. I have read the whole thing cover-to-cover, reread much of it, compared the old and new testaments and different versions, analyzed its messages, studied its history, and read a number of books about it. What do you want to know?
Booman2, compared to our ideal of a perfect world (like Plato's Forms).
Terry wrote: JLN, a perfect world would indeed suit the preferences of all of its inhabitants. Since the inhabitants of this one have conflicting needs and preferences, it can never be absolutely perfect."
Terry, on what do you base your assumption that "perfection" must coincide with interests? Perfection, if such a notion makes any absolutistic sense at all, would include the omnipresence of conflicting intersts (needs and preferences).
